February 03, 2009 04:30 PM
D.L. Hughley: A Man Can Take Us To War and Lie and We Won't Do a Damn Thing About That
I had to tune out the Blago stuff after a while, but check out D.L. Hughley's take.
Hughley: Now I listened to those tapes and I'm not going to hide my affinity for this guy. I never met him before then but to me we have become such a trivial place that we will impeach a man for having sex, or lying about having sex with a woman. In California we will impeach a guy because he raises taxes on license plates because energy gets out of control. We'll impeach a guy for saying some things on tape. But a man can take us to war and lie and we won't do a damn thing about that. That makes me so mad.
Here's the video....
Right on D.L., the netherworld we live in has a media that reports every last detail about Paris Hilton and ignores an avalanche of lies and contradictions about decisions that would kill a million people, most of them completely innocent.
Bizarroworld.
Radix Omnium Malorum Avaritia
1000 stations dominating the country with GOP-coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition to a crowd the size of the one that voted for obama decides what hypocrisy is. nothing is better for making molehills into mountains. and it's all GOP propaganda.
What lie? Really... won't Iraq be better off now or would they be better off with Saddam? Did Saddam not pay Suicide bombers families for killing innocent people? Not to mention he was behind genocide?
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
Saddam committed genocide, so it's ok if we commit genocide? Is that what your mom taught you; do unto others the way the worst does unto you?
I can't believe you said, "what lie?" Unless you're asking which of Bush's many lies this refers to.
But if you're asking, "what lie?", as in, you deny any lie was told, not on the basis of a lack of evidence that a lie was told, but on the basis that someone else told a lie first, then you are fully engaged in situational ethics, also known as rationalizing to do whatever you want and blame someone else.
EVERY reason given for invading Iraq was a lie.
And as for the truly obscene question conservatives just love to use as a rationalization for invading Iraq: "won't Iraq be better off now or would they be better off with Saddam?", the answer is this: Not the dead Iraqis.
And wouldn't it have been nice if the Iraqis we slaughtered in our bogus quest to give them "freedom" had had any choice at all in the murderous manner we chose to shock and awe them out of their oppression?
It may surprise you to know that many Iraqis may have preferred to keep their loved ones, not to mention their arms, legs, eyes, homes, jobs, electricity, clean water, and the only secular society in the Middle East, rather than what we have left them with.
You're either with'em or against 'em!
A president will take us to war and lie about it.
FDR? He knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor.
LBJ? He fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incidents.
GWB? Do you believe the accepted facts of 9-11?
between Roosevelt and the Japanese government that the Japanese would leave the Pearl Harbor fuel dumps alone, too?
You should do some reading on the history of BOTH the Purple code and the JN-25 code.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
unlike the lies about Gulf of Tonkin (we fired the first shot). And the fact that GWB had received a PDB that stated bin Laden was determined to strike the US and mentioned planes as weapons for the strike is indisputable.
But the Pearl Harbor stuff -- a load of old tosh, until you have proof. And speculation based on tenuous inference by a bunch of tinfoil hatters doesn't qualify.
me-oww!
I agree Miss Kitty. The idea that FDR "knew about Pearl Harbor" is speculation and erroneous reasoning. Some examples: the US did have the Japanese code broken but that didn't mean they had real time access to all their messages. Not even close. First of all they only had about 3/4 of the code broken. They couldn't read everything. Also the decoding and translation process took a long time. They didn't have enough translators back then either. Also, it not like the Japanese broadcast things like "we attack pearl harbor tomorrow" in that code. They broadcast operational directives using coded names. The US Naval Doctrine of the time expected a Japanese first strike to come against the Phillipines. Pearl Harbor was thought to be too distant and well defended. It was the Japanese audacity and ingenuity (new tactics such as finding a way to make their torpedoes, their primary ship killing weapon, to work in the shallow water of the harbor) that made the attack such a surprise and success. Finally, if the US Navy had known about the attack they would have focused on saving the battleships, not the carriers. It was only after Pearl Harbor and the Coral Sea that both sides came to understand that the carrier was their most strategic naval weapon.
