Another graduate from the Dan Rather School of Journalistic Integrity.

...and the conservative Nixon Center.

Seems appropriate, dontcha think?

Yes! It caught my eye. Though I woudn't call Nixon much of a conservative.

Did you read some of the piece? Just made up a bunch of interviews. I wonder where he'll find work next.

Why isn't this guy on FOX?

Brit Hume move over, there's a new shit-slinger in town!

Be Well.

"I wonder where he'll find work next"

Word on the street is that Dana Perino's looking for a fact checker.

Another graduate from the Dan Rather School of Journalistic Integrity.

Posted by OohRah at 2007-09-14 02:06 PM

I'll bet you were tempted to include a more blatant suggestion that this was par for the 'Liberal' media, but decided to just throw out Rather's name and hope the 'coded message' would still get through, eh?

Be careful as this WAS coming from what's reported as being a Conservative Think Tank. And with names like Obama and Polosi involved, who knows, perhaps it's all part of some new form of 'swift boating' where you first 'seed' the web with mis-quotes and fabricated interviews, which you can later reference giving them the appearance and feel of legitimacy and accuracy.

With that in mind, the question shouldn't be; "Where will Alexis Debat find work?", but rather; "Is this where Karl Rove found work?"

OCU

P.S. I heard a good description this morning of a 'Conservative Think Tank'. It's a place where old hard-line 'Conservatives' are being hired to 'Think' by the people who build 'Tanks'.

Nixon and Truth in one thread? Sam Ervin and the impeachment bunch must be roaring with laughter wherever they are. herm

Nixon and Truth in one thread? Sam Ervin and the impeachment bunch must be roaring with laughter wherever they are. herm

Nixon and Truth in one thread? Sam Ervin and the impeachment bunch must be roaring with laughter wherever they are. herm

Nixon and Truth in one thread? Sam Ervin and the impeachment bunch must be roaring with laughter wherever they are. herm

If this keeps up I'm switching to PCs. herm

Herm,
You liked the comment so much you couldn't help yourself. Been there...

OLD-
Rather comes to mind as perhaps the most high profile reporter who ran with a falsity. The document, the whole point of the story where now Bush is finally "caught" turned out to be a forgery.

Here we have some rube who has had phoney interviews with some pretty heavy hitters and sees fit to slip in some digs at the Republican side of things.

But you're right, OLD, I was very very tempted to just label this as but another lefty fraud... another example of liberal media bias. But the thing that stopped me was that it was done for a French magazine... and not for widespread exposure (I assume) here in the states.

The guy resigned from the think tank but was booted by ABC, wasn't he?

Considering Obama was a target, the "librul media" angle would be a hard sell, oohrah. You're better than that anyway.

"Considering Obama was a target, the "librul media" angle would be a hard sell,..."

At THIS stage in the political game, who do you think would be MOST likely to be taking pot shots at Obama?

But you're right, OLD, I was very very tempted to just label this as but another lefty fraud... another example of liberal media bias.

Posted by OohRah at 2007-09-14 04:57 PM

But there would have been no basis for that. In fact, there is more evidence that it's related to Conservative causes than Liberal, unless you just assume that if something appears in PRINT, that it must be the work of a LIBERAL. Granted, I'll admit the literacy is generally considered as a positive virtue among us Lefties, but since you seem to manage to catch most of what's written here, I had just assumed that perhaps some of you Right-Wingers may at one time or another reaped the benefits of having a LIBERAL for a teacher.

OCU

Agreed. Another factor in not running off on a tangent.

Maybe we'll learn more about this over time, but if he's been faking these interviews... and during the fake interviews he's making the candidates (the interview's subject) look good and attribute "quotes" which are very much in line with what the actual pol typicaly says, then where do you get the idea he's a conservative plant?

He faked his education... it sounds to me like he's a wannabe who'd love to be significant enough to have actually conducted those interviews.

Oohrah,

There's your problem. You actually believe that something like (from the original article)...

The interview quoted the Democratic presidential candidate as saying the Iraq war was "a defeat for America."

...as being something that Obama would have said anyway. I suggest that you try and find a verifiable quote that's along those lines and uses words as potentially inflammatory as these.

This is exactly why I feel that perhaps this was someone attempting to 'seed' the web with mis-quotes and inaccuracies since something of this precise wording would make for an excellent headline in a 'news' item or as a quote in some 'swift-boat' like TV advert if say Obama were to be the Democratic candidate this time next year.

OCU

OLD-
There are plenty of actual words (on video, since cameras are everywhere today, except maybe men's stalls in airports) for use to hang any pol.

