posted on April 26, 2007 01:38:49 PM new
And her is the non-credible mingopig thinking it's ok to come out from under her rock. Time to go back to your rock piggy.
.
.
.
If it's called common sense, why do so few Demomorons have it?
posted on April 26, 2007 01:56:48 PM new
You wake up Linda. This war was orchestrated long before 9/11, which was the "Pearl Harbor" the administration needed to explain invading Iraq. Saddam was once considered an ally even though we knew he was using poison gas in the Iran/Iraq war and on the Kurds. I am normally not a "conspiracy freak", but there are way too many questions, lies, circumstantial evidence, real evidence to just blow this off. The Un-American people are not the liberals or the Dems, they are the perpetrators of this atrocity and their supporters.
posted on April 26, 2007 02:14:00 PM new
April 25, 2007 - Republicans are strong; Democrats are weak. Republicans want victory and order; Democrats want defeat and chaos.
Sound familiar? It should; it’s the Bush administration’s winning script from the 2004 campaign. In recent waeeks, President Bush has been going back to the well to describe the Democratic war-funding bill that’s rapidly heading toward a presidential veto. “I strongly believe that the Democrats’ proposal would undermine our troops and threaten the safety of the American people here at home,” he said Tuesday on the South Lawn of the White House.
Bush’s argument is based on a doomsday scenario for Iraq, where troop withdrawals turn the country into a sanctuary for Al Qaeda and a battleground between regional powers. “Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq is not a plan to bring peace to the region or to make our people safer at home,” Bush said. “It could unleash chaos in Iraq that could spread across the entire region. It would be an invitation to the enemy to attack America and our friends around the world.”
But in private, some of Bush’s most senior aides dispute that scenario. One senior administration official with extensive knowledge of the region, who didn’t want to be identified discussing sensitive policy matters, tells NEWSWEEK that the chances of a regional war in Iraq are low in the event of a U.S. withdrawal. When asked if a regional war would break out, the official said: “Possibly, not probably. It’s more likely that other powers would support their favorite militias, as they’re doing already.”
The senior official said the genocidal bloodbath that Sen. John McCain outlined recently was also unlikely, pointing to the militias’ ability to secure their own neighborhoods after the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra in early 2006. (The official’s main concern: the Iraqi government’s failure to unify the nation and address the root cause of sectarian conflict. “Both the Sunni and Shia are too afraid of each other,” the official said.)
Bush’s argument that Al Qaeda will use Iraq as a safe haven to plot new 9/11-style attacks if the United States pulls out is problematic, too. Osama bin Laden already has a safe haven to plot new attacks in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Gen. Michael Hayden, the CIA director, told senators last year that the border area of Pakistan was a “physical safe haven” that Al Qaeda used as a base to attack Afghanistan. That area is also the likely home of bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, General Hayden added.
That Was Then
In January, President Bush sounded almost sympathetic to war critics. In an interview with National Public Radio, he was asked how he felt about the nonresponse from Democrats about his offer to create a bipartisan panel to advise on the war on terror.
“A lot of these folks aren’t happy we’re in Iraq to begin with, and I understand that,” Bush said. “They don’t believe we are going to succeed in Iraq, and I understand that, too. I think what some may be afraid of is, I’m trying to get them into an Iraq-type situation where they are forced to say something they don’t want to say. I don’t know.”
That was then. In the last four months, Bush has moved from understanding the criticism to seeing it as unforgivable.
“People want our troops to come home, and so do I,” he said outside the White House on Tuesday. “But no matter how frustrating the fight can be and no matter how much we wish the war was over, the security of our country depends directly on the outcome in Iraq. The price of giving up there would be paid in American lives for years to come. It would be an unforgivable mistake for leaders in Washington to allow politics and impatience to stand in the way of protecting the American people.”
Why the change?
Republicans and Democrats feel there is good PR to gain by standing up to each other. The Democratic Senate leader, Harry Reid, dismissed Vice President Dick Cheney as an attack dog with a 9 percent approval rating. (Cheney’s actual approval rating: 34 percent, according to a recent Gallup poll.)
The White House believes Reid is weak enough to warrant a revival of the “defeatist” attack that failed to work against Democrats in November. The administration thinks Reid is weak because of the Democratic reaction to his comments about the war being “lost.” “The fact that Democrats are distancing themselves from Reid is proof that he is not a good messenger for them,” says a senior Bush aide, who declined to be named while discussing political strategy.
