Was that really the Connie Chung singing? I do not know what was more funny, the song or her grunt when she climbed off the piano…

jcon96 on June 21, 2006 at 10:07 AM

Dan Rather is not very smart. Oh..no. I do not mean to put him down. I speak with facts and logic, fair and balanced.

This dude has the “courage” to print a set of fuzzy looking memo to try to bring down a president, then he should at least has the courage to tough it out. Yes..yes..I know he was in denial for a whole two week. But it just did not cut the mustard. If he was any tough grits he should condemn the memos as a ploy by the GOP. Yep, he should accuse the GOP for making that memo and conned him into broadcasting it. He should accuse Karl Rove for creating the plot just like what Jason is doing now.

I hope you all know by now that this Jason guy of TruthOut has high potential to be a great liberal star. He has the true grits to be one! He is the most promising political heavy weight for the Demo since JFK.

Jason is a true inspiration to both the conservatives and the liberals. I expect him to go far….very far…like Dan Rather.

So are the Democrats….please go far far away…just go…Jason.

easy87us on June 21, 2006 at 10:15 AM

An icon of the Mainstream Media (MSM) passes into the sunset and, if we are lucky, never to be heard from again.

The issue with Rather, as with so many in the MSM, is left political bias in “news” reporting that at times is propaganda. Ann Coulter had it right when she described this new age of the internet and alternative news sources as giving voice to those that are not left Democrats with an agenda.

omegaram on June 21, 2006 at 10:31 AM

A few thoughts offered from the murky depths of my murky mind, in chronological order:

1) So THAT’s how you pronounce “hagiography!” Hmmm. Learn something new every day.

2) Ah! Arrrrrgh! My ears! For the love of God, put the Dixie Chicks back on. Anything but Connie Chung!

3) Wow. Democratic Conventions look dangerous. Were liberals ever actually peace-living pacifists? Or is that just for the brochures?

4) Gunga Dan looks very cute with a fez on.

5) Wow - how about George Bush, Sr., huh? Talk about a smackdown! How come I don’t remember Bush 41 having that kind of cojones? Well, done, Mr. President.

6) “Damage” government aid programs? “Damage?” Sheeesh. How did anybody ever think you were unbiased, Sparky? And of course we “damaged” them - they’ve been actually damaging our society for 40 years. That remark just put you in the goofball hall of fame, Dashing Dan.

7) Ah! Arrrrrrrrrrgh! Make Connie stop! And why does she look like a mermaid?

8) “I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things …” — and the winner of the 2006 “Most in Need of a Dictionary” award goes to … Gunga Dan! Yeah!

9) Connie is still screeching. Why, God, why? Clearly the producers of this blog are unfamiliar with the 8th Amendment. Please, Mommy, make the bad lady stop.

10) Did Connie just collapse? Or is that Taylor Hicks in a dress?

11) Why is it that people who talk about “courage” all the time never seem to have it, while those who have it never seem to talk about it?

12) Michelle looks so HAWT. (Okay, that one was just for Allahpundit. It was a joke. A funny one, too. Plus, I always wanted to use the word “hawt.” Makes me feel young and hip. Except of course, if I was young and hip I wouldn’t use words like “hip”)

Professor Blather on June 21, 2006 at 10:49 AM

I couldn’t stop laughing.

Ripama on June 21, 2006 at 11:31 AM

Michelle, I am citing you with a violation of the 8th (no superscript for the ‘th’, Dan?) amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment for subjecting us to to Connie Chung’s, ahem, “singing” cough cough. If we subjected Gitmo detainees to the same then Amnesty International would actually have a case.

Of course, it is balanced out by the fact that we are seeing Dan Rather’s career ended in a much-deserved public disgrace, although in my opinion, that would describe almost all of his career.

thirteen28 on June 21, 2006 at 11:47 AM

Michelle Malkin there should have been a warning before showing Connie Chung’s singing :(

Brah on June 21, 2006 at 11:55 AM

That was hilarious! I never had much time for Dan Ratherbiased, and I got a huge kick out of seeing him disgrace himself over memogate. I have a strong feeling that had the alternative news, (Internet/talk radio), been around from the beginning of his career, it would have been considerably shorter.

MalkinFan on June 21, 2006 at 12:28 PM

Great vent, Michelle.
Maybe Connie’s singing was fake but accurate? In any event, her singing is on par with her “ahem” reporting.

uchoosier on June 21, 2006 at 1:03 PM

Connie Chung… I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t seen it. Although I saw it first on the Daily Show, I think.

Dan Rather… I always thought he was a little too melodramatic for a journalist. Sad end for a good career.

Love the “End the Iraq War” ad on your homepage… did someone hack into your site?

