Page Six Should Stop Lying And Show Some Class
Anyone who reads this site even occasionally knows full well that we despise MSNBC detest Keith Olbermann. Having said that, the NY Post’s Page Six gossip column is really becoming a joke. Granted, it’s never been taken that seriously but lately it’s really becoming absurd.
There’s plenty of stuff to write about the loathsome Keith Olbermann without resorting to lies. I’m all for Olbermann hit pieces provided they’re true. Besides the lies, what’s really offensive is that Page Six used the much loved and recently deceased Tony Snow to go after Olbermann. The man hasn’t even been buried yet, and for Page Six to use him in that way is disgusting and disgraceful.
Here’s what Page Six said:
KEITH Olbermann is once again disrespecting the dead. The MSNBC blowhard - who was overheard jockeying for Tim Russert’s “Meet the Press” gig during Russert’s memorial reception in Washington last month - is now inventing a friendship with former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow. Olbermann released a statement after Snow’s death Saturday, calling him “optimistic, funny and courageous . . . While we could not have disagreed more on policy, we were in frequent contact, even during his days as Press Secretary.” But a true friend of Snow’s says Olbermann had “no relationship with Tony, at all.” In fact, Olbermann named Snow his “Worst Person in the World” on Jan. 9, 2007, accusing him of lying about President Bush’s 2003 “mission accomplished” speech. Olbermann hissed, “You’re just baldfaced lying. You were hired to lie . . . We’re not all third-graders out here.” A rep for Olbermann didn’t get back to us.
Page Six knows full well that Keith and Tony did in fact correspond via email. It’s true that Olbermann named him “Worst Person” on occasion, but does anyone really take that seriously? Olbermann has referenced his correspondence with Tony Snow numerous times over the last two years, long before Snow’s death. He also said long before Snow’s death that they were enemies professionally, but personally he thought Snow was a good guy.
Page Six knows this, but they’re apparently too lazy to go out and find some real dirt on Olbermann and write a legitimate piece.
Like I said, I’m no water carrier for Olbermann but when something is a lie it should be called out. But there’s no excuse for dragging Tony Snow into the FNC/Olby fued. That’s not the kind of guy Tony Snow was and it’s outrageous to disrespect his memory in that way.
Page Six should show a little class and let the man be buried in peace.
-Chris Jones
The McClellan Book: A Weapon Of Mass Deception
An article in today’s Washington Post reveals startling new details about just how Scott McClellan’s book came to be.
Peter Osnos , the founder of Public Affairs, the left-wing company that published “What Happened,” described Scott’s initial book ideas as a “a not-very-interesting, typical press secretary book.”
Osnos said McClellan just needed “editorial guidance” to tell the story he wanted to tell all along. Which sounds to me like a pretty stunning admission.
Roughly translated, Osnos is saying that Scott initially turned in a boring (and likely accurate) book and those books don’t sell. So Osnos gave Scott some “editorial guidance” and together they produced the hatchet job your reading today!
To further prove my point, Osnos told the Washington Post this:
“First we had to ascertain what kind of book he wanted to write,” said Osnos, a former Washington Post reporter and editor. “We are journalists, independent-minded publishers. We weren’t interested in a book that was just a defense of the Bush administration. It had to pass our test of independence, integrity and candor.”
Yet another stunning admission from Osnos. He’s basically saying that Public Affairs wasn’t interested in publishing a defense of the Bush Administration. Scott’s book needed to pass their test of “independence, integrity, and candor.”
The “integrity, independence, and candor” Osnos refers to means that Scott’s book would have to conform to specific liberal talking points if Public Affairs was going to publish the book.
Which explains why Scott’s former boss Ari Fleisher said he was blind sided by the book. Fleisher said he kept in touch with Scott and spoke to him several times over the last year. He said Scott told him the book would be complimentary to the President, but admitted taking some shots at Rove and Libby.
Then when he saw the book he couldn’t believe what he was reading. Moreover, everyone who knows Scott says the way the book reads doesn’t sound like him at all. Bartlett, Rove, Perrino, and Fleisher all say that he doesn’t write like that and it sounds like someone else.
Clearly, Scott’s publisher took the book and did a complete overhaul on it. Nearly every accusation leveled at the administration by left-wing blogs concerning the Iraq war, Valerie Plame, and more, over the last few years is included in the book.
The final icing on the cake is the George Soros connection to all this. PublicAffairs Books is owned by Perseus Books Group. Perseus Books Group is owned by Perseus Funds Group. Perseus Funds Group has a holding company called Perseus LLC which has several joint ventures with George Soros.
NYT Memorial Day Attack Filled With Lies And Distortions
The New York Times apparently thought Memorial Day would be an especially good day for a hit piece on President Bush and John McCain.
