David Limbaugh presents a textbook case of media bias and manipulation in his new Townhall column. He uses the example of Tim Russert’s recent Meet The Press interview of Condoleeza Rice, going through point by point to show how Russert used his questioning of Rice, not so much to elicit answers, as to deliver Democrat talking points.
In addition, Russert most conspicuously did not share the fact that scores of Democratic leaders, beginning with Bill Clinton, spoke very clearly and often about the unambiguous existence of Saddam’s WMD and that they supported a policy to seek a change of his regime.
Russert did not mention that these Democrats, having access to the very same intelligence as President Bush, voted to authorize him to militarily attack Iraq. Russert also failed to note that this congressional war resolution contained multiple reasons for going to war against Iraq — not just WMD — and that despite John Kerry’s later lies to the contrary, was not conditional on President Bush further exhausting diplomatic avenues or even more weapons inspections. I watched some of the footage of the Condi Rice protesters at Boston College on television last night. The most often repeated chants were that Rice had lied about WMD. With so many Democrats on record “lying” the same “lies” that Condi Rice cited in the runup to the war in Iraq, it would seem an easy thing to quickly dispel the lie that the Bush administration “lied us into war.” Tim Russert’s questioning of Condi Rice helps to explain how it is that lie is still being repeated as conventional wisdom.
mak44,
I was hoping you wanted to have a serious discussion. How foolish of me.
The fact remains that the Clinton administration was on record about Saddam’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Are you saying that Clinton was lying or cherry picking the intelligence?
And who was president Clinton getting his information from? If it was the same group then it was assembled by Clinton not Cheney or Bush. If it was a different group, then how did they come to the same conclusion as those who were briefing Clinton?
Yes, how foolish of Bush to believe the Clinton administration’s reports on Iraq. How naive he was to believe the UN was an honest agency for world peace. It’s not that the world stage is complex, it’s that it’s corrupt. In that environment, Bush was wise to solve the Iraq problem the only way it could be solved.
Bush wasn’t huffing and foaming at the mouth. He was planing to invade Iraq. Something Clinton didn’t have the courage and fortitude to do. The intelligence was no more cherry-picked by Bush than it was by Clinton. There are always dissention and the only cherry picking is being done now to select the few dissenters and claim that was the consensus before the invasion. War always involves putting people in harms way. If we are not willing to do that as a nation, then we should disband our military and surrender to whatever country wants our sorry asses.
U.S. Law doesn’t allow women in combat units. Is that the fault of Bush? U.S. Law doesn’t allow women to be drafted even when there’s and active draft. Are you saying Bush should have taken his daughters against their will and put them into combat just to make a political point? You would be the first one howling about violation of the law and calling for his impeachment. You certainly don’t let hypocrisy get in your way when it comes to disdain for Bush.
Well Lee & mak44,
Once any of y’all on the Left actually meet my arguments head-on and actually attempt to debunk as opposed to posturing, then I’d bother to construct new ones.
Heck, you’re regurgitating the same BushLied™ idiocy from 2004.
C’mon … take me on. Make an honest attempt to counter my supposedly “unoriginal” arguments. Should be easy, shouldn’t it? Do so and I’m certain I can muster up enough originality to keep y’all busy …
PS: I wrote the post on GatewayPundit.
i.e. I plagiarized my own damn self.
Since it is “universally” accepted that Bush lied and Iraq didn’t have WMDs, and this was known prior to OIF, could someone please give me some quotes from any western leaders, heads of intelligence services, UN delegates, or anyone else who doesn’t troll for dates at Burger King, that state Hussein didn’t have WMDs?
It seems to me that Chirac, Shroeder and Annan had ample reason to call that issue into question by categorically stating that Saddam didn’t have them. After all, the invasion cost all of them millions of dollars in kickbacks. Why didn’t they say what you are telling us everyone knew?
Yeah Martin A Knight
I’ll take your challenge..
You liked to use the 9/11 Commission Report above to make the point that: “despite the incontrovertible knowledge that the Saddam Hussein regime and Al Qaeda (let’s not mention the many other terrorist groups Saddam gave support to) saw enough in common with each other that they had reached out to each other multiple times, as even the 9/11 Commission agreed”
Square that w/ this from the 6/17/04 WaPo story on the Commission Report,
“The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq.”