Still no word from Michelle on the Marines accused of killing Iraqi detainees. Oh well.

Vanya on June 21, 2006 at 2:07 PM

Vanya, what do you expect Michelle to vent on?

Law and order?

As I said, we can only try to protect the marines’ rights. They should be treated with dignity. But if they have violated the law, that they are in the court’s hand.

What else should we expect from Michelle?

easy87us on June 21, 2006 at 2:20 PM

Just a clarification for those that do not understand how google ads work. Google uses an algorithm that looks at commonly used phrases and hyper links and then matches up ads accordingly. Since the phrases “Allah, Iraqi, Islam etc” are used frequently on the site the google system matches those ads up to the page.
Thats pretty much how Howard Taylor over at Schlock Mercenary explained it a while back.

Wyrd on June 21, 2006 at 3:02 PM

As I understand it, they would have to remove hot air from google, and find another host.
Ironic? yes, fairly so. But wouldn’t removing the ads be hypocrisy? They are being paid for the ad space. Conservatives believe in capitalism and free speech. Limiting either is more of a tool for the left. By not restricting the ad space (if that is possible) they are actually demonstrating their support for capitalism. Actually, isn’t it more Ironic that ads for John Kerry and islamic ringtones are helping Hot air to spread its message?

At least thats my opinion.

Wyrd on June 21, 2006 at 3:18 PM

Anyone read my posts and remember Joes Mom from the daily comic strip “Jumpstart”? That woman would kill me for…. can’t beleive i used “actually” twice in one post…

Wyrd on June 21, 2006 at 3:31 PM

I’m talking about this case (which involves Army soldiers, not Marines, sorry for the confusion)
link

which as far as I can tell has not been mentioned on Hot Air or Michelle’s page.

Vanya on June 21, 2006 at 4:04 PM

Ah! No wonder we aren’t covering the story as you would like us to - since you yourself can’t figure out what story you’re referring to!

As for the soldiers, Vanya … what exactly do you think Malkin (et al) should say about it?

It’s war, kid. And it’s life. In both, bad things will happen. You won’t find one person on this blog who won’t agree that - if an investigation finds a crime occured and a court martial finds them guilty of that crime - that they should be punished accordingly.

So again - what do you want said about it?

Should we discuss the fact that statistically and factually, even the allegations of “war crimes” in this conflict are stunningly, historically low in comparison to other conflicts? That liberal assertions to the contrary are either mis-informed sophomoric rants or bald-faced lies?

Hmmm. Come to think of it, maybe Michelle should cover it. Thanks, Vanya!

Professor Blather on June 21, 2006 at 4:09 PM

As to the Marines in question: strangely enough, we believe in presumed innocence. Why don’t you?

Vanya and his ilk reserve the ‘presumed innocent’ mantra for cop-killers, terrorists, and so forth. But like Karl Rove, our soldiers/marines are presumed guilty the moment an accusation is made.

thirteen28 on June 21, 2006 at 4:18 PM

“The Dixie Chicks should shut up and sing.” Hot Air, all for free speech. NOT.

Vanya on June 21, 2006 at 4:52 PM

By the way, Vanya - since you seem so obsessed with that-story-you-can’t-remember, I was rather surprised to see you have no comment whatsoever in this thread:

http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/21/haditha-new-details-of-bargewell-report-leaked/

Professor Blather on June 21, 2006 at 4:58 PM

Telling someone to “shut up” is hardly supporting free speech. Neither is boycotting their music because you don’t like something they said. The topic came up in the context of the ads on this site. Wyrd, you have a point on that score; it just made me laugh to see an ad for John Kerry on this site.

As for Haditha, I have no idea what happened there. One soldier said they were following procedure and that’s good enough for me. I don’t think they should be held in shackles either. They should be free on bail. What I hate most about these incidents is the level of scapegoating. As in Abu Ghraib the commanders at the top should be held responsible. That includes Bush and Rumsfeld.

Of course all suspects are innocent till proven guilty. Never said they weren’t. You guys ascribe to me all sorts of things I never said just because I disagree with Michelle. Paranoia strikes deep. As for moderating this board I have no idea what the standards are.

Vanya on June 21, 2006 at 5:41 PM

And Vanya - please inform yourself about current events. The 7 Marines and one sailor recently in shackles are not related to Haditha; a separate story entirely.

And my apologies to all for helping Vanya high-jack this thread (and avoid answering the questions posed to him/her).

Professor Blather on June 21, 2006 at 5:56 PM

What I hate most about these incidents is the level of scapegoating. As in Abu Ghraib the commanders at the top should be held responsible. That includes Bush and Rumsfeld.