The editorial in today’s NYT really is a disgrace. It’s filled with so many lies and distortions that if the paper really doesn’t have a left-wing agenda they should probably find a new editor since he clearly doesn’t edit.
The first and probably most outrageous statement in the piece goes after President Bush for having “squandered” soldiers lives in an “unwinnable war”. I’m sure families who lost a loved one in Iraq really enjoyed the cowardly New York Times calling their sacrifice a waste.
Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.
The second part of the above quote is also false. President Bush never said the new G.I. Bill was “too generous” he simply said the educational benefits should be an incentive to re-enlist. Basically, you would get half the benefits for your first enlistment, and the other half after your second.
Staggering the benefits will allow the military to retain its best and brightest at a time when they’re need most. It’s not just President Bush who thinks the new G.I. Bill should be changed, but the Secretary of Defense, The Joint Chiefs, and all the military’s top brass including General Petraeus.
The President never disagreed with the benefits in the bill, but merely how they’re offered. But the editorial again makes this false assertion:
Mr. Bush — and, to his great discredit, Senator John McCain — have argued against a better G.I. Bill, for the worst reasons. They would prefer that college benefits for service members remain just mediocre enough that people in uniform are more likely to stay put.
They wouldn’t prefer that, so the NYT is again lying.
The final part of the Memorial Day hit piece goes to make more false claims, mischaracterizations, and outright lies.
They have seized on a prediction by the Congressional Budget Office that new, better benefits would decrease re-enlistments by 16 percent, which sounds ominous if you are trying — as Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain are — to defend a never-ending war at a time when extended tours of duty have sapped morale and strained recruiting to the breaking point.
Their reasoning is flawed since the C.B.O. has also predicted that the bill would offset the re-enlistment decline by increasing new recruits — by 16 percent. The chance of a real shot at a college education turns out to be as strong a lure as ever. This is good news for our punishingly overburdened volunteer army, which needs all the smart, ambitious strivers it can get.
The parts in bold are either totally false or misleading. The first part in bold talks of “sapped morale” and “strained recruiting” both of which are nonsense.
I don’t know which troops they took the time to talk with (likely none) but the morale of our military has never been higher.
The second part in bold is wrong, but is likely a result of complete ignorance on military matters rather than the usual left-wing bias.
Nobody has argued that the bill would offset re-enlistment by increasing new recruits, but that’s precisely the problem.
New recruits are great, but right now the military is trying to keep the very people the Times editorial acknowledges would leave. The idea is to retain experienced battle hardened soldiers who can aide in ongoing missions and train new recruits.
A 16 percent decrease in experienced soldiers being offset with a 16 percent increase in “virgin” soldiers would be a disaster for our armed forces.
The New York Times doesn’t know what the hell they’re talking about as usual, but the least they could do is wait to print their fresh lies and distortions the day after Memorial Day.
Obama Adv: Obama Never Said He would Meet With Iran Without Precondition
Thanks to Hot Air for pointing out the latest lies and distortions from the NY Times. In a piece about John McCain allegedly trying to tie Obama with Hamas, an outright lie is made by an Obama advisor.
Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”
Here’s what Obama’s campaign website says:
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
Just in case Barry’s team tries to change the website and claim it never said that, I captured the entire page which you can look at HERE.
Want more proof?
In the following clip, Barack Obama says he will meet with Iran without preconditions:
Hillary Clinton Invents Another Story (Updated)
Fresh on the heels of her false sniper story, Hillary Clinton has been caught telling another made up story. Repeatedly over the last month Clinton has told the story of a pregnant woman named Trina Bechtel who was denied treatment at an Ohio hospital because she did not have $100 the hospital demanded to treat her.
The hospital says that story is totally false and not only is Trina Bechtel very much alive, but she also had health insurance!!
Clinton had told her audiences the woman, Trina Bechtel, returned to the hospital days later with severe complications. She says the woman and her baby died after being taken to another hospital for specialized care.
The story was cited by Clinton as evidence of the need for universal healthcare.
The hospital — O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio, which is not named in the story — has demanded Clinton stop telling the story, claiming it is inaccurate.
The hospital said Bechtel was being treated at an affiliated practice prior to her complications, and she did have insurance, Fox News reported.
It’s absolutely incredible that Hillary Clinton continues to be caught literally inventing elaborate stories out of thin air, but largely gets a pass from the left-wing media. How can people honestly believe that a person who constantly tells lies on the campaign trail is fit to be President?
Let me guess, she misspoke? She meant to say the woman was alive and had health insurance but it just came out wrong. Repeatedly…over and over again.