Bush is taking a longer view on Iraq, too—one that moves beyond daily political squabbling. In an interview with Charlie Rose on PBS, Bush admitted that his goal is to hand over Iraq in some manageable form to his successor. “I hope to leave a situation that is stable enough so that this [Iraqi] government can move forward with reconciliation, and the security situation is such that we can have far fewer troops there,” he said.
Bush used to say that he didn’t want to kick problems down the road. Now it’s clear that he wants to leave the biggest challenge of his presidency—how and when to withdraw troops from Iraq—to the 44th president.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
Normally you're not? LOL But now, or in this case you ARE.
So...guess Bush 1, clinton and all those other leaders were ALSO involved in this 'conspiracy' you now agree with?
Is THAT your position? Or are you only being one of the wacko liberals/dems who hate this President and his policies/actions so much that you just can't see the EVIL where it exists?
Why in the WORLD would ANY American who can READ what the terrorists have said is their GOAL for America......spend their time with some UNPROVEN conspiracy that BIG BAD AMERICA is to blame for all this?
You sound like bin laden to me. America is to blame.
And hopefully you've read the transcripts of WHY he blames America.....because your comments sound JUST LIKE what HE said/claims.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by linda_K on Apr 26, 2007 02:55 PM ]
posted on April 26, 2007 03:08:26 PM new
Linda, I am sitting here listening to a newscast which is illustrating the lies told my this administration. There's Cheney saying he never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. There's Cheney saying Iraq was involved in 9/11. There's Bush saying Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. There's another clip with Bush saying they participated. There were several other examples of these men denying they lied and then clips of them saying the exact things they denied. Not only does this administration tell lie after lie, they have the audacity to do so when their lies are on videotape. Do you believe me or your lying eyes, I guess.
I said I am normally not a conspiracy freak because you mentioned conspiracy in describing us liberal nuts.
As I said, Clinton and Bush 1 turned down the Wolfowitz proposal, so no they were not involved in the conspiracy.
About your nasty bid Laden remark, it does not even deserve an answer.
posted on April 26, 2007 03:36:13 PM new
My 'nasty' bin laden remark is TRUTHFUL.
All anyone needs to do is read the transcript made when bin laden was telling American's WHY he and AQ bombed our towers.
What they wanted changed....and there he listed everything HE believes America has done to DESERVE those 9-11 horrors.
Your DEFENSE of some unproven conspiracy theory and BLAME of American policy....WAY BEFORE this Pres. EVER took office.....sound JUST LIKE bin ladens blame he laid on America in that tape.
There's no denying it. Read his OWN words....yours are VERY, very similar. Your blame is exact on with his.
It's not a 'nasty' comment....it's a point of FACT. You have 'bought' his mantra against America.
It's NOT just this admin. CC. It's America in general....and for decades.
Might want to read his transcript. Might surprise you just how many of the liberals 'talking points' are direct accusations from bin laden's OWN MOUTH. AGAINST America....for a VERY, very long time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by linda_K on Apr 26, 2007 04:03 PM ]
posted on April 26, 2007 03:45:01 PM new
And I take it you ALSO didn't agree with all in clinton's administration who ALSO believed and told American's that saddam needed to be removed?
And who also BOMBED Iraq to get RID of their NW/Bio/Chem weapons HE KNEW they had????
And who told American's how serious the THREAT was to his neighbors and the US interests that he be removed?
Was he doing this in revenge from the attempt on Bush1 life?
Was he doing this because Bush LIED to us about saddam not honoring the UN resolutions for 13 years?
Was he lying about the THREAT HE and all those dems in HIS admin. saw saddam as being?
Was all that LIES also, CC?
You claim they weren't in this 'conspiracy theory' you now appear to believe.
BUT....why was clinton saying up until the END of his presidency that saddam had NOT done what the UN and the 1990 war treaty called upon him to do?
Come on CC.....was he LYING TOO?
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 26, 2007 05:01:40 PM new
I do not dispute that Saddam needed to go. What disgusts me is that we let him stay in power as long as he was useful to us, no matter what he did. Once he had outlived his usefulness, then he was gone. What angers me is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but the administration used that to get us into a war with Iraq. What have you got to say about the Bush and Cheney lies----lies that were refuted by their own videotaped interviews and speeches?
posted on April 26, 2007 05:18:18 PM new
No, CC....not as 'long as he was necessary for us'....but rather UNTIL he started using the womd against the kurds.
