Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Friday, January 8, 2010

How Many Times Do They Have to Say It Before The Media Recognizes That It's a Coordinated Effort??

Posted by on Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:17 AM

Dana Parino, former White House Press Secretary: "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."

Mary Matalin, former Dick Cheney adviser and GOP talking head: "I was there, we inherited a recession from President Clinton and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation’s history." (They did not inherit a recession from Clinton—they inherited balanced budgets and surpluses, which they squandered.)

And now Mr. 9/11 himself gets in on the act...

Rudy Giuliani, former New York City mayor, failed New York senate candidate, failed presidential candidate: "We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We've had one under Obama."

Let me see... under Bush we had the anthrax attacks, the shoe bomber, and... what was that one again? Oh, right...



I can understand how that one would slip Giuliani's mind.


Comments (48) RSS

Newest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
There is nothing more that can be said about Republican revisionism.....they would just change it to suit their agenda.
Posted by fsticfrankie on March 8, 2010 at 7:11 AM · Report this
I am Republican. You know, one of those guys who believes in a society ruled by law and not by men, of accountability for all levels of our populace to those laws, and of a government that serves the people and not the other way around. In fact, I am such a Republican and I care about my country and Republican values as I have defined them so much that I voted for Obama, because I thought he would restore some of those values. But now, under pressure of losing his popularity, I see a man who I thought had a great chance to be a great president beating the exact same, "I have to watch you so that I can protect you" drum that the last guy was and tightening his despotism to do so, as the psychos who run my party egg him on by calling him soft. And he has bought it hook line and sinker.

My party was hijacked a long time ago and it has truly become the party of RINO's who have no connection to the true values of Republicanism proper. We now have Despot of the Week system in place of the presidency and the person that I thought might reverse it is just like the last guy.

No I don't buy this BS, but Obama's side has not sounded much better recently.
Posted by fenrir121 on January 14, 2010 at 7:12 PM · Report this
@47- They probably didn't want the bathroom to contain their explosions. Both of them had pretty small bombs.
Posted by dwight moody on January 11, 2010 at 2:19 PM · Report this
Where were you in Oct, 2000? I was watching my portfolio plummet. Clinton's economic chickens had come home to roost, and the market took a plunge - a full month before the election and four months before Bush took office. It was clinton's recession, and Bush made it short and sweet by cutting taxes, which increased government revenue, proving once again that we're on the high side of the optimum tax rate (as similar cuts by Reagan, Kennedy and Truman proved).

The balanced budgets during the Clinton administration were shoved down Clinton's unwilling throat by the 1994 Congress.

Say what you want, after 9/11, the Bush presidency took terrorism seriously. Obama doesn't, you're not even allowed to use the word.

Clue up. Your spin is just as abhorrent as the right wing's.
Posted by Scruffy Scirocco on January 11, 2010 at 12:49 PM · Report this
this guy I know in Spokane 51
#37 - it looks like a taco.
Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on January 10, 2010 at 10:45 AM · Report this
I am still wondering why the underwear bomber AND the shoe bomber, didn't blow themselves up in the airplane bathroom? Why would you go to your seat and light up? Unless, these poor dupes, were never meant to blow up, only to cause the fear and chaos that follows these inept attempts. And once captured, these dupes "confess" endless misinformation they were fed by AQ, that we will chase all over the globe, unproductively. Is this not AQ's demonic plan?
Posted by janjamm on January 10, 2010 at 5:59 AM · Report this
venomlash 46
@45: Child please. Using 1337 H@xx0r sp34k doesn't make you smart. If Clinton really had lied about the economy, don't you think that the Repugs would have gone after him on that instead of that BJ? Kiss the baby, Alleged.
Posted by venomlash on January 9, 2010 at 4:06 PM · Report this
venomlash 44
I just love how this is so cut-and-dry an example of conservative lies and idiocy that even the usual Slog trolls don't have anything to say about it.
Posted by venomlash on January 8, 2010 at 11:22 PM · Report this
Roma 42
39: @36, but this is exactly what they are trying to do. It is a specifc RNC talking point. They are going out of their way to muddy the waters and omit reference to 9/11,

Unless you can demonstrate that it's a "specific RNC talking point", then it's simply your opinion. And my opinion is that these are most likely unintentional misstatements, just like Obama's "57 states" comment that right-wingers pounced on.