You seized on the reports of some limited contacts in the mid ’90’s to imply that the Commission found incontrevertible evidence of Saddam/al-Qaeda duplicity & yet the basic conclusion of the Commission is quite the opposite.
What will you manufacture to unburden your argument of that fact?
Cherry-pickin’ anyone? You remind me of the old RCA logo as in Puppy w/ Pavlov.
PS I beg your pardon for quoting from a “pinko” rag.
mak44, are you referring specifically to Iraq/Al Qaeda connections concerning 9-11 or in general?
And perhaps you could answer my question immediately above?
The sound of the drumbeat & marching off to war w/ all sorts of jingoism can be magnetic. Looking at the pictures of the Nuremburg rallies can be mesmerizing- even tho one hated the Nazis.
What cannot be denied here, even tho after the fact is:
Many Democrats made all sorts of seemingly “Iraq must be stopped” statements; they were wrong.
Foreign states made all sorts of “Iraq is a threat” statements; they were wrong.
The Bush Regime made all sorts of “evil empire” statements; they were wrong.
The reality is that Bush Co was in charge of the intelligence; if they don’t like the charges of major screw-up & liars, they shouldn’t have worked so hard to get SCOTUS to appoint them.
No matter who is quoted, they all were wrong.
BUT of all these players, only Bush/Cheney made the decision to go to war.
AND it was The Chimp & Der führer,Cheney who made that fateful decision, regardless of the fact that events proved that everyone was wrong.
Now, the American death toll approaches the magnitude of the evil that the Iraqi war was supposed to avenge and set right, not to mention the death toll of Iraqis and the maimed and ground-up survivors of any nationality.
AND the reality of Afghanistan, where all this evil began, looks shaky at best because of Bush’s half-assed job of setting that nation on a solid course.
And the Evil-doer incarnate remains at large, because The Chimp-in-chief got diverted w/ Iraq.
An extremely high price for The Chimp’s learnng curve!
All you arm-chair generls who are so ready to have war might well take a look at the wages of war in the link below and answer, if any of you can. whether you would would put yourselves or your loved ones in this milieu before using every diplomatic maneuver conceivable to avoid it. Consider that your pious posturing & kneejerk jingoism never lsft you to imagine this….
Scroll down to: Wednesday, May 17, 2006
A Citizen’s Responsibility
http://www.bcftu.blogspot.com/ and see if you can stand reality.
No matter who is quoted, they all were wrong.
And, of course, you knew they were wrong at the time, right?
Do you realize how assnine this sounds. “Everybody was wrong when they said Saddam had WMDs, but BUSH LIED when he said it!”?
There wasn’t anybody at the time, even those who had access to OTHER country’s intelligence, who said Saddam didn’t have WMDs, but they were wrong. BUT BUSH LIED!
You people are becoming parodies of yourselves.
And then we have this shred of idiocy:
AND it was The Chimp & Der führer,Cheney who made that fateful decision, regardless of the fact that events proved that everyone was wrong.
They made a decision that “events proved that everyone was wrong”. Now you are condemning them for not telling the future. So what you are saying is that people should make decisions that may, in the future, be proven wrong.
Right.
For God’s sake at least think your ramblings through before you hit “post”.
TomB
Just who the hell cares what Schroeder et al may have said about Iraq & WMD’s. Are we supposed to think that, whatever intelligence other governments may have had, that theirs was as good as, if not superior, ours?
I don’t know where these allegations came from, but the idea that some national leaders may have sustained Bush/Cheney propaganda begs the question. Apart from Mossad, who the hell thinks that any nation has intelligence equal to or superior to that of the US w/ our technological capabilities? That alone should give you pause for quoting these sources as some sort of a buttress for validating the cherry-picked Bish/Cheney intelligence.
Who, among you Wizbang parrots, would leave intelligence to Germany or Russia or anyone else for that matter?
So, no, I don’t have an answer for all the foreign national support of the Bush mythological intelligence apart from doubting their capacity independent of US dominance in this field.
I sure as hell wouldn’t send others’ loved ones off to die in a bloody war because I could claim that Schroeder or Putin said I was right particularly, after my Secretary of State advised me, ” If you break it, you own it.”
