one of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong

Barak Obama as a socialist, 9-11 was an inside job, and George W. Bush was a war criminal.



One of the greatest things (if you're a Company disinformation spinner) about the main$tream is how easy it is to use the strong desire to keep the money flow steady by not rocking the boat and to get people to forget what happened in the United States of Amnesia.

I like this analysis:

The names change, but the formula remains the same.

1) Libertarians and Constitutionalists are beginning to pose a significant threat to the Neoconservative base. Meanwhile, 9/11 Truthers have convinced over a third of all registered Democrats that Bush at least had foreknowledge of the attacks.

2) Co-opt the libertarian Tea Party movement into a pro-war, Christian fundamentalist movement that obsesses over a historically illiterate narrative of Obama as a socialist. Throw in some patently xenophobic memes about him being a secret Kenyan Muslim to completely discredit the original movement. Meanwhile, poison the well of 9/11 Truth with ridiculous and racist memes, along with using every other disinfo trick in the book.

3) Have John Stewart and Stephen Colbert denounce the crazies on both sides and announce a rally to restrict restore the dialogue to a sane narrative that average, mainstream Americans will be made to believe in. 9/11 was an outside job, and Obama is doing the best he can in hard times.

Actually 9-11 was a moebius strip job.

The inside and the outside merge seamlessly.

Ten more years of this kind of equivalency and it'll be right there in the history books with all the other lone gunmen, and George W. Bush will be remembered as the Hero.

Let's go back to Mr. Greenwald:

I think Jon Stewart is one of the most incisive and effective commentators in the country, and he reaches an audience that would otherwise be politically disengaged. I don't have any objection if he really wants to hold a rally in favor of rhetorical moderation, and it's also fine if, as seems to be the case, he's eager to target rhetorical excesses on both the left and right in order to demonstrate his non-ideological centrism. But the example he chose to prove that the left is guilty, too -- the proposition that Bush is a "war criminal" -- is an extremely poor one given that the General in charge of formally investigating detainee abuse (not exactly someone with a history of Leftist advocacy) has declared this to be the case, and core Nuremberg principles compel the same conclusion.

Leave aside the fact that, as Steve Benen correctly notes, Stewart's examples of right-wing rhetorical excesses (Obama is a socialist who wasn't born in the U.S. and hates America) are pervasive in the GOP, while his examples of left-wing excesses (Code Pink and 9/11 Truthers) have no currency (for better or worse) in the Democratic Party. The claim that Bush is "a war criminal" has ample basis, and it's deeply irresponsible to try to declare this discussion off-limits, or lump it in with a whole slew of baseless right-wing accusatory rhetoric, in order to establish one's centrist bona fides...

Broderism is always irresponsible but usually profitable for those looking for the short-term privateer kind of money.

Welcome to the Machine, Mr. Stewart.