“Small-caliber handgun” would work better.
Shuck and jive. A con job. The news is the news that they avoid, why four of our soldiers died somewhere few of us even know exists. Il Douche doesn’t care, it riles up his base, it riles up his enemies, not a win, not a loss. And if he truly believes as he seems to believe… that he has the solid support of most Americans…more of a win, then.
Ms Waters ought to apologize for the “racist” tack. As a matter to tactics if nothing else, and I despair if it being something else. The ball goes over the net, their move. Would Kelly apologize for his misinformation? Maybe, and I would be pleased to see it. But his boss wouldn’t like that much. Does Kelly know what happened in Higer? And if he does, howcum we don’t?
Did the same with Puerto Rico, screaming about how the mayor of San Juan was dissing him. As we speak, people in the hinterlands of PR are drinking whatever form of water they can find. Odds are, thousands are sick if not actually dying from third world intestinal diseases. If they are not, then its a miracle that makes “loaves and fishes” look like chump change. And all our public health and epidemiology textbooks are just do much bollocks. Don’t think so. You?
I’m mad as hell, and all I can do is take it. Some more.
The context of the comment is here, the snippet quoted above is at 3:40.
The vast majority of the interview was about the situation that area of north Africa, why and when Sgt. Johnson was killed, and why his corpse was not recovered until 48 hrs after his fallen comrades’ were. Also, she mentioned that the feelings we should be most concerned about should be those of the grieving family, rather than those of Wilson, Kelly, or Trump.
For some reason, a side comment and a phone call get way more coverage than these much more important questions.
He’s a couple rounds shy of a full clip.
Magazine.
flees
And I wonder what this says about us. Nothing good, it would seem.
Thanks. Dehumanization is definitely a possible avenue to go down, but it’s not the sole requirement to show racism. Does the phrase have a history of being used racially, or more often against people of color? Or does the guy using it have such a history in its use? Was there any other racial context to what was said?
I’m always open to the idea that something is racist even though I don’t see it. But the phrase by itself just suggests something similar to: “It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.”
Not a good thing to say, mind you. It’s just dismissive of anything you don’t like, and definitely insulting. But it doesn’t inherently seem racially charged.
You have to ask yourself how he would have spoken about a 60 year old white male in that situation.
If he loaded up with more invective or lies because she was black that must be racist. If he singled her out as vulnerable because she was black and had a cowboy hat and a flamboyant personal style, just because he knows the base will like it, I think that’s racist too.
Generally I want to ask him: If he’s a general, shouldn’t he be modeling behavior for the nation and not making whining assaults on the constitution from the white house podium?
In what way(s) was his press conference an ‘assault on the constitution’ in your eyes?
The insults he directed at Rep. Wilson, were extremely harsh, almost Trumpian — especially given that they were totally dishonest. If this isn’t clear, show examples of similar insults directed by a high public figure against a Congressperson.
Given this, the possibility of Kelly prejudice cannot be dismissed. I’d want to inspect a large ensemble of Kelly utterances and seek similarly harsh insults. If this shows Kelly to be an equal-opportunity insulter, fine. Otherwise it would seem foolish NOT to consider this verbal abuse racist. (After all, Kelly is an American: it is common for elites and apologists to underestimate how racist America is.)
With guarded pessimism, I have welcomed reports of Kelly’s integrity and hard-nosed honesty. His points would likely have been respectfully taken, had he not ventured beyond fact to insult and belittle the Hon. Ms. Wilson. If he we refrain from judgement, maybe not “lies”. However, they were not true.
His correct response. according the the code of discipline and integrity he is alleged to exemplify…would be a snappy “No excuse, M’am!” and a formal apology. That would have been a Good Thing, begin making a silk purse of a boar’s scrotum. If the Hon. Ms. Waters reacted with grace and understanding, so much the better. Sorely needed, 'nuff sed.
Alas.
What if a black person wanted to avoid debate on the merits of an issue? Couldn’t she falsely claim that she perceived the white person’s remarks as racist?
It seems to me that your standard is far too forgiving – I say that an accusation of racism must be both subjectively real and also have an objective, verifiable component of accuracy to it.
That’s obviously not the case here. Kelly had lied and there was video evidence to prove it. There was no reason for Wilson to avoid debate on it. The only thing that saved any part of Kelly’s reputation in this incident was Wilson’s charge of racism. It was the only charge that Kelly could present a plausible defense against. (Which meant it was the only charge that some people want to discuss.)
Little Nemo ninja’d me by a few hours, but I had a bit to add here.
The specific case here is that Kelly lied about Wilson in a direct attack defending trump’s callous treatment of a gold star widow. That is the issue, and the merits are that the white house chief of staff fabricated a complete falsehood in order to discredit a congressperson in a situation where a simple apology would fix everything. In fact, he phone call itself is supposed to be an apology. The Cic is ultimately responsible for the soldier’s death, and the reason for the phone call is to demonstrate the responsibility that comes with that authority. Even bush, who sent many soldiers to their death, understood that responsibility. trump should have apologized on the phone call, and failing that, should have apologized for not being good at making the call, I can’t blame him for that, I don’t know that I’d be good at making that sort of call myself. But I’d admit it. He doubles down, and has his staff make up disparaging things about his opposition, and then slander her with those lies as part of their official duties.
That Wilson made the mistake of attributing an obscure phrase to having racist intent as a single line in a several minute interview is unfortunate. It is not unfortunate that she had this perception. It is her right to feel that way, and to point out how she feels. And we could have a discussion about whether or not those remarks were actually meant with racial intent, her remarks don’t even shut down that. I agree that I don’t see any real racial connotations to it, but as it was included in a defamatory attack upon her character, I can’t blame her for over personalizing it, and feeling it had to do with race, and not just general hate. It was only unfortunate, in that it gives those who want to defend trump and the admin a distraction.
But, in focusing on that single remark out of her entire statement and response to questions, it does not seem as though it is her that is avoiding debate on the merits of the issue, but it is those who latch onto one sentence of the interview, and refuse to debate the merits of anything else she said who are attempting to use it as a distraction.
I don’t know if you can appreciate the irony here, but Kelly also gave a long statement, and his detractors are focusing on a single remark.
His attack on wilson was only one sentence?
You mean that one single, tiny little remark about something Ms. Wilson said years earlier in a context that had nothing whatever to do with the matters under discussion? That were bold face lies? That were subsequently proven to be lies? Wait, is “lie” too strong a word for you? Perhaps “fact free”? “Not entirely truthful”?
And this to protect the reputation of a man who’s entire adult life, from snotty rich kid to deranged dotard, has been an avalanche of bullshit? Well, hoss, whatever does it for you. Thanks for sharing.
This is the sentence people on your side seemed to be focusing on:
It was, IMHO, a small footnote to a much larger statement about respecting the sacrifices made by members of our military. Do you not understand how I might find it ironic that you were then complaining about people “focusing on that single remark out of her entire statement and response to questions”?
Then, quite simply, Kelley should have left off his attack of Ms. Wilson.
By making that attack personal - and full of shit - he allows the rest of his message to be lost.
And Wilson made the same mistake. By adding in the full-of-shit-bit about “that’s a racist term”, she allowed the rest of her message to be lost. That is my point.