Posted by Roma on January 8, 2010 at 2:39 PM · Report this
Uriel-238 41
One of my ongoing favorite games is Command and Conquer: Generals, produced after 9/11 and released before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The Global Liberation Army (the terrorists) could upgrade with Anthrax as a bio-chemical agent to augment their weapons.

The United States of America could (in the original version) build a Detainment Center which provided additional Intel capabilities.

Tasteless, maybe, but good times.

I remember during that period, the anthrax attacks caused everyone to fear the possibility that smallpox could be similarly used. The common conception of WMDs at the time were bio-terror devices, not (to what they've since reverted,) nukes.

In the meantime, when they keep omitting 9/11 ever happened, it just gets the MIHOP and LIHOP conspiracy theorists excited. It would be like Johnson or Nixon omitting that Kennedy was shot in the wake of the Warren Commission.
Posted by Uriel-238 on January 8, 2010 at 2:31 PM · Report this
Why do the media keep ignoring the Anthrax attacks, or act like they weren't an act of terrorism.
Posted by RDM on January 8, 2010 at 2:13 PM · Report this
laterite 39
@36, but this is exactly what they are trying to do. It is a specifc RNC talking point. They are going out of their way to muddy the waters and omit reference to 9/11, partially in light of recent confirmations that Bush and Cheney were SPECIFICALLY WARNED about an airborne attack against the WTC in the summer of 2001.
Posted by laterite on January 8, 2010 at 1:53 PM · Report this
@24 I'm all about the Orwell references, but you know - I'm thinking more about the pigs teaching the sheep to bleat, "Four legs goooood, two legs betterrrr!" at the end of Animal Farm.

If you bleat it often and loudly enough ...
Posted by happyhedonist on January 8, 2010 at 1:38 PM · Report this
loosenut 37
Is that a taco in Giuliani's hand?
Posted by loosenut on January 8, 2010 at 1:37 PM · Report this
Roma 36
Giuliani claims he meant AFTER 9/11. "The Mayor’s spokesman says that the remark “didn't come across as it was intended” and that Giuliani was “clearly talking post-9/11 with regards to Islamic terrorist attacks on our soil.”"

Believe it or not, people do misspeak. I remember when, during the campaign, Obama misspoke in Beaverton, Oregon and said he had visited 57 states. Right-wingers went wild, insisting that it was an allusion by Obama to the 57 member states in the Organization of Islamic Conference. Obama hadn't visited one state in the continental U.S. as well as Alaska & Hawaii so he meant to say 47 states, but misspoke and said forty instead of fifty.

I highly doubt this is some kind of orchestrated campaign to convince the American people that 9/11 didn't happen while Bush was president. Arguing that many people will believe this because many believed that Saddam was behind 9/11 is not a valid comparison. Although he didn't, it wasn't unreasonable for people to think that Saddam could have had something to do with 9/11. We had defeated and humiliated him in the first Gulf War. Iraq had economic sanctions in place and there were "no-fly" zones in the Kurdish north and Shiite south. He had a motive for attacking the U.S.

But there's no question Bush was president when 9/11 happened. Any Republican trying to seriously argue that he was not would get as much traction with Americans as a neo-Nazi arguing that the Holocaust was a myth.

It's likely that these three people meant there hadn't been a terrorist attack under Bush since 9/11. But that's where they're wrong. Just like the undie-fundie Nigerian, there was an attempted-but-foiled attack on a jetliner by Richard Reid, in December 2001. Post-9/11.
Posted by Roma on January 8, 2010 at 1:23 PM · Report this

I know you're being snarky and all, but if that's the "logic" then the most recent "attack" shouldn't count either, because it occurred in mid-air and not, as you say "on soil".

