Bowling Green Massacre

[pgwenthold]

Kellyanne Conway’s ‘Bowling Green massacre’ wasn’t a slip of the tongue. She has said it before.

This looks like something that she was trying out, to see how far she could go. Her first attempts passed through without a problem, so she stuck with it.

Until she got called on it.

This is marketing, not a mistake.

 

[pgwenthold]

Preaching to the choir. Atlanta was pretty far back to fit in the context of justifying the contemporary need for the Muslim Ban, so I think he was just extra sloppy. Kind of an 'oh, some brown guy shot people down South, throw that in too' way of thinking. Solely on Atlanta, indifference. On the size of inaugural crowd, Bowling Green, etc, just lying.

It's not sloppiness, it is deliberate embellishment. He says it because it sounds better to add more in there, irrespective of whether it belongs. So he just slips it in hoping that no one will notice...

It's like when Terry the Toad tried to buy booze in American Graffiti

Let me have a Three Musketeers, and a ball point pen, and one of those combs there, a pint of Old Harper, a couple of flash light batteries and some beef jerky.

He thought he could slip in the pint of Old Harper and the store guy wouldn't notice.

 

[Cain]

It's not sloppiness, it is deliberate embellishment.

While the print interview indicates she did not mis-speak, I'd still say the error was probably due to sloppiness rather than malice. How do we know she didn't believe that there was a massacre? If she mistakenly believed something that was false, then we can say she lied when she said she "mis-spoke," or had a slip of the tongue.

I've repeatedly stated a mistaken belief to audiences when I should have known better. In my lecture for my American Government course, for a few years I would talk about John Marshall, and casually add that he was the second Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. I had always known Jay was first and, given the timeline, just assumed Marshall was second. It was awhile before someone corrected me and said Marshall was fourth.

As I've said all along, Trump is an extension of Bushworld. With Bush, critics kept insisting the administration knew Iraq didn't have WMDs, but lied about it. The more accurate, restrained claim is that they lied about the quality of their evidence, the threat posed by Hussein, etc. I'm sure they sincerely believed Iraq possessed something. Too many people obsessed over big, sky-is-orange lies when the provable problem was the administration's dangerous incompetence.

 

[quadraginta]

The comment I referred to was Spicer's use of Atlanta as opposed to Orlando. I do think he meant Orlando, giving him the benefit of the doubt, but that he doesn't seemed concerned if it was applicable to his justification of the Muslim Ban. I see this as indifference to fact rather than promoting alternative versions.

Is there a point at which you ever quit giving these slimeballs "the benefit of the doubt", or is it a permanent Get Out Of Jail Free card?

 

[quadraginta]

While the print interview indicates she did not mis-speak, I'd still say the error was probably due to sloppiness rather than malice. How do we know she didn't believe that there was a massacre? If she mistakenly believed something that was false, then we can say she lied when she said she "mis-spoke," or had a slip of the tongue.

<snip>

I'm not inclined to be that forgiving with her, taking into account her past record of dissembling.

But even if it were to be the case, that doesn't really make things any better, At her level of authority she bears a responsibility to vet the substance of the "facts" she regurgitates. The buck has to stop somewhere. The Trump sure ain't gonna take it, and there's nobody else above her in the chain of responsibility.

If she doesn't know what she's talking about she should just shut up.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

While the print interview indicates she did not mis-speak, I'd still say the error was probably due to sloppiness rather than malice. How do we know she didn't believe that there was a massacre? If she mistakenly believed something that was false, then we can say she lied when she said she "mis-spoke," or had a slip of the tongue.

I've repeatedly stated a mistaken belief to audiences when I should have known better. In my lecture for my American Government course, for a few years I would talk about John Marshall, and casually add that he was the second Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. I had always known Jay was first and, given the timeline, just assumed Marshall was second. It was awhile before someone corrected me and said Marshall was fourth.

As I've said all along, Trump is an extension of Bushworld. With Bush, critics kept insisting the administration knew Iraq didn't have WMDs, but lied about it. The more accurate, restrained claim is that they lied about the quality of their evidence, the threat posed by Hussein, etc. I'm sure they sincerely believed Iraq possessed something. Too many people obsessed over big, sky-is-orange lies when the provable problem was the administration's dangerous incompetence.

