Brian Williams is a Lying Liar Who Lies About Lying


News you can trust. Except when they’re lying.

Brian Williams has apologized for making a grievous “mistake” in which he remembered and repeated, over the course of, what, 11 or 12 years, an event that never happened.

As he “remembered” it:

“The story actually started with a terrible moment a dozen years back during the invasion of Iraq when the helicopter we were traveling in was forced down after being hit by an RPG,” Williams said on the broadcast. “Our traveling NBC News team was rescued, surrounded and kept alive by an armor mechanized platoon from the U.S. Army 3rd Infantry.”

So, yeah. That never happened.

What did happen, you might wonder, for Williams to misremember it so badly?


Williams and his camera crew were actually aboard a Chinook in a formation that was about an hour behind the three helicopters [that had previously come] under fire, according to crew member interviews.

[William’s] Chinook took no fire and landed later beside the damaged helicopter due to an impending sandstorm from the Iraqi desert, according to Sgt. 1st Class Joseph Miller, who was the flight engineer on the aircraft that carried the journalists.

“No, we never came under direct enemy fire to the aircraft,” he said Wednesday.

So nothing. The entire story is a product of William’s imagination.

During his explanation, Williams said, “I would not have chosen to make this mistake. I don’t know what screwed up in my mind that caused me to conflate one aircraft with another.”

Wow, I guess somebody needs to see a neurologist to figure out what’s going on in that brain of his! Or a psychiatrist.

Pfft! Let me clear things up for you, Brian. This thing called “lying” caused your mistake. Lying is when you say something you know to be false. You lied to make yourself seem heroic and more important. Also, don’t think you’ve apologized for lying; for an apology to be sincere, there needs to be some sort of indication that the person doing the apologizing recognizes his own wrongdoing on some level. I’m not seeing that here.

Read the whole story at Stars and Stripes.

Update: Also fabricated? Makes you wonder, doesn’t it.

1 Comment

Filed under Media

When Will You Fight?

It's Only Words:

Oh, hey, look at me…I’m reblogging my own post. What will it take for this Administration to recognize that we need to fight? I mean really fight, like our children’s lives are on the line. When they burn an American hostage alive? When our daughters and granddaughters are wearing burqas? When they’re crucifying, beheading and burning people alive on the streets of our cities? Do you think it can never happen here? If you do, you are wrong.

Originally posted on it's only words:

Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; 

If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly;

You may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.

There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. 

~Winston Churchill

View original

Leave a comment

Filed under Washington

Whoever Fights Monsters

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”

~Friedrich Nietzsche

Leave a comment

Filed under Quotes

The Rose Beyond The Wall

Near a shady wall a rose once grew,
Budded and blossomed in God’s free light,
Watered and fed by the morning dew,
Shedding it’s sweetness day and night.

As it grew and blossomed fair and tall,
Slowly rising to loftier height,
It came to a crevice in the wall
Through which there shone a beam of light.

Onward it crept with added strength
With never a thought of fear or pride,
It followed the light through the crevice’s length
And unfolded itself on the other side.

The light, the dew, the broadening view
Were found the same as they were before,
And it lost itself in beauties new,
Breathing it’s fragrance more and more.

Shall claim of death cause us to grieve
And make our courage faint and fall?
Nay! Let us faith and hope receive–
The rose still grows beyond the wall,

Scattering fragrance far and wide
Just as it did in days of yore,
Just as it did on the other side,
Just as it will forever-more.

~A.L Frink

Please take a moment to remember Elaine Cillo, Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty.

1 Comment

Filed under Terrorism

The War On Women; The Real One

Hello, Radical Feminist. I hear you whining about the Republican War on Women™. You want a war on women? Oh, Honey, let me show you real war on women, and it sure as hell ain’t coming from the GOP.

Just a few cool dudes chatting about sex slaves on Facebook…

Abou Jjihad: “350 dollars for the Yazidi girl in Mosul if you want LOL”
Abu Selefie: “I heard there were slaves in Raqqa is it true?”
Abde-Rahman: “I saw it was around 180 dollars per slave LOL”
Abou Muhammad: “You have revived a tradition”
Abou Jihad: “Yes I heard brothers say there are some in Raqq
a as well” […] “180 dollars must be [the price] for the ugly ones”
Abde-Rahman: “LOL I am laughing so hard”
Shinobi: “LOL And how much is it in spare parts? Check and see if you can get kidneys or livers there is demand.”