Did you forget that little detail? lol
You still haven't answered my WOMD questions. Was clinton and his admin. LYING to us also?
I will then answer your 'video' question.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 26, 2007 06:27:38 PM newMy 'nasty' bin laden remark is TRUTHFUL. All anyone needs to do is read the transcript made when bin laden was telling American's WHY he and AQ bombed our towers.
Isn't it ironic that one crazy loon believes another crazy loon.
Now who is believing every word that comes from a terrorist's mouth as a fact.
If Bin Laden says he was responsible for Kennedy's assassination, you would believe that as well.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 26, 2007 06:33:40 PM new
I heard an interview with a former top Iraqi nuclear scientist who worked in their nuclear research facility. He said they were about 15-20% of where they should have been in developing a nuclear bomb in 1991. Then in 1991, on the first night of bombing in the Gulf War, their nuclear research facility was destroyed. It was never rebuilt. The program stopped at that point. As far as other WOMD, thorough investigation over 4 years ago revealed no stockpile. Since Saddam used poison gas in the Iran/Iraq war and on his own people, the Kurds, he did have WOMD at one time. It matters not to me which presidents were involved in helping Saddam, only that they did and that is wrong.
posted on April 26, 2007 06:38:11 PM new
"My 'nasty' bin laden remark is TRUTHFUL. All anyone needs to do is read the transcript made when bin laden was telling American's WHY he and AQ bombed our towers."
Of course Bin Laden and AQ are responsible for 9/11---who has said otherwise. However, there were no ties to Iraq. In fact almost all of the 9/11 bombers were from Saudi Arabia and were funded by Saudis. Bush said any country which harbors or aids terrorists are our enemies. The Saudis who funded these terrorists are living happily ever after in Saudi Arabia. Another crock from Bush.
posted on April 26, 2007 07:36:02 PM new
"I heard an interview with a former top Iraqi nuclear scientist who worked in their nuclear research facility. He said they were about 15-20% of where they should have been in developing a nuclear bomb in 1991. Then in 1991, on the first night of bombing in the Gulf War, their nuclear research facility was destroyed. It was never rebuilt. The program stopped at that point."
lol...don't suppose you could share with us WHICH Iraqi scientist this was, could you? lol And WHEN it was he supposedly said this?
Did we know this info in 1990 when we went to war with Iraq because he had INVADED Kuwait? And where was his PROOF that their NW facility ws destroyed???
Did they give that info to the UN - at ANY TIME in those 13 years????....since they were supposed to ACCOUNT FOR ALL KNOWN womd they had???? And they didn't.....
"As far as other WOMD, thorough investigation over 4 years ago revealed no stockpile."
So then....you didn't believe clinton EITHER when he said saddam had become a MASTER deceptor at MOVING his womd all around so the investigators couldn't find it? lol lol Boy you don't believe anything ANY President tells us.
'Since Saddam used poison gas in the Iran/Iraq war and on his own people, the Kurds, he did have WOMD at one time. It matters not to me which presidents were involved in helping Saddam, only that they did and that is wrong."
Yep....you're one of the BLAME AMERICA FOR ALL WRONG DOING......just like bin laden does. Just like bin laden accuses us of.
shame on you CC.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 26, 2007 07:44:21 PM new
"However, there were no ties to Iraq."
That is VERY MUCH in dispute. Some believe bin laden and saddam DID have a 'mutual hatred of the US' and would have worked together against the US.
edited to add:
Others believe there was no connection at all....BUT that at that time, following 9-11 the President couldn't take a chance that NOW....SEPARATELY....saddam could cause or help another terrorist attack.
Not worth the risk with his history and his previous actions with womd....which he NEVER accounted for to the UN.
"In fact almost all of the 9/11 bombers were from Saudi Arabia and were funded by Saudis."
You have PROOF OF THIS??? lol
Saudi Arabia had long before thrown bin laden and his followers OUT of SA. Where have you been? Bin laden and his muslim supporters financed 9-11.
That's WHY this admin. was so busy putting HOLDS on those 'charitable muslim religious groups'....who were supporting their terrorists goals.
"Bush said any country which harbors or aids terrorists are our enemies."
Yes, and I haven't seen him change that position.
"The Saudis who funded these terrorists are living happily ever after in Saudi Arabia. Another crock from Bush."
PROVE it, CC.
