Maybe I'll do Friday later...

Promise... I'll answer comments before this Friday's column is written... how's that?

-CW

Thanks for the link. About what I'd expect from the DNC...

Kick [6] -

My wife is already in love with Baby Groot. I read a spoiler-alert review of the sequel, which revealed he chopped off someone's toes, but Baby Groot is still pretty big chez Weigant, these days. Heh.

nypoet22 [8] -

if a large percentage of the medical profession refused to treat any member of Congress, full health coverage would happen next month.

Now there's an idea!

:-)

TheStig [13] -

MST3K is exactly what we need right now, that's for sure!

-CW

"Hmmm, I actually agree with Rupert on something..."

Yup.
And Trump.
And the Bush conspiracy theorists too it seems.

Do you understand how that might impact how someone views your opinions?

"I'm not sure you do understand. Libya was simply a case study illustrating how GR pushes bogus analysis to monger conspiracy theories. There is a pattern here"

Yes, and if Iraq was a case study for the NYT (or their coverage of Israel, or their 2016 election coverage, or their Libya coverage, or their pro-establishment coverage of the massive frauds on Wall Street, etc.), they too would be correctly classified as using bogus analysis to monger conspiracy theories. There is a pattern there. They have pushed fake news across a wide range of issues.

The claims of credibility by the establishment media outlets have been greatly damaged in their service to that establishment.

And you seem to be opposed to a fair chunk of the agenda the establishment media seeks to advance, and yet you also seem to be maintain the "oh, that's different" double standard whereby those challenging their agenda are dismissed... including, btw, using "fact checking" organizations who choose not to fact check the establishment narrative.

A

Hooray! Huzzah!

Some free clips:

http://www.mst3k.com/video

I have no idea who wrote the article or even where I had read it, but I do remember how surprised I was that the Republicans had already done a successful test run of their plan in MA.

Then in 2012 there was statement from one of the "Party of No" Republicans that boasted at how the better a piece of legislation was for this country, the harder they had to fight to block it from passing!

Heck, they were so determined to prevent Obama from getting credit for passing any good legislation that Republicans actually voted against legislation that they, themselves, had introduced; but ONLY after Obama signaled that he supported it and would sign it if it made it to his desk!

Getting a bill that they introduced signed into law is a huge deal for Congress members, so it just demonstrated how twisted the GOP's mindset had become: They were intentionally voting against legislation that they believed was good for their constituents (they introduced it, so this would be a safe assumption I feel) simply because they did not want the President to get credit for signing it!

"What're y'all worried about? It'll never be law anyway!"

"That doesn't bother you?"

"Hell, no. We just like how pissed off y'all get about it."

All new old stuff!!!!!!

"...Rupert Murdoch in Australia is leading the attack against the professor"

Hmmm, I actually agree with Rupert on something...OK, Hell must have frozen over...and why is this not on my Weather Channel Ap?!

"If you want to dismiss everything on the website that published the article above due to their failure in accurately estimating the number of bombs dropped in Libya and other failures, I can understand."

I'm not sure you do understand. Libya was simply a case study illustrating how GR pushes bogus analysis to monger conspiracy theories. There is a pattern here, a dufus operandi, if I may coin a phrase. GR does the same steps with regards to Global Warming, 911, vaccines, The Holocaust, Irish Slavery and probably much, much more. The world wide fake news machine eats this stuff up and poops it back out, and then some other media critter eats it again...it's like watching rabbits feed.

nypoet 22 - 10

"do you live in a swing district? if so, are you certain that your rep wasn't permitted his vote by the leadership once the outcome of the vote was already determined?"

My district is newly drawn, but it looks to be fairly competitive. Upper class suburbia, low income urban, low income rural and a lot of rust belt. Lots of older folks with preconditions on medicaid. Health care and education are big industries in the district. It's certainly possible my congressman was give permission to break ranks. How can you not be skeptical? For the sake of effective diplomacy I mix up the carrots with the sticks.