Vanya, as many others have said; if the soldiers involved in the Haditha incident are guilty, they should (and will) be held accountable for their crimes. But by what twisted logic can you hold President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld accountable for what happened in Haditha? Assuming the charges are proven true: unless they gave directives for civilians to be killed, or gave a wink and a nod for it to happen, or told those in the chain of command to try to cover up, they are NOT responsible.

I, for one, am tired of hearing people (on all sides of any given issue) trying to dump responsibility on their favorite personal target.

Please Vanya, tell us by what logic you think they should be held accountable.

dalewalt on June 21, 2006 at 6:24 PM

Yes, bad things happen in war, which is why we shouldn’t be there in the first place.

as said by Vanya.

Wow. What a stunning bit of analysis. Better that we let the terrorists and the despots run wild, eh Vanya? Are you of the Michael Moore mentality that 9/11 would have been ok as long as they only killed Republicans? I mean, bad things happen during peacetime too, Vanya. Did you know that during the Golden Clinton years, bad things happened? They did. NO, I’m not kidding. No, I’m not just talking about the Reno BBQ down at Waco or Ruby Ridge; not bad things that Clinton did to Americans; I’m talking about terrorist attacks that actually occurred during Pax Clintonia (far as I know, I’m the first to use this so steal with some respect, ok?)The first World Trade Center Bombing; Khobar Towers, The Embassy bombings…all that occured during the golden age of the pantless wonder, Bill Clinton. And I think, we can all agree that he didn’t do one D*MN thing about it. So Vanya, please tell me. If we shouldn’t go to war, because bad things happen, what should we do when bad things happen without a war? Cry? Apologize for being an offensive culture and commit mass suicide? Dazzle me.
As to your Dixie Chicks comment, I know I should follow the old adage about not getting into an arguement with an idiot, but you do realize, nobody seriously is saying the Dixie Chicks shouldn’t be allowed to speak. Let them. Let them continue to insult their fans and watch their concert tour become progressively smaller. I believe the meaning of the comment is that someone as intellectually challenged as Natalie Mainz would be better served entertaining rather than spouting off nonsense and insulting her audience. She’d make more money that way. Now, if Michelle had said ‘The Dixie chicks should be beaten with a pogo stick and run over with a cement truck unless they shut up and sing’ I might worry about some minor impingement of their right to speak. Keeping sifting that pepper, Vanya. There’s got to be some fly sh*t in there somewhere.

austinnelly on June 21, 2006 at 6:49 PM

Sorry, Blather, I am not responsible for what goes on at liberal blogs. You know for a fact you would be banned… have you tried it?

Vanya on June 21, 2006 at 7:06 PM

They were merely exercising their right to free speech, which, last time I checked, they did not give up when they got elected.

Darn, I hate when this happens… I have to agree w/Vanya… they weren’t trying to stifle Ann’s free speech, they were exercising THEIR free speech rights. Now if they had tried to pass a law….

As for not blaming Bush, is he not the Commander-In-Chief? When did “The buck stops here” become “the buck stops with Lynndie England”?

(Phew, I’m back on comfortable ground). Sorry Vanya, I don’t agree. Are you saying that the President should be responsible for the actions of everybody under his authority? Remember, this would include everybody in the executive branch, in addition to every serviceman under his command.

That thought is NOT what President Truman had in mind with his statement. He meant that the President, whoever he is, ultimately has to make the decision, he cannot pass the buck to anybody else. (and if you want to look it up yourself, the cite is here.

Given your interpretation of the phrase, the President (whomever he/she may be) would be responsible for every indiscretion/crime/violation of the UCMJ committed by anybody in the military.

Is that REALLY how you feel Vanya?

dalewalt on June 21, 2006 at 7:19 PM

Please Michelle, don’t put us through the misery again with that chicks voice.
I felt you went to sleep and let some liberal run this to taunt us.
Dan Rather is a moron and i’m embarrased to know he is either from Texas or he claims that just to make us look bad..
Believe me when I say he didn’t have a hard time at it,
Because the dorky chicks did a good job first by releasing the vile disgusting diarrhea mouth of their so call free speech. Here is my free speech I hate all liberals who hate our Military and our Constitution for Americans only..

Michelle you still Rock !! Keep knocking out the left….

alyce on June 21, 2006 at 9:25 PM

Once again, sites like newsmax use lies to advance their agenda. Blather perpetrates the lie. Seems he is the one lacking in honesty, intellectual or otherwise (what does “intellectual honesty” mean, anyway?) Here is the actual text of the press release issued by two NJ Assemblywomen:

“Ann Coulter’s criticism of 9-11 widows, whose only desire since the attacks have been to repair their shattered lives and protect other families from the horrors they have experienced, is motivated purely by petty greed and hate.