A Chimp who, under the sway of others, never experienced Foreign Affairs, apart from eating a taco, might just well do that, especially if he thought that God talked to him.
mak44, the point that seems to keep eluding you is that NOBODY believed Saddam didn’t have WMDs. That includes the previous President and members of Congress who had access to the same intelligence the administration did.
Now, all of the sudden, you are screaming BUSH LIED (er, but everybody else was “wrong”)!!!
And, considering the Russians had special forces on the ground IN IRAQ before the war, I’d say their intelligence was bound to be at least as good, if not better than, ours. In addition, German companies handled much of the construction for the Iraqi government in the past decade. So they were also in a good position for intelligence.
So tell me again why “BUSH LIED” and everybody else, including Clinton, were just “wrong”?
You wrote: “Rumsfeld dared to ask if there was any info tying Saddam into the attack? That bastard!!”
Sorry, but you’re wrong. He did not make an enquiry..HE ORDERED MYERS & HIS AIDES TO FIND THE LINKS
See, they had this whole big 9/11 Commission to investigate stories just like this.
They disproved it.
The left has not only become unelectable — they’re paranoid, too.
Yeah because they were nowhere. Bush was demanding essentially that Iraq prove a negative.
See, to quote a saying: “Anthrax ain’t marmalade.” If you have it, you know where it is. If you destroyed it, you know where and when you destroyed it.
Nobody has found the tiniest sliver of info as to where, when, or how it was disposed of — and Iraq ADMITTED to having gallons of the stuff back in 2002. It’s not like this is “invented” by Bush.
In fact, to paraphrase Coulter, the only strong evidence that there was no WMD whatsoever was that Bill Clinton said that there were WMD there.
What we knew was that they had used them, but the claims to the amounts stockpiled were pulled out of their ass.
“Out of their ass” being Iraq’s admission to the UN.
Again you wrote: “Except nobody can point to any evidence of Bush doing so…”
That in reference to the “fixing of intelligence.” The evidence is that there was no WMD, no mobile labs etc. in spite of the fact that Cheney stated unequivoclly that WMD , and a nuclear program, were a certainty, What do you need, a signed confession? Then you’d probably claim that that was a Dan Rather forgery.
Again, incorrect intel is not the same thing as “fixing of intel”.
I could say “Well, the Yankees will beat the Devil Rays”.
I could provide statistics as to why I believe that.
If the D’Rays beat the Yankees, I was wrong. I did not “fix the evidence”.
As to Zarqawi: most of his tiime in Iran was spent at an al-Qaeda training camp in the NE of Iraq in a no-fly zone where he & Saddam had no access to one another. To cite this as a basis for linkage between Saddam & UBL is beyond the absurd.
Except documents from Iraq explicitly dispute that. But Saddam and his peeps were probably lying to themselves on behalf of Rove.
So Lee ought to have said that the preponderance of opinion is that the intelligence was cherry-picked.
No, the preponderance of cherry-picked evidence indicates the intel was cherry-picked.
Shame that you can’t have a blogsite limited to the postings of the infantile.
Dailykos is down?
Democratic Underground is down?
Dang.
As to what the Clinton Admin was saying in those days, I do not recollect that any of the statements that were made were being pounded out day after day as a lead up to an attack.
Go back to the justification for the attacks on the days when Monica and Bill testified before the grand jury. Clinton laid out the reasons why he did it there.
Yet Clinton, Albright et al were not huffing & foaming at the mouth to send other peoples’ loved ones off to be ground up & die for a cause based on half-assed &/or cherry-picked intelligence at best.
No, just to lob missilies randomly to pump up their poll numbers.
Democratic humanitarianism is magnificent.
Square that w/ this from the 6/17/04 WaPo story on the Commission Report,
“The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq.”
The same WaPo story that the Commission came out publicly and denied? That story?
-=Mike
TomB
It’s not that every one else was wrong, but Bush lied. It’s that he took the decision and it doesn’t matter much what others may have said or their reasons for saying so.
When Bush and Der Cheney repeatedly stated, no doubt about it, that Iraq had WMD & a nuke program, are they excused for believing what others may have said? I don’t recall any of the others, Democrats or foreign leaders, stating that it was unequivocal or beyond doubt, apart from a Clinton quote posted earlier.
And none claimed that they couldn’t wait for “the smoking gun in the form of a musheoom cloud.”
