Thanks for the promote. I really thought this one would do better.

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
*promote

>> ^radx:

His former Chief of Staff was interviewed about this on DemocracyNow as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8tqfIlUIlU


Thanks radx I saw that one.
The only person Cheney doesn't blame is Cheney--Cheney is a dick.
I like Wilkerson, I still say they should have known.
Wilkerson says he had doubts about the intel--but his boss still gave the speech.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Sorry this isn't getting the votes. I think it is because people need someone to blame, and you can't blame someone who was duped.


Ya, he totally got shafted here. I don't know that I like him that much anyway, but this is pretty shitty any way you cut it.

@longde "When was the last time this type of behavior was directed at a white professional in this setting."

Why would we compare the interview to one with a professional? The man in this interview comes off like a crazy old guy on the bus, not as someone with basic communication skills, mannerisms, and personality management.

Standards of professional communication skills shouldn't be lowered for him; He's perfectly capable of acting as professional and intelligent as Colin Powell or Will Smith.


Generally related: photos of the rioters seem to show the majority of them being typical white chavs, so idealizing them as democracy activists seems weird.

When he starts riffing on Colin Powell, I just about lost it. I couldn't even take a breath.

He is turning in to my favorite interviewee to watch now!

>> ^Yogi:

When the real lesson to be learned from this is don't just listen to sketchy sources

Not just sketchy.

"The BND [German intelligence] knew in 2000 that I [Curveball] was lying after they talked to my former boss, Dr Bassil Latif, who told them there were no mobile bioweapons factories. For 18 months after that they left me alone because they knew I was telling lies even though I never admitted it. Believe me, back then, I thought the whole thing was over for me."

@bamdrew,

I understand.


I think we do personally have a lot of room for proactive action in these situations.

As always applies, the difference within groups is larger than the difference between groups. That is, a Han Chinese person in China who looks like an idiot will get treated worse than a foreigner who looks intelligent and respectful.

Having a social presence aspiring toward that of Barack Obama or Colin Powell (sophisticated mannerisms, sophisticated attire) would make everybody we meet treat us well.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Conservatives supported Michael Steele, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Bobby Jindal, and Alberto Gonzalez, so the claim that this is about skin color seems a little more convenient than it seems logically consistent. Colin Powell did take heat when he endorsed a Democratic politician, but that's expected.

For libs to whine about anyone else "making things racial" is the height of hypocrisy. These taxocrat whiners eat, sleep, drink and bathe in racial politics. They cry racism any and every time it looks like a failure of ability or competence might not let them get their way. They demand equal outcomes for different levels of performance. BULLPLOP!

You want unabashed racism? Research any writings/commentary/cartoons by liberals regarding minority conservatives. Colin Powell is the most obvious example; beloved by lefties when he towed their line and a "house nggr" when he didn't.

One great thing about so-called neocons, they're not neo-commies.

QM: You decry the 'personal attacks' the 'left' is infamous for? After calling Colin Powell a 'dickhead'? And then you call Obama a 'tyrant'? Oh, god. The humor is strong with this one!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
As well as being ignorant, it seems you're also quite the racist. Unlike you, I don't place arbitrary value on human beings based on how much melanin is in their skin.

Good one missing the sarcasm in my post. The cons were happy to throw money away when the cause at hand was punishing brown people for 911. They're very upset now that we're spending money to help our own country. That was my point.

You claim to be non-partisan, and yet you so clearly aren't.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Limbaugh is an idealist who stands on issues and principles.

roflmao. Yeah he "stands" on them alright, then he scrapes them off his shoe and throws them in the trash

But i do agree we need to promote Limbaugh and the other far right lunatics as being the True Leaders of Republicanism, and do it as often as possible. Limbaugh is the liberal Democrat's best friend.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Unlike others who CLAIM to be non-partisan, I actually am... I heartily condemn many things Bush did in his term. Federal power did increase alarmingly under Bush. He expanded government in ways that should have never been allowed. Does that satisfy you? Both parties suck. We need at least ONE party to take a stand though and start paring back the size, scope, and power of government. That sure isn't going to be Obama's democrat party though.

I agree, but it isn't going to be *insert name here*'s Republican party either.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The Republican party isn't going to win the next cycle by co-opting liberal positions. They're going to win by taking a stand on priciples such as (1) opposing a radical social agenda (2) trying to stop the alarming increases in federal power (3) condeming the quadrupling of our national debt, etc... etc...


I'm curious if you opposed the "alarming increases in federal power" and were for "condeming [sic] the...(increase)...of our national debt" while Bush was in power? Or are these hallow, hot-air, partisan ramblings from you?

Let be honest here. Neither Republican or Democratic are for small government. Both have and will increase spending dramatically until the people stop paying attention to the magician's hands...