I'm a bit surprised at this. I thought there was more "evidence" showing that if FDR didn't plan it in advance (after all, he was trying to get the US into the war) then he at least knew it was coming and did nothing to stop it.
of course that ain't sexy enough for some people, so they have to do the whole "Roosevelt knew it"
So what?
It almost sounds as if it was FDR who forced the Japanese to torpedo the shit out of the sitting Pacific fleet.
Exactly. I also think its sad that some people on the left can't recognize a president who was a great man and a model for progressives. And speaking of FDR, one other noteworthy fact is that one of his previous jobs was under secretary of the Navy. As president he took an imense amount of pride in the Navy. The idea that he could coldly plot to let the Japanese sink the pride of the fleet in ships and men seems totally inconsistent with his personality.
reason that he held the office for 12 years. There is also a reason that they don't allow that anymore. They wanted to make sure that nobody could do that much for the people again. If only we had FDR around today.
That it WAS GWB's grandfather, Prescott who was at the forefront of pushing the legislation that made the amendment for Term Limits for the President.
In a way, thank Goodness for that....Can you imagine MORE stolen elections in the bag for the Republicans?
as you probably know also was part of a plan to overthrow FDR and install a musolini style dictatorship: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/...
which was foiled and exposed due to Smedly Butler. So at least on the term limits he was using legal means to fight him. BTW, Butler was a very interesting guy. A part of the war machine that spread US influence and colonialism but in other ways a very courageous and ethical person.
FDR did want us to fight the war in Europe, not the Pacific.
King George VI was begging us to join the fight, but FDR had to explain that it wasn't up to him to make that decision alone.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
It was a very, very short-term success. If the Japanese had prioritized correctly (Carriers being the top priority, but fuel depots the secondary target for the bombers and fighters on strafing runs, rather than the battleships), the US Pacific fleet would have had to run all it's operations out of San Francisco, Long Beach and San Diego for a very long time. The Japanese could have forced a peace on their terms in 1943 if they had been able to take Midway in June of 1942.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
You said it brother! America is sick of the Liberal Lies its time for us to stand up!
Let's hope powerful people will have the courage to say what DL say's.
Many will have much to loose so it will be difficult for them to face the truth.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
High Five to DL..... AMEN
Full Stop
me-oww!
just love to be around in 100 years(if any of us will) to see what the history books say about Chimpy McBush.
History will be written by the victors, the Bush/Cheney decendants.
and what can you say about a fool who intends to keep on following a lie and lead us into more war in afganistan?
Nobody was ever impeached in California. And Blago wasn't impeached for just saying some things on tape - he offered to sell a senate seat for personal gain. Hughley loses a lot of credibility when he can't get simple facts right
If he were a journalist, sure, there goes his cred, but even journalists fuck up with the facts, on purpose, with no seeming loss of cred.
Don't you have some misspellings and grammatical errors to point out somewhere?
me-oww!
Hughley doesn't lose as much credibility for mixing up "recalled" and "impeached" when discussing California, as George W. Bush loses when he sends us to Iraq on a pack of lies. I guess you missed the whole perspective thing D.L. was referring to.
the credibility of a comedian....
Remember bin Laden, the guy behind the 9/11 attacks? He's still there.
While Bush has been stuffing us in Iraq, the Taliban has reemerged. Pakistan has become unstable. And bin Laden has been free to pursue more terror training and planning.
It is far from foolish to help stabilize a region that ACTUALLY HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, to prevent it from falling into the hands of people WHO ACTUALLY HAVE ALREADY ATTACKED THE U.S.
Just because Iraq was foolish does not mean that EVERY foreign action the U.S. undertakes is also foolish.
....bin Laden is DEAD. And, so is Bhutto, 'cause she happened to tell us.
But, in the unlikely event I could be mistaken, we do still have John McCain who is going to tell us where OBL is hiding and then lead the strike force to get him. Then, all our worries will be over.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
cuz what happened the last time we did that
bush effed up the world...someone has to clean up his mess
and you dont know that bin laden is dead....you are assuming...
Yeah, the people who say been Laden is dead are all assuming. The only "proof" that I know of is the controversial interview with Bhutto who may or may not have misspoke. I want to believe he's dead, but I haven't read anything else that would convince me otherwise. Links, anyone?
you are also assuming that he is alive...no?