Morever, if all these various leaders were so certain of the imminent Iraqi threat, why were so many nations opposed to Bush’s pre-emption? Is their genetic program for survival that incapacitated?
TomB
It’s not that every one else was wrong, but Bush lied. It’s that he took the decision and it doesn’t matter much what others may have said or their reasons for saying so.
When Bush and Der Cheney repeatedly stated, no doubt about it, that Iraq had WMD & a nuke program, are they excused for believing what others may have said? I don’t recall any of the others, Democrats or foreign leaders, stating that it was unequivocal or beyond doubt, apart from a Clinton quote posted earlier.
And none claimed that they couldn’t wait for “the smoking gun in the form of a musheoom cloud.”
Morever, if all these various leaders were so certain of the imminent Iraqi threat, why were so many nations opposed to Bush’s pre-emption? Is their genetic program for survival that incapacitated?
When Bush and Der Cheney repeatedly stated, no doubt about it, that Iraq had WMD & a nuke program, are they excused for believing what others may have said? I don’t recall any of the others, Democrats or foreign leaders, stating that it was unequivocal or beyond doubt, apart from a Clinton quote posted earlier.
Uh, yeah.
Sandy Berger: “[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983.”
Harry Reid: “The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. … The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein’s near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all.”
John Kerry: “If you don’t believe…Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.”
John Edwards: “Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it’s just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.”
Nancy Pelosi: “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998: “We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs.”
Madeline Albright: “Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Sen. Carl Levin: “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Robert Byrd: “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Al Gore: “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton: “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
I’ve got many more, shall I go on?
I missed this, although it was already answered:
Morever, if all these various leaders were so certain of the imminent Iraqi threat, why were so many nations opposed to Bush’s pre-emption? Is their genetic program for survival that incapacitated?
Did you ever hear of “Oil for Food” scandal? Hussein was buying Shroeder, Putin, Chriac, Annan and other off. Their greed preempted their fear of Saddam. Anyway, they believed Hussein’s beef was with the US, not Europe.
Try to keep up.
When Bush and Der Cheney repeatedly stated, no doubt about it, that Iraq had WMD & a nuke program, are they excused for believing what others may have said? I don’t recall any of the others, Democrats or foreign leaders, stating that it was unequivocal or beyond doubt, apart from a Clinton quote posted earlier.
Seeing as how Bush is unable to tour Iraq whenever he wants, as long as he wants, with open invitations to anywhere he wants — then, yes, he will have to go with what others in positions of knowledge in this area state.
As for not recalling that Dems said it was undeniable, it just means that you are either willfully ignorant or weren’t born until 2003.
Morever, if all these various leaders were so certain of the imminent Iraqi threat, why were so many nations opposed to Bush’s pre-emption? Is their genetic program for survival that incapacitated?
Because money is a powerful deterrant to action for many and Saddam spent billions to get what he wanted?
-=Mike
mak44
France,Germany,Russia were all Saddams little pavlovian puppies for a price. Im only wondering why did He give up the billions and palaces?
Interesting to watch Democrats revert to what they really and truly are, the party of Deladier, Chamberlain, Munich, and Vichy.
Conservatives make an error when they get into the Origins of the Iraq War debate with liberals for the following reason. The object of the debate is not to prove, for instance, that “Bush Lied”. The object of the debate is to prevent Americans from realizing what Democrats have become.
The debate is a smokescreen. It’s a complete and dishonest lie from beginning to end, but it has a purpose.
Democrats and the Partisan Media invented this debate to hide the pacifism and defeatisme of the Democrats from the American People. If the Americans actually understood that most Democratic activists think like Lee and mak44, they would never elect anyone to high office again. So people like Lee and mak are kept in the closet like the Crazy Aunt, trotted out by the Democrats in election years when they need money from their Base voters.
Remember this salient fact: when Democrats had power, they refused to invade Afghanistan to attack bin Laden. They attacked empty tents with million dollar cruise missiles. They threw supboeanas and indictments at him, not troops.
“BushLied” is an attempt to hide that fact from the American People.
The last thing Democrats want the American people to believe is that Bush could be right- that Islamic Fascism is a threat to our people. This could take away from the domestic spending that Democrats want to concentrate on. And so, they invented “BushLied” to bring into question the entire rationale for the war.