The only 'crock' I see here is you're sounding more and more like 'waco'peepa whom you said you think so highly of. LOL LOL LOL
That alone discredits most of what you post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coult
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 26, 2007 07:51 PM ]
posted on April 26, 2007 08:23:06 PM new
"In fact almost all of the 9/11 bombers were from Saudi Arabia and were funded by Saudis."
You have PROOF OF THIS??? lol "
Well, I don't have copies of their passports on me but:
From CBC News-The Fifth Estate
TURNING A BLIND EYE
A third view, explored by the fifth estate, suggests something different altogether: that the evidence pointing to a pending attack was not pursued vigorously (consciously or unconsciously) simply because much of it led back to Saudi Arabia. And that Saudi Arabia holds a special place in the U.S. political, business and intelligence milieu. It's a country that is not held to the same standards of accountability as are other nations. The reason, of course, is America's enormous dependence on Saudi Arabia for oil. Remember: ""15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens.""
Look Linda. If you are not too lazy or closed minded, the answer to most of your questions are on the CBC video (link posted by Kiara). They give the name of the Iraqi nuclear scientist, interviews with American officials and diplomats. Go look at it yourself. Just keep in mind, although I have tried to answer some of your questions,( or should I say interrogations) you still have not answered my question about Bush and Cheney lies. I won't hold my breath. Bullying, name-calling or denigrating me or my opinions will not work. I know that bullies are insecure and the only way they feel better about themselves is if they put someone else down. You don't fool me.
posted on April 26, 2007 08:50:51 PM newLook Linda. If you are not too lazy or closed minded, the answer to most of your questions are on the CBC video
Yes, Coincoach, most of the answers can be found by watching the video. Perhaps Linda_K is afraid to become more informed though.
posted on April 26, 2007 09:32:02 PM new
LOL.....yea, and I suppose SOME who will believe anything written would also believe and use as proof everything Michael Moore has ever said that was anti-American too.
Doesn't work for me....I don't buy into conspiracy stories. I like REAL proof....FACTS....not what someone 'dreamed up'. LOL
And NO, you didn't answer my clinton questions.
You did everything to avoid them.
NOW, you're taking the position that the US overlooked everything SA did......
....well that happened during the CLINTON administration....IF you remember correctly...this president was only in office EIGHT MONTHS before 9-11 hit.
Proof has been provided that the 9-11 terrorists were in our country for TWO YEARS planning and training for these twin tower bombings. THAT CC was during the clinton admin.
So your 'false belief' that this admin. had anything to do with the saudi terrorists actions....and with SA financial support.....just hasn't been proven.
Your believe falsehoods means NOTHING.....your believing in conspiracies means nothing.
SA had booted them out years and years before they carried out their terrorist attack on 9-11.
Bush inherited this mess BECAUSE the clinton admin. did NOTHING after any of the FIVE ATTACKS the AQ committed against our interests. He was too COWARDLY to act.
He too thought 'talking' would work. It didn't.
They got braver.
Did you read bears thread? There you will see ALL your democrats stating the DANGER/threat saddam and his womd presented.
DENY their words. Before they flip-flopped for their partisan GAIN. tsk tsk tsk
Here....I've made it easier for you to read the words of the LIARS who now speak out and blame THIS President....when they said EXACTLY the same thing themselves.
But being the COWARDS they are....now they've changed their tunes. tsk tsk tsk
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 26, 2007 09:40 PM ]
posted on April 26, 2007 11:54:27 PM new
Coincoach you have to realize that the bushit administration , which has been caught red-handed paying "journalists" to present their agenda as fact, pay others to keep repeating their lies. These paid "Tokyo Roses" just keep repeating themselves and the repug crap. The aim is for people to get so used to hearing it that they believe it.
That's why no amount of proof to the contrary will ever get them to admit how wrong they are. They will believe bin Laden, a known terrorist, over anyone else.
They are paid to distribute the screechings of a sick administration.
I heard a woman on the radio Wednesday...she is eldery and speaks with a heavy eastern European accent. She remarked that she lived under Communism and blew it off...."Oh, that's nothing!(compared to Fascism)" But, she said, Fascism was something else, horrible, and this country was Fascist. Who should know better than a person who lived with it?
posted on April 27, 2007 06:56:07 AM new
"Doesn't work for me....I don't buy into conspiracy stories. I like REAL proof....FACTS....not what someone 'dreamed up'. LOL"
Real proof to you is a WT article or Fox report. What proof have you ever provided for your arguments? You are criticizing information from a CBC Fifth Estate investigative report, but apparently have not even watched the video. Or, if you have watched it, decided that it is propaganda because you don't agree with it. The video does proivide facts obtained through interviews and documents.
