Maddow Takes Down Rudy Giuliani’s Lies

What’s really funny is that I was just over on Mediaite.com trolling. This story is over there but, the comments are from teabaggers who were attacking Rachel. Needless to say, I’ve been pissing them off with sheer logic. They don’t like that. Which is why I do it. To get my shit off.

By the way Bob, you got a nice shout out from Heather at Crooks and Liars in a post regarding terriorist attacks under Dems and Republican.”For more go check out this most excellent set of graphs put together by Bob Cesca–Terrorist Attacks and Presidents. He pretty well blows out of the water this latest Republican talking point that George Bush kept us safe from terrorists. Nice work Bob.”Nice!

I sent your stats and graphs over to @newtgingrich in a Tweet. Wonder if it’ll do any good…

Mr. Cesca,As you perform your civic duty by cutting and pasting various addresses to websites and videos to this blog, etcetera, all in the hopes of spreading your political position and personal reactions by persuading your readers to listen up to what you have to say as it relates to those you oppose, which, what you say, I must carefully suggest here, is usually on point, it seems you do, nevertheless, and maybe unwittingly enough, add to the continued national obsession with terrorism.The peculiar coincidence here is that, earlier last year (assuming our national attention spans are not so dysfunctional as to be irreversible), in an article published on April 13, 2009, a Mr. Bob Herbert, Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times, had written a poignant piece on the growing number of deaths by people with handguns in the United States. In his article, he had characterized such reported incidents as “expressions of horror.” Now, as I had written then, on Facebook, “nearly two months earlier in the same newspaper…” Ms. Roberta Smith, Art critic for NYT, had made reference to a one Mr. Chris Burden in the course of her review on the work of a Tehching Hsich. In her reference to Mr. Burden, Ms. Smith characterized an act he apparently carried out privately with a handgun in the ’70′s (titled “Shoot” for anyone not familiar with his peculiar impact in the art world) as “sensational actions…” that “made unforgettable impressions.”Although a lot more could be added to the national discussion here, it seems the late Frank Zappa had it right when, in his brilliant appearance on a program titled “Crossfire” on CNN in the ’80′s, he essentially said: Don’t agree with it but, hey, they’re just words, so what’s the big deal? Certainly, Mr. Zappa would have enjoyed the word “wingnut.”Joel K. Smockwww.joelksmock.blogspot.com

Greg Sargent has a link on his site which I’ve attached below on the prosecution of terrorists vs Military Tribunals. I’ve been pasting it into wingnut websites to smack down their bullshit talking points on that subject too. It’s a quick read but, very eye opening. And yes, why arent’the Dems using it?http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/jan/07/military-tribunals-civilian-courts-terrorism

@Joel: Bob is doing what the MSM should be doing: reporting facts instead of just providing an uncritical stage for propaganda. I don’t see how getting the facts out there can “add to the continued national obsession with terrorism”. Seems to me it does the opposite?

Exactly Radical! It’s like the media thinks their job is to bring these people on their shows and let each side give their take. It’s a back and forth like a tennis match. That’s not journlism. Each side should be able to give their side. Then, the journalist job is to tell it’s audience which has the actual facts on their side. Instead they just sit their like Stephanopoulos and countless other “journalists” letting the ball pass back and forth from side to side without providing the facts. I’m glad Stephanopoulos admitted his mistake. Unfortunately, he swallowed Rudy’s clairification which was another lie to go unchallenged. Which is why they suck and Rachel does not!

To Radical Sahm,Your remarks have been noted and, in this writer’s acknowledgement of them, I agree with you. Personally speaking, I do not have the answers (yes, yes, such is the stance of one who lives in the underworld — a word not to be confused with underwear and, hence, terrorism) of American life.Still, Mr. Cesca seems to be rightly calling out the meaning behind the speech by some of our national public figures who so eagerly seem to be spitting it out much faster than they can think. Whether such national public figures really believe in what they say seems to me as cloudy as the surreal amounts of smoke that enveloped those towers in Lower Manhattan back in 2001, a sight, I should admit here, I will never forget. Still, in experiencing such a catastrophic, calamitous event from across a great river, however terrible, frightful and unbelievable it was, does not mean one must suddenly wear the rhinestone costume of paranoia.As it relates to Obama? He’s simply trying to uphold his responsibility of wanting that position as president and then getting it. In other words, he’s doing the best he can with the resources available to him. And in judging what he’s doing from my lowly vantage point in this society, at least he is willing to admit his mistakes. What shape that office was in when he obtained it can in all likelihood be traced back to an aggregate decision making process employed by all our presidents, their men and the perceived efficiency by which their adminsitrations operated. Obama critics, as Mr. Cesca has suggested elsewhere on his blog, are being severely unfair.Regards,Joel K. Smockwww.joelksmock.blogspot.com