Bush didn’t lie. It’s just that Democrats care more about power than they do about the troops and about winning the war. The LAST thing Democrats want the American people to do is to perceive that they are the Girl Scout Party, interested more in Midnight Basketball than in midnight raids on bin Laden. But that’s the awful truth, and there you have it.
The entire BushLied meme is a lie to hide the truth about the Democratic Party’s pacifism.
Oh mak44 …
… you monstrously stupid idiot.
You’re citing the Washington Post’s report on the Commission report. A report that both Chairmen (Kean (R – NJ) and Hamilton (D – IN)) went on national television to pronounce as misleading. Honestly, if you want to level an accusation of “cherry-picking” at somebody, first of all, make certain the person actually is cherry-picking and even more importantly, make sure you are not cherry-picking yourself.
I’m citing the Commission Report itself … because, yes, I can read and comprehend stuff for myself. And I actually took the time to cite the Chapter and page for you as well. Which just goes to show that you can lead a horse (or idiot) to water (or knowledge) but you can’t make him drink (or think).
There is also evidence that in 1997, bin Laden sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of bin Laden.
In mid-1998, the situation reversed, with Iraq reportedly taking the initiative. In March 1998, after bin Laden’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through bin Laden’s Egyptian deputy, [Ayman al] Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.
[…]
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Laden or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicated some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States.
Once again, here are (just two – I’ve got the URLs to a GREAT deal more) the articles from before President Bush’s inauguration … Obviously, you can only take so much cognitive dissonance which is why you clearly have not read them.
CNN – 02/13/1999
The Guardian – 02/06/1999
And may I point out again that prior to the 9/11 Commission (and prior to the beginning of the Iraq War), the Clinton Administration cited intelligence in the 1998 indictment it prepared against Osama bin Laden that; “al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.“
You seized on the reports of some limited contacts in the mid ’90’s to imply that the Commission found incontrevertible evidence of Saddam/al-Qaeda duplicity & yet the basic conclusion of the Commission is quite the opposite.
Comprehension must have been a truly difficult thing for you growing up. 1998 and 1999 are in the “mid ’90s”?
I stated that the 9/11 Commission found incontrovertible proof that the Saddam Hussein regime and Al Qaeda saw enough in common with each other that they had reached out to each other multiple times. And the best you can do is respond with the non-sequitur that they did not have a “collaborative relationship”? How exactly does that counter my statement of the fact that they were sending delegations back and forth between each other (it is right there in the 9/11 report)?
And, by the way, the 9/11 Commission’s (tentative) conclusion was that while the Saddam Hussein regime and Al Qaeda had had friendly contacts, they had not yet established a “collaborative relationship”. Why else were they sending delegations back and forth? For the sight-seeing? Or to establish something of a closer relationship? Use your brain … what would be the most likely reason for two organizations with hardly anything in common but a common foe to meet?
All this just goes on to show why Democrats are utterly useless at national security. According to you, Lee and groucho, even after 9/11, the fact that there have “friendly contacts” (the 9/11 Commission’s words – not mine) between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq would not have raised an eyebrow in your ideal (Democrat) Administration.
This would be a regime that has had a history of harboring, training and sheltering terrorists and had even used chemical weapons on its own territory, on its own people, and more than once.
This would be a regime that was in violation of 17 Article VII (i.e. mandatory) UN resolutions regarding its refusal to fully comply with demands that it openly gets rid of its WMDs and WMD programs.
This would be a regime that admitted to having “among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs … And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.” – Bill Clinton [Pentagon – 02/17/1998]. Let’s not forget that Bill Clinton also said, more recently, “… it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.” – [Larry King Live (CNN) – July 22, 2003]
Like I said, being a Republican, especially after 9/11, absolutely any form of “friendly contact” (the 9/11 Commission’s words – not mine) between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq would have terrified the living daylights out of me. Unlike a Democrat, I would not wait for the ink to go dry on a formal document between Al Qaeda and Iraq agreeing to a “collaborative relationship” before moving to make sure those “friendly contacts” (the 9/11 Commission’s words – not mine) don’t bear any fruit.
Republicans don’t take chances with national security. We would NEVER take someone like Saddam Hussein’s word on anything whatsoever, and neither would we worry ourselves about passing some stupid “global test” before acting to protect the United States.
