But when the “steady flow” is bullshit like this, doesn’t it do more to hurt your cause than help it?
Seems to me it does.
I think it’s a company that makes merkins.
Heh, good one. Hopefully, I’m not the only one that had to look it up.
“Bushco” and “Shrubco” are terms coined by Mark Morford, a columnist for the SF Chronicle. His columns are extremely skewed and generally hilarious. I recommend subscribing to his free email column thrice weekly. His take on Bush is that he is firmly in the pocket of big oil and industry and that his agenda is solely for the further enrichment of these persons, hence the terms.
If the steady flow of information from the White House is true, then there’s no credibility problem. If it’s false, then the credibility problem is entirely their own fault, not of those who point it out. I take it you understand the rest of my reply.
lieu, “enhancing a tale” certainly isn’t beneath the people who told us the WMD stories, is it?
Bush knew about the September 11th attacks before they happened, but he did nothing
Bush attacked Iraq for the oil // to make his oil cronies lots of money // to settle family scores
I don’t want to get into an argument about who’s got it worse – they’ve both got it bad – but the right wing doesn’t have all the wackos.
I’d imagine credibility is a major concern of White House staffers right now. That they would conjure up an easily refutable anecdote that adds little to the story just doesn’t make sense.
I’d have to agree that blowing up every minor issue only hurts your cause in the end. Until there’s evidence to the contrary, I’m just going to assume this was a mix-up in the retelling. Several aspects of it were already shown to have been told incorrectly by, I assume, the media. Namely that it was Air Force One’s pilot that responded with “Gulfstream Five” and that staffers knew of the sighting before the return trip home.
Clarification should be forthcoming. If they’re caught in a lie I’ll be the first to point a finger but until then I’m going to assume it’s a simple, innocent mistake.
Its really not that big a deal, when stacked against the volume of sheer horseshit…perhaps avalanche of sheer horseshit might be better…that has tumbled out from the WH over the last…God, has it only been three years?
Its only that it shows the PR machine never, ever stops, never slows.
Hmm… from the Reuters story linked by the OP:
Yet, from the later AP (via Yahoo! News) story linked by leenmi:
Chances are that this is just more sloppy “communications” from Bartlett and possibly inaccurate quoting (hard to say if “he said afterward” in the first quote refers to Bush or Bartlett). It’s not difficult to believe that the exchange happened as stated in the corrected story, and that any concern by the President regarding secrecy at that time was not directly prompted by the conversation, but merely by the proximity of other air traffic.
Still, the contradiction itself is puzzling, coming from professional media handlers operating at the highest level.
No one has an exclusive on wackos, but as far as I can tell, even the typical anti-Busher doesn’t believe this outrageous stuff. Whereas, from what I have seen, a lot of Republicans still do believe the Vince Foster/Arkansas hit-squad/Travelgate/lesbian Hillary stuff. Heck, just the other day in Great Debates, we’ve got someone who insisted Hillary Clinton was a socialist because of a mangled view of her health care reform proposal.
The nutjobs on the left are ignored by the left; the nutjobs on the right get to sell videos and go on talk radio to promote their nutjob ideas.
You think Michael Moore and Oliver Stone are ignored?
Regards,
Shodan
It certainly should be, but then they’re still peddling the Saddam-was-behind-9/11 crap that fewer of us every day still buy. It could be a simple miscommunication, but the sighting story, if false, didn’t just invent itself, did it?
Shodan, the answer is essentially yes. Until they get their own TV network and newspapers, and their own chain of radio stations, it’s a strawman to mention any liberal commentators on an equal basis.
I never realized political threads could be so funny.
The things I’ve been missing.
Heresy! 
The most irritating thing about Michael Moore (to me) is that he could probably be credible if he would stop with the fratboy humor attempts. It doesn’t help his image and certainly doesn’t bolter his arguments.
Oliver Stone, on the other hand, is just hopeless.
Worlds, apparently.
rjung, please meet Cynthia McKinney, the former Democratic Congresswoman from Georgia, who is currently running for the Green Party Presidential nomination:
And of course there’s Senator Robert Byrd:
And then there’s that lefty that’s almost never ignored – Ted Kennedy:
Your self-serving speculation aside, I’ve seen no evidence that more righties than lefties believe in wacko conspiracy theories. And one need only watch a lefty demonstration or do a google search for Bush & Hitler, “No Blood for Oil,” or “Bush knew” to see that many lefties trade in this crapola. Do you have some evidence? Or can we chalk this up to “talking out of your ass?”
[Without getting into a complete hijack, I’ve got to admit that I’m confused by your inclusion of “Travelgate” with the wacko conspiracy theories. Didn’t the independent counsel determine that then-First Lady Clinton probably gave factually incorrect information and played a role in firing the staff of the travel office [WARNING – .pdf file]? And isn’t that sufficient basis to pull Travelgate out of the “wacko conspiracy theory” group? Or were you talking about a different conspiracy theory?]
(Glad to have found this thread with ‘british airways’ while considering starting one).
As Ted Kennedy said: Lie, after lie, after lie.
I can’t really see the ‘value’ of the lie in this case. As many have said - it’s just typical that lies are compounded with more lies.
I’ve not seen any SD aviation folks post yet (though there is another thread I’ve not read yet). It also seems to me that a 747 flying with a bogus transponder would: a) avoid flying close to other air traffic. b) if ID’d would be considered a problem?
Lie, after lie after lie.
Not even three hours on the ground - I wonder if his Texas Cowboy Boots ever touched actual Iraqi soil – but there I underestimate the BushRovian Propoganda Machine - them boots with actual Iraqi Freedom Soil will be propped up at Madison Square Garden next September, commemorating Bush “spending Thanksgiving with the troops”.
gah
Where’s the nutjob accusation in this one? Personally, I’m fully in agreement that administration’s case for going to war was a complete fraud done for political reasons.
While the swipe at Texans may be unfair, I think it’s understandable in Ted’s case. After all, look what happened the last time one of his brothers went there.
First time I heard of the woman, and I agree she’s a nutjob.
While I disagree with the language being used, I wouldn’t be so quick to call the accusations nutjob-material – after all, even The Master Himself agrees that the Bush family did channel some money into the Nazis. “So, did Bush and his firm finance the Nazis and enable Germany to rearm? Indirectly, yes.”
If you think no blood for oil" is a nutjob conspiracy theory, your nutjob/sanity sensor needs realignment.
Well, this is the BBQ Pit, ainnit? 
I’m talking about the slander that the firing of the travel office staff was unjustified and an act of pettiness on the part of the Clintons – when, in fact, it was largely motivated by apparent mismanagement and malfeasance by Travel Officer Billy Dale, including the transfer of $50,000 in Travel Office funds to his personal bank account. While the Clintons could have handled the Travelgate snafu better, it was hardly Evil Witch Hillary vs. The Innocent Travel Office Staffers – a misperception that still exists to this day, even after Ken Starr and the OIC concluded there was insufficient evidence to indict anyone in the White House of wrongdoing.
It is becoming more and more automatic for the White House to lead with a lie. It reminds me of the story I heard about one of Nixon’s staffers being asked about who suggested the Watergate coverup. He replied “Well, no one ever suggested that there not be a coverup.”
This particular lie, though, is not a big fucking deal. Why waste energy on it when there are so many more critical lies out there?