Franken, bit fat hypocrit

[corplinx]

I was amused tonight to find a website about lies by Al Franken

So now I guess we can expect yet another Coulter or O'Reilly book talking about what Franken got wrong (and citing the website like Franken cited Salon/Spinsanity). Then Franken can write another book about what they got wrong. And all this time I can just ignore the non-fiction section at the library.

Sorry for the flamebait thread title. I don't actually vouch for any of the mistakes the website claims as I haven't researched them and really don't care. I really did stumble across it accidentally.

And yes, I mispelled "big fat hypocrit"

 

[fishbob]

Bill O'R was hyping this site the other day. Hmmmm, coincidence?

 

[El Greco]

When you say "bit fat" you mean 32-bit FAT or 16-bit FAT ?

 

[Cain]

I saw this site a couple days ago. I've also lent out my copy of the book so checking some parts would be difficult (like, say, lie 13).

"Lie" Nine is rather pathetic for anyone who followed that affair.

"Lie" 11 is particularly humorous given Suskind's new book that quotes the President admitting the first tax cut was for rich people.

 

[Snide]

So now I guess we can expect yet another Coulter or O'Reilly book talking about what Franken got wrong (and citing the website like Franken cited Salon/Spinsanity). Then Franken can write another book about what they got wrong. And all this time I can just ignore the non-fiction section at the library.

No, just wait for the paperback. Franken will likely correct the real mistruths. #16 is hilarious...the guy who put up that site ain't too bright.

 

[Tricky]

Bill O'R was hyping this site the other day. Hmmmm, coincidence?

BO'R was offered the chance to meet Franken on live TV and correct the "lies" himself. Oddly, he turned down this opportunity. Instead, he references a two bit flame site. Is he afraid to do his own dirty work?

 

[rikzilla]

Re: Re: Franken, bit fat hypocrit

No, just wait for the paperback. Franken will likely correct the real mistruths. #16 is hilarious...the guy who put up that site ain't too bright.

True!

Hell, everone knows that Al Franken is just as truthful as Micheal Moore! BAH!

-z

 

[corplinx]

for the record, i haven't seen the O'Reilly factor in quite a while

 

[corplinx]

"Lie" 11 is particularly humorous given Suskind's new book that quotes the President admitting the first tax cut was for rich people.

Yeah, the Suskind book is real canon to go by.

 

[clk]

I think Franken would be willing to revise his book if he knew of the factual errors. O'Reilly very rarely admits to being wrong, especially when he lies. I remember when someone found out that he (O'Reilly) had registered as a Republican. When asked about it, O'Reilly stated that he had no idea how that had happened, and he thought that he had registered as an Independent! I mean, how stupid does he think his viewers are? I'm sure his followers believed him, though.

 

[chulbert]

#17 seems to be half correct.

Franken claims:

"Of course, none of this horrible vandalism actually occurred ... Fourteen months later, this, the final investigation of the Clinton administration, yielded a 217-page report that found no damage to the White House nor to the Executive Office Building. ‘There is no record of damage that may have been deliberately caused by employees of the Clinton administration.’"

He's quite obviously wrong about the first part, as stated in the official report linked:

Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Incidents such as the removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers clearly were intentional acts.

The bold text, however, seems to be accurate: There is no record of the damage being attributed to Clinton administration employees according to the rest of the paragraph:

However, it was unknown whether other observations, such as broken furniture, were the result of intentional acts, when and how they occurred, or who may have been responsible for them. However, it was unknown whether other observations, such as broken furniture, were the result of intentional acts, when and how they occurred, or who may have been responsible for them. Further, with regard to stolen items, such as the presidential seal, because no one witnessed the thefts and many people were in the White House complex during the transition, it was not known who was responsible for taking them. Moreover, regarding other items reported missing, such as doorknobs, cellular telephones, and television remote controls, it was unknown whether all of them were thefts, and if they were, who was responsible for taking those items and when they were taken. Further complicating our attempt to determine the amount of damage that may have occurred was the lack of documentation directly corroborating some observations and our inability to reconcile certain observations only a few hours apart in locations where some people saw damage, vandalism, or pranks and where others saw none.

 

[Snide]

Re: Re: Re: Franken, bit fat hypocrit

True!

Hell, everone knows that Al Franken is just as truthful as Micheal Moore! BAH!

-z

My serious response to this is Moore is nowhere near Franken in accountability.

edited typo

 

[Cain]

Yeah, the Suskind book is real canon to go by.

That's not much of a reply, is it?

Has the administration formally denied this claim? It relies, I believe, not on Paul O'Neill's account, but a near verbatim transcript from someone at the meeting.

Anyway, it's not difficult to refute Bush's risible assertion or the fumbling apologetics on this site:

The lowest tax bracket under Bush's plan was reduced from 15 to 10 percent, a difference of 33 percent. No other tax bracket sees nearly such a change. Of course, if you want to look at the tax plan in pure dollars, as Franken does, Bush's plan is open to all sorts of spin.

These are marginal tax brackets, so the rich get the same break on that portion of their income. Since EVERYONE would get that tax break, why dones't Bush stop there? Or why doesn't he reduce that 15% to 5% and leave the rest of the tax code in tack?