Try harder next time, mak44. This was too damn easy.
section9,
Conservatives make an error when they get into the Origins of the Iraq War debate with liberals for the following reason.
On every other thing except the above, I agree with you. We simply cannot allow the Press and their Leftist brethren rewrite history.
Your child would grow up actually believing Fahrenheit 9/11 is an actual documentary.
We have to beat down this BushLied™ before the NEA get to demand this nonsense gets taught as actual history and not the mass Left-wing delusion it actually is.
Martin,
You’re right, of course. The Left is after Power, and has no interest in national security, nor in prevailing in a war in which it does not believe. So I guess we must remain engaged, if only to counter the mass propaganda apparatus that is the mainstream media.
However, do NOT underestimate the intelligence of the American people. They have this unerring ability to get things right in the long run, despite the enormous efforts of Democrats to convince them otherwise.
The left not only dont believe in this war effort, they also are absent the spine or brainpower to win it! and therefore must do everything in their meeger abilitys to sabotage us..
Has anyone ever noticed that the liberals are the second biggest pussies (no one can beat the french – not capitalized for a very good reason) in the world. They make all these claims/lies and yet less than 1% of them (I’m being ridiculously kind with this estimate) could, or worse, would ever stand up to someone who is threatening them. They would leave that “messy” business for someone else.
How do I know, because I get in their face and challenge them every time I encounter one in person or online. The verdict: They would have to be heavily drugged to even be considered a chicken-s**t. Yet they love to spout off online (see mak44 – notice how these liberals NEVER give any part of their names? Trust me, It’s not an accident). When attacking these liberal losers I use a simple rabid-pit-bull approach. If they could find a despicable sewage tunnel, they would eagerly and quickly claim this as their official point of retreat. Which brings me back to my most important point. Freedom ain’t free; never has been and never will be. But liberals will never understand or accept this. Martin and section9 are right on the money with their posts. Power is far more important that defeating the millions of enemies that want to destroy everything American.
What really upsets me is the disgusting reality that our brave and patriotic (words totally foreign to liberals) troops have to fight this war for the benefit of these WORTHLESS BASTARDS. WORTHLESS BASTARDS who would best be used for al Qaeda target practice. They may say they support our troops but it is THE BIGGEST LIE EVER TO BE TOLD. What they really want is to see every one of our troops (or at least the white ones) murdered so that they can scream, “We told you so, now vote us into power so that we can’t bring peace to the world!” Yeah, like that will happen.
God, we need a Hunting Season for liberals…a long one.
Mike J. Cole – Dallas [email protected]
33% approval ratings for Bush doesnt mean he wouldnt be re-elected in a heart beat tomorow.
consider this:
are neo conservatives pissed bush isnt doing enough? probably, considering many more ppl consider themselves conservatives than ppl who consider themselves liberals, probably making up a large portion of the unsatisfied count no doubt.
are run of the mill conservatives somewhat dissatisfied aswell. certainly. they would like to see this war over more quickly & likely apply the pressure. add moderate republicans to this group for a few more pts.
of course everyone left of center is upset no doubt but its quite probable lol that they only represent a small remaining faction of the unsatisfied. so dont get ur hopes up too much fellas come election day because none of the above groups right of center will side with u.
remember the “silent majority” of R. Nixon really did exsist inspite of slash & burn campaign by the liberal press back in the early 70’s. remember the shock u all felt with the first w. bush election. u fellas were left dumbfounded. remember? the problem is u never try to understand ur opponents strengths & rational. instead u call them stupid! if i didnt know any better id say “now theres the real stupidity!” but i know better.
conservatives consider ur points & try to look for merit, thats why they understand u all & know where u are comin from as i do.
ur problem is that u all believe the first talkin point u get because ur “cause” is so rightous that it doenst quit matter how ur get there, just as long as u get there.
marxists carried this trait to an extreme as history tells us which probably played a large part in there fall from grace. u should probably take a lesson from the euro libs. they saw this first hand & arent going down ur road. probably why they have lasted this long.
so my advice stop talking just the points. break some new ground as i have done here. dont just read ur talking points. go read a few books. iv read 8 in the last year on the arab world alone & my positions have been altered somewhat I promise i will try to keep making an effort to understand u. but for now u really sound stupid!