“Her assertion that these women enjoyed watching their husbands die on national television is hateful, hurtful, and runs counter to every sentiment expressed since the September 11th tragedy.

“Coulter’s vicious characterizations and remarks are motivated by greed and her desire to sell books. By making these claims, she proves herself worse than those she is attempting to vilify - she is a leech trying to turn a profit off perverting the suffering of others.

“No one in New Jersey should buy this book and allow Ann Coulter to profit from her hate-mongering. We are asking New Jersey retailers statewide to stand with us and express their outrage by refusing to carry or sell copies of Coulter’s book. Her hate-filled attacks on our 9-11 widows has no place on New Jersey bookshelves.”

Nowhere is the word “ban” used. Clearly they are speaking as individuals and not representatives of the state. They are ticked off because Coulter’s targets live in NJ. They are expressing their outrage in the clearest possible terms, as many politicians did. I don’t agree with their opinion, but they have the right to express it. I don’t agree with Coulter either, but she has the right to say whatever she wants.

Telling someone to shut up may not violate the First Amendment (I didn’t say it did; more misrepresentation on your part), but it’s a far cry from “I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

FYI I support the whole Bill of Rights, yes, even the Second Amendment.

Vanya on June 22, 2006 at 4:16 AM

Thought we were done high-jacking, Vanya?

But since we’re apparently not, are you ready to be embarrassed even further? If that’s even possible at this point? ;)

Guess what, brainchild - the word “ban” was indeed absolutely used in the original press release.

First, from another blog (”Sweetness and Light”):

“For the record, New Jersey Democratic Assemblywomen Linda Stender & Joan Quigley’s Jun 8, 2006 press release on Ann Coulter’s book Godless: The Church Of Liberalism was edited on or about Jun 13th. The word ‘ban’ was replaced with the word ‘boycott’ in both the title of the press release and the body of the text of the press release.

The press release was edited on both the New Jersey Assembly Democratic Majority (www.assemblydems.com) website and the PoliticsNJ.com (politics.nexcess.net) website.”

The original press release as issued on June 8th can be seen here; note the word “ban” in the headline:

http://www.njreporter.com/onlygameintown/messages0106/4987.shtml

Now that we’ve gotten that part of your silliness out of the way, let’s remember that “ban” itself is absolutely irrelevent anyway; you are now arguing apparently that government officials can pressure retailers not to sell books because of ideas contained therein - as long as they use the word “boycott” instead of “ban?”

Are you serious?

You do NOT support the First Amendment. Not even close. You couldn’t even if you wanted to, since you so clearly misunderstand it.

And the fact that you’re okay with the government openly supporting a “boycott” of a book - while you simultaneously decry a couple posters telling the Dixie Chicks to shut up - is utterly laughable and intellectually indefensible. And strangle very non-liberal.

In fact - here’s a real laugh - even if the word is “boycott,” you specifically noted above that boycotting because of an idea runs contrary to free speech. Your exact quote: “Neither is boycotting their music because you don’t like something they said.”

So which is it? Which is your position? Do you know?

I think the fact that you don’t understand the phrase “intellectual dishonesty” summarizes your position better than I ever could. Bravo! Now go look up “cognitive dissonance,” too. You should be familiar with it.

Want a quick explanation of intellectual dishonesty, since you provide such a perfect illustration? Here you go:

When a few posters suggested that the Dixie Chicks “shut up,” you raised First Amendment objections (apparently having a complete lack of understand of constitutional law);

Yet when it was noted that government officials, actually acting apparently in an official capacity, publically called for a “boycott” (after it was a “ban”) on a book because they didn’t like the political ideas it contained … you suddenly had no First Amendment objection.

Perfect intellectual dishonesty. A textbook example.

Game. Set. Match.

Next troll, please.

Professor Blather on June 22, 2006 at 9:17 AM

More lies from Blather. Last time I looked, the Democratic Party of NJ did not represent the government of NJ. Yet Blather says the “government (is) openly supporting a “boycott” of a book.” I said I did not agree with their call for retailers not to sell it, in fact I think it’s absurd. I said they have the right to say it. You seem to think because they are Assemblywomen they should curb their speech.

They put the statement on the Dem website. Horrors! Politicians taking a stand on something! Imagine that! And it’s a stand others might disagree with (incuding me). Wow!

Once again you lie about what I said. I never raised First Amendment objections about telling the Dixie Chicks to shut up. I said it indicates an unwillingness to support the concept of free speech. Obviously the First Amendment only applies to Congress. But everyone can support the concept of free speech through their conduct. Telling someone to “just shut up” doesn’t do that, IMO.

Vanya on June 22, 2006 at 1:43 PM