I could see this POV. But Conway gave herself away when she momentarily choked on the term, "alternative facts", when talking to Chuck Todd, then couldn't keep a straight face immediately after.

Watch and see: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre...secretary-gave-alternative-facts-860142147643

The choke on the word happens starting a second before minute 2 and the smile slips in just after that.

Skip the first 2 minutes, it's just Conway trying to equate their false facts with the mistake about the bust of MLK in the Oval Office being removed.

 

[trustbutverify]

While the print interview indicates she did not mis-speak, I'd still say the error was probably due to sloppiness rather than malice. How do we know she didn't believe that there was a massacre? If she mistakenly believed something that was false, then we can say she lied when she said she "mis-spoke," or had a slip of the tongue.

On a scale of 1-10, how incompetent and willfully negligent does a top-level presidential Counselor have to be in order to convince themselves that something called the "Bowling Green Massacre" occurred without a shred of evidence?

 

[quadraginta]

On a scale of 1-10, how incompetent and willfully negligent does a top-level presidential Counselor have to be in order to convince themselves that something called the "Bowling Green Massacre" occurred without a shred of evidence?

Eleven?

 

[CapelDodger]

Eleven?

After decades of development we now have one that goes up to 12.

 

[trustbutverify]

After decades of development we now have one that goes up to 12.

Technology to the rescue.

 

[Trebuchet]

She either believed there was a "massacre" or did not. If the latter, she's simply a liar. If the former, she's really, really stupid. Or at the least, extremely ignorant, like her boss. Please tell me how it's anything else.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It also turns out after the two Iraqis in Bowling Green who were encouraged to give money to ISIS by the FBI were tried, the vetting process was seriously revised.

It was on CNN I don't want to hunt down a citation, but maybe someone else can.

 

[bruto]

It also turns out after the two Iraqis in Bowling Green who were encouraged to give money to ISIS by the FBI were tried, the vetting process was seriously revised.

It was on CNN I don't want to hunt down a citation, but maybe someone else can.

I wouldn't be surprised, but does it matter? It is, after all, already an unreported non massacre about which we know from the reports that the perpetrators (aka bad bad hombres) were caught and dealt with before harm was done. In other words, we're already using the success of the system to prove that it's broken and the reports to prove that it was unreported - just as Trump during the debates so masterfully proved that Obama is soft on illegal aliens by pointing out that he's deported more than anyone else. Against such ironclad logic mere puny facts bounce and roll away.

 

[Meadmaker]

I doubt it.

I think Trump supporters would generally lean towards "Sucks to be her, but have to keep the terrorists out!"

Sure. Supporters do that. They support. For partisans, nothing you say will persuade them, so in electoral calculations, they're irrelevant. They are a background to be overcome. They aren't going away. Fourty percent or so of the people are going to vote Republican no matter what.

So how to appeal to the rest of them? When it comes to the core idea behind the proposal, which is that the US would be better off if we were very, very, careful about admitting people from Yemen, Syria, et. al, it's a really tough sell that this is a bad idea. Let's see. How is my life better if I have more Yemeni neighbors? Hmmm......I'm drawing a blank here, to be honest. I did have a Syrian coworker who was quite good at her job. That's a plus. And an Iraqi....but he was Chaldean, so Trump would let him in anyway. But, really, trying to say that there is no problem and that we should let them in if they want to come is just a losing argument.

So what's left? I think humanitarian grounds is about all there is. Even if you accept the idea that we ought to have tighter borders and let in fewer middle eastern Muslims, it's really hard to argue that it's a good idea to turn someone around who managed to scrape enough money together for a plane ticket and whose family was waiting at the airport, or that an infant who needs heart surgery is just collateral damage. The hard core Trump supporters will not merely accept that result, they will pat themselves on the back for making the tough choices necessary to protect Americans. However, for sane people, not many will be happy about needing to get a court order to keep a little girl alive.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Preaching to the choir. Atlanta was pretty far back to fit in the context of justifying the contemporary need for the Muslim Ban, so I think he was just extra sloppy. Kind of an 'oh, some brown guy shot people down South, throw that in too' way of thinking. Solely on Atlanta, indifference. On the size of inaugural crowd, Bowling Green, etc, just lying.

