Contradictions, contradictions

As I write, Bushco and its attendent spinners and PR flaks have opened up two lines of attack

First they say no one could have foreseen these results, then they say, yes, the results were foreseen, but it's the Democrats at the local and state levels that are to blame.  Which is it?

If the first is true, how can the second also be true?

Just Asking.

Tags: Republicans (all tags)



Two Truths
Of course they can have two contradicting truths going at the same time.  Orwell talked about this in the book 1984, which I assume the Bush Administration used as a reference for some of their policies.  I believe it was called "doublespeak"
by steve expat 2005-09-04 02:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Two Truths
Learn to love Big Brother:

by Winston Smith 2005-09-04 05:59PM | 0 recs
Excellent observation Ben
I, for one, overlooked that logical inconsistency:
Bush could not have possibly responded quicker, because the devastation was unforeseeable, and

the human suffering and misery is Mayor Nagin and Gov. Blanco's fault, because they failed to respond quickly enough.

Let's hope they are as observant on the Sunday Funny Shows. So far CNN has been far and away more critical than any other cable network.

Have any of the major networks been critical of Bush's failure? The only real harsh criticism I've seen on cable so far has been from CNN.

The nation has two more days of our Labor Day weekend to be amazed at the incompetence of Bushco. Let's hope the M$M doesn't let them off the hook this time. Will the media finally wake up? Will the Democratic Party discover its backbone?

Stay tuned.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-09-04 03:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent observation Ben
I haven't watched MSNBC in the past few days but as the problem was festering they were certainly as critical as CNN was.  Joe Scarborough was fuming at the federal government.  I don't typically watch him but I did for curiosity and I was amazed.  Other shows on MSNBC were showing the same things as CNN and getting just as frustrated.  I would flip back and forth and everyone was livid and they all seemed to point to the federal government.  They were not accepting the spin.  Now that doesn't include the past day or so since I've had CNN on exclusively since then.
by jrflorida 2005-09-04 06:35AM | 0 recs
Scarborough gets it right sometimes
I don't watch anymore, but I used to watch Joe prior to his disgraceful performance during the Schiavo travesty. Once in a while he would step forward and complain about Republican pork barrel politics.

He wrote a book that has gotten good reviews, Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day: The Real Deal on How Politicians, Bureaucrats, and Other Washington Barbarians Are Bankrupting America.

I would be surprised if he didn't manage to take a few shots at Democrats and they may even deserve some criticism, but the Republican Party get the brunt of the criticism from what I've heard about it.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-09-04 07:13AM | 0 recs
Posted at
War & Piece is this broken promise (emphasis mine):It doesn't say anything about needing a formal invitation to save people's lives.

The page also currently offers this wonderfully telling statement, in the "top stories" box directly beneath the passage cited above:

Response & Recovery
There is currently no top story for this theme
To put it mildly.
by catastrophile 2005-09-04 03:55AM | 0 recs
Natural outcome of 'contract on America' economics
Throughout the 1990's the Democrats conceded to the GOP at every turn allowing the "Contract for/on America" to cut budgets and whither programs to the point that the New orleans disaster was inevitable.

Even today, as the Congressional Black Caucus, Jesse Jackson, Rev. Sharpton  and the NAACP stand up and advocate for the poverty oppressed peoples, of all colors, who are the victims in New Orleans the white right wing Democratic leadership is nowhere to be seen.

Where is Hillary?

Where is Kerry?

The GOP screwed the pooch on emergency preparedness. The Democrats let them do it.

by aahpat 2005-09-04 04:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Natural outcome spineless Democrats
Another contradiction. With one or two exceptions, the only Democrats who have expressed outrage are members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

The response of the Democratic leadership is as much of a national disgrace as the slow response of Bushco. It's time for the Democratic leadership to step forward and be at least as critical of Bush as the M$M.

What are they afraid of?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-09-04 05:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Natural outcome spineless Democrats
The Republican Noise Machine of course!  Seriously, every time, EVERY TIME, a Democrat shows something resembling courage they get hammered by almost every right-wing public figure in a concerted attack.  This is usually followed by minimally intelligent coverage by the MSM which quickly internalizes the charges.  They also get minimal support from other Democrats.  It's no wonder they have shyed away from challenging the Administration.  They have reason to be afraid.  

My only hope is that the whole Democratic party takes note of Mayor Ray Nagin comments(rant), picks that up and runs with it in slightly, but only slighty, more genteel language.  It would be something different if nothing else.

by Amberdrake 2005-09-04 07:42AM | 0 recs
EVERYONE forsaw this coming.. Study after study..
That is just the hurricane/New Orleans scenario.. There is also the fact that global warming is causing storms to get stronger all over the world..

This is not some kind of theory, its clearly happening...

Do a Google search on "global climate change" or "global warming" AND storms and you'll see what I mean..

(to give some context, until last year, the Bush administration and indeed the whole GOP denied the existence of global warming (!) - as if that would make it go away..