LOL! Nothing’s funnier than talking about harvesting organs from live slaves, amiright?

There’s more…

Dawla: “What are the slaves for? Is it like your wife but without a marriage contract?”
Amine: “If they become Muslim are they freed?”
Abou Jihad: “It’s not really like your wife, they can be used for intercourse [the writer uses a vulgar French expression for sex], you make her work in the house, and you send her to work at your parents’, stuff like that.”
Cara: “If she becomes Muslims it seems to me that you don’t have to free her. It’s obligatory if you have a child with her…”
Dawla: “You can have children with her?”
Cara: ” Yes but [then] she would then be free.”
Abou Jihad: “It’s the child that is free, not the woman (if she is not Muslim)”
Mehdi: “Personally does not sound appetizing”
“I prefer my future wife rather than a dirty slave.”
Dawla:” So you can be intimate with her without a marriage contract? And you can have more than one?”
Abou Jihad: “Yes […] they are idolaters, so it’s normal that they are slaves, in Mosul they are closed in a room and cry, and one of them committed suicide LOL and Yes I have 350 dollars LOL”
Abou Selma: “And what if the slave refuses the intercourse? And what if your wife refuses to let you have intercourse with the slave?
Mehdi: ” Wow those are good questions…”
Dawla: “Women are so jealous, they will never agree”
Abou Jihad: ” A woman that stays at your house and that doesn’t want you, after a while she will crack, she will have to have sex with you. And also the slaves are scared of the mujahidin so they feel that they have to LOL”
Abou Selma: “Second question: what if your wife refuses?”
Abou Jihad: “She can’t refuse
“It’s a tradition”
Mouhamad: “I have 3500 dollars to spare, I am going to buy 10, who wants one?”

Oh, wait…did I say nothing was funnier than talking about harvesting organs from live slaves? I was wrong! Because suicide, LOL!

Head over to MEMRI for screen caps. Then decide where you want to expend your feminist outrage.


H/T to my good friend, Jimmie Bise.

Leave a comment

Filed under Islamism

Bush vs. Obama: The Ego Matchup

A few days ago, President George W. Bush appeared on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. During the course of his appearance, President Bush presented his host with a portrait of Leno that he had painted himself.

At the time, I theorized that if Obama were to present Leno with a portrait that he’d painted, it would be of…Obama, not Leno.


And today, after seeing this photo of President Obama, taken in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of JFK’s death, I think I have a clear answer.


All Obama, all the time.

1 Comment

Filed under Barack Obama

In Which Harry Reid Waxes Eloquent On The Many Virtues Of The Filibuster

The full text of Reid’s 2005 floor speech:

Mr. President, yesterday morning I spoke here about a statement the Majority Leader issued calling the filibuster a “procedural gimmick.”

The Websters dictionary defines “gimmick” as – – “an ingenious new scheme or angle.” No Mr. President, the filibuster is not a scheme. And it is not new. The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.” It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.

The first filibuster in the U.S. Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress.

Since 1790, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds of times. Senators have used it to stand up to popular presidents. To block legislation. And yes – even to stall executive nominees.

The roots of the filibuster can be found in the Constitution and in the Senate rules.

In establishing each House of Congress, Article I Section 5 of the Constitution states that “Each House may determine the rules.”

In crafting the rules of the Senate, Senators established the right to extended debate – and they formalized it with Rule XXII almost 100 years ago. This rule codified the practice that Senators could debate extensively.

Under Rule XXII, debate may be cut off under limited circumstances.

    • 67 votes to end a filibuster of a motion to amend a Senate rule
    • 60 votes to end a filibuster against any other legislative business.

A conversation between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington describes the United States Senate and our Founders Fathers vision of it.
Jefferson asked Washington what is the purpose of the Senate?

Washington responded with a question of his own, “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” “To cool it,” Jefferson replied. To which Washington said; “Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

And this is exactly what the filibuster does. It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail.

It also separates us from the House of Representatives – where the majority rules. And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government…Separation of Powers…Checks and Balances.

Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties.

In fact, my colleague from Georgia – Senator Isakson – recently shared a conversation he had with an official from the Iraqi government. The Senator had asked this official if he was worried that the majority in Iraq would overrun the minority. But the official replied… “no….we have the secret weapon called the ‘filibuster.’”