"....well that happened during the CLINTON administration....IF you remember correctly...this president was only in office EIGHT MONTHS before 9-11 hit."
As I have said over and over, I would not turn a blind eye to any president if given the same type of information we have on Bush. Yes, the terrorists were here during the Clinton administration and were not discovered---which shows we were terribly unprepared. But 911 happened on Bush's watch, and his administration received much information which, if taken more seriously, could have prevented 911. Why wasn't it taken seriously?
I really don't care if you answer my questions or not, because your answers would be more of the same crap. You cannot deny that Bush and Cheney lied many times. It is unbelievably arrogant of them to deny they lied, especially when you run the video tapes one after the other--the denial that they lied followed by them stating exactly what they said they did not.
posted on April 27, 2007 07:01:56 AM new
"Did you read bears thread? There you will see ALL your democrats stating the DANGER/threat saddam and his womd presented."
Boy, you are really all over the place with your posts. What do you expect them to say, given the information (false) they received from their trusted CIC. They had no reason to believe that he was lying about the reasons for invading Iraq at that time. When more accurate information was forthcoming, they realized that was the wrong decision. They were duped.
posted on April 27, 2007 09:02:10 AM new
I find it very ironic that Bush is telling the American people to be patient with his surge plan and with the way things are going in Iraq.
Where was Bush's patience when the UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq in late 2002 searching for the all the WMD that were supposed to be there? As it was becoming clear that the weapons inspectors would not find anything, Bush decided to attack Iraq. I guess the President could not have patience when it was already decided to go to have a regime change in Iraq long before 9/11.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
You have based your position on speculation, conspiracies/etc. BUT NO real facts.
First off on all these 'lies' you say Bush has told. Since three different investigative committees AND the 9-11 commission have stated he did NOT lie.....what would it take for you to EVER believe it?
You, like most liberals are closed minded and REFUSE to accept findings unless they say what you want them to say.
If you think for one minute the liberals could prove anything against this President or VP....other than short EDITED clips, taken totally out of context...which often changes EVERYTHING in regards to appearance....they certainly would have by now.
They haven't....because they CAN'T find anything. So they use edited tapes....partical statements...that when put together totally DISTORT what was actually said.
Matter of fact.....yesterday O'Rielly was slamming Bill Moyers for doing and EXACTLY that - with tapes moyers used on his program to try and misrepresent what O'Reilly had actually said.
And there's old moyers...along with dan rather http://www.ratherbiased.com "proving" to viewers what O'Reilly had SUPPOSEDLY said. But he said more than what they showed...the short EDITED clips they showed.
And when shown the FULL statements O'Reilly had ACTUALLY said....it then showed THEM, moyers and rather, to be the DISTORTERS of what they falsely were claiming.
Egg on their face.
Same thing happened when the liberals kept using a PARTIAL quote from Pres. Bush. ALL they quoted was him saying [paraphrasing here] was he didn't care or wasn't interested in capturing bin laden. LOL
Any rational human being would KNOW that wasn't true. And had seen how he DID go after binladen.....but because the press chose to take his statement out of context....they didn't understand WHY he had said what he SUPPOSEDLY said at that at that point in time.
They TOO chose to DISTORT his actual intent for their own political agenda.
The two guests on O'Reilly last night AGREED that it's easy to edit what they called 'strings' [or stringers] which are ....partial statements here....another partial statement from there....and totally change what the viewing public sees....vs what that person really said.
So....you keep your closed mind....believe in all the conspiracies you need to delute your mind with....I'll stay with the actual FACTS.
posted on April 27, 2007 10:36:40 AM new
Linda_K, perhaps you are unaware of the reputation of CBC's the fifth estate. It focuses on investigative reporting and has won 243 awards as well as an Academy Award for its unbiased programs. It is shown around the world and is highly respected for its content.
The program about the events leading up to the war has authentic footage, authentic interviews, authentic documents and real people that took part in the events. Without watching the video there is no way you can discuss its content with Coincoach because the video answers all your questions.