If this was Europe or Japan Bush would just resign and they would call a new election..

Isn't that what would happen everywhere else when a national leader fucked up on this level?


They call it something like "Vote of No Confidence"

by ultraworld 2005-09-04 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Natural outcome spineless Democrats
It's no wonder they have shyed away from challenging the Administration.  They have reason to be afraid.

They are afraid of their own shadow. You don't cower in front of a bully. If the Democratic leadership doesn't start standing up for some core principles, they might as well resign en masse.

The bogeyman under the bed is only a threat if you believe in his power.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-09-04 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Natural outcome spineless Democrats
I agree with Gary.  While they are afraid, they are wrong to be afraid.  There are too many people right now that are upset.  They will have a wave of support behind them if they get together and stand up to these guys.  I just talked to a conservative friend of mine and he is blaming the local government more than anyone else right now because they failed to prepare for something they knew was coming.  I tried to tell him that they did an awesome job and that a big part of the plan is the federal government.  He wasn't biting.  He said he wasn't interpretting the info like I was.  I asked if he was watching Fox news and he said he wasn't.  But I know thats all they watch.  I told him the floods and the storm are not the problem here.  Those things were not controllable.  Even the best levee system breaks and flooding could still have occurred from simple rainfall.  The problem here is disaster response.  He's about as conservative as they come.  So I expected as much from him.  Others though are extraordinarily upset right now.  Its those people that will stand up.  And we must stand up or the right wing noise machine will drown us out again.  It requires, it demands that Democrats at the highest level begin to raise their voices.  When the right tries to shut them up with the same excuses being brought up by wingnuts here they must be prepared for them.  I can only hope that people in power see these arguments develop here and lern how to counter them so that they can do it on the fly and not get shotued down again.  Its time to every single one of the Dems, Clinton, Biden (I know he can do it), all of them raise ther voices.  If they don't I'm gonna end up going the Boatwright route and I'll be very upset with that. :)
by jrflorida 2005-09-04 08:34AM | 0 recs
Here's a good quote from President Obvious
Hat tip to The Heretik:

PRESIDENT OBVIOUS: The levees broke on Tuesday in New Orleans. On Wednesday, we -- and Thursday we started evacuating people. A lot of people have left that city. A lot of people have been pulled out on buses. It's -- I am satisfied with the response. I'm not satisfied with all the results.

The levees broke? We started evacuating people? A lot of people have left New Orleans? Thanks for the breaking news President Obvious.

How many people were rescued from buses?

Good response, bad results?

Do you think FEMA could also rescue the English language as part of their relief effort?

The Heretik has a terrific regular event, Lefty's Lounge:

Betty Blogger is pouring behind the bar tonight.  Lefty Louise says everone is welcome except Lieberman.

    Tonight's recommended blog: Agitprop

by Gary Boatwright 2005-09-04 06:32AM | 0 recs
There will be a third
The mainstream news isn't showing the good things happening.  They will say that help was present.  Its was all over the place but reporters chose to hype the bad news.  Its of course completely bogus.  I'm sure that people were getting rescued, they showed plenty of that, but soldiers were not present and I was amazed to see that CNN and MSNBC both presented the same story and everyone was getting pissed.  The normal apologists just as much as the regular folks.  

They'll use it because I've already seen them use it.  Laura Bush used it a little.  They'll use it because they are currently using it in Iraq.  What do you want to bet that things are just as bad over there as here, that the whole issue of only reporting the bad news is just as much total crap.  This whole event is in parallel with Iraq.  The spin they use their is the same they try here.  The only difference is they can't tell people what they see with their own owns.  There are reporters and citizens that see their lies point blank and they are angry enough to not let them get away with it.  They'll use it because there is no way to disprove it. Right now they need that kind of message, the one that can't be disproven, unlike their other attempts.

by jrflorida 2005-09-04 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: There will be a third
own owns? own eyes.  Something just messed up with posting so this might end up being a double post.  Sorry, but that mess up needed correction.
by jrflorida 2005-09-04 07:04AM | 0 recs
won't be papered over...
I'm predicting that this one won't be papered over so easily with the regular doubletalk.  There's a palpable sense of shock at how poorly this evacuation went.  It's expressed to some extent in nearly every newspaper story I read summarizing the current situation in New Orleans.

A quick scan at newseum suggests it's not just the Washington Post and New York Times working this side of the story.  One of the most striking headlines was from the Atlanta Journal Constitution, who ran their editorial on the front page above the fold today, entitled:

"The rescue operation mounted in the wake of last week's hurricane was characteristic of a third-rate country, not the world's only superpower."

Not everyone is running such hard-hitting headlines, of course, and even AJC wasn't blaming the feds exclusively.  But there's going to have to be an independent federal-level commission investigation, at a mimimum, and even the spinmeisters are going to have to have to explain themselves.