Actually it wouldn't surprise me to learn Obama used words identical or very close in meaning to the "quote" that guy'd made up. Particularly when Dem candidates are tossing red meat to highly partisan fund raisers.

I've heard phrases like - it's a mistake... we've become less respected in the world... we have lost the war... the war is lost... the surge is failing, etc.

But I see your point. In time we may learn more about this guy's motives, but for now I'm sticking with my idea he's a wannabe looking to break into the big time and gain respect among his peers.

Oorah,

If I were a 'red-meat' salesmen, a quote like "a defeat for America" would bring a MUCH higher price than say something like "the war is lost". And I suspect that you'd agree with me on that one ;-)

OCU

Faux news has not fired O'Lieely over his fictitous Peabody awards yet.

Yes, OLD, the phrase has a more negative connotation.

OLD-
Rather comes to mind as perhaps the most high profile reporter who ran with a falsity. The document, the whole point of the story where now Bush is finally "caught" turned out to be a forgery.


Posted by OohRah at 2007-09-14 04:57 PM |


They were never "proven" to be forgeries.

"They were never "proven" to be forgeries."

Oh, please...the "th" (7th, 8th) was in a type not available on typewriters at that time. A high-schooler could have spotted it. That Rather and his producers didn't, was either extraordinary sloppiness or willful ignorance.

"Oh, please...the "th" (7th, 8th) was in a type not available on typewriters at that time. A high-schooler could have spotted it. That Rather and his producers didn't, was either extraordinary sloppiness or willful ignorance."


Guess it's too bad that there were no high schooler's working on the story eh?

Seriously, your argument doesn't seem to be one
that any of the so-called experts used and I can find nothing to support your claim.

The facts of the document Rather reported on were true. The document was false---not the facts.

The facts were he used political influence to get out of work, no one liked him or respected him. That is what the documents said---those are the facts as proven by the people involved.

BuffaloBob


The facts of the document Rather reported on were true. The document was false---not the facts.

The facts were he used political influence to get out of work, no one liked him or respected him. That is what the documents said---those are the facts as proven by the people involved.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-09-15 02:46 AM

You are so correct. They tried to make it look like the facts of Bush's NG AWOL were in dispute when in actuality it was only the document that contained that info was not the original document. The statements in the document, were, however totally true. Is that how you saw it too?

Califchris

Exactly. Rather reported the truth.

The right focused on the confusion over the authenticity of the document rather than the facts of what the document contained.

The people who knew Bush at the time had no respect for him---now the rest of the country knows how they felt.

BB

Bush went AWOL (I think to Louisiana) for almost an entire year and wouldn't take a flight physical due to coke use. The guy was a slacker and a bum and now he's sending thousands of our guys to their deaths as their Commander-in-Chief. makes me sick.

Try Alabama to help with a Campaign

Larry

a senior fellow on terrorism at the conservative thinktank the Nixon Centre; and a regular contributor to the magazine National Interest, whose honorary chairman is Henry Kissinger.

Another righty liar busted. No wonder Bush is so fucked up. All his advisers are as delusional as he is.

Not endorsing this guy.

At the same time, some people go through the motion and earned ligit PH.Ds, but still remain stupid and clueless.

Having a degree is desirable, of course. Yet some people without degrees are smarter than them. A beaver does not need to get a degree to build a dam.

Takitez-
There's a diff. between having a degree and lying about having a degree that you're missing, but I guess if the guy says what you want to hear then his veracity on any matter comes in a distant second.

So the beaver say "We don't need no dam degree"?

Let me log that one under punny.

Takitez-
I'm guessin' you remained "stupid and clueless" all on your own, without that PHD.

But that's just an uneducated guess.

A point has been made. (Without endorsing this guy).

Think of the millionaires and billionaires who got there without fancy degrees.

That's the point.

Of course, Mike Tyson earned in one fight more than what a professor earned in a lifetime. But his indisipline and brain deficit made him lose all in rapid fashion. That's another point.

Takitez-
re: Think of the millionaires and billionaires who got there without fancy degrees.

That's the point.

No, that's not the point. The point is that this man is a liar and a fraud, and that can be demonstrated on many levels. Your point is that you are a churlish ignorant whiner with a chip on his shoulder who wishes to some day buy his way out of the condition.

Cooper, what part of 'not endorsing this guy' cannot you understand? My point transcends this guy.

Takitez-
Your point is confined to the chip on your shoulder and your unconscious fear that you are an idiot.

"Mr Debat not only lacked the credentials he claimed, he fabricated interviews with such figures as the UN secretary general Kofi Annan, Microsoft's chairman Bill Gates, New York's mayor Michael Bloomberg, the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, and Democrat presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."

