Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Kate McMillan: Lying piece of shit. And the CC "Small Dead Animals" challenge.


Really, I had wanted to raise the level of discourse around here but when you're dealing with a hideously dishonest, putrid, steaming turd like Kate McMillan, well, civility just has to take a back seat.

Recall Kate's article that I linked to previously, where Kate clearly suggests who's at fault for the terrorist attack of 9/11:

Does anyone else get the impression that had the Clintons redirected even a fragment of the red hot burning lust they exhibit for the acquisition of personal political power to the task of protecting their nation's interests, there might well be a pair of towers still standing in New York CIty today?

Ah, so it was the Clintons' fault was it, Kate? Sadly, I beg to differ, as does history (all emphasis gleefully added):

Clinton Aides Plan to Tell Panel Of Warning Bush Team on Qaeda

Senior Clinton administration officials called to testify next week before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks say they are prepared to detail how they repeatedly warned their Bush administration counterparts in late 2000 that Al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation -- and how the new administration was slow to act...

''Until 9/11, counterterrorism was a very secondary issue at the Bush White House,'' said a senior Clinton official, speaking on condition of anonymity. ''Remember those first months? The White House was focused on tax cuts, not terrorism. We saw the budgets for counterterrorism programs being cut.''

And let's all remember how swiftly the Bush administration leapt to the defense when the time came:

The Out-of-Towner
While Bush vacationed, 9/11 warnings went unheard.

... The revelation came this morning, when CIA Director George Tenet was on the stand. Timothy Roemer, a former Democratic congressman, asked him when he first found out about the report from the FBI's Minnesota field office that Zacarias Moussaoui, an Islamic jihadist, had been taking lessons on how to fly a 747. Tenet replied that he was briefed about the case on Aug. 23 or 24, 2001.

Roemer then asked Tenet if he mentioned Moussaoui to President Bush at one of their frequent morning briefings. Tenet replied, "I was not in briefings at this time." Bush, he noted, "was on vacation." He added that he didn't see the president at all in August 2001. During the entire month, Bush was at his ranch in Texas. "You never talked with him?" Roemer asked. "No," Tenet replied. By the way, for much of August, Tenet too was, as he put it, "on leave."

And there you have it. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has made a big point of the fact that Tenet briefed the president nearly every day. Yet at the peak moment of threat, the two didn't talk at all. At a time when action was needed, and orders for action had to come from the top, the man at the top was resting undisturbed.

Throughout that summer, we now well know, Tenet, Richard Clarke, and several other officials were running around with their "hair on fire," warning that al-Qaida was about to unleash a monumental attack. On Aug. 6, Bush was given the now-famous President's Daily Brief (by one of Tenet's underlings), warning that this attack might take place "inside the United States." For the previous few years—as Philip Zelikow, the commission's staff director, revealed this morning—the CIA had issued several warnings that terrorists might fly commercial airplanes into buildings or cities.

And now, we learn today, at this peak moment, Tenet hears about Moussaoui. Someone might have added 2 + 2 + 2 and possibly busted up the conspiracy. But the president was down on the ranch, taking it easy. Tenet wasn't with him. Tenet never talked with him. Rice—as she has testified—wasn't with Bush, either. He was on his own and, willfully, out of touch.

Gosh, Kate, under the circumstances, who do you now think is responsible for 3,000 dead Americans on 9/11? No, really, don't rush, take your time and think about it. Connect those dots, it'll come to you, dear. Or maybe not. Which brings us to the brand new CC "Small Dead Animals" Challenge.

Quite simply, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that, on any given day, Kate McMillan will have published something dishonest. Seriously, I don't think it's unreasonable to propose that not a single day goes by that Blogging Tory Kate McMillan doesn't lie about something.

It could be a big, blatant lie; it could be a little, subtle lie; it might just be a delicate misrepresentation of some critical fact. But no matter how you define it, I'm willing to bet that Kate can't go even one day without her pathological dishonesty bubbling up in that septic tank she calls a blog.

Would anyone like a piece of that action? Come on, be a sport. Daddy wants a new pair of shoes.

MY GOD, EVEN HER COMMENTERS ARE LIARS: From that very same article, we have commenter "Warwick":

On the other hand, no one but Clinton had Sudan offer Bin Laden's head on a platter and he declined.

So he gets more blame than the norm.

And then there's reality (emphasis added):

Saudis Balked at Accepting U.S. Plan

WASHINGTON The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.
.
The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at hotel in Arlington, Virginia, on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.
.
Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.

You really can smell the utter bullshit all the way from Delisle, can't you? It's no wonder I feel the need for a shower every time I get back from that cesspool of a blog.

11 comments:

Mike said...

Hey, wasn't Clinton the guy that actually lobbed cruise missiles at Osama back in the mid 90's, only to be stopped by the Republican Congress, who were more interested in him getting a blow job?

Yes, Clinton's fault indeed...

Sparky said...