You know, this really hits home, because there's a lot of people asking, what if there were a major crisis like a terrorist attack in my community?  Would we fare so poorly?  I don't believe Bush and company have the credibility anymore to shape public opinion by baldly stating what reality is, and expecting people to follow regardless of contradictions.

by arenwin 2005-09-04 07:49AM | 0 recs
National Geographic 2004 - (New Orleans)
by global yokel 2005-09-04 07:51AM | 0 recs
How can Kerry be
The most liberal member of the Senate, and also a flip-flopper?

Their statements don't have to be consistent to be effective.

by Drew 2005-09-04 08:26AM | 0 recs
Because It Works For Them
The tactic of telling contradictory lies, throwing false statements in multiple directions, works well for BushCo.  That's why they do it.
by James Earl 2005-09-04 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Because It Works For Them
Hopefully this event and the obviousness of their lies will immunize at least some people from the tactics for a while.  Hopefuly people can make the leap from this event to other events and whats going on in Iraq.  Hopefully they use the same tactics they have in the past, people see they are false, and then question the past.  The immunization will require booster shots and support from leaders at all levels.  Its that which is still in question right now.  Only the mayor of New Orleans has shown he has balls so far.  I can only hope it will take and hold.  I don't know what the perception is outside of my close family and friends, some of which are conservative nuts, as to how this is changing people.  I can see its changed, at least shortterm, the main stream news to some degree.  The coming week will tell us what the opposition leadership is feeling.  CNN is hitting things hard right now on how the feds have failed and lied.  Granted right now they are giving the feds a platform from which to spin.  They need to stay on the attack.

I would be interested in hearing how this is affecting people outside of this choir.

by jrflorida 2005-09-04 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Because It Works For Them
Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Negraponte and he said that the FEMA director had "experience".  It was a small insertion in the long answer he was giving to something Wolf had asked.  Wolf picked up on the word experience and then asked him about the Arabian horse association and said that it doesn't sound like a lot of experience to him.  It was a jab and Negraponte countered with the crucible that was 2004.  He should have countered again with the clear difference between 2005 and 2004.  How could things have gone so horribly wrong with FEMA in that period of time.  Is Homeland Security and the focus on faith based response the reason for this failure?  The crucible counter to the Arabian horse association jab needs an effective counter.  It may simply be that 2004 FEMA was still working on autopilot with experienced administrators and hadn't yet been gutted.  I suspect thats the case.  It will take former FEMA officials to talk about that.
by jrflorida 2005-09-04 08:55AM | 0 recs
how can john kerry be both the most liberal senator in congress AND a spineless, soulless flip-flopper?

It's their favorite game

by Valatan 2005-09-04 10:27AM | 0 recs
double post
sorry Drew
by Valatan 2005-09-04 10:29AM | 0 recs
Isn't there a legal term for this stuff that
defense lawyers use ?  

'Alternative defense theory' or something.

by Cyt 2005-09-04 01:56PM | 0 recs
Lame excuse
"No one could have foreseen the results." For four years they've been telling us about the great work they're doing preparing for a terrorist attack, which truly would be unforeseen.

I guess the plan for a terrorist attack must have been to bomb some little country or Mecca or something, and just let the Americans die. I can imagine Rumsfeld running around frantic last Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday because he couldn't decide which country to bomb.

by pdt 2005-09-04 01:58PM | 0 recs
the attempts to blame the victims
We've all heard Bushco and rightwingnuts blaming the victims: those who should have evacuated the city when they were told are suffering as a result of their own doing.

Well, if no one could have anticipated the flooding then why are the victims being blamed? They survived the hurricane, right?

[I read this argument somewhere, but can not remember who to credit. My apologies to the originator, but the point is worth repeating.]

by MassachusettsLiberalinDC 2005-09-04 04:33PM | 0 recs
It won't be as easy to rewrite history here
It won't be as easy to rewrite history here as it has been in Iraq.  First of all, all of the big networks have been filming things 24/7 since before the storm even got to NOLA.  Secondly, the victims here are American citizens, so they can't be swept away as easily as those pesky Iraqis.  Finally, the media itself feels like they were victims, as they had people standing around with no food or water too.  When the media feels personally wronged, they normally keep on a story like a pit bull.  Same reason the Rove leak story went no where until a couple of reporters were threatened with jail time.  
by blustateguy68 2005-09-04 10:16PM | 0 recs
What they're trying to do
is rewrite the how, and why, not the what.

Josh@TPM notes that somebody in the White House was busy this weekend feeding false information to media outlets about the state response to the disaster, trying to deflect blame for the slow federal response.

This f@cker dug up an NYT editorial from April calling for the defeat of a $17-billion chunk of pork being palmed off as flood control for the region. The point, obviously, is to prove that the "liberal" Times didn't care about New Orleans, either, so the White House is off the hook. (I asked if anybody knew what the bill was actually supposed to do, but my comment seems to have mysteriously vanished.)

by catastrophile 2005-09-04 11:50PM | 0 recs
Got 'em!
I found the complete NYT editorial. It's not what they say it is.
by catastrophile 2005-09-05 12:43AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads