Tuesday, November 01, 2005

More truth about 'The Truth'

As I promised last week, I will continue to post rebuttals, albeit in brief, to some of Franken's points from his new book.

On page 64, he made fun of President Bush's speech at the Republican convention for "being strong after 9/11, not before."

"True to form, the president made no apologies for his inaction before 9/11. Rather, he called the nation's attention to the attitude he adopted immediately after."

Well, I'm not sure what the president was supposed to apologize for, but notice, that even according to Franken the president became resolute after one terrorist attack. Now let's contrast that with Bill Clinton's "get tough" attitude on terrorism.
We had the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudia Arabia, the bombings of US embassies in Africa, the slaughter of US troops in Somailia, and who can ever forget Bill Clinton's "were gonna get you" speech following the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen.


On page 68, Franken reverts back to his satitrical mode by allowing John Kerry (again, this was satire and John Kerry didn't really write this) to add some prose to Franken's book. He writes,

"but I harbor no bitterness toward those who did not vote for me."

Here's the funny part though, do you remember the badgering John Kerry gave one old man at a town hall meeting when Kerry demanded to know what his party affiliation was? Just wondering.

On page 69 Franken really hits the jackpot and exposes Republicans dirty tricks.

"If you run for president as a Democrat, they're going to come after you."

My g-d, is Franken serious? Shall we list all the Republicans who were targeted by the Clinton smear machine? Shall we talk to Billy Dale who was the target of the Clinton's in the travelgate scandal? Shall we talk about conservative groups who were audited by the IRS every year during the Clinton administration? Shall we talk about the NAACP political ads that said that voting for Republicans would lead to more church burnings? Shall we talk about forged documents to make it look like George Bush was guilty of AWOL? Shall we talk about certain documentaries that portrayed President Bush as being cozy comfy buddy buddy with Bin Laden?

This list can go on and on and on and on...............

My next posting will deal with what Franken wrote were the ugly lies by the Swift Boat Vets for Truth.

7 Comments:

At 10:53 PM, Blogger Juneau Smog said...

Oh, I can't wait for your next post. When you say "what Franken wrote were the ugly lies..." do you mean what he wrote were the actual lies by the SBVT or do mean about them? Just curious because everything else you write makes no sense so it would seem this doesn't either. But hey, can't wait for that next great post, nor what you have to say about chapter 10. If Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed deny the facts in chapter 10 of the book I assume they will sue for libel. Since we haven't heard from them then I guess we can assume Franken got it right just like he did on all the rest of the chapters. Not convinced? Try looking up all the references Franken gives to everything he wrote about. Do you think Al Frankin invented these accounts in the book? There isn't one thing you've written about that actually challenges the facts of the book. It seems all you are concerned about is shooting the messenger. If you do not like the message, maybe it is time to reevaluate your own views.

 
At 3:03 PM, Blogger A. Skorski said...

You are way too funny. First, I'm not sure where you come up with Reed, Delay, Abramoff. Didn't include them in my posts.

As to Franken must be telling the truth, because the aforementioned hasn't sued for libel. Let's see if Franken sues me over my book. If he doesn't, will you cede that everything I write about him is true?

You asked, "Do you think Al Frankin invented these accounts in the book?"
Absolutely he makes things up. I document all his "made up" stuff in my book.

lastly, between you and me, don't you think his latest book is rather lame, especially compared to 'Lies...'?

 
At 1:10 PM, Blogger The Mountain Guy said...

Its funny that you left out Clinton's response to Al Qaida in 1998 by bombing camps in Afghanistan. Why did you leave that out? Could it be that you knew that by including that it would remind people of the way republicans responded? How did the republicans respond? the hypocritical republicans said "wag the dog" when he at least tried to do something. Also when clinton tried to pass terrorism legislation in 1996 how the republicans respond? the hypocritical republicans accused him of using terrorism as a phoney issue. Think I am making that up? Here take a look (oh but its from CNN. The communist news network so I guess that means it has not credibility eh?)
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

and about somalia. It was Bush SR that put troops into somalia but it was those on the right that complained the most about the 19 rangers and delta operators that were killed in somalia and some of these very same republicans that bad mouth clintons lack of action in Rwanda were some of the first to bad mouth him in somalia.

and about the Cole attacks. You think the bush administration would have approved of clinton attacking AQ a couple of months before they would take the white house?

as far as John Kerry during the 2004 campaign, Oh please. Do you really want to compare the Kerry campaign versus the bush campaign in terms of handling dissenters at their rallies? Was it the kerry campaign or the bush campaign that made sure dissenters were not allowed?

even more absurd is the comparison between the bush smear machine and the clinton smear machine. First many of those examples (like the moore one) have no tie with the DNC unlike the swift boat vets for bush that did. I am sure most of the examples are either taken out of context or just straight out disinformation. The karl rove attack machine is in a whole new category.

 
At 3:11 AM, Blogger Juneau Smog said...

Well, as I pointed out, the last post I read by you said something like "My next absurb posting will deal with what Franken wrote were the ugly lies by the Swift Boat Vets for Truth." I'm assume your referring to chapter 4, which is NOT chapter 10, as I said "But hey, can't wait for that next great post, nor what you have to say about chapter 10. If Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed deny the facts in chapter 10 of the book I assume they will sue for libel." See, different chapters. "nor" being the identifier.

It is true, I am by far not nearly the expert of law as you claim to be. If we are to assume "libel" means "A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation", which it does, then I would have to agree that when Al says things like "Abramoff bilked a number of Native American tribes to the tune of $82 million", and "It makes me wonder how Delay, a guy who reportedly spends hours a week praying to his pro-life god, can be for a system that involved forcing women to have abortions in order to keep their jobs in Saipan", then those statements can be pretty damaging to one's reputation. Maybe the reason we haven't "heard" from Abramoff and Delay yet is because this is already common knowledge as well as many other illegal, corrupt, devious, abuses of power that Delay, Abramoff, & Reed have been involved in. You're right, these are things we already know to have already ruined their reputations.

Then I guess by the same definition, everything you've writen about Al is libel as well. However, your opinions of Al or how he failed to represent correctly the tone of voice the president used after 9/11, or blaming Clinton, whatever meaningless points you are trying to get across, are not actually accusing Al of committing heinous crimes or ripping people off of millions of dollars while in a public office. Just because you've documented in your book all the things Al has "made up" doesn't mean it is. Sounds more like you've "made up" a bunch of places where Al "made up" things. Where Al references all the news articles and reports he quotes throughout his book and tells exactly who said what and when, is by far a much more credible source and thus not "made up". Anyone who has followed the news for the last year and a half if fully aware of all these accounts. Al just neatly wraps them together in one book (with jokes). In fact your lack of credibility not only doesn't hurt Al's reputation, but I'm sure he could care less.

But to answer you're question, I loved Al's book. The last chapter was great. A letter wrtten from the future in 2015, seven years after the "Dark Times". A great vision of Universal Health Care, the end to America's reliance on fossil fuels, Homeland Security Reform, Tax fairness, the passing of the "Let's Not Leave Anymore Children Behind Act", the passing of the "End the Stupid Drug War Act", the passing of the "Secure Loose Nukes Like We should Have Ten Years Ago Act, and the passing of the "You'd Think Stem Cell Research Was A No-Brainer Act". Maybe the book wasn't as "fun" as Lies because there wasn't so much slamming those lame conservative pundit hacks, but the Truth was definitely more biting and in your face slamming of our actual leaders and people in power.

 
At 3:13 AM, Blogger Juneau Smog said...

Well, as I pointed out, the last post I read by you said something like "My next absurb posting will deal with what Franken wrote were the ugly lies by the Swift Boat Vets for Truth." I'm assume your referring to chapter 4, which is NOT chapter 10, as I said "But hey, can't wait for that next great post, nor what you have to say about chapter 10. If Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed deny the facts in chapter 10 of the book I assume they will sue for libel." See, different chapters. "nor" being the identifier.

It is true, I am by far not nearly the expert of law as you claim to be. If we are to assume "libel" means "A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation", which it does, then I would have to agree that when Al says things like "Abramoff bilked a number of Native American tribes to the tune of $82 million", and "It makes me wonder how Delay, a guy who reportedly spends hours a week praying to his pro-life god, can be for a system that involved forcing women to have abortions in order to keep their jobs in Saipan", then those statements can be pretty damaging to one's reputation. Maybe the reason we haven't "heard" from Abramoff and Delay yet is because this is already common knowledge as well as many other illegal, corrupt, devious, abuses of power that Delay, Abramoff, & Reed have been involved in. You're right, these are things we already know to have already ruined their reputations.

Then I guess by the same definition, everything you've writen about Al is libel as well. However, your opinions of Al or how he failed to represent correctly the tone of voice the president used after 9/11, or blaming Clinton, whatever meaningless points you are trying to get across, are not actually accusing Al of committing heinous crimes or ripping people off of millions of dollars while in a public office. Just because you've documented in your book all the things Al has "made up" doesn't mean it is. Sounds more like you've "made up" a bunch of places where Al "made up" things. Where Al references all the news articles and reports he quotes throughout his book and tells exactly who said what and when, is by far a much more credible source and thus not "made up". Anyone who has followed the news for the last year and a half if fully aware of all these accounts. Al just neatly wraps them together in one book (with jokes). In fact your lack of credibility not only doesn't hurt Al's reputation, but I'm sure he could care less.

But to answer you're question, I loved Al's book. The last chapter was great. A letter wrtten from the future in 2015, seven years after the "Dark Times". A great vision of Universal Health Care, the end to America's reliance on fossil fuels, Homeland Security Reform, Tax fairness, the passing of the "Let's Not Leave Anymore Children Behind Act", the passing of the "End the Stupid Drug War Act", the passing of the "Secure Loose Nukes Like We should Have Ten Years Ago Act, and the passing of the "You'd Think Stem Cell Research Was A No-Brainer Act". Maybe the book wasn't as "fun" as Lies because there wasn't so much slamming those lame conservative pundit hacks, but the Truth was definitely more biting and in your face slamming of our actual leaders and people in power.

 
At 7:25 AM, Blogger Not Specified said...

You are not sure what Bush is supposed to apologize for? Well that is gross ignorance, and you should really bone up on some facts before venturing into the blogosphere. But then again, facts are like kryptonite to the conservative, so I understand that you would avoid them.

Anyway, to help you out in this area, Bush should apologize for his negligence that allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur. He was on a month-long vacation in Crawford while detections of terrorist activity would have compelled a competent President to try to put a stop to things.

 
At 2:46 PM, Blogger Rob Kaufman said...

What I find funny is that the best book you could write would still be worse than the worst that Mr Franken could put out.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home