The Press Corps should just sucker-punch him.

"Phil Fleegle KPTV News, here: Mr. Spicer, we realize that you simply stated Atlanta when you meant to say Orlando. Do we understand that you are saying those three attacks could have been prevented by this travel ban?"

Spicer: "Fleeble flobble security smopple poop we need to be safe."

"Rad Weatherwax Dog Breeders Monthly, Mr. Spicer. The President, then, wants to ban travelers from Russia, Afghanistan and Pakistan? Because that's where those shooters' families originated. But I notice that none of those countries are on the list."




"

 

[Meadmaker]

It also turns out after the two Iraqis in Bowling Green who were encouraged to give money to ISIS by the FBI were tried, the vetting process was seriously revised.

It was on CNN I don't want to hunt down a citation, but maybe someone else can.

I saw a woman on TV saying the same thing. She was....hmm...KellyAnne somethingoranother. Maybe I'll think of it.

 

[ddt]

It also turns out after the two Iraqis in Bowling Green who were encouraged to give money to ISIS by the FBI were tried, the vetting process was seriously revised.

It was on CNN I don't want to hunt down a citation, but maybe someone else can.

It was indeed. And the revision seriously slowed down the number of refugees admitted. But it never amounted to a ban, which is what KellyLiarAnne claimed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I wouldn't be surprised, but does it matter? It is, after all, already an unreported non massacre about which we know from the reports that the perpetrators (aka bad bad hombres) were caught and dealt with before harm was done. In other words, we're already using the success of the system to prove that it's broken and the reports to prove that it was unreported - just as Trump during the debates so masterfully proved that Obama is soft on illegal aliens by pointing out that he's deported more than anyone else. Against such ironclad logic mere puny facts bounce and roll away.

No, the Bowling Green thing doesn't matter. The only point I had there was that the supposed deficient vetting is a myth. Trumpers are still bringing up the Bowling Green duo as if they prove Trump's point. But even if so, changes to vetting already followed the arrest of the dynamic duo.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sure. Supporters do that. They support. For partisans, nothing you say will persuade them, so in electoral calculations, they're irrelevant. They are a background to be overcome. They aren't going away. Fourty percent or so of the people are going to vote Republican no matter what.

So how to appeal to the rest of them? When it comes to the core idea behind the proposal, which is that the US would be better off if we were very, very, careful about admitting people from Yemen, Syria, et. al, it's a really tough sell that this is a bad idea. Let's see. How is my life better if I have more Yemeni neighbors? Hmmm......I'm drawing a blank here, to be honest. I did have a Syrian coworker who was quite good at her job. That's a plus. And an Iraqi....but he was Chaldean, so Trump would let him in anyway. But, really, trying to say that there is no problem and that we should let them in if they want to come is just a losing argument.

So what's left? I think humanitarian grounds is about all there is. Even if you accept the idea that we ought to have tighter borders and let in fewer middle eastern Muslims, it's really hard to argue that it's a good idea to turn someone around who managed to scrape enough money together for a plane ticket and whose family was waiting at the airport, or that an infant who needs heart surgery is just collateral damage. The hard core Trump supporters will not merely accept that result, they will pat themselves on the back for making the tough choices necessary to protect Americans. However, for sane people, not many will be happy about needing to get a court order to keep a little girl alive.

This post suggests you have lost sight of the key point. Trump claims we need "extreme vetting". He has yet to prove that is true beyond his incessant fear mongering.

What say you? Have you been snookered by Trump's unsupported claim our current vetting processes are inadequate?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I saw a woman on TV saying the same thing. She was....hmm...KellyAnne somethingoranother. Maybe I'll think of it.

By all means, do post a link to this extraordinary claim that, Conway admitted after said wanna be terrorists were tried, the vetting process was seriously revised.