If you are hesitant about your computer logging on to a foreign country's website (CBC Canadian) you can perhaps view the Google video from an American site.
posted on April 27, 2007 10:47:35 AM new
ROFLMHO.......
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 27, 2007 12:38:57 PM newEgg on their face.
Same thing happened when the liberals kept using a PARTIAL quote from Pres. Bush. ALL they quoted was him saying [paraphrasing here] was he didn't care or wasn't interested in capturing bin laden. LOL
Any rational human being would KNOW that wasn't true. And had seen how he DID go after binladen.....but because the press chose to take his statement out of context....they didn't understand WHY he had said what he SUPPOSEDLY said at that at that point in time.
Typical neo-con. First they criticize Clinton over and over for not capturing Bin Laden when he supposedly had a chance to get him. Thus making Clinton responsible for 9/11.
Then when Bush relaxes his efforts to get the man THAT HAS TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE 9/11 ATTACKS, we are taken his statement out of context. This is after BUSH CLAIMED HE WOULD HUNT HIM DOWN.
If Bush would have had enough troops in Afghanistan in late 2001, there is possibility that Bin Laden could have been capitured.
Now who is really being soft on terror? Who is really cutting and running from capturing Bin Laden? BUSH BUSH BUSH
Another example of Linda trying to fit what actually happend into her political agenda of bowing down to kiss Bush's feet.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 27, 2007 12:47:47 PM newMatter of fact.....yesterday O'Rielly was slamming Bill Moyers for doing and EXACTLY that - with tapes moyers used on his program to try and misrepresent what O'Reilly had actually said.
The two guests on O'Reilly last night AGREED that it's easy to edit what they called 'strings' [or stringers] which are ....partial statements here....another partial statement from there....and totally change what the viewing public sees....vs what that person really said.
So....you keep your closed mind....believe in all the conspiracies you need to delute your mind with....I'll stay with the actual FACTS.
No wonder Linda doesnt believe in the FACTS when they are presented to her. Like O'Reilly, they both can not face the truth that their "facts" are usually wrong and when they are confronted with the truth they claim they have been misquoted.
Here are a few links to how O'Reilly was confronted with the truth about his so-called facts:
And when shown the FULL statements O'Reilly had ACTUALLY said....it then showed THEM, moyers and rather, to be the DISTORTERS of what they falsely were claiming.
Once again it is O'Reilly that was wrong not others as O'Reilly keeps complaining. The Repugs just need to keep talking, they will expose themselves for the stupid jerks they really are.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 27, 2007 01:03:24 PM new
Bush: "Our partners in the six-party talks are patient but our patience is not unlimited," Bush said after talks with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
Well Bush, our patience with your handling of the Iraq War is not unlimited either. What are you going to do about that?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 27, 2007 02:04:38 PM new
"You have based your position on speculation, conspiracies/etc. BUT NO real facts."
The facts are in the CBC Fifth Estate investigative report. They are not speculation.
"You, like most liberals are closed minded and REFUSE to accept findings unless they say what you want them to say."
You have got to be kidding, oh Queen of the Closed Minds. I could show you a notarized affidavit, signed in blood and you would call it speculation or not based in reality.
"If you think for one minute the liberals could prove anything against this President or VP....other than short EDITED clips, taken totally out of context...which often changes EVERYTHING in regards to appearance....they certainly would have by now."
The clips were as follows: Cheney: I never said that Iraq was responsible for 911. Next tape: Cheney: Iraq is responsible for 911.
"Matter of fact.....yesterday O'Rielly was slamming Bill Moyers for doing and EXACTLY that - with tapes moyers used on his program to try and misrepresent what O'Reilly had actually said."
Bill O'Reilly--Yeah, now there's an unbiased reporter.
posted on April 27, 2007 04:40:16 PM new
Yes, CC, I'm fully aware that liberals can't stand ANY news source, commentator/etc. that doesn't go along with the liberal mind think.
LOL....he's MORE balanced and less biased that most ANY liberal commentator OR liberal news online or in print.
And at least the WA Times and O'Reilly present both sides of the issues.....not the one way - their way ONLY - mind set of the liberal MSM.
That's why their audience has grown so much.....the public likes to hear something 'real' once in a while....not all that liberal wacko talk.
But, yes, I'm well aware that liberals can't handle the conservative side being presented along WITH the liberal side of ANY issue.
That's what I LOVE about them. As do MILLIONS and MILLIONS of other viewers.
Are YOU a Bunghole?