Unfortunately for him, as one pundit pointed out this afternoon, voters tend to punish the entire offending party in wave elections, not just the worst offenders. So in 2010, Democrats who had voted against Obamacare also lost their seats to Republicans. Can you imagine what party ID will mean next year, when the midterms will be as much a referendum on Trump as a discussion about issues like healthcare?

much respect for your robust civic engagement. These guys need to know their constituents are watching what they do and will respond at the ballot box.

My own Republican Rep was one of just 20 Republicans who bucked the party line on DonTCare (genius CW). I think he got a lot of mail on this. He's getting a nice letter, congratulating him on his reasoning skills and courage.

do you live in a swing district? if so, are you certain that your rep wasn't permitted his vote by the leadership once the outcome of the vote was already determined? i'm not saying that he necessarily lacks reasoning skills or courage, but i'm always a bit skeptical of those congress critters who happen to do the right thing from time to time.

It will also suggest that he become more courageous... ditch the GOP and become an Independent... if wants my vote next time.

yes, that would convince me too.

JL

Well, the author of the article is a professor in Australia, not a staff reporter for that website, and the sources for the heart of his arguments are the NYT, the UN report from the chemical weapons inspectors, and the MIT weapons expert.
He does use RT for some background on the chemical attacks by ISIS against the Kurds in Iraq (which other, more credible outlets have also reported on), he cites a report from Al Jazeera, and he cites one of his previous articles on the 2013 chemical attack in Ghouta, Syria, and I haven't had a chance to review all his sources for that yet.

The press owned by Rupert Murdoch in Australia is leading the attack against the professor, and you are attacking the credibility of the website... both instead of challenging the facts and arguments in the article. That can be a valid approach that is fully justifiable (see ZeroHedge or Breitbart).

That said, that approach is also often used for nefarious purposes by the establishment to push back against those who dare challenge their preferred narrative... like the now verified reporting using info from whistleblowers about torture and mass surveillance.

Likewise, the dozens of articles in the New York Times by Gordon and Miller, articles in the Washington Post, and numerous others by journalist and "credible" media outlets about the "evidence" leading up to the war in Iraq (which turned out to be spoon fed misinformation and fabrications coming from the Bush administration) raises comparable credibility issues about those outlets.
Because of those stains on their credibility, some dismiss everything they have reported since, some choose to ignore it and still believe their reporting, and some still use them as sources for information but have a healthy skepticism and seek alternate sources for confirmation and/or doubts.
The fact is, the "credible" media outlets have had to issue retractions for factually inaccurate reporting on a fairly regular basis since then too.

In our last conversation, you referred to the pre-Iraq war episode in our history as something like "intelligence failures or falsifications, take your pick"... which is an, er, um, diplomatic way of straddling the fence between the false establishment narrative and the reality of a well documented misinformation campaign to lie to Americans and the world.

If you want to dismiss everything on the website that published the article above due to their failure in accurately estimating the number of bombs dropped in Libya and other failures, I can understand.
Perhaps Global Research was engaging in a conspiracy theory to inflate the number of bombs dropped in Libya to pursue some nefarious anti-war agenda... though reporting of that kind doesn't exactly stop a war in progress or prevent the next one, so it may just be a case of mistaken methodology.

But I'm not one of those who dismisses everything in the NYT because of their damaged credibility, I have seen no reason to doubt the conclusions of the UN chemical weapons inspectors and other experts, and the conclusions reached in the article above meet my definition of common sense while the establishment narrative does not.

I do not have an expectation that I will convince everybody here, or even anybody here, but when I see character assassination being used by right wing media against doubters of the establishment narrative that is similar to the tactics used in 2003, I consider it worthy of discussion.

And, if anything, I don't think it bolsters the establishment narrative. Rather, I think it raises more doubts. If they are resorting to going after the messenger rather than countering the facts and arguments, it comes across as fishy to me.

As always, I greatly appreciate your comments and your willingness to engage.