Even Republicans discussing Bush's scheme conceded that the benefits are skewed to the top because the abused and oppressed rich pay the most in income taxes.

Let's look at "lie" 15: http://www.frankenlies.com/memo.htm

Sorry, Al. What was delivered to Bush, not by Tenet, but by a low-level Agency official1, was a report that the President receives every day. It's called the President's Daily Brief. The brief cited past actions and statements by bin Laden, but it did not report any specific threat of an attack within the United States.2 And the brief, as it always does, carried no title,3 contrary to Franken’s claim. The intelligence community was vigilant of possible threats overseas against U.S. interests.4

Franken and TeamFranken score another research winner ... NOT!

Notice the author included the "NOT!" joke. A bad sign.

I guess he's right that Tenet did not deliver the report and Franken is wrong. It's interesting that he seems to down play the brief by saying the President get it "every day". He's also right that it's not entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." (because those briefs don't have titles.) That was actually the headline.

As for the offical Clinton report about damage in the White House, the anonymous webmaster writes:

Here are some examples from a White House letter/report within the final GAO report.

Here's a snippet from a June 13, 2002 article in Salon:

So it's safe to say that a close reading of the GAO report doesn't validate the charges of wanton, widespread destruction by the Clinton team. What it does show is the lengths to which the Bush administration went to try to make the scandal charges stick. The White House issued its own 75-page answer to the draft GAO findings earlier this year, which is included in the final GAO report. It's a remarkable document, cataloguing rumor, innuendo, pranks and insults that the Bushies endured at the hands of the departing Democrats, even if they involved no physical damage whatsoever.

 

[corplinx]

That's not much of a reply, is it?

Has the administration formally denied this claim? It relies, I believe, not on Paul O'Neill's account, but a near verbatim transcript from someone at the meeting.

No, it wasn't much of a reply because I don't consider the book solid evidence yet. I would like to see more corroboration before I declare it canon to form assertions and opinions by. Wouldn't you?

 

[Troll]

That's not much of a reply, is it?

Has the administration formally denied this claim? It relies, I believe, not on Paul O'Neill's account, but a near verbatim transcript from someone at the meeting.

Anyway, it's not difficult to refute Bush's risible assertion or the fumbling apologetics on this site:



These are marginal tax brackets, so the rich get the same break on that portion of their income. Since EVERYONE would get that tax break, why dones't Bush stop there? Or why doesn't he reduce that 15% to 5% and leave the rest of the tax code in tack?

Even Republicans discussing Bush's scheme conceded that the benefits are skewed to the top because the abused and oppressed rich pay the most in income taxes.

Let's look at "lie" 15: http://www.frankenlies.com/memo.htm



Notice the author included the "NOT!" joke. A bad sign.

I guess he's right that Tenet did not deliver the report and Franken is wrong. It's interesting that he seems to down play the brief by saying the President get it "every day". He's also right that it's not entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." (because those briefs don't have titles.) That was actually the headline.

As for the offical Clinton report about damage in the White House, the anonymous webmaster writes:



Here's a snippet from a June 13, 2002 article in Salon:

I thought O'Neill made the claim because he was at the meeting. If not and he's going by another's story, then even in a US court it's hearsay at best, isn't it?

 

[Cain]

He was given a transcript by someone at the Economic Team meeting. The best quote is from Cheney, who dimisses Bush's second thoughts by saying "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

A private outburst of honesty doesn't really matter in the context of this "Franken lie" because the fake President's original claim -- that the majority of his tax cuts go to the bottom -- is demonstrably false.

 

[corplinx]

He was given a transcript by someone at the Economic Team meeting. The best quote is from Cheney, who dimisses Bush's second thoughts by saying "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

How convenient is it that in a book which seems to validate every single meme about the Bush administration, there is also a transcript in which Bush and Cheney make these statements.

Aren't you at all suspicious when a book comes out that makes these claims?

 

[Cain]

I'm not sure what this has to do with Franken or that site, but... are you alleging he made some of this stuff up? I mean, Suskind, I don't know anything about him, but he worked for the _Wall Street Journal_*. He has Paul O'Neill going on the record. This isn't some fake journalist like David Brock working for a Scaife outfit.

Has the administration denied those tax related quotes? None of that stuff should sound too surprising. Is it outlandish for Cheney to say "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"? Isn't that exactly what Reagan proved and what the Republican party is doing right now (without much outcry from their base)? Or that Bush would privately acknowledge the truth of the tax cut?

*Suskind worked for the news division which is completely separate from the ridiculous op-ed page. I would read the _WSJ_ instead of the _NYT_ if they made it available online.

 

[American]

I love how he had to disguise himself on the USO tour. The only way he wasn't booed off the stage was to dress up as Saddam. You didn't hear him attacking Bush, which is all he ever does.

 

[corplinx]

Has the administration denied those tax related quotes?

Does the administration tend to deny quotes in books by former workers?

The answer to your question is of course "no". But I only wish to make it clear that it means little if they do not deny it. Maybe someone will do you the favor of asking them directly "did you say this".