The man had advanced kidney disease 8 years ago; there have been no actual "sightings" of him in about that many years;
the last several video tapes and photos were obviously not OBL; the FBI/CIA closed down their "hunting for bin Laden" task force; Bhutto told David Frost he was murdered.
But, like I said, John McCain can clear it all up by leading us to his cave.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
I agree that there's a lot of circumstantial evidence leading one to believe that is, indeed, dead. But for me, its still cirumstantial. I did a whole bit on 9/11 having a ton of circumstantial evidence pointing to an inside job, but due to not wanting this whole thread deleted again, I won't carry on any further.
I had forgot about that nugget of assholery and fakery. What a dimwit and damn idiot. Thanks.
9/11. It's one of those lies that's been repeated often. South American countries harboured many many Nazis. I didn't notice any strafing runs on them for that.
No proof he was in Afghanistan.
In fact, talks between some Cheney interest and the Taliban over a pipeline broke off, with the Cheney side threatening to bomb Afghanistan into the stone age. Round about July 2001. Why'd they fall out? Well the government of Afghanistan thought they should be allowed some control over a big ugly ass pipe running through their country, and the Corporatist thought that was bang out of order for a bunch of guys who don't even wear suits.
The fact that so many self called liberals think aggression against Afghanistan is 'acceptable' 'a good war' is proof at how effective the CheneyBushCo PR machine really was. I nearly vomited when I heard Al Franken declare it was a good war. Boy there's someone I'd never pegged being that kind of an asshole. They made it about the women and that piece of clothing they have to wear.
Tell me, how is it in any way acceptable to bomb the fuck out of a country over one guy who may or may not be hiding there.
If bin Laden is still alive, he is on dialysis, either in Pakistan, or more likely in Saudi Arabia, where his very large wealthy family lives. The dude would never survive in a cave with his kidneys packing it in.
me-oww!
I guess that explains why he's not on the FBI list being wanted for that crime?
does not equal guilt. Unless you are working with those assholes at the fuckin airport
me-oww!
there is NO good reason to have ever been in these countries. Everything we've accomplished could've been done with Clinton's intelligence community, missles and aircraft carriers.
The ground troops were unnecessary except for KBR Halliburton stockholders and Rumsfeld's pharmaceutical profits.
The Taliban was never destroyed because opportunist Bush saw a way to fulfill his dream of revenge against Saddam for dissing Poppi Bush in Desert Storm and the moron invaded Iraq.
If Saddam had the capability to produce a "mushroom cloud", as Bush, Cheney, Condi repeated ad nauseum, wouldn't that 8 day trek across the desert in the open have been simpleminded?
A low yield neutron bomb in the center of Baghdad would've been enough to have the Iraqis scurrying to the desert for good and today there would be 4000+ Americans alive
Nice to see a little perspective kick in from time to time. It's easy to get lost in all this political haywire going on around us.
The fact is, both the "Clinton Scandal" and the California "Energy Crisis" are examples of the same thing:
Bloodless coups.
Far from scandals, both of these events were meticulously orchestrated by Republicans to OVERTHROW democratically elected officials.
CLINTON: The Republican-controlled House and Senate wrote a blank check to a completely biased "independent" prosecutor to investigate unsubstantiated accusations on the Clintons' real estate dealings. After $50 million in taxpayer dollars spent, they came up with nothing but a consensual affair. But that didn't stop them from attempting a coup.
DAVIS: Prior REPUBLICAN Governor Pete Wilson deregulated the Energy companies in California, and left the problem with Davis. Cheney then conspired with Enron to rig prices and create artificial energy shortages. THEN, when they'd sufficiently made Davis look bad, they paid to get enough signatures for a recall election (which obviously wasn't hard).
Unfortunately, the media was absent and the damage has been done.
thing is...there was one guy who was screaming to the rafters that there was no energy crisis in cali...that was mr kabc
everyday he would get on the air and prove that there was no crisis, and that the power companies were manipulating the system
but he was the only one
of course, now he is out of a job, because he doesnt fit into any specific talk radio niche
is Mr. KABC? I've never heard that name before.