Not that I would expect the GOP to be consistent or anything...
Posted by COMTE on January 8, 2010 at 1:22 PM · Report this
Betsy Ross 34
Don't forget, the anthrax attacks were aimed at the media. I think the message was fairly clear - toe the line or it's goodnight, Dorothy.
Posted by Betsy Ross on January 8, 2010 at 1:20 PM · Report this
laterite 33
Ha ha ha, did you hear his "clarification"? Apparently he meant AFTER 9/11 there were no "domestic" attacks.

Except for, you know, the ANTHRAX.
Posted by laterite on January 8, 2010 at 1:07 PM · Report this
Geni 32
WHAT the FUCK?! Are they just going to start claiming that everything bad in the world happened during Democratic administrations, and all is sunshine and roses during any Republican administration?

This takes the cake for sheer unmitigated chutzpah.
Posted by Geni on January 8, 2010 at 12:55 PM · Report this
Nice try but you are - full of shit.
Posted by Senor Guy on January 8, 2010 at 12:32 PM · Report this
john t 30
Textbook example of The Big Lie. Goebbels would be proud.
Posted by john t on January 8, 2010 at 12:13 PM · Report this
Don't forget about the so-called beltway snipers. They claimed political justification for their actions, and scared the shit out of a lot of people (not to mention those they killed). Just because they're born domestically doesn't mean they aren't terrorists.

Posted by iLLogicaL on January 8, 2010 at 12:12 PM · Report this
Giuliani claims he meant AFTER 9/11. "The Mayor’s spokesman says that the remark “didn't come across as it was intended” and that Giuliani was “clearly talking post-9/11 with regards to Islamic terrorist attacks on our soil.”"…
See, 9/11 doesn't count because it's the point at which he starts counting EVERYTHING. He no longer even counts his years by BC and AD. It's all BWTO and AWTO. Also, the shoe bomber doesn't count because it happened IN A PLANE, not on 'soil'. In fact, no attack counts unless it's on soil and no, say, on concrete or pavement, because those are clearly out of bounds.
Posted by NateMan on January 8, 2010 at 12:12 PM · Report this
OuterCow 27
If ABC doesn't issue a major apology at the top of their next episode of Good Morning America for their reporter's lack of journalistic integrity in not calling Giuliani out for forgetting about 9/11, this mind virus will continue to grab hold with the american public. These are the same people that got a majority of americans to believe Iraq was involved in 9/11 (which apparently happened under Clinton now?). They know how to do it & they wil do it again if we let them. We need to call for an immediate shame campain against ABC news.
Posted by OuterCow on January 8, 2010 at 11:49 AM · Report this
treacle 25
Authoritarianism works top-down, and quickly.
Democracy works through disparate groups, and slowly.

@4: To mimic authoritarian power styles, is to become authoritarian. The examples from history are many.

The power that different groups have to use is different --asymmetrical, you might say-- and must be weilded differently. For the goals are different.
Posted by treacle on January 8, 2010 at 11:27 AM · Report this
Most of us read 1984 as a warning, Karl Rove & Co. read it as a playbook.
Posted by dwight moody on January 8, 2010 at 11:20 AM · Report this
kim in portland 23
No words.
Posted by kim in portland on January 8, 2010 at 11:08 AM · Report this
starsandgarters 22
Fuck this shit and fuck those people. I'm giving up on this country. I feel like I've given a lot of slack over the years for a lot of stupendously horrible crap going on in the government or politics, including playing the "wait and see" game with Obama, but fuck Guiliani to hell.
Posted by starsandgarters on January 8, 2010 at 10:52 AM · Report this
venomlash 21
Not only did they inherit a surplus, they also inherited Clinton-era intel suggesting that preparations were being made for hijackings and that Al Qaeda was thought to be looking into using planes as missiles. It's quite well documented. If they had listened instead of just looking for a way to screw Iraq into the ground, the Twin Towers might still be standing.