A

i think it's amazing that you were able to track down my first ever post. same principle applies to health insurance. just as drafting all of congress and their spouses and kids into the army would get them to immediately pursue peace, just as not paying them would get them to draft a budget on time, if a large percentage of the medical profession refused to treat any member of Congress, full health coverage would happen next month.

JL

rep ryan, like many politicians on both sides of the aisle, sees people's health and lives as a political football. when the other side had the ball, endless cries of foul. now that his side has possession, suddenly it's rules out the window.

JL

My own Republican Rep was one of just 20 Republicans who bucked the party line on DonTCare (genius CW). I think he got a lot of mail on this. He's getting a nice letter, congratulating him on his reasoning skills and courage. It will also suggest that he become more courageous... ditch the GOP and become an Independent... if wants my vote next time.

I have found Global Research to be extremely unreliable when it comes to military matters. Make that many matters. Hell, make it most matters that I personally know anything about. They don't understand how systems work, and they don't bother to find out.

Case in point. GR inflated the number of bombs dropped by NATO on Libya by a factor of 4. How did they do this? - by counting pylons on various airplanes and assuming each pylon on each sortie carried a bomb, all bombs get dropped. Right? Simple, logical, wrong.

Pylons carry a lot of ordnance, notably fuel. Moreover, not all bombs get dropped - especially smart weapons...in the 21st century pilot's usually bring them back, except in extenuating circumstances (low fuel, battle damage etc). No target, no drop. The inflation was even worse if you considered tonnage - each pylon was assigned a 500 lb bomb, all bombs got dropped on each sortie. GR turned a very surgical* air campaign of smart weapons (reality) into Vietnam style carpet bombing (fantasy).

This sort of melon headed analysis is routine at GR. GR looks very slick and professional, with citations, but the articles being cited are all too often bogus. GR is a factory spinning conspiracy theories. Don't take my word on this, dig a little deeper, starting with:

http://politics.flackcheck.org/how-to-spot-fake-news-factcheck/?gclid=CN3GtqLX2NMCFQyraQodTNwLng

A leisure service of Annenberg Public Policy Center, which I consider an honest broker. There are many other reputable flak checkers that back them up. Use your Google.

* I hate this term, but it has come to be associated with an economical air campaign where it's pretty close to:

one smart weapon dropped = one target destroyed. Note that not all targets are properly identified.

For some reason, there hasn't been much reporting on the lawsuit filed against the DNC in the corporate media.

Here's a short article with an update

https://medium.com/theyoungturks/dnc-we-can-legally-choose-candidate-over-cigars-in-back-room-e3026730e252

Note the title... if they wanted to, the DNC lawyer Spiva claims they could bypass voters and the results of the primary elections.

He also claimed that the charter and bylaws do not create a contractual obligation.

"There’s no right to not have your candidate disadvantaged or have another candidate advantaged. There’s no contractual obligation here…it’s not a situation where a promise has been made that is an enforceable promise,” Spiva said.

"(lawyer for the plaintiffs) Beck pointed out that the neutrality pledge isn’t only stated in the charter?—?former Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz went on national television many times referencing the charter and the DNC’s pledge to be neutral."

Got that?
The DNC and downer donor Debbie were lying while soliciting donations... AKA fraud.

A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9hPwbc8JZo

Jimmy Dore interviews Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett... he goes off on one long rant in there, but for the most part let's her do most of the talking... for those who haven't warmed up to Jimmy yet... yes, that's a joke.

A

The Australian professor who wrote this is being viciously attacked in an attempt to discredit his summary using publicly available sources of what has happened in Syria.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/chemical-fabrications-east-ghouta-and-syrias-missing-children/5442334?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles

His article notes all his source material at the end.

Like numerous academics and journalists who have been questioning the official narrative, he is being demonized in the exact same manner as those who questioned the official narrative about Iraq in 2003.

And, just as a refresher for those who have forgotten (not you CW), the "conspiracy theorists" in 2003 were the government and the majority of the US population who believed their lies.
Not the people who questioned the narrative.

A