-Chris Jones
UPDATE:
In the interest of fairness it should be noted that unlike the sniper fire story, Sen. Clinton didn’t make-up the hospital story but was merely repeating a story she heard second hand that turned out to be false. Click HERE to read a detailed explanation of how the story originated.
A big thanks goes out to Hot Joints reader Cliff for making us aware of this new information.
-Chris Jones
Managing Editor
The Hot Joints
Hitchens: “The Tall Tale Of Tuzla”
Read why Christopher Hitchens says Hillary Clinton’s Bosnian misadventure should disqualify her from the presidency, and a whole lot more.
Video: Air Force Pilot Who Flew Clinton To Bosnia Speaks Out
New Republic Finally Admits Baghdad Diariest Is A Lier
After many months of denial and stonewalling The New Republic has finally admitted that Scott Thomas Beauchamp is a lier. The so called “Baghdad Diarist” spun terrific tales of cruelty by U.S. troops in Iraq, which he has sense admitted to the Army were false.
“We cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them,” Editor Franklin Foer wrote of the dispatches by Scott Thomas Beauchamp. “Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories.”
In the New Republic case, Foer acknowledged a key “mistake” in checking on whether Beauchamp lied or exaggerated in writing that U.S. soldiers had made fun of a disfigured woman, run over dogs for sport and played with an Iraqi child’s skeletal remains. Foer said Beauchamp’s wife, Elspeth Reeve, then a researcher at the magazine, was assigned “a large role” in checking the story. While Reeve acted in good faith, he said, “there was a clear conflict of interest.”
Foer said he recognizes that some of the corroboration was coming from “Beauchamp’s buddies” and that the private “sounded defensive and evasive” in trying to explain why he initially placed the allegedly disfigured woman in Iraq rather than Kuwait.
-Chris Jones
Why The Far-Left Is Terrified of Rudy Giuliani
Frank Rich and other ridiculously far-left columnists never miss an opportunity to write a hit piece on Rudy Giuliani. They love to show pictures of him in costumes that they allege shows he’s a “cross dresser.” They love to mention how many wives he’s had and the funniest of all the charges is that he was a terrible Mayor for the city of New York.
That last charge is probably one of the most foolish claims ever uttered in an election campaign. People who live in New York and are not blinded by far-left ideology know damn well that Rudy may be many things, but a bad Mayor he was not.
Anyone who has either lived in or at least visited New York before Rudy was Mayor, while he was Mayor, and after he was Mayor know the truth. New York City was a dirty, dangerous, and crime ridden, stink hole before Rudy was Mayor. Central Park was not a place for anyone except crack heads, and the only thing the subway was good for was a good old fashioned mugging.
Columnists like Frank Rich and Paul Krugman love to mock Rudy when he rattles off his accomplishments as Mayor of New York. Rich and Krugman are without a doubt two of the most dishonest columnists in the country anyway, but what makes their distortions of Giuliani especially egregious, is that they’re New Yorkers. They know full well the sad shape the city was in before Rudy and they know what an amazing place it is now. They try and credit anyone or anything for the 56% drop in crime, or the 66% reduction in homicides, except Rudy Giuliani.
The reason Rich, Krugman, and other far-left ideologues love to attack Rudy is because he is their worst nightmare as a Republican candidate. Unlike George W. Bush, Rudy is someone who appeals to a wide range of political persuasions.
Social conservatives can get behind him, because Pat Robertson is supporting him. Moderate Democrats who at one time were just called Democrats can support Rudy, because of his liberal views on abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues. Democrats who believe this country should have a strong National Security are gonna support Rudy as well.
In effect Rudy represents the best qualities of the old Democratic party (the Lieberman, JFK wing) and the best qualities of the Republican Party.
That is why the far-left is feverishly trying to create any controversy possible that might cast doubt in voters minds about his candidacy.
Frank Rich’s column today is about the Bernard Kerik Idictment, and the recently filed lawsuit by disgraced publishing diva Judith Regan. Regan makes the charge that officials at Newscorp (which owns Fox News) encouraged her to lie to the Feds about her relationship with Bernard Kerik, because it could possibly damage the Giuliani campaign.
What that has to do with her being fired after bringing a ton of heat down on Rupert Murdoch and Newscorp after the O.J. Simpson book debacle, is anyone’s guess. I think she may have just been spending too much time with Dan Rather, but lets hope his insanity hasn’t spread any further.
There has been nothing but vociferous condemnation of Rudy Giuliani from the left, even when it was only a whisper that he was thinking about running for President. I expect this will continue, because after all this is politics. I just think it’s important to separate fact from fiction about all the candidates, and the attacks on Rudy’s record as Mayor of New York are quite simply nonsense.
Posts