In recalling that conversation, Senator Isakson remarked: “If there were ever a reason for optimism… it is one of [the Iraqi] minority leaders, proudly stating one of the pillars and principles of our government, as the way they would ensure that the majority never overran the minority.”

And he was right. I spoke yesterday about Senator Holt and his 1939 filibuster to protect workers’ wages and hours. There are also recent examples of the filibuster achieving good.

In 1985, Senators from rural states used the filibuster to force Congress to address a major crisis in which thousands of farmers were on the brink of bankruptcy. In 1995, the filibuster was used by Senators to protect the rights of workers to a fair wage and a safe workplace.

Now Mr. President, I will not stand here and say the filibuster has always been used for positive purposes. Just as it has been used to bring about social change, it was also used to stall progress that this country needed to make. It is often shown that the filibuster was used against Civil Right legislation. But Civil Rights legislation passed – – Civil Rights advocates met the burden.

And it is noteworthy that today the Congressional Black Caucus is opposed to the Nuclear Option. For further analysis, let’s look at Robert Caro, a noted historian and Pulitzer Prize winner.

At a meeting I attended with other Senators, he spoke about the history of the filibuster. He made a point about its legacy that was important. He noted that when legislation is supported by the majority of Americans, it eventually overcomes a filibuster’s delay – as public protest far outweighs any Senator’s appetite to filibuster.

But when legislation only has the support of the minority, the filibuster slows the legislation …prevents a Senator from ramming it through…and gives the American people enough time join the opposition.

Mr. President, the right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House. In these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.

Right now, the only check on President Bush is the Democrats ability to voice their concern in the Senate. If Republicans rollback our rights in this Chamber, there will be no check on their power. The radical, right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees…the President’s nominees in general…and legislation like Social Security privatization.

Of course the President would like the power to name anyone he wants to lifetime seats on the Supreme Court and other federal courts. And that is why the White House has been aggressively lobbying Senate Republicans to change Senate rules in a way that would hand dangerous new powers to the President over two separate branches – the Congress and the Judiciary.

Unfortunately, this is part of a disturbing pattern of behavior by this White House and Republicans in Washington. From Dick Cheney’s fight to slam the doors of the White House on the American people…

To the President’s refusal to cooperate with the 9-11 Commission… To Senate Republicans attempt to destroy the last check in Washington on Republican power…To the House Majority’s quest to silence the minority in the House…

Republicans have sought to destroy the balance of power in our government by grabbing power for the presidency, silencing the minority and weakening our democracy.

America does not work the way the radical right-wing dictates to President Bush and the Republican Senate Leaders. And Mr. President, that is not how the United States Senate works either.

For 200 years, we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some “procedural gimmick.” It’s within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. They established a government so that no one person – and no single party – could have total control.

Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power.

They want to do away with Mr. Smith coming to Washington. They want to do away with the filibuster. They think they are wiser than our Founding Fathers.

I doubt that’s true.

Truth pouring from the mouth of Harry Reid; you don’t see that every day. And yesterday he threw it all away for a lie…the lie that Senate Republicans are blocking President Obama’s judicial appointments at an unprecedented rate. Here’s the truth:

According to a May report from the Congressional Research Service, President Obama had 71.4% of his circuit court nominees approved during his first term, which is slightly better than George W. Bush’s 67.3% level of success during his first term.

President Obama also didn’t fare the worst when it comes to district court nominees. During his first term, 82.7% of Obama’s district court nominees were approved, George H.W. Bush had 76.9% of his nominees approved.

And, for the record, Obama’s nominees are being confirmed in fewer days than Bush’s appointees.

But in recent years, it’s the amount of time it takes to get a nominee approved where the most radical change has taken place.

For example, during Reagan’s first term, it only took 45.5 days for one of his nominees to get approved. That number escalated only marginally over the next 20 years. But by the time George W. Bush was in office, the number skyrocketed to 277 days. Obama has fared slightly better than Bush, with his nominees taking 225.5 days to get approved. But historically speaking, it’s still a severe departure from most presidencies.

So, at the end of the day, Obama’s experience may not be quite as unique as he wants the public to believe. (Full article.)


Leave a comment

Filed under Washington