The guy is a liar and a fraud, Takitez, but you can't see past your own insecurities.

No, that's not the point. The point is that this man is a liar and a fraud,

So Bill Clinton's presidency should be negated as well, right?

No, that's not the point. The point is that this man is a liar and a fraud, and that can be demonstrated on many levels.

Posted by Cooper

Just like most in congress.

Goatman-
You should make a butt-plug out of the likeness of Bill Clinton and shove it up your ass, where it will be handy in any discussion.

You should make a butt-plug out of the likeness of Bill Clinton and shove it up your ass, where it will be handy in any discussion.

So it's not so much that the Frenchie was a liar, it was that he was a liar with whom you disagreed -- right, Coop? So it would seem in your failure to condemn Clinton as well.

Goatman-
Of course. I should condemn Clinton on every topic whether he has any relationship to it at all, lest I seem partisan.

Takitez-
re: Think of the millionaires and billionaires who got there without fancy degrees.

That's the point.

Yeah, and ENRON said it was rolling in money, so what happened to it?

The point is that this man is a liar and a fraud,

So Bill Clinton's presidency should be negated as well, right?

Yeah, except the parts about the strong economy, winning two wars, running surpluses and keeping America safe from terrorists for almost 8 years. Oh yeah, keeping NK and Iran nuke free for his term in office.And if you want to talk about liars, wanna explain GWBs Air Guard career, like why he was grounded and where was he when he was supposedly on duty?
Makes GWB's record even more embarrassing, don't it?

Of course. I should condemn Clinton on every topic whether he has any relationship to it at all, lest I seem partisan.

Relationship: Liar = liar. Granted, Debat did it to get a cool job and Clinton did it to a federal grand jury. All liars are equal, but some liars are more equal than others.

Goatman-
So, on every thread and topic you will bring up Clinton and defend the liar at hand and pretend that you are somehow being consistent by claiming not only that your point is nihilistic and imbued with the stench of partisan relativism, but transparently so?

So, on every thread and topic you will bring up Clinton and defend the liar at hand and pretend that you are somehow being consistent by claiming not only that your point is nihilistic and imbued with the stench of partisan relativism, but transparently so?

Debat has no reported relationship with Bush, yet that didn't stop someone from associating them. Where's your self righteous indignation on that?

More hypocrisy from the coop.

Where's your indignation whenever someone brings up "stolen elections" from 7 years ago?

ho hum -- the lefties can dish it out, but at least one of them has a problem with the same tactics against St. Bill. Waah

Relationship: Liar = liar. Granted, Debat did it to get a cool job and Clinton did it to a federal grand jury. All liars are equal, but some liars are more equal than others.

Only a true Bushlover would even begin to equate two lies where one lie was told to prevent embarrassment for his family from learning he received a blow job from a woman not his wife while the OTHER LIE(s) ended up killing more than 3000 of our military, hideously wounding thousands more, and killing more than 600,000 innocent Iraqi civilians.

Debat has no reported relationship with Bush, yet that didn't stop someone from associating them.

You're being an idiot. I'm not "someone". If you would care to debate me then that's fine. And if you would care to defend a fraud by utilizing the Clinton butt-plug, then I suppose there's no way for me to prevent that.

ended up killing more than 3000 of our military, hideously wounding thousands more, and killing more than 600,000 innocent Iraqi civilians.

How did Debat's lie kill anyone? Everything I read on the DR leads me to think it was Bush and Cheney's fault. Are you saying if Debat had not lied, there would not have been the war?

Clinton butt-plug

Excellent juxtaposition. But I'm surprised to see you use it.

I'm not "someone".

Which makes you a no-one. Another excellent juxtaposition. There is hope for your thought process after all.

Are you saying if Debat had not lied, there would not have been the war?

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-15 03:05 PM |

It made absolutely no difference one way or the other if Debat lied or not. Bush --and particlarly Cheney -- made sure their Iraq war intel was either cooked to go their way. On the other hand, when truthful and credible intel came across their desks that didn't neatlyl fit in with their war plans -- it was ignored (think: no yellow cake uranium from Africa).

Didn't matter what anyone said and whether or not the info was true. The neocons' plans were to go to war hell or highwater. And YOU know it.

Goatman-

All you've got is the Clinton butt-plug/pacifier, and your railing at "someone". I really have no interest in what "someone" said. But Clinton lied about a blowjob, so I guess you're off the hook about everything.

too many typos/punctuation erros in that last post -- mas COFFEE

Didn't matter what anyone said and whether or not the info was true. The neocons' plans were to go to war hell or highwater. And YOU know it.

I do indeed know it to be true and I agree, CC. My point exactly. So I'm wondering why you associated Debat's lie with the dead in Iraq?

while the OTHER LIE(s) ended up killing more than 3000 of our military,

EQUALLY wrong in Goatman's eyes:

1) lying to one's wife about blowjob with other woman

2) lying to start a war (still going on 4 years later) that is close to killing almost a MILLION people.

go figure

I really have no interest in what "someone" said.

Unless that "someone" is me, obviously. Be honest, can't you?

Goatman-
When I attribute your opinion to what "someone" said - if I am ever that dishonest and desperate - please let me know.

So I'm wondering why you associated Debat's lie with the dead in Iraq?...,

You've got me with one hand tied behind my back until I get that first cup of coffee.

That is not an admission of error or a "you got me", only that I need all brain cells percolating before I answer it -- and I will -- later.

ummmm, the aroma of freshly brewed coffee calls me

EQUALLY wrong in Goatman's eyes:

1) lying to one's wife about blowjob with other woman

2) lying to start a war (still going on 4 years later) that is close to killing almost a MILLION peole.

I'm not so sure about lying to one's wife. But doesn't matter -- I was talking about the federal grand jury lie, not the lie to Hillary.

morning, Cooper :)

I'm not so sure about lying to one's wife. But doesn't matter -

It kinda does matter to the families of the dead.

But, I suppose it's a "small price" to pay.

Oh dear, those were "someone's" words but not yours, Goatman.

I do indeed know it to be true and I agree, CC. My point exactly. So I'm wondering why you associated Debat's lie with the dead in Iraq?

while the OTHER LIE(s) ended up killing more than 3000 of our military,

Posted by goatman


Please explain how Debat's lie has a relationship with Clinton's lie because if a liar is a liar and Debat lied therefore Clinton lied, then Bush falls in as a liar much more despicable because of the incredible damage that his lie has caused.

GOATBRAIN

was talking about the federal grand jury lie, not the lie to Hillary.

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-15 03:19 PM | Reply

Damm, I gotta get away from this table.

alright -- to that comment -- I say fine -- let's bring both Bush and Cheney before a federal grand jury on charges of lying us into the war in Iraq and we'll see if they do not commit perjury by denying it. If they admit to their war crimes and about lying to go to war in Iraq and tell the truth before the grand jury then they are better than Clinton for lying to prevent embarrassment to his family. (Only YOU could even put those lies on equal footing.)

UNTIL THEN -- until Bush and Cheney are brought up on charges of lying us into war and testify UNDER OATH before a federal grand jury -- you can't compare.

I honestly thought you had a more sophisticated level of intellect than to dissolve into the old "Clinton lied too" --that's "so Rush" and "so Hannity" and so irrelevant to the discussion of the Iraq war and how we got there.

Gotta go folks. But just remember, when things go wrong you can always rent Goatman's Clinton butt-plug and say "Look, clinton lied about a BJ!". If that fails, you could just throw some shiny objects on the ground and run like hell!

It kinda does matter to the families of the dead.

You've a problem reading, huh, coop? The comparision I made, which I said didn't matter, was the one between lying to the wife and the grand jury. I fail to see how that would matter to the family of the war dead. I would suggest you reread the retor, but you'll read whatever you want into it so what's the point?. If it works for you, go for it.

Coop: Are your "gotta goes" the same as they are at night when you sign off several times an hour promising to go to bed, but keep re-appearing?

(Only YOU could even put those lies on equal footing.)

I do put the lies on equal footing. The consequences, of course, are not. You are confusing the two.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I take it you have no problem with lying under oath as long as no one is killed?

I am different. I think lying under oath is wrong even if it does piss off your bitch of a wife.

Enjoy the coffee. I have to go to the computer store and get a new wireless router. Mine died while I was gone and I miss having the laptop in the front room. Also, I stupidly left my cordless mouse to the laptop on the rig. I can't stand using the touch pad.

Get your body chemicals right. I don't want to take advantage of a decaffeinated brain. I wouldn't want it done to me! *G*

mr debat was a hoax, he provided phony info, so why mention clinton. this is like the kid that trys to do something stupid and tells his dad ".. the other kids do it" (the father doesn't care what the other kids did)

what Clinton did has nothing to do with this story, grow up! If some republican congressman gets caught in a damning position someone will say "Clinton did......". I see that as a sign of limited intelligence (very close to retarded)

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I take it you have no problem with lying under oath as long as no one is killed?

I am different. I think lying under oath is wrong even if it does piss off your bitch of a wife.