Davis didn't know what hit him. Enron had the fix on him as soon as he took that office. As far as Clinton goes, I bet that there are some middle of the roaders out there thinking that after the last 8 years, maybe that BJ wasn't so bad after all. Some of the people who bought in to Bush's "restoring honor and dignity to the Oval Office" stuff.
...and Gubbner Arnold's legacy of screwing the little people for wealthy ranchers and huge research firms goes on even this minute.
I've always been a big fan of Hughley, and this is just one reason.
Sorry, D.L.-
that's been 'off the table' for a good while now.
To me this seems analogous to the OJ defense. Because the society is corrupt and defiicint on some ways we are supposed to let some crook get away with his crimes. Of course Bush is a much greater criminal than Blago but that doesn't make Blago innocent. Democrats should use this to highlight the difference between us and the Republicans. When one of ours is guilty we don't defend him we seek to remove him. That's as it should be. I also think its misleading to compare Blago to Clinton. Clinton didn't violate the public trust. He never should have even been asked the questions about the BJ let alone gotten impeached for them.
Although it is a tiresome subject, it still evokes the same feelings every time I hear about it again and again. Personally I cant ever be comfortable with being lied to.
Such common sense is lacking from the masses of morons and apologists. Thanks Hughley for speaking the obvious that so many cowards afraid of a Texas monkey dare not speak.
Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. Albert Einstein
Hughley's point is well taken. Unfortunately he errs when he states that " But a man can take us to war and 'we' won't do a damn thing about that." For some unknown reason, Hughley does not acknowledge Obama talking out of both sides of his mouth when he told George S. on This Week that war crimes should be investigated if [if?] they have been committed but in the same breath he then states that it is time to "look forward." People are prosecuted in this country because of the crimes that they had committed in the past. As John Dean, Jonathan Turley and other legal scholars have pointed out, if Obama and his administration do not choose to prosecute one of the most corrupt and criminal administrations in the history of the United States, then Obama's claim of being an agent of hope and change rings quite hollow indeed as it would appear that he would have no desire to respect and honor the rule of law.
Obama will have to show he is a man of principle. All Americans are held to account for crimes under our laws. By simply looking passed these war crimes and crimes against humanity Obama will loose any credibility his propaganda campaign has gained him.
I will not hold my breath as I know Obama is in bed with the globalist enemies of the United States of America.
Obama is not not my president, neither was George W. Bush.
I've been saying that since 2003. Where's my talk show?!
I've been watching a bit of D.L. lately....I like the guy. Speaks a lot of truth, and he is a funny guy. (Not saying I agree with him on his apparent defense of Blago....I'm originally from Illinois and have voted for he guy twice, but I'm glad he's gone)
All we need is for everyone in America to say this over and over and over. The media and the Administration need to hear the roar of angry Americans. There will be no justice until we demand it and the government has to give it to us.
Try overdue parking tickets, forgeting to pay for your gas and driving off.
It seems our two tiered justice system is meant to apply the harshest and teach te strongest lesson to those of the middle class and poor.
Heck, just lying to your boss gets you fired. We didn't even fire him.
What does katrina's Brownie, Madoff and all the Wall Street biggie CEO's have have in common?
NOT ONE OF THEM, AT THE LEAST WERE FIRED.................
I am sure Obama made deal with idiot Bush and agreed not to force war crime charges against Bush and Chenney because Obama himself has some dirty laundry.
in any other country of the world, both Bush and Chenney would have been tried as war criminals. Everyone knows Iraq war was based on lies which killed 5000 innocent young Americans, disabled more than 50000, and killed millions on innocent Iraqi citizens.
Hughley is right, we must back Democrats, like House leader Polasi, who wants to prosecute Bush and Chenney.
Though I've only tuned into his show a paltry few times, I just come away with the impression that this guy is somehow either out of place, not entirely true to himself and/or not tracking a coherent groove. Sorry to say, in general, I'm just not 'getting' him.
An aside: does anyone imagine he's a bit light in the loafers, as well?...As am I. (Not here to out or crucify- just wondering)
Please feel free to enlighten me, set me 'straight' or otherwise 'talk me down' (as Rachel might have it)!
Comments are closed on this entry