Something about the republican meme of 'Wagging the Dog'--if I remember correctly.
The only reason Bubba lobbed those missles at Osama was to deflect attention from lewinski-gate
At least, that's what all those Newts dittoheads and the rethugs were spewing at the time.
How soon they forget. They really want to point to someone who is truly at fault here? They can point to themselves.

Ti-Guy said...

I wish I could just fast forward two years and skip all the dull and/or mystifying details to find out what will be the themes the next iteration of the American ruling class will settle on as an excuse to avoid confronting the realities of empire and the military-industrial complex and what bread and circuses will be available to distract the majority of the US citizenry.

Concentrating on specifc issues of the Nixon->Reagan->Bush I->Bush II administration and the failures of the Democratic opposition would seem fairly straightforward, but when it's Morning in America yet again, that might seem like a bit of downer.

Ti-Guy said...

Anyway...let's face it...the only honest thing KKKate has ever expressed is this...the raison d'être of Canada's Best Blog:

"Why this blog?
Until this moment
I have been forced
to listen while media
and politicians alike
have told me
"what Canadians think".
In all that time they
never once asked.

This is just the voice
of an ordinary Canadian
yelling back at the radio -
"You don't speak for me."

Lot of rich, psychological issues there, but the salient point is if you're yelling all the time, you're probably not listening and most people probably don't even want to talk to you.

I've never once yelled at the television or the radio. It's like giving in to road rage, which I wouldn't doubt she experiences even driving on the empty, bone-straight highways of flat and rural Saskatchewan.

Somena Woman said...

Yes, Clinton sent a cruise missle at Osama bin Laden, unfortunately what he hit was basically an asprin factory that was claimed to have precursor chemicals that could make VX gas. (if I recall correctly) Soil samples did not bear this out entirely (if I recall correctly again).

And yes the timing was suspicious as it was right in the middle of the Monica Lewinsky debacle, so some people would claim it was a distraction from that mess. But CC is fundamentally correct. The Bush and NeoCon Whabbiists didn't give a monkey's toss about terrorism until Sept 11th. And I would argue that NOTHING that the Bush Admin has done since has made America and Americans any more safe. In fact the stripping of civil liberties in combination with wars of aggression in the middle east are making the U.S Less safe from Terrorist attacks as well as less free.

But getting back to the KKKate McMillan challenge... I don't think Kate actually understands how dishonest her posts actually are.

She really is that far gone. If you look at most of her posts you will notice a strange pattern... it's all "self-reinforcing bias confirmation". She starts with various insane premises finds articles from the media or blog posts that seem to confim her point of view. She carefully excises parts of article she is quoting if those parts contradict her premises or position. She then adds her own insane projects and ramblings to the article.

In this sense just about everthing she has written is a thin tissue of lies from beginning to end.... since it's primary purpose she has admitted is virtual screaming back at the radio for saying things she doesn't like or agree with.

From what I have seen with her she does not seem to be aware of just how dishonest she is being. That's why it's pathological. If crazy people knew they were crazy they wouldn't be crazy. If Kate understood how dishonest she was, she wouldn't be Kate.

As for Ti-guys point about the snippet from the side of her blog about screaming at the radio...

That is ONE sniggling little lie now that she has worked for CBC. Kind of stupid to complain about the CBC not representing you when you get a nice cushy paying gig writing for them.

So that's 2 for the Kate McMillan challenge.

CC said...

ti-guy quotes Canada's Most Pathologically Dishonest Blogger:

"Until this moment
I have been forced
to listen while media
and politicians alike
have told me
"what Canadians think".
In all that time they
never once asked.
"

But why should they ask what Kate thinks, given that all they're going to get in response is ridiculous dishonesty? Who the fuck is interested in that?

Ti-Guy said...

Who ever gets asked what they think by anyone who matters? You have to confront them and tell them, hopefully sometime before the rage has destroyed every last brain cell in your head.

And hopefully, after you've taken the time to research, even minimally, the issue that's getting you all riled up in the first place.

Now it's too late, and she's become nothing but a liar and one who lies big. Let's all remember this should the CBC plan to fail at another new media experiment to tap the voice of the people.

Raphael Alexander said...

Kate's reached a level of dishonesty unmatched in the blogosphere... she has no peer.

Zorpheous said...

Blogger Raphael Alexander said...

Kate's reached a level of dishonesty unmatched in the blogosphere... she has no peer.

Oh Raphie, you're going to burn in the Blogging Tories cleansing fires for that one if you keep it up. It's already bad enough you cavort with Canadian Cynic and engage him in intelligent debate. Keep this up they'll drum you out.

Raphael Alexander said...

Kate McMillan asserts the Clinton's are responsible for 9/11. That's the most intellectually dishonest statement I've read since...

Let me get back to you on that one.

Dilettante said...

Arguing over there is a trip--I like to provoke them. Have you noticed how loudly the silence echoes if you calmly link to their hypocrisy?