Posted by goatman at 2007-09-15 03:37 PM | Reply

At least Clinton was willing to take the oath.
Bush and Cheney -- even for testimony for the 9-11 Commission Report -- have REFUSED EVERY SINGLE TIME -- to give testimony under oath with regards to anything, no matter how serious or important.

How easy it is to knock Clinton for lying under oath (yes, I do take lying under oath seriously) but continually use the fact of lying under oath against Clinton when you know your boys Bush/Cheney will NEVER be accused of lying under oath -- not because they will not lie -- but because they are cowards and sneaks who refuse to give testimony under oath for the very reason they KNOW they will be perjuring themselves.

At least Clinton was willing to take the oath.
Bush and Cheney -- even for testimony for the 9-11 Commission Report -- have REFUSED EVERY SINGLE TIME -- to give testimony under oath with regards to anything, no matter how serious or important.

I would say that makes B&C more honest about their lies, if that makes sense. Clinton takes the oath, knowing he's going to lie. B&C know that they will lie, so they don't take the oath. All are liars, but at least B&C make no pretenses about it. CLinton is not only a liar, he is sneaky about it.

OK -- Clinton is a "double" liar. Deceitful liar. lying liar. He took an oath knowing he would lie. Call it what you want. But in this case, two wrongs don't make a right. It makes a more dishonest man.

whenever you don't like an issue you can defend your position by stating "Clinton did....", really neat, just avoid the topic by changing it.

"American and French media yesterday were taking a second look at the work of a so-called terrorism expert who faked his academic credentials",

what in the heck does Clinton have to do with this topic, you guys always have to be partison or are you just dumb. Most recently, "Craig sucks, yes but so does Clinton", How brilliant!

No wonder tests have shown right wingers to have less brain ability, keep it up!

I has to do with hyprocrisies -- two of them:

1) it is comparing liars to liars. No apples and oranges here. Where was the indignation about Clinton's lies?

2)Many on this site like to bring out of the blue, "But Bush stole the election in 2000" which will have nothing to do with the subject. If the left can do it, why can't we moderates?

I has to do with hyprocrisies -- two of them:

1) it is comparing liars to liars. No apples and oranges here. Where was the indignation about Clinton's lies?

2)Many on this site like to bring out of the blue, "But Bush stole the election in 2000" which will have nothing to do with the subject. If the left can do it, why can't we moderates?

this topic not related to your opinions, Sorry! nothing to do with Bush stole the elction as well as Clinton lied.

be indignant with Clinton or hate Bush if you read this story, sure for a partison hack. go read a book, maybe Hamlet.

Rather comes to mind as perhaps the most high profile reporter who ran with a falsity. The document, the whole point of the story where now Bush is finally "caught" turned out to be a forgery.

Forget the 47 years of previous experience starting as a reporter for the Associated Press. Pick ONE example where he was duped. He didn't know the documents were false when he presented them. The facts are still true about that case though. Bush was obviously AWOL for signifigant amounts of time. That much is clear.

However you failed to mention several conservative pundits with no journalistic experience who spout obvious bullshit every day - Ann Coulter for one?

Rather comes to mind as perhaps the most high profile reporter who ran with a falsity. The document, the whole point of the story where now Bush is finally "caught" turned out to be a forgery. (OohRah)

Forget the 47 years of previous journalism experience starting as a reporter for the Associated Press. Then pick ONE example where he was duped. He didn't know the documents were false when he presented them. The facts are still that Bush was obviously AWOL for signifigant amounts of time. That much is clear.

However you failed to mention several conservative pundits with no journalistic experience who spout obvious bullshit for hours every day - Ann Coulter for one?

If the left can do it, why can't we moderates?

Ah, thank the stars for the "moderates" who put two lumps of "Clinton lied about a blowjob" in a cup of tea every morning.

If the left can do it, why can't we moderates?

Ah, thank the stars for the "moderates" who put two lumps of "Clinton lied about a blowjob" in a cup of tea every morning.

Posted by Cooper at 2007-09-16 04:43 AM

Hey, Cooper, I think, but can't say for sure, that the "moderate" Goat has retired for the evening hahahaha

Even after 6 years of the WORST President in U.S. history -- whenever Bush does yet another sleezy/illegal thing you can take it to the bank that the far right ("moderate" far right hahaha) will ALWAYS bring up the Clinton deflection. That's because they can't give a defense to all the rotten stuff Bush does on an almost daily basis so they drag the same old tired "look what Clinton did" out of the basement like some old Halloween costume they put on year after year.

"look what Clinton did", hey, that's their only fun, let them have it, they think it excuses bad behavior on their side.

being a crook is bi-parison
being a pervert is republican