This beats "death panels". I think we've got 2010's lie of the year.
Posted by venomlash on January 8, 2010 at 10:46 AM · Report this
@4 Thanks for pointing out the flaw in the Democrat's approach to PR. Call them whatever you want (e.g., sheep), but the Republicans unify and mobilise their base a lot better and faster than the Democrats.
Posted by jinushaun on January 8, 2010 at 10:46 AM · Report this
laterite 19
Posted by laterite on January 8, 2010 at 10:40 AM · Report this
Umm, they did inherit a recession, albeit indirectly. The .com bubble was ripe for popping and it popped under Bush. I remembered during the pre-9/11 Bush administration, everyone was complaining about Bush not focusing more on the collapsing economy. People quickly forgot about the recession (along with many other Bush faults) after 9/11.
Posted by jinushaun on January 8, 2010 at 10:38 AM · Report this
Fnarf 17
God damn, that is one flaccid old drag queen.
Posted by Fnarf on January 8, 2010 at 10:29 AM · Report this
Someone on Slog posted this joke on 9/11/09

Knock knock
Who's there?
9/11 who?
Bwwaahhh, you said you'd never forget!

Posted by Peggy on January 8, 2010 at 10:23 AM · Report this
Vince 15
Liar liar Pentagon on fire!
Posted by Vince on January 8, 2010 at 10:15 AM · Report this
Banna 14
Giuliani forgot 9/11.
Posted by Banna on January 8, 2010 at 10:13 AM · Report this
Loveschild 13
Nothing like what took place during Bush's term in office has happened now (no LOSS OF LIFE for example) but that doesn't stop them from claiming that Obama (in his first year) is the worst President in U.S history. One can only wonder what would they be sayin if Bush was still in office.
Posted by Loveschild on January 8, 2010 at 10:11 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 12
Gee, Rudy's an idiot. You're just now figuring that out?
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty on January 8, 2010 at 10:01 AM · Report this
I hate Politicians. They can't call a spade a spade, they have to call it one of those funny looking shovels with no handle.
Posted by step child on January 8, 2010 at 9:57 AM · Report this
gttim 10
From Tristero at Digby's place:

9/11 Doesn't Count. Nor does the anthrax terrorism, Richard Reid, the July 4, 2002 on El Al at LAX, or attacks on abortion clinics in 2001, 2005, 2006, and 2007.
Posted by gttim on January 8, 2010 at 9:55 AM · Report this
Reverse Polarity 8
I'm not sure which blows me away more:

(1) Giuliani (and other repubs) claiming that we had no domestic attacks under Bush.

(2) The interviewer doesn't call them on it immediately. Seriously. WTF! The interviewer should have reached right over and bitch-slapped this idiot. Why the hell did they just let him drone on like that without challenging him on such a blatant and obvious lie?
Posted by Reverse Polarity on January 8, 2010 at 9:48 AM · Report this
Nofo 7
Is it too late for Rudy's parents to have an abortion?
Posted by Nofo on January 8, 2010 at 9:47 AM · Report this
Those who control the past control the future.

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.
Posted by Ackham on January 8, 2010 at 9:45 AM · Report this
linda with a y 5
Define "terrorist attack". Maybe they weren't terrified enough but I sure as hell was and I live in California.
Posted by linda with a y on January 8, 2010 at 9:41 AM · Report this
Morgan 4
The RNC sends out talking points to their leadership every morning, they dominate the news cycle with a coordinated message, everyone interviewed on the networks recite the same sound bite.

This is why the Democrats keep failing, we're operating as a grass roots, bottom up amalgam of disparate interest groups who share the common interest of keeping the Republicans out of power and in check. The Republicans, conversely have a strong, top down power structure which disseminates information and directives incredibly efficiently.
Posted by Morgan on January 8, 2010 at 9:40 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 3
It's not like they were all Wahhabi extremists primarily funded by and who get almost all their volunteers and money from Saudi Arabia ....
Posted by Will in Seattle on January 8, 2010 at 9:35 AM · Report this
Are actual Republicans—not just talking heads and politicians—actually buying this?
Posted by mitten on January 8, 2010 at 9:30 AM · Report this
these people are pure evil.
Posted by ng53 on January 8, 2010 at 9:21 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy