The conservative blogosphere, desperate to discredit the Downing Street Minutes, is abuzz with the ridiculous rumor that London Times reporter Michael Smith — who broke the DSM story — used to work for Mary Mapes at CBS. The extremely popular site Little Green Footballs breathlessly asks:
Is British reporter Michael Smith, who broke the Downing Street memo story…the same Michael Smith who was hired by Mary Mapes as a CBS assistant producer in the Rathergate scandal?
The rumor is repeated on right-wing blogs here, here, here, here and here.
It took me a grand total of one phone call to CBS to see if this rumor was true. The answer is no. The Michael Smith who used to work for Mary Mapes is not the same Michael Smith who writes for the London times.
Clearly, CBS is in on the conspiracy to spread more lies about our Great President just like they did with Dan Rather. They clearly are hiding the fact that both Michael Smiths are the same person but they don’t want to be caught by all the good patriotic bloggers who found them out. I don’t understand why you liberals are too stupid to understand this.
June 20th, 2005 at 12:50 pmStay in denial Ass, thats your poragavtive..Us intelligent folks prefer the truth and will continue seeking it.
Michael Smith, how many Michael Smiths are there in the world? Couple million?
June 20th, 2005 at 1:08 pmLook, it’s an understandable mistake. With a name as unusual as “Michael Smith,” who could’ve ever guessed that there might be more than one of them?
June 20th, 2005 at 1:08 pmGrasping for straws…
June 20th, 2005 at 1:20 pmI am hoping that assrockest comments are meant in a sarcastic way.
June 20th, 2005 at 1:24 pmThe conservative blogosphere is merely aiding an abetting a Bush White House intent on manufacturing the news.
From rented reporters, purchased pundits, and rigged rallies to scripted sessions, fake news and pseudo-science, an unapologetic White House has sought to alter public perceptions to control political debate – and reality itself.
June 20th, 2005 at 1:30 pmBut is the London Times’ Michael Smith is the same person as Michael W. Smith, the Dove Award winning Christian singer.
After all they have the same common name!
June 20th, 2005 at 1:35 pmFunny thing about “Rathergate”, while the papers may not have been on the up and up, no one ever said what they say wasn’t true.
Bush lied, now on cue, the republicans are doing it over and over and over.
June 20th, 2005 at 1:38 pmImagine wasting several critical months of media coverage on this FARCE of a story, confusing the “easily confused” so the Busheviks can try to sweep it under the rug.
June 20th, 2005 at 1:43 pmMonday Quandry – So Many Links, So Little Time
June 20th, 2005 at 1:46 pmLots of feedback for the WB42 5:30 Report with Doug Krile. Monday’s selection of blogs is good, but the online list is even bigger and better.
Gee, the registration page to post on LGF is closed. Odd…
June 20th, 2005 at 1:51 pmkindness #8,
You are absolutely correct..Rather reported the truth he just didn’t have the documents to prove it.
Remember a short time ago Time retracted the story about the Koran abuse…That story is also true.
This administration is controling the media because the media is run by a bunch of sissy’s.
Blogs rule!
June 20th, 2005 at 1:55 pmJust to correct your claim about the two Michael Smith’s, I think you missed the point that at least I felt is was just serendipitus irony. I clearly stated the Mapes Smith lived in Texas.
June 20th, 2005 at 1:56 pmIrony be damned, you did it to screw the issue. Weak-ass excuse.
June 20th, 2005 at 2:02 pmThe Bush Cabal and the neocons must keep on lying, if they were to begin to tell the truth, nobody would believe them. It’s a caught 22.
They will cry wolf until the wolf comes and eats them. Too bad, but that’s what happens when you use lies, trickery, deceit, obfuscation and propaganda to ruin a country.
The wolf is at the door. Crying wolf all of the time only works for so long. Sooner or later, nobody will answer the call for help.
You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. But, you can’t…
The dern fools. What else can they expect? Eggs in their bier?
June 20th, 2005 at 2:20 pmDan Rather is the messenger that got shot.
June 20th, 2005 at 2:22 pmRather was set up, but misplaced his backbone.
June 20th, 2005 at 2:25 pmThere are many who lost their backbones in the rush to emulate Faux-News (aka: Fox). I’m constantly appalled at the conservatives “chowing” Jim Lehrer’s News Hour on a nearly nightly basis.
Don’t the konservatives have enough media outlets?
June 20th, 2005 at 2:34 pmJust remember: It’s not a lie if you believe it.
June 20th, 2005 at 2:35 pmMissed it by that much
June 20th, 2005 at 2:37 pmThe blog-right woke up this morning certain they had another Memogate in the proverbial can. Blogs for Bush. Little Green Footballs. All their minions out this morning with one message: the Downing Street memos are a fake, because the the…
Hey Assrocket,
June 20th, 2005 at 2:48 pmThis is beginning to look like a regular cabal.
http://www.michaelsmithmusic.com/
http://www.msfhr.org/
http://www.themichaelsmith.com/
philrsss.anu.edu.au/~msmith/
almaz.com/nobel/chemistry/1993b.html
nobelprize.org/chemistry/ laureates/1993/smith-autobio.html
my.webmd.com/content/Biography/7/1756_53096.htm
http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~smith/
http://www.foodtv.ca/tv/hosts/hostdetails/host_23495.asp
http://www.bcgsc.ca/
And that’s just from page 1 of 84 pages of Michael Smith.
Why don’t you just go rant with your fellow pinheads over at whatever right wing psycho blog you usually go to?
The White House (Rove, Card, etc) know how much trouble is brewing around Iraq, Downing St. Etc and you can be sure that there will be a flurry of false documents, leaks, spin etc. deployed to stanch the bleeding. They will try to collar those who propagate the truth courageously by setting up the messenger so that the message can be destroyed, a la Dan Rather, Koran flush, etc.
They play dirty and they play to win. They are losing right now so expect the onslaught to be furious.
IMHO, they have very little credibility remaining and this horse cannot be put back in the barn. Keep the HEAT on THEM!
June 20th, 2005 at 2:49 pmAlso of some slight importance to this story is that TWO “senior British government officials” CONFIRMED the authenticity of the memos to Newsweek.
June 20th, 2005 at 2:57 pmI doubt that the Killian memo Michael Smith and the Downing Street Memo Michale Smith are one and the same, but it doesn’t matter. The Downing Street Memo Smith has admitted that the memos are forged.
June 20th, 2005 at 3:02 pmFootballers must be very disappointed.
June 20th, 2005 at 3:10 pmThe Dread Pundit Bluto must have scored a whopping 100 on his SAT reading comprehension section.
June 20th, 2005 at 3:11 pmNo joke Say What? Copying the data (not CHANGING it) is not forgery. The facts and the details remain unchallenged and in fact have been corroborated by intelligence sources and have not been denied by Blair or Bush. When are these nitwits going to stop with the smoke and mirrors and admit that they’ve been manipulated and lied to like everyone else has?
June 20th, 2005 at 3:16 pmRight Wing Bloggers Thwarted
June 20th, 2005 at 3:19 pmVia Think Progress’s work.
Sorry you have no sense of humor skid. All the ‘right’ needs is for Michael Smith to keep talking. He is the one making all the news. Stop blaming the messenger and try and focus on what is happening. This two smith issue is irrelevant, and everyone seems to understand that. OK, well almost everyone.
June 20th, 2005 at 3:27 pmJay. And you know the data in the forgeries are accurate because…the forger claims they are?
Boy, have I got a real estate deal for you!
Say What? – buy a dictionary.
June 20th, 2005 at 3:27 pmDPB,
“The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.”
“forgery
n 1: a copy that is represented as the original [syn: imitation, counterfeit] 2: criminal falsification by making or altering an instrument with intent to defraud”
June 20th, 2005 at 3:37 pmHe clearly stated he retyped them to protect his sources.
I have a dictionary and I also know how you pathetic right wingers try to win by intimidation and insults.
It doesn’t work any longer, son. Your political salad days are just about over.
What kind of crazy stuff are you going to say next? That lying and getting 1700 decent American soldiers, marines and sailors killed because of some personal agenda is not as bad as lying about getting a blow job?
Go back to your bitter little life.
Sorry AJ, but this and dead soldiers because of a lie isn’t shits and giggles for respectable human beings.
It would help if these bozos would READ the DSMs because then they would understand that the ORIGINALS were copied and destroyed because they gave indication as to WHO leaked them. That’s a bit much to ask I guess, from immitation-based monkeys. Comprende?
June 20th, 2005 at 3:40 pmBluto,
To be quite honest, the Downing Street documents are nothing but more evidence for the impeachment and the war crimes trials. If you’ve been paying attention to anything outside of Fox News and rightwing radio, you might actually have a clue about how badly you’ve been misled. There are so many dots that have already been connected that honest Americans can no longer stomach all the sleaze and lies. You are just in denial or completely out of touch with reality. You are also accomplice to their crimes.
On the day that Bush and his crew are convicted, we will all take a deep breath and thank the truthtellers for fighting to restore some semblance of the America that we all knew and loved.
June 20th, 2005 at 3:49 pmn 1: a copy that is represented as the original
Very good, Say What? the first step is admitting you have a problem. Now step away from the liberal ideologues.
Jay. The AP obtained copies of six of the forgeries. Smith admitted creating them and claimed to have destroyed the originals, though in an alternate account, he claimed to have returned them to his source.
So Jay, we have admitted forgeries allegedly authenticated by…a confidential source.
That real estate deal is really, really good. Interested?
June 20th, 2005 at 6:21 pmDPB, whats wrong you bought the Brooklyn Bridge and now you want your money back?
June 20th, 2005 at 6:53 pmForget it sucker!
HELLO DREAD-
June 20th, 2005 at 6:56 pmCheck #32 again… Read it slowly if you must…
So all those transcripts of the Nixon tapes were also forgeries, DPB?
Now that you mention it, any copy of anything is a forgery. And since you’re only reading a copy of my post on your computer screen…
June 20th, 2005 at 7:27 pmAny definition of the word forgery includes some reference to either “false” or “counterfeit”….copied is not forged, end of story. Once again the defenders of the Bush administration are trying to play semantic games. It’s over Bluto, this bullshit isn’t flying with the American people anymore and I think you know it. Quibbling over the definition of the word forgery is akin to smearing John Kerry for not bleeding enough to deserve a purple heart. It misses the point entirely by distracting from the spirit of the argument, which was that Kerry had the guts to go to Vietnam (unlike some of are more prominent Republicans who shall be left unnamed).
I just saw Michale Smith on Hardball and he stated clearly that the documents were photocopied (as the originals could not be released) and as advised by counsel they were re-typed after that. He confirmed that NOBODY has questioned the authenticity of the memo’s.
I think it’s safe to say that this case is closed no matter how hard the wingnuts try to spin it.
June 20th, 2005 at 7:57 pmBluto,
Just checked out your site and I have to tell you that it boggles my mind that someone that has the time, the interest and technical savvy to dedicate a website to political issues isn’t catching on to the fraud that is the Republicans and the Bushies. Dude, come on, you seem to be an intelligent guy. What is it? I’ve got to know. Is it that your dad served and you are one of these guys that buys into the GI Joe mentality that glorifies war and killing and all US militaristic endeavors are good and honorable?
Is it greed? Are you getting paid to prop up the BIG LIES? Are you a major shareholder in Halliburton/KBR or GE?
You’re not stupid. Can someone with access to all of the data that the internet provides be so blinded by political loyalty and ideology?
Help me understand.
June 20th, 2005 at 8:22 pmDon’t believe the right wing lies from LGF. The Downing Street memos prove Bush cooked up the war. We need peace and justice! Let’s undo the lies. Put Saddam back in office. Saddam can go back to gassing villagers, and Kofi Anan can go back to taking oil bribes. All will be right with the world again.
June 20th, 2005 at 8:50 pmFellas,
I’m here in Germany and the presence of Karl Rove and Halliburton is omnipresent even this far. Schroeder needed the oil to transport the weapons hardware he was selling to the Hussein regime. Even though Tony Blair is not American, he was getting oil contracts for friends in Iraq as a result of attacking Iraq. Jose Maria Azner was the leader of a weak country with a weak economy, which desperately needs to be in good favors with Brusseles, but neverthless he was also doubtlessly working with Halliburton. Good thing that Zapatero was able to do the right thing – to reject the Halliburton deals and and to leave the Iraqis to their own devices with the freedom fighters or the Baathists (both are fine – who are we to judge, right? Yet, Bush = Hitler, American soldiers in Gitmo = Nazis, Israel = Apartheid South Africa, and Gitmo = Gulag)
By the way, was it Charles who connected the two Michael Smiths or one of the random posters at LGF?
June 20th, 2005 at 8:56 pmHey Gnoam, Saddam did nothing without tacit approval from the CIA and the DoD, he was our evil puppet dictator before he and Bin Ladin replaced the “Communists” as the perpetual, lurking evil that must be defeated at all costs. The war machine is hungry and it needs sustenance.
I suppose you’d prefer an endless state of war instead of peace, right tough guy.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:01 pmLooky here! I found a memo that says Hillary Clinton is boinking Nancy Pelosi! No, you can’t see the original memo. I retyped it. No, you can’t check my source, my source is confidential, codenamed “DeepThroat” Just take my word for it, I’ve retyped a memo that PROVES Hillary is piledriving Nancy with a 12 inch strap-on of Democratic l-o-v-e.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:05 pmThere seems to be an epidemic of ‘fake but accurate’ memos circulating right now…Daring Dick Durbin has one, there’s still the mystery of Rather’s Killian memos and now there’s the ‘Downing Street Memo’ who’s author (created them from originals, returned the originals and then destroyed his copies) but they’re accurate…if you know what I mean!
June 20th, 2005 at 9:06 pmWhy did I lose the election to that guy?
June 20th, 2005 at 9:07 pmI’m not getting the significance of the DSM. It’s one British guy writing what another British guy says some unnamed Administration officials thought the President was thinking. And this is supposed to be evidence????
June 20th, 2005 at 9:08 pmLike Jay, I am sure this will bring McChimpy Halliburhitler down. I have no doubt. Just like the Gannon story, which was the greatest scandal in the history of all mankind. That really damaged Bush sooooo much.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:11 pmYeah, Jay, there was peace throughout the world before Bush started the war for oil. Even, in New York City, at the World Trade Center, on 9/11, there was peace.
If only the CIA, Haliburton, Dick Cheney and the JOOOOS hadn’t flown jets into the World Trade Center, there would peace today.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:11 pmNice…you all got your panties up in a bunch over a RE-TYPE of a COPY of a “Memo” of which the original no longer exists…and yet you insist that the authenticity can’t possibly be questioned? Are you serious?
June 20th, 2005 at 9:16 pmHey 43-48 bring something constructive to the table instead of making stupid statements when you know you lost the argument. As for the memos I don’t have enough information either way but I do think that there’s enough evidence for impeachment. Reasons like ten thousand dead Iraqis and more than 1000 deas US soldiers dead all justified by a lie and we can prove it. Take that.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:19 pmOh, I’m all in favor of Bush’s impeachment. Hail to the Chief – President DICK CHENEY.
You people would never come out from under your beds then.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:22 pmMaybe Canada should step in with the UN and commit the entire admin to the war crimes tribunal in hague
June 20th, 2005 at 9:23 pmThat’s right, they are going down.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:23 pmJustin: I see you are one of those enlightened men who supports undoing Bush’s lies and putting Saddam back in office. Warm up the Iraqi industrial shredders! Fill Saddam’s jets up with poison gas! Dig more mass graves for Iraqi political protesters! Paint more murals of Saddam like this: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16299_Saddam_Hates_Froot_Loops&only
June 20th, 2005 at 9:24 pmJustin, put the bong down and try to enter reality: Bush will not be impeached. Valerie Plame, “yellowcake”, Gannon, idiotic retypes of copies of memos – all just farts in the windstorm of Iraqi freedom.
Let’s face it – Bush is smarter than you (admittedly, that’s not saying much, I know,…,)
June 20th, 2005 at 9:26 pmGG yer a moron. One does not correlate to the other. But since we are on the topic. Where is your outrage over North Korea? how about communist china? Syria? Iran? Huh? I’m sure they’re much more benign than Saddam ever was. that monster. Why aren’t we there?
June 20th, 2005 at 9:27 pmGnoam, we will all be pointing at you and your buddies when it’s time to pay the piper. YOU are among those responsible for killing this democracy. Hope you can be proud of that. Jackass.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:27 pmHey if you can make stupid comments I can too. And I don’t do drugs unlike the crack you guys are smoking
June 20th, 2005 at 9:27 pmHonest question to the Bush supporters. Why aren’t you in Iraq fighting your war? Answer the question.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:28 pmI don’t understand why you liberals get your panties in such a bunch over the “DSMs”. They merely speak to a point that is not really an issue anymore; and their dubious authenticity only decreases the the chances they will have any effect on people with an opposing view point.
The bottom line is that, for better or worse, the USA is the only country with the balls and the ability to combat the scourge known as “radical” islam. We make mistakes, we are not perfect, but we are right in our resolve. The sooner you liberals sack up and realize what is going on in the world, the sooner you can be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:28 pmUmm yes. The only country with the balls to attack radical christianity… whoops I mean Islam. If by that you mean violating another country’s sovereignty which is illegal btw.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:30 pmJustin: We are concerned about those countries. So what do you want us to do? Invade them all? You’d scream your bloody head off if we did.
What do YOU think we should do about North Korea? Negotiate with them like your buddy Jimmah Peanut did? Yeah, that worked real well.
I suppose it is wrong to have fought Hitler; after all we didn’t get rid of Stalin too. Justin logic: We can’t fight ALL evil dictators, so let’s not fight ANY of them. Pass me that blunt and I’m sure peace will come soon!
June 20th, 2005 at 9:32 pmImpeachment is coming! The American public will see to it that the crimes of the Bushies are punished. Bush is a war criminal and should be in prison for the remainder of his life.
They let 9/11 happen to justify their perpetual war-profiteering, oil-grabbing, global dominance foreign policy.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:33 pmClue. Get one. Ever heard of diplomacy. War is supposed to be the LAST resort. NOT THE FIRST.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:34 pmIf you’re so impassioned with freeing Iraqis then grab yer gun and GO.
Jay: Duh, they don’t accept people over 35 in the military, doofus. I have friends and relatives over there and they believe in what they’re doing.
Did you ever ask yourself why the people who ARE doing the fighting over there overwelmingly supported Bush?
June 20th, 2005 at 9:35 pmAnd your stupid characature of me smoking dope is really pretentious and stupid of you since I told youI don’t do drugs you moron. Obviously watching all that pro wrestling has impaired your hearing.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:35 pmcluestick,
Small minds think alike. Wake up from your rightwing stupor and start to face the facts brother. You are a stooge and have been duped by those you trusted most. How does it feel to be a tool?
June 20th, 2005 at 9:36 pmJustin: Not too bright, are you? See my reply to your fellow doofus.
Geez, if this is the left, I have high hopes for 2006!
June 20th, 2005 at 9:36 pmDid they clue? Did you ask them yourself? Where’s yer proof. I forgot. Right wingers don’t need it. They’ll just wish it and it’ll be true
June 20th, 2005 at 9:36 pmJustin: Don’t worry, Bush will invade Syria and Iran quite soon.
I know you’d rather let the Iranians build a nuclear arsenal, but Bush is not going to give Muslim terrorists a chance to nuke New York.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:37 pmI AM CANADIAN. You moron.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:37 pmThe difference between the right and the left is the right stopped seriously thinking about the Michael Smith name coincidence after 30 minutes or so. They entertained the idea for a while (it was fun!) then dropped it because there was no evidence and, let’s be honest, it was the sort of goofy coincidence only a raving lunatic liberal would embrace. The left, on the otherhand, still think the Dan Rather fake memo’s were valid.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:37 pmjay, justin, you guys are clueless. its people like you who let Hitler come to power and enabled the likes of stalin and mao.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:38 pmG.G
Well I’ll wait for North Korea to do it for them then.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:38 pmJay: Nobody needs to “kill” the democracy. KERRY LOST. GET OVER IT. YOU LOST THE ELECTION. That’s democracy :-)
June 20th, 2005 at 9:38 pmI used to be a liberal. My sincerest thanks to both of you for reminding me how wise I was when I started voting for the GOP!
June 20th, 2005 at 9:38 pmI pity the day you stopped caring for other people then clue
June 20th, 2005 at 9:39 pmoh justin is Canadian… how does it feel to be completely irrelevant?
June 20th, 2005 at 9:39 pmOver 35? Doubtful. Adults don’t need to pretend.
The military families do as they’re told. It’s up to us to fight like hell if they’ve been betrayed, which they have.
By the way, due to the recruiting shortage they’ve waived the 35year limit. Good news for you. Send me your email address and I’ll get a recruiter in touch immediately. They really appreciate the gung-ho ones.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:40 pmMy society is better than yours!
June 20th, 2005 at 9:40 pmAnd it was Canadians who helped out in the major calamaties of today. The tsunami and darfur most recently. what have you done?
June 20th, 2005 at 9:41 pmOh Right! you supported a war that killed tens of thousands! HA
June 20th, 2005 at 9:41 pmBoy, this Hillary Clinton – Nancy Pelosi – sapphic love memo that I retyped is HOT!
“Oooh! Hillary! Give me some Hillary-care!”
“Beg for it! Beg for my big government intervention up your hiney, Nancy!”
“Yess! Hilly, fill my booty with your tumescent tax increase!”
Hillary thrust deeper. . .
It’s all true. I’ve got the retyped memos to prove it.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:43 pmcantankerous
Hell, they’re still whining about the 2000 election being “stolen”
June 20th, 2005 at 9:43 pmJustin is Canadian. He can’t vote here, thank God.
He can only screw up his own country further. Hey Justin, don’t come down here when you are scheduled for an MRI and the earliest they can fit you in is the year 2017. Oh, I know, it’s “free.”
June 20th, 2005 at 9:43 pmI wonder where all these morons came from anyway? Don’t they have something better to do?
June 20th, 2005 at 9:43 pmName for me ONE single thing that Bush has either done right or not lied about. I’ll give you a clue. There is NO answer to that question. Sad, sad wingnuts. What the hell are you doing here? Isn’t Hannity on?
June 20th, 2005 at 9:43 pmOh well at least I can get medical care UNLIKE HALF YOUR POPULATION
June 20th, 2005 at 9:44 pmLook, just stating that I called CBS and they said it was not so, is not proof. You have to do better than that to disprove the assertion, if you set out to do so.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:45 pmAnd Canada is running a surplus. What are you running? A DEFICIT! We’re the most multicultural countries in the world without major outbreaks of racism and one of the most respected countries internationally. Oh heaven forbid that there be more countries like us.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:46 pmAnytime you wingnuts want to have a serious debate, just pick the topic. EVERYTHING you clowns say has either been disproven or discredited. Regurgitate rightwing talking points. You’ve all been brainwashed….sad really.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:47 pmJay
Come on, due your duty. You must sign up with al Qaeda and fight this illegal war that Chimpy McBushHitlerburton has started for oil and Halliburton. I’m sure Zarkawi doesn’t have any age requirements.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:47 pmWhy is the onus on us. Prove to US that it’s fake.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:47 pm“Aiee! Hillary! Yesss! You’re globally warming my Kyoto! Don’t stop now! Unnngh!!”
June 20th, 2005 at 9:48 pmOh G.G. Your fits of stupidity can take place elsewhere.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:49 pmThe vast majority of the soldiers in Iraq know they’ve been lied to now and that is the primary reason that this war is lost. Nice job chimpy.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:49 pmMilitary families do what they’re told? What a insult to the intelligence of military families. What contempt you hold them in. Don’t even pretend that you care about them.
Justin, untrue about the tsunami. The Canucks squawked a lot and acted holier than thou (you guys have a talent for that!) but your aid wasn’t even delivered due to UN red tape. In the meantime, American troops were helping people in the tsunami areas while the UN was sitting with their thumbs up their butts – because they couldn’t deliver the aid (and undoubtably because Kofi and Co, were skimming off the top.)
You see, Americans actually DO, other countries (the Aussies excepted) sit there and make santimonious noises.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:49 pmJustin – prove to US that my Hillary-Nancy-lesbo memo is fake. It’s just as credible as the Downing Street memos. Retyped, from an anonymous source.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:51 pmRiight. Prove it clue. Where’s the proof. Just cuz you say so doesn’t make it so. We donated over 100 million in aid. I know that for a fact. In fact look it up on the goverment of Canada’s website
June 20th, 2005 at 9:51 pmWhere’s the original document GG?
June 20th, 2005 at 9:52 pmOr even the retyped one?
June 20th, 2005 at 9:52 pmclueless,
You know that the military will take all comers to fight now that the Bush admin has been exposed as a lying, criminal enterprise and can’t meet recruiting goals. It’s time to stop typing and start training. It is the height of hypocrisy to support a war from the comfort of you’re computer. I think you’re a coward.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:53 pmI agree with Jay
June 20th, 2005 at 9:54 pm“Hillary baby! Impeach my oval orfice with your pumping blue helmet of piecekeeping!”
“Ok, my little Pelosi, hold on to your ankles!”
June 20th, 2005 at 9:55 pmFace the music you cowardly frauds.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:56 pmWas that the photocopied version? I’m sure your journalistic integrity is beyond reproach. And you’ve had people look at it and say that it doesn’t look tampered at first glance.. but I can’t wait. I must know now! I can’t pay attention that long!
June 20th, 2005 at 9:57 pmYeah go to the war you guys love so much. Help free (see kill) Iraqis!
June 20th, 2005 at 9:57 pmThe little green fvcktards really are pissin’ razor blades and shittin’ bricks. I hope it hurts bad.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:57 pmJustin, sorry to rain on your parade but we Canadian did next to nothing for the Tsunami victims.
Our quick response team was weeks behind with little or no equipment while the Americans, yes the evil Bush led Americans, as well as the Aussies (and Japanese if I remember correctly) were there within days. Bush immediately sent over an entire carrier group to help lend support (do you have any idea how much fresh water a carrier group is capable of creating) and USAID provided the majority of supplies (even though the UN attempted to hijack and rebrand their effort to ‘avoid confusion’).
While the UN (and Canadians) sat around discussing the best course of action the Americans were on the ground providing fresh drinking water and supplies to the needy.
Don’t let your overblow ego taint the facts. Canada has not be a major player on the world stage for years. Sad but true.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:01 pmOf course, just like the AP or the New York Times, I had the Hillary-Strap-ons-Nancy memos “authenticated” by several unnamed “experts” and “academics” from respected Ivy League institutions and Penthouse Magazine.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:02 pmWell name them GG!
June 20th, 2005 at 10:03 pmOh how horrible that we try to treat all people with respect. Bic. I know we did donate that 100 million or more in aid. I donated close to 1000 myself. Anyhow. We’re not scared of anyone but the Americans actually. We wish we had our continent to ourselves.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:05 pmI agree, this is fun. And I’m not angry at all! I’m having a great time laughing at your endless stupidity!
That’s the only reason I’m hanging around. Don’t think you’re important enough to be angry with:-D
June 20th, 2005 at 10:06 pmAnd the general who led the (yes underfunded and understaffed) missin to rwanda was Canadian too.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:06 pmI’m not angry. I’m just wondering why you are here instead of fighting in Iraq for your values
June 20th, 2005 at 10:07 pmcluestick = fraudulent coward.
You have no credibility.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:07 pmThe second in command in the Iraq war was also a Candian General. Does that in any way change your view.
I’m guessing not.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:08 pmYeah, Justin, your $1000 is sitting in Ottawa – doing nobody any good at all – but you feel sooooo good about it.
That’s all that really matters to the left – your precious little “feelings.” You don’t give a damn if that money actually does any good or not – you just want to pat yourself on the back.
Such hypocrites!
June 20th, 2005 at 10:09 pmAnd I love my country. I wish it was more left though. Oh well it’ll happen soon.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:09 pmWell why aren’t you in Iraq clue! I can apply the same label to you! I donated to the Red Cross btw. And prove the money is in ottawa. Really. Prove it.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:10 pmBecause the way I understand was that the gvt would match any donations we made to CHARITY to that charity too. I guess they all report to Ottawa :P
June 20th, 2005 at 10:11 pmAnswer the question dammit! Why are you shooting off your mouth and not an M-16?
June 20th, 2005 at 10:11 pmThey were pleading for less cash donations by the end since they had too much $$$ and not enough supplies.
Money is not the cure all for everything. At some point you need a physical presence to get the job done.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:12 pmJustin, clearly you didn’t read my post #111. Yeah, so your country goes more to the left – who cares? It’s not like I’m sitting around all worried about what friggin’ Canada is gonna do.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:13 pmThat’s fair bic. So what were you doing?
June 20th, 2005 at 10:13 pmYou’re avoiding the topic clue. Why aren’t you in Iraq?
June 20th, 2005 at 10:14 pmBy your same twisted logic, why aren’t you over in Iraq standing in front of an tank right now instead of posting here?
June 20th, 2005 at 10:14 pmPhony, fraudulent hypocrites. All of them.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:15 pmWhy? I’m not supporting the war. I guess that means you’re against foreign aid. I see. If you’re Canadian you should be ashamed of yourself.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:15 pmActually I did help out. But all the fun jobs were taken :( I had to sort donation slips.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:16 pmIn the tsunami that is
June 20th, 2005 at 10:16 pmJay, you’re a bonehead. Do you know how to read? I said I’m over 35.
Judging by your responses, I’m thinking you’re about 16 (emotionally if not physically) but I still don’t know why you’re here. Al-Queda has no age restrictions that I know of.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:16 pm“I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the Bushevik hypocracy.”
The increased number of attacks against truth, democracy and freedom by the right-wing butt-trumpeteers goose-stepping to Wagner correlates to the Insurgency at the moment.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:17 pmBut Clue! The army has waived that rule :) so you’re free to go. Why aren’t you going now?
June 20th, 2005 at 10:17 pmTwisted logic? What’s so twisted about fighting in a war that you strongly believe in? These are the same assholes that run around with flags and ribbons on their pick-ups and Hummers and talk tough about how the Dems and progressives are “soft” on our enemies. It’s f&*%ing ridiculous. Bush, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, chickenhawks all. They claim to be the party that’s strong on national defense, so why don’t they put up or shut up?
June 20th, 2005 at 10:18 pmI’m not quite sure what question #130 is in response to Justin.
Simple question (following your logic that you cannot support the war without actually going over and fighting): how can you oppose the war without flying over there and stepping in front of the tanks to prevent them from moving ahead?
Apparently to you guys, anything less is just not acceptable.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:20 pmWhy aren’t Jay and Justin fighting in Iraq? It’s a moral imperative that they do so to fight against this illegal war started by Chimpy McBushHitlerburton. Get to training boys, there are plenty of terrorist training camps in the Middle East.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:20 pmThey will take you if you’re over 35….believe me. Call the local recruiting office if you support the war…..well, support the war tough guy.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:20 pmWell no I’m not saying that. But what do you do anyway? Donate? If not then why knock people who do? You can’t just poo poo an idea without offering a solution Bic
June 20th, 2005 at 10:21 pmAccording to Justin, only members of the military are allowed to support the use of force. If you are a civilian who supports using force, Justin says you are automatically a hypocrite.
I’m not even going to bother pointing out why this is wrong. But I will point out that since 9/11/01 the war is not just in Iraq. The war is HERE, too.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:22 pmJust because I don’t support the war doesn’t make me a terrorist. It’s not either or CI. There are shades of grey. Take the blinders off.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:22 pmNo, I am considerably over 35. BTW, the “why don’t you go?” has to be the most braindead argument of all time. Were people on the homefront in WWII “chickenhawks” because they supported the war but didn’t go? Dumbasses.
I have donated time and money to supporting the troops, and unlike you guys, I actually know some of them. They love Bush and hate cowardly, ball-less leftist twinks like you.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:23 pmGG. PLEASE POINT OUT WHY IT’S WRONG. I look forward to hearing it.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:23 pmSomething concerns me about this whole memo thing. Its authenticity has been neither confirmed nor denied yet the left wing is running amuck as if it’s gospel.
You can’t honestly take this Downing Street Memo seriously considering other memos that have arised in the past. Everything has to be taken with a grain of salt.
But, I know that my words are falling on deaf ears. The second I say I’m for the President everyone on the left goes into attack mode and doesn’t reflect on what I’ve written they just start babbling on and on about stretched-truths and how President Bush is going to ruin the world.
I used to like Democrats until Durbin, Kennedy, Byrd, Kerry, and Hilary Clinton took charge and started attacking the American way of life in all forms.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:23 pmBut it would be great if Justin would stand up for his beliefs and stand in front of an Israeli bulldozer. Just like Rachel “Pancakes” Corrie.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:23 pmRiiight, so if we think Bush is a war criminal and the war in Iraq was an illegal oil grab then we must be terrorsists. OMFG! It’s like arguing with my 2.5 yr. old son about bedtime.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:23 pmArmy Eases Age Limit for Guard, Reserve
The Associated Press
Wednesday 23 March 2005
Recruiting move hikes cutoff to 39.
The Army is tapping into a new pool of potential recruits for the National Guard and the Army Reserve by raising the maximum enlistment age from 34 to 39, officials said yesterday.
The move, described as a three-year test program, is designed to help the Guard and the Reserve meet their recruitment goals when the Iraq war and other pressures are discouraging young people from joining.
The Guard missed its recruiting goal for 2004, and both the Guard and the Reserve are lagging behind their goals so far this year.
The age ceiling for the regular Army is set by law at 34.
Physical standards will not change for the regular Army, the Guard or the Reserve.
For the Guard and the Reserve, the age limit is set by policy and can be changed without approval from Congress, said Maj. Elizabeth Robbins, an Army spokeswoman.
A person one day short of his or her 40th birthday is now eligible to join the Guard or the Reserve; under the old system, the maximum age was 34 years and 364 days.
Census figures show that the change will add about 22 million people to the Army Guard and Reserve recruiting pool. The Army said in a statement that it has not forecast how much this will add to recruit totals.
“Experience has shown that older recruits who can meet the physical demands of military service generally make excellent soldiers based on their maturity, motivation, loyalty and patriotism,” the Army said.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:24 pmumm there’s no way you can compare a threat like Hitler to a half senile non threat like Saddam. If you want to think their equal I have a few prime lands in Nunavut to sell ya.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:24 pmG.G Yes because I WANT TO DIE. If you right wingers are gonna run me over anyway why bother?
June 20th, 2005 at 10:25 pmNice job on the article Skid ;) …..I believe they’ve further modified the rules to allow for anybody willing to believe rightwing, imperialist propaganda or…..at the very least you must have a pulse.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:28 pmIs everyone writing long comments or what?
June 20th, 2005 at 10:28 pmWell, it’s been more fun than a barrell ‘o monkeys, folks! I’ve enjoyed myself immensely, but it’s time to go to bed. Justin, Jay I don’t think you’re bad souls at heart – but you’re immensely naive and not terribly strong in the logic department. Good night, and I hope you are cured of your delusions one day.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:28 pmLOL yes Skid. But I think Clue is geriatric. Sending grandkids to die. Shame
June 20th, 2005 at 10:28 pmOk, Justin, since you asked IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS:
1. If current military service was a prerequisite for having an opinion on the use of the military, we would not be a democracy.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:29 pm2. The U.S. has an all-volunteer army. They don’t want every American adult to enlist.
3. Most adults are not qualified for military service.
4. By Justin’s reasoning, only physicians are allowed to have an opinion on healthcare. Only chefs may express an opinion on food. Only porn stars may argue about sex.
5. Justin is using a cheap debating trick: rather than debate the merits of overthrowing Saddam’s murderous dictatorship, Justin insults the credentials of those who support bringing democracy to Iraq.
cluestick, you’re a sad and ignorant person. Sorry. All the best.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:29 pm#142
You don’t see the hypocrisy? I’m sure your not a terrorist but your a terrorist sympathiser.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:29 pmWe’re not evil Clue. We just don’t believe that there should be needless deaths and decpetion to achieve our aims.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:29 pmGG. In all the other professions no one goes out to kill or be killed. But hey whatever it’s just a job. I just think that if you want other people to kill you should do it yourself just to see what it’s like. Like sex… or cooking. Maybe not sex for you GG
June 20th, 2005 at 10:31 pmGarden Gnoam: you make excellent points in #155, but I’m afraid you’ll just confuse the kiddies.
“Sending grandkids to die” LOL!! Jeez, I’m not quite that old! Bye-bye.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:32 pmGnoam, if you honestly believe that our invasion of Iraq was about bringing democracy, you are one dumb fuck. Seriously, I don’t usually get belligerent on this website. I try to keep it honest, fair and repectful, but really you are so badly misinformed that you shouldn’t even be allowed to vote.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:32 pmOh and back on the foreign AID subject again, did you happen to catch Bob Geldof’s remarks on Bush:
“They refuse to accept, because of their political ideology, that he has actually done more than any American president for Africa,” said Geldof. “But it’s empirically so.”
That evil right wing imperialist … yada …yada… yada…
June 20th, 2005 at 10:32 pmWhat?! Can you prove the empirical part Bic?
June 20th, 2005 at 10:34 pmAnd btw GG what merits? YAY we can get his oil! Oh no *pout* we have to kill TEN THOUSAND Iraqis. I know that number is too high for you to count but it’s a lot.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:34 pmWow, were they drafting chef’s and porn stars back in the 70’s? No shit.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:35 pmBut don’t worry, Bono helped clarify:
“He feels he’s already doubled and tripled aid to Africa, which he has,” said Bono. “But he started from far too low a place.”
So take heart, you can still blame Bush for not yet quadrupling the amount of aid.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:35 pmdoubled from what? And compare that to other countries :)
June 20th, 2005 at 10:36 pm“In all the other professions no one goes out to kill or be killed. ”
Then only police officers may argue about crime.
“I just think that if you want other people to kill you should do it yourself just to see what it’s like.”
As opposed to staying behind a desk in my skyscraper office in New York City, where no Muslim terrorist flying a jet will make me “kill or be killed”
Face it Justin: bringing freedom to Iraq was a tremendous achievement, as good as the U.S. Civil War ending slavery.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:36 pmAh I don’t even need to look it up. Bono said it correctly. I tripled my donation of 1 penny to 3 pennies! YAY!
June 20th, 2005 at 10:37 pmWell said, Garden Gnoam.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:37 pm3 pennies is better than 1, right?
June 20th, 2005 at 10:38 pmI didn’t know it was kill or be killed for Police officers. But hey if you life in DT detroit more power to you.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:38 pm# 167. Hahahahahahahaha. Now I know they’re just trying to piss us off.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:38 pmFreedom? It’s a warzone there! you killed 10 000 people. PEOPLE! ugh you’ve sown discord across the country. People can’t even venture outside designated areas. People hate the US. It’s SO MUCH BETTER NOW.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:39 pmPeople hate the US? Have you been there? Did you take a poll?
June 20th, 2005 at 10:40 pmNo People all over the world hate the US. Google it up :P
June 20th, 2005 at 10:41 pmAh… but Google leans further to the left than you. It’s always the minority that speaks the loudest (by the way).
June 20th, 2005 at 10:42 pmHad Justin, Jay, and all you other liberals been around 150 years ago, you would have protested the U.S. Civil war. “No blood for cotton!” “Lincoln Lied!” Whining about military deaths, even as the slaves were freed.
Jay you are so out of touch with real life that you don’t understand that often the ONLY way to free men is to use force. The only way to topple tyrants. The only way to stop the gassing of entire Kurd villages. Force. It’s sad, but that’s the way the real world works.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:42 pmoh yes. Google is so left wing with it’s wide variety of sources. Are you on crack?
June 20th, 2005 at 10:42 pmI see my faith in the lefts abilities to knock down anything Bush does (even giving record breaking aid to Africa).
If Bush single handedly cured cancer tomorrow J & J would be bitchin’ about all the researchers that would suddenly be out of work.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:43 pmChris, no offense but Google is a vast search engine and even though the founders lean left, how do you suppose they incorporate their “liberal bias” as they search 2trillion pages? Moron.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:43 pmHad I been alive 150 years ago I would have fought tooth and nail for my freedom.
And GG Ghandi used non violence to free ALL OF INDIA :) just so you know.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:44 pmBush isn’t smart enough to know what cancer IS.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:45 pmIt’s been documented in many places. I was referring to the news section. If you search for “US hated by other nations” of course you’re going to get a lot of hits about the United States being hated by other nations.
Don’t argue with me about search engines, you’ll be sore when you’re done.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:45 pmGo to the BBC then. Or are they too left wing for you?
June 20th, 2005 at 10:45 pmOr. Type in “US Dissaproval Poll”
June 20th, 2005 at 10:46 pmThe BBC? Why not al-Jazeera.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:46 pmHow about “US Approval Poll”?
Google Search is going to give you what you search for.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:47 pmWell if you’re so right wing that EVERYONE is to the left of you then I can’t help you sir.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:47 pmI’m actually a moderate in most respects. I just can’t see myself aligned with your party for numerous reasons.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:48 pmGhandi’s nonviolence worked against the British because, while imperialist, the British were not evil.
Hitler was on record as saying he would have executed Ghandi, and all of Ghandi’s lieutenants. Saddam is equally ruthless.
Come now, Justin, you don’t really think that if Iraqis just sang Kum-By-Yah, that Saddam would have shut down his rape rooms?
Force: the only way to stop evil men.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:48 pmriight. CBC? Too left. European stations? Too left? Russian? South America? Too left. That discounts the entire world.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:48 pmTry the Aussies
June 20th, 2005 at 10:49 pmGoogle employees gave $207,650 to federal candidates for last year’s elections, up from just $250 in 2000 when it was still a start-up. And 98% went to Democrats, the biggest share among top tech donors, a new USA TODAY campaign finance analysis shows.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:49 pmOkay… What’s your point Justin?
June 20th, 2005 at 10:49 pmGnoam,
You have your reality and I have mine. I listen to both sides and have….very closely for a long, long time. I think that you are utterly clueless. Maybe you’re not a bad person, but you are so brainwashed that you have no idea that you are supporting the most corrupt and reckless President in the history of our country and that is actually an understatement. I have NEVER been registered as a Democrat…never. I knew that this group was bad to the core from the outset though. If you have any sense of history at all you would know that there’s something wrong here. Sadly, you don’t. I hope you see the light because we need all the help we can get to get these creeps out of power and get are ship pointed back in the right direction.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:50 pmI’m sure the british massacre and rape of hundreds of indian women was totally benign. As was the rounding up of the males in villiages and killing them. I’m sure. Shut up
June 20th, 2005 at 10:50 pmJustin, one more thing: “Had I been alive 150 years ago I would have fought tooth and nail for my freedom.”
I see. But if Americans fight for Iraqi freedom, you condemn it? Blacks deserve to be liberated by force, but Arabs don’t!?!??!
Sounds to me like you are racist against Arabs.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:50 pmMy point is how are you going to get a world view if you refuse to watch the world’s take on events?
June 20th, 2005 at 10:51 pmIf Aliens came and liberated the blacks I’m sure you’ll feel the same way right
June 20th, 2005 at 10:51 pmThe us solved it’s own conflicts. Let other countries do the same
June 20th, 2005 at 10:52 pmGoogle gave over $200,000 in donations and over 98% of that went to democrats
June 20th, 2005 at 10:52 pmCI Irrelevant as usual I see
June 20th, 2005 at 10:52 pmI do watch (read) the world’s take on events (my RSS aggregator is loaded to the gills). I think the better question is why should the US play along with the supporters of Saddam (France, Russia, Germany) and the supporters of terrorism (Syria, Iran, N. Korea).
June 20th, 2005 at 10:53 pm“Force: the only way to stop evil men”
…which is why we may have to storm the WH to take this country back!
June 20th, 2005 at 10:53 pmHow is CI being irrelevant? He’s a little late to the Google conversation but that statement has merit.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:54 pmJustin
Your the one who said that to think Google is left wing you must be “smoking crack”
Did you forget already that you posted that? Can’t get any more relevent than answering your comment.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:54 pmI think the better question would be why the deception to go to war with someone who had nothing to do with the US since the 1990s?
June 20th, 2005 at 10:54 pmSo the OWNERS donated. That’s their choice. The content is unchanged.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:55 pmChris
I cut and pasted the one paragraph but this site wouldn’t let me post it. It took me a couple of minutes to find the USA article
June 20th, 2005 at 10:55 pmUnlike the right. The left doesn’t tamper with the info it’s given.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:56 pmAh… But the Clinton administration agreed that ousting Saddam was the right thing to do.
I also don’t believe you’ve read the reports about terrorist training camps found in the first days of the war.
We are trying to rid the world of terrorists. You know that, right? You agree with me that riding the world of terrorists is a good thing, right?
June 20th, 2005 at 10:57 pmChris,
France, Russia and Germany had less to do with Saddam Hussein and Iraqi oil than the US did over the last generation. We supplied him with arms (yes those very same chemical and biological weapons) when he was fighting our enemy Iran during the first Bush admin. Taken in context, it’s easy to see why the US is not trusted in the world and why terrorism and extremism has come back to bite us.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:57 pmSure. There are lots of right things to do. Like end poverty. It takes a strategy. Not a headlong rush to war.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:57 pmColor me confused as to what you’re referring to CI.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:57 pmOnce again Jay lies. We provided around 1% of Sadaams weaponry. I’ll post the link if this site allows it. Does it?
June 20th, 2005 at 10:58 pmThe Reagan administration supplied Saddam with arms. Get your history straight. But, you’re pulling strings to try and change the point.
Billions of dollars were to be lost by Russia, France, and Germany. That’s why they opposed the war.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:59 pmOh that’s too right wing a site! I can’t look at it. It’ll hurt my little eyes!!
June 20th, 2005 at 10:59 pm“The us solved it’s own conflicts. Let other countries do the same”
The U.S. solved its own conflicts. Let Nazi Germany do the same.
The U.S. solved its own conflicts. Let the Confederate States of America do the same.
Wow, Justin, your arguments get sillier and sillier.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:59 pmChris
I was a little late with the Google comment because I remembered reading an article in USA today about how Google gave gobs of money to democrats. took me a few minutes to find it and return here to post it
June 20th, 2005 at 11:00 pmuh huh and the Bush admin had such lofty goals. I wonder who’s benefiting from oil contracts now?
June 20th, 2005 at 11:00 pmRush to war? Were you there? We were in no hurry to cross into Iraq. There were an unbelieveable number of delays for numerous reasons.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:00 pmGG doesn’t grasp the concept of internal conflict.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:01 pmYeah like people were like WTF? That makes no sense!
June 20th, 2005 at 11:01 pmCI, I haven’t lied yet, why would I start today? Show me the link. We covertly supported Saddam Hussein during both the Reagan and Bush 41 admins. Do your homework.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:02 pmPrivate companies from around the world are rebuilding Iraq’s oil infrastructure.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:02 pmI’m talking about the single minded way the admin went forward with it’s plans.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:02 pmReally? Around the world you say?
June 20th, 2005 at 11:02 pmOkay, Justin. What was the vote count on that one again?
June 20th, 2005 at 11:03 pmWell let’s look up the list of companies on Google. Unless it’s too left wing for you?
June 20th, 2005 at 11:03 pmSingle minded? What are you referring to?
June 20th, 2005 at 11:03 pmHere are the statistics from the far left Stocholm International Peace Research Institute. Even some leftists can tell the truth.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:03 pmI’m referring to. The “we don’t have any other option” attitude
June 20th, 2005 at 11:03 pmWe don’t have any other option? What options did we have?
We all the delays before movement?
June 20th, 2005 at 11:05 pmStats? Are you joking me? where’s the actual numbers on this chart?
June 20th, 2005 at 11:05 pmUmm leave him alone because he wasn’t a threat and continue diplomatic pressure to help the people achieve democracy
June 20th, 2005 at 11:06 pmStats? Chart? I’m referring to the Congressional vote to authorize force.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:06 pmFrom the gitgo the conservative bloggers were merely ruminating about the coincidences of these two “journalists” having the same name, particularly since Smith admitted the Sesame Street Memos were re-typed copies of the originals which were either a) destroyed or b) returned to the top secret file. This kind of “evidence” wouldn’t even make it through a kangaroo court – which is something you guys are familiar with since you convene them just about every day to bolster your pathological hate-Bush ax grinding.
I find it interesting you self-styled “progressyves” rather crow about the speculation (there were no hard claims that this was in fact the same guy, it was almost tongue in cheek) about the two Michael Smiths while ignoring the salient fact you were taken in by the fraudulent Bush TANG Memos compliments of CBS and now the DSM! And even if the DSM were correctly re-typed, they were debunked/deconstructed by powerlineblog.com over five weeks ago, long before you people started getting hysterical over them.
Muwhahahaha…And given all your kool-aid swilling conspiracy theories about the Bu$Hitler/Halliburton/Cheney neo-kkkon kkkabal and such, I guess its only natural that you project your predilictions on conservatives. So, in essence, you’re really laughing at the very modus operandi you’ve been operating under since 9/11.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:06 pmThanks CI, I was looking for those same stats but the ones I saw weren’t presented as nicely.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:06 pmI dunno Chris. I’m a Canadian. Fill me in.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:07 pmDiplomatic pressure had been applied for 10 years to no avail. Kinda hard to do things of that nature when two permanent members of the UN Security Council are benefitting from illegal oil contracts.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:07 pmWhy are you people even here? Crawl back to yer holes If you like to think that chart is a stat then that’s sad. What are the actual weapons totals. What about the kinds of weapons? because a bullet and a nuke are 2 different things.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:08 pmKofi was found free of guilt last I checked.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:08 pmWho gave Saddam nukes?
June 20th, 2005 at 11:08 pmOh geez, you prove the guy is lying and what does he do? Did you bother looking at the bottom of the chart? Check out their website they might have the raw numbers. I figured 1% was low enough for you.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:08 pmI’m not talking about Kofi… I’m talking about France and Russia.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:09 pmHow we supported Hussein JUST before we went to war with him part 1.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=April%20Glaspie
June 20th, 2005 at 11:09 pmHow dare you libswurst.
Joining in this discussion with a well reasoned argument and facts relavent to the original topic of this thread.
=)
June 20th, 2005 at 11:09 pmWho says it wasn’t working? Did he have WMDs?
June 20th, 2005 at 11:09 pmTHAT’s well rehearsed? wow you conserves are sad ;) you’re lucky the more agressive libs aren’t here.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:10 pmI think it’s rather obvious it wasn’t working. He was still in power and still committing genocide.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:10 pmDon’t worry Chris, just look back to their arguments for how evil Bush is because even though he is acknowledged for giving the most aid to Afirca of any President, it’s still not enough.
No number, big or small will ever be good enough to win an argument with J & J.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:11 pmAnd you think the states went to war to save the people? HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAA! That’s funny Chris. What’s next? There really is a Santa Claus?
June 20th, 2005 at 11:12 pmVery true, Bic.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:12 pmYou guys haven’t even given that aid yet Bic. So don’t even go there.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:13 pmAnd what about the cancellation of the womens clinics because they were handing out condoms? I’m sure that helped a lot of africans
June 20th, 2005 at 11:13 pmOkay, Justin. It’s obvious that you’re not willing to have an open mind but that’s okay. I need to go to bed now but I’ll bookmark this post for later reading.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:14 pmI’m just here because I was trying to stay awake and every once in a while it’s just fun to torment a few people on the left side of the spectrum by throwing in some facts and see how they respond.
So far, as expected, but still fun nonetheless.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:14 pmThank god. I was getting tired of all the stupidity
June 20th, 2005 at 11:14 pmIt’s funny how all the saints in the world were left. Oh well. You go on with yer hypocrisy.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:15 pmThat’s a shame Bic. Lucky 70% of us are smarter than ya.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:17 pmAll the Saints were left? Whatnow?
June 20th, 2005 at 11:17 pmModern Day.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:18 pmWho are you claiming as a modern day saint?
June 20th, 2005 at 11:20 pmMother Theresa. Ghandi. Martin Luther King. The Dali Llama.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:21 pmThe list goes on. I use saint loosely though.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:22 pmAs you can see the brutal opression by Sadaams regime was part of the Iraq Resolution to go to war. Just proves Justin is lying.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:22 pmI bet yer from Southen Alberta too… so sad.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:22 pmBTW where does that 70% come from?
With only an apporximate 60% voter turn out last election and of that 30% was directly for the Conservative. Even if you count all the other votes for your side (a bit of a stretch) that would only give you about 42% at max. Gotta love Liberal math.
But there I go with facts and figures again. Sorry, I’ll try not to let it happen again.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:26 pmAll the other parties are left too. Only 30% voted for you. Thus 70% of the pop is smarter
June 20th, 2005 at 11:27 pmAnd those who didn’t vote remain to be seen.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:28 pmim sick of the bush lies, if he calls islam “the religion of peace” one more time, ill puke. did you hear him praise the clintoons, who is he kidding? kerry served honorably in nam, sure, for the communists, bush. you got him now, hes squirming, neocons are rasping at straws, pointing out the memo refers to wmd as though they fear saddam could use them, just the way rove typed it. genius. pure genius.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:28 pmThis whole “chickenhawk” left-wing bilge is such a crock. Look, I’ll turn the tables on you moonbats. First, I’m 50 years old and was 4-F when I graduated HS in 1973 and the military refused to take me no how no way because they were downsizing since 1971 – so go blow that crap somewhere else)
Now all I’ve heard from you left-wingnuts the last three decades is how you’re for the downtrodden and how pro-democracy and pro-freedom you are.
Since there is no age limit or health restrictions on being either a human shield or an election monitor, what the hell were you people doing sitting comfortably in your barcoloungers on January 30 of this year sucking on the teat of evil America’s military industrial complex while brave Iraqis stood in line at polling places risking death? Where’s your love for your fellow man that you people preached about since the hippie/yippie days? If I didn’t know better I’d say you were hypocrites of convenience.
But here you are essentially saying the war is illegitimate (which is pure BS) and Arabs aren’t worth the blood of Americans and forget about democracy in the Middle East because the people would rather live in a thugocracy under the thumb of Arab dictators.
John Kennedy has to be rolling in his grave. Whatever happened to his – “We’ll pay in price, bear any burden for the cause of liberty around the world”? – with you DemDonk libs?
June 20th, 2005 at 11:28 pmAnyhow I’m outs guys. Nice debating with the quasi smart conserves. The rest of you are morons and you Bic, are a shame to the Canadian identity. Nights.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:30 pmHave you ever actually looked up Mother Theresa? Of course not.
I’m sorry to burst your bubble but she was a PR creation and if you read anything about her actual activities you may just make yourself sick.
And Ghandi had a lot of issues too (mostly having to do with his myraid of racist statements against Blacks). As for the Dhali Llama, while supposedly a pretty nice guy, just look up the history of Tibet under the Llamas. Starving people and well off monks. Not the picture the media likes to paint.
I will grant you Martin Luther King though (as a saint not a lefty).
Most of todays saints are media darlings not actual saints. The real Saints are the people you never hear of.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:33 pmThis fits you guys to a “T”: Writer Keith Thompson, a 1960s liberal explained to the San Francisco Chronicle why he’s walking away from the America left. “I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives – people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere – reciting all the ways Iraq’s democratic experiment might yet implode…They hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.”
He got it right because he quit swilling the left-wing kool-aidâ„¢ and woke up smelling the coffee of reality. You leftists live in a house of cards and the only dots you can connect resemble a Picasso painting. And then you have the gall to call it “THE TRUTH”. Hey, aren’t you libs a bunch of relativists anyway? You can’t talk about THE TRUTH unless you qualify it with – “whatever that may be from day to day.” Amazing how your such moral relativists when bashing Christianity and conservatism with your girly-man sledgehammers, yet your political ideology and worldview is sacrosanct. Once again you prove to be hypocrites who revel in double-standards.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:34 pmlibsnitemare,
This war is about the fact that the world is running out of oil and our economy dies without it. To believe otherwise is a fools errand. It doesn’t require liberal or conservative views to cope with reality, just the facts. To claim that this war was legitimate or that we are trying to “spread freedom and democracy” is moonbat thinking. Honest adults cannout cling to that fantasy. I’m sorry, but you are either really gullible or really stupid.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:42 pmone more thing, clintoon set the “regime change” policy. wanting to open another front to fight the gwot made it inevitable. we were going to put the squeeze on the islamofascists one way or another, like trailing a felon waiting for him to commit a misdemeanor so you can search him and or run him in, fishing to make the federal case stick. saddam needed to go, the middle east needs to change, dr. rice admitted today we had screwed it up for 60 years, now we are going to bring it into the 20th century,(baby steps, give them time) ready or not. i guess it just easier to chant “no war for oil”, nevermind…
June 20th, 2005 at 11:48 pmIf this was all about oil the US could have saved a few bucks and drove north. Canada is the highest ranked country in the world for oil reseves (beating the second ranked Saudis by about 60 billion barrels).
June 20th, 2005 at 11:49 pmThe PNAC signatories had proposed regime change policy while Clinton was in office. Clinton opted not to pursue that policy. Get your facts straight.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:51 pmOh and in case you want the actual numbers, I know you lefties get confused with anything less.
Saudi Arabia = 240 Billion Barrels
Canada (with current tech) = 300 Billion Barrels
Canada (including reserves requiring additional tech) = 1700 – 2500 BILLION BARRELS.
Oh yeah, Iraq = 112 Billion Barrels
June 20th, 2005 at 11:54 pmBic,
I don’t think the world oil estimates (at least the US Geological survey’s) include the unproven and extremely expensive to extract oil shales deposits in Canada. It’s a dollar-in dollar-out propostyion at this point. Iraq has the worlds second largest proven oil reserves. Go to EnergyBulletin.net if you want to really read up on what’s in store for the big oil consumers. Very legit, very scientific.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:54 pmINVADE CANADA!!!!!
June 20th, 2005 at 11:56 pmAs I said, the 300 Billion is available using current tech.
The 1700-2500 include all know canadian reserves.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:57 pmCome and get it Gnoarn.
Even with John Candy’s help, Michael Moore has already tried and failed.
Of course, as long as you don’t prevent the dispersal of donuts and coffee from Tim’s, there is a good chance no one would even notice.
June 20th, 2005 at 11:59 pmI know this is only from the Institute of Petroleum…but it’s sufficient. Canada’s proven reserves are not near the top of the list.
http://www.energyinst.org.uk/education/natural/3.htm
June 21st, 2005 at 12:00 amSorry for the mispelling Gnoam. Half asleep.
June 21st, 2005 at 12:01 amIf you haven’t read “The Long Emergency” yet. I strongly recommend you do. Google it, read it, and let me know if things become more clear.
Peace!
June 21st, 2005 at 12:06 amnitemare,
Go fvck yourself. I would never back down from an honest fight. This was a lie and a sham and you are a phony with your false bravado and your tough guy stance. As I said, this war was a lie and you know it!
June 21st, 2005 at 12:12 amJay, you may want to find something that isn’t from 1996 for your data. The data for oil reserves are updated constantly. My numbers were based on surveys done this century (couldn’t help the little dig there).
As far as I can tell the Canadian numbers have gone up dramatically each year as they’ve expanded their search for oil while the Saudi/Iraqi and most others have remainded relatively stable.
June 21st, 2005 at 12:16 amjay, my facts are straight:
The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.” This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council’s efforts to keep the current regime’s behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa–tory political system that will include all of Iraq’s diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq’s current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq’s weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998.
can you admit you are wrong? will you ignore this or spin it? like i say im “fake but accurate”
June 21st, 2005 at 12:17 am: )
Oh and most only seem to count the free flowing deposits in the Canadian total.
And have no fear, at todays price per barrel the tar sands are extremely profitable. Costs to produce a barrel today have dropped to around $10, as opposed to several times that back in the 80’s.
June 21st, 2005 at 12:23 amWell I’m definately out for the night.
Have to got to work in just over 8 hours and have to watch a movie and get some sleep somewhere in that time.
G’night all.
June 21st, 2005 at 12:25 amfba,
I can’t find the original post because this thread got heavy use tonight, but all I can tell you is that the Project for a New American Century crowd pushed like hell during Clinton’s entire 8 years in office to force his hand on invading Iraq, by force. So it’s really about how you force regime change. I concede that it was policy to force out Hussein, but Madeleine Allbright and Bill Clinton were strong supporters of sanctions as a means of change, not military force. If I recall correctly your point was that Clinton started thios whole thing…..and his tactics were not military. Fair enough?
June 21st, 2005 at 12:31 amI’m back. I’d like to state though that this hasn’t been a fair debate. 5 or 6 conservatives against 1-2 liberals is hardly sporting. If you guys need to gang argue people to get yer kicks that’s kind of sad.
June 21st, 2005 at 12:46 amAnd we’ll still came out ok in my opinion so what does that say? :)
June 21st, 2005 at 12:47 amOh. One more thing. Bic doesn’t deserve to be called canadian.
June 21st, 2005 at 12:47 amso clintoon wanted a candidate to run against saddam? the moral of this story is you should get your “facts” from credible sources, not biased opinions of the facts. congress wrote the law, clintoon signed it. did clintoon really want to do what it would have taken to remove saddam? no. he didnt care one way or another, not his problem. clintoons legacy, a void….the point is it was our policy that saddam was to be gone. the dsm takes that to be our intention, knowing we were not in a talking mood post 9/11. anyone who can find cuba of a map knows “containment” is useless, insurrection from our side would have started a civil war then what would the left had said? that leaves what? military action. dsm takes for granted saddams days are numbered, and that saddam has wmd. so it was spin, thats what i figured it would be.
June 21st, 2005 at 1:01 amthe moral of this story is you should get your “facts� from credible sources, not biased opinions of the facts.
you should take your own advice fba ;)
June 21st, 2005 at 1:03 amwmd? where? where? *ducks*
June 21st, 2005 at 1:04 amjustin, facts like this?
The PNAC signatories had proposed regime change policy while Clinton was in office. Clinton opted not to pursue that policy. Get your facts straight.
Comment by Jay  June 20, 2005 @ 11:51 pm
jay, my facts are straight:
The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
question justin? if dsm is taken at face value then its clear they thought saddam had wmd, right?
June 21st, 2005 at 1:14 amSure but I wouldn’t believe the current us admin if the told me my house was on fire. Especially when you throw in interesting tidbits about pressure to falsify records which seems like a trend if you read other articles on this site (and in major newspapers outside the US). Ok so Clinton bombed Iraq. He didn’t invade. That’s all Bushy. He’s the one with the bloody hands.
June 21st, 2005 at 1:17 amI love watching the Moonbats hyperventilate over these stories. If anyone had checked the links it took LGF bloggers less than 10 minutes after it was posted to doubt that two Smith’s were the same. The remainer of the 500 + posts on the subject mainly discussed the authenticity of the documents. At the Captians Quarters blog, the story of the two Smith being possibly being the same person was debunked less then 2 hours after being posted. But the left wing Moonbats continue 9 months after the Rather Memo were proven forgeries, STILL believe those memos are authentic! No wonder why we believe the liberal left will implode under their own bloated dillusions.
June 21st, 2005 at 1:21 amAlright back to right wingnuts spewing crap. Later people. Nice chatting fba.
June 21st, 2005 at 1:23 amJust decide to check in from my laptop while watching my movie to find that somehow, I’ve lost my status as a Canadian. Is there appeal process?
Wow Justin, this must be some of that liberal tolerence I’ve heard so much about.
June 21st, 2005 at 1:27 amWell in my eyes bic you don’t deserve to be called one. :) sorry. I mean you can still be a citizen I guess… just don’t talk to anyone outside your shack in Alberta
June 21st, 2005 at 1:28 amPlus I have no tolerance for morons ;)
June 21st, 2005 at 1:31 amI do not now, nor have I ever lived in Alberta. Or does that just follow your earlier logic that to have any knowledge about Canadian oil I must be from AB.
You know the difference between my Canada and the liberal version. In my Canada people are allowed to have an opinion that differs from mine. According to most hard core people on the left that I’ve met, difference of opinion is not allowed.
Would it suprise you that I’ve actually told friends of mine to vote NDP in the last election? After discussing what they thought were the most important things to them, I had no probelm helping them determine which party best met those needs. At no time did I try to get them to vote Conservative since I knew what their core beliefs were and while I didn’t necessarily share them, I respected them.
I have a very hard time believing you would do the same.
June 21st, 2005 at 1:47 ama note to all you fine Canadians out there, left or right, this from the heart, truly, this Texan and his wife miss hockey like only you can understand. for the love of Lord Stanley’s Cup and don cherrys suits, drop the puck.
June 21st, 2005 at 1:48 amsorry, off subject, but i had to say it. ok now im depressed just thinking about it, im going to bed. night all.
Although on the bright side hockeywise, at least here we did have the OHL games to watch. Even got to see the last half of the 67’s season for free. Had to pay for the playoff games though. Oh well, c’est la vie.
The junior teams aren’t too bad but nothing takes the place of the full blown NHL.
June 21st, 2005 at 1:57 amMost of the people I know think like I do. And that’s quite a few people. I attend UT and I do hear voices of dissent and they’re usually telling me that I’m wrong or stupid and Canada sucks. So you can play high and mighty all you want. Most Conservatives are ignorant or just plain malicious.
June 21st, 2005 at 1:58 amOh. I’ve been to Alberta. Not a bad place, people are frendly. Just would never set foot outside the cities.
June 21st, 2005 at 1:59 amOn the hockey note… It’s too bad all the owners are dumping their teams…
June 21st, 2005 at 2:04 am“Most of the people I know think like I do”
Colour me surprised. You openly admit you know few people outside of your echo chamber of UT yet you of course are an expert on all things conservative. I live in the real world, Justin, where people of different ethnicities, backgrounds and view points interact on a daily basis. It is almost impossible under those circumstances for people to think the same.
My circle of friends include people with no political leanings, extremely left leaning and extremely right leaning. Somehow we all manage to get along and even on occasion discuss politics. Oddly enough, I don’t remember any of my friends ever calling another unworthy of being a Canadian simply over a politcal debate
June 21st, 2005 at 2:13 amWell I do read the National Post. Aren’t they your mouthpiece. Ugh. Most people think like I do so I run into people like that more often. would it surprise you to know that I’m a fiscal conservative. I have many friends who are too. I can’t stand social conservatives. They’re very preachy (like you) and self righteous (like you). It’s my right to say that in my opinion you are unworthy of the title. I don’t do that to people I argue with but then again they don’t talk about crackpot things like oil lasting forever.
June 21st, 2005 at 2:16 amYou prolly hate medicare too. And the Charter.
June 21st, 2005 at 2:17 amAnd if you want. I can debate you about any Canadian topic you want. No name calling just the facts. Just say when and where.
June 21st, 2005 at 2:20 amTalking about preachy and self righteous. Have you even bothered to read any of your own posts on here? Your last post being a prime example.
On a completly unrelated topic, I have to say “The Machinist” was not as good as expected. Although Christian Bale should get some kind of award for dedication to acting. He’s almost sickly to look at. Now that my movie is over, I guess it’s time for bed.
June 21st, 2005 at 2:26 amHave a good one. Don’t let the cries of the poor and homeless keep you up at night!
June 21st, 2005 at 2:27 amAbsolutely amazing! Michael Smith is such an unusual name.
June 21st, 2005 at 2:38 amOne last thing before I definately go to bed. About the debate(s), I thought that was pretty much what this thread had turned into.
It seemed like pretty much no topic was off limits. Feel free to drop any topic off in a comment.
Here’s a quick response to your two suggested topics:
Medicare: needs overhauling and not just more money. With the amount of money we throw into the various programs on a yearly basis we should all be living till we’re 100. A split public/private system (similar to the types much of Europe use) is probably the best bet although I would prefer all large facilities (ie. hospitals) remain fully public.
Charter: not the best charter in the world but it does have it’s good points. I’m definately not calling for it to be revoked.
June 21st, 2005 at 2:56 amJust had to add this.
In an odd coincidence, after just pressing play on my CD player in the bedroom, I’m currently listening to a Michael Smith CD as I get ready to pass out (Michael W. Smith that is).
Good night.
June 21st, 2005 at 3:00 amDictionary.com defines brainwash:
brainwash
v 1: persuade completely, often through coercion; “The propaganda brainwashed many people” 2: submit to brainwashing; indoctrinate forcibly
So a man makes hand copies, destroys the originals and refuses to divulge his source and you idiot leftists believe without so much as asking a question, just like you did with the AWOL story, and just like you did with memogate.
You will believe any lie told about Bush simply because of your seething hatred for the man.
Do me a favor, when your IQ’s rise above my shoe size, give me a call, until then, Republicans own this country and all your whining and bitching is pointless. All it has done is caused your to lose more seats in congress and the White House.
YOU ARE IRRELAVENT!
There will be no impeachment or war crimes tribunal because the only crimes committed by Bush are the ones in your insignificant leftist minds.
If you don’t like things the way they are, get the hell out of my country. It isn’t like we want you here anyway.
June 21st, 2005 at 4:00 amYou people throw around the word “Impeachment” as if it is some form that just needs to be signed are either fools or just plain foolish.
1. 1998 Liberation of Iraq, signed by Clinton it was believed then that Saddam was a threat.
2. UN also believed Saddam was a threat
3. Saddam tortured, murdered his own people and was a threat.
4. Downing street memos, who was the source? Where are the “Offical” memos?
5. All I see are a few hardcore Liberals in congress and the Senate bringing “Mock Impeachment” to the press, the rest of this talk started on radical left wing blogs.
6. Those who gave testamony at the Mock Impeachment were Anti-Bush administration lefties, and anti-semitic…Howard Dean even apologized.
I used to be a liberal…voted for Bill Clinton, have since changed because of the harsh words from other liberals…how can a level headed well educated person agree with Dick Durbin’s words or even Amensty International?
June 21st, 2005 at 6:55 amGitmo is far from a Gulag, Pol Pots killing fields and the Nazi death camps.
reasonable people will be heard with reasonable questions…don’t fall into the trap the Republicans did with Clinton’s Impeachment
there are 3 problems with the lefties’ claim that the DSM “prove” Bush lied about the intelligence:
1) The memos supplied, even if they accurately reproduce the originals, are fakes and cannot be directly authenticated
2) The memos don’t say what lefties are claiming they say (that intelligence was rigged)
3) Even if they did say intelligence was being rigged, it’s just the opinion of a Brit at a meeting
In other words, please remove the tinfoil from your heads and return to reality.
June 21st, 2005 at 7:42 amExamples of “fixed around” from UK web pages:
June 21st, 2005 at 7:42 amhttp://www.cfpltd.co.uk/pipecanisters.html
Fireplug canisters are fixed around the pipe and the toggle clip engaged. The canister is then slipped along the pipe to the wall or ceiling. The canister is then fixed to the wall or ceiling. The fixings used on the test were four number 50mm wood screws, screwed directly into the aerated block (Thermalite, Celcon, etc.). If fitting to concrete or brick a 65mm steel screw plugged and bedded in intumescent mastic is recommended. The opposite side of the wall/floor to the Fireplug FPC can then be back filled with sand and cement if required.
http://www.permacell-finesse.co.uk/page6a.htm
Working to a level line, firmly the starter trim to the Timber battens at 600mm centres for white (or 400mm for Coloured) cladding. Vertical battens are fixed and checked Against a plumb line at appropriate centres. The remaining Trims are fixed around the perimeter, corners, joints and openings.
http://www.merlinarcherycentre.co.uk/Assemblingyourbow.htm
Inspect both limb tips BEFORE drawing the bow to ensure that the string loops are securely fixed around the limb tips. To disassemble the bow, use the same procedure in reverse.
http://handbooks.btcv.org.uk/handbooks/content/section/3746
Ash and sycamore may split during felling, causing a slab of trunk to spring back towards the feller. A chain or strong rope should be fixed around the trunk about 1.2m (4′) from the ground prior to felling.
http://www.bdmlr.org.uk/pages/sealtrap.htm
Two divers travelled to Shetland last week where they discovered one salmon cage had an anti-predator net fixed around it, made of a nine-inch mesh of single-strand green nylon line – known as ‘monofilament’.
Also, a “fact” cannot be rigged, so the sentence would not make sense in that use of “fixed.”
June 21st, 2005 at 7:44 amAfter reading all this libocrat garbage,I am not in the least bit surprized why the democrats continue to lose election after election.
June 21st, 2005 at 8:00 amThose on the left continue to lower the level of political debate in this country to the kindergarten playground.
If someone disagrees with them,They call them stupid. Because we all know how superior the Elite’s are. We all know how truthful the liberal democrats are. They would never think to utter a falsehood,While republicans are the worst sort of liars imaginable. Afterall,everytime a republican offers a fact or a point of view,The Libs respond with “LIAR!!” To the liberal democrats, Republicans are nazis,while liberals are sweet little lambs who would never harm a soul. Which is really the heart of the problem with liberals,you won’t harm a soul even if the possesor of that soul is a twisted murdering scumbag,who would shoot your child in the head for crying too much while being held hostage.
I guess liberals don’t think they have a dog in this fight going on in the world.Perhaps if the next terror attack in this country were to target a “Move ON” rally they’d finally see that they are hated by the fanatics as much as the rest of us. But maybe not,Liberals would just blame republicans. I don’t hate liberals,I feel very sorry for them. They are so sad. So very,very sad.
Fire, the Democrats are almost as bad the Republicans. They are ALL corrupt but if you live in this country and you can honestly say that you think things have improved over the last 5 years then you must be a very, very wealthy person. This group has raised lying to an art form. They haven’t said or done ANYTHING over the last 5 years that was honest. It’s amazing to me that people still believe this crap.
fba,
I went back and read the original post about regime change policy in Iraq and you were rightt, based on your staement and mine.
June 21st, 2005 at 9:10 amOk, theres a memo ! So What ?
Do you think that Winston Churchill didn’t have one prior to D-day. Do you think that China doesn’t have one sitting around for Taiwan ? How about the UK to invade France ( sorry, they just surrender anyways ) You knitwits nead to read a little more instead of just the post-9/11 history books that have been givin to you by the Michael Moores and other morons who have become your gurus.
June 21st, 2005 at 9:23 amI made a memo with invisible ink and the copier was a fake..Its true !
June 21st, 2005 at 9:31 amMan, look at all the right-wing lapdogs in here up on their hind legs over this downing street memo bidness. Their masters must really be crapping themselves on this one big time. Now, let’s watch and laugh as these ravenous little puppies continue their coprophagic feast.
June 21st, 2005 at 10:03 amif you think I am worried about forged documents circulating in the kook lib blogosphere, then you are truly insane!
June 21st, 2005 at 10:15 amTed evidently prefers to get his news-spin from the right, no doubt while being buggered by his Log Cabin-boy.
June 21st, 2005 at 10:17 amYes…..they are blogging and spinning this like there’s no tomorrow. Very nervous indeed.
June 21st, 2005 at 10:22 amYour right Jay, Bush has tried to destroy the US and give all the money to his friends but being the idiot that he is he screwed up again.
Somehow in the attempt to make all his friends richer he’s lowered inflation, unemployment, increased exports, gdp, labor compensation growth (wages and benefits) and somehow managed to allow a greater percentage of minorities to become homeowners than ever before.
Where will he stop with his evil plans.
June 21st, 2005 at 10:46 amBTW, good morning y’all (and that includes you Jay).
=)
June 21st, 2005 at 10:48 amBic,
Service sector jobs are being created while higher paying engineering, manufacturing, software development jobs are going overseas. More part-time low-paying jobs are being created (you know, the ones that pay minimum wage and don’t include health care) but the numbers are dismal. Wage growth is stagnant, local services are drying up because the R’s (and D’s) are redirecting the funds for public/social programs to their lobbyist brethren. The economy is just ducky if your a CEO, or otherwise reeling in big $. Otherwise, your tax cut has been offset by increases in gas prices and the disappearance of programs that you now have to pay for out of pocket if you want them to continue. Our federal deficit, trade deficit are astronomical and in fact have never been higher. We are teetering on the brink of disaster. You’ll see what happens when Chine decides they no longer want to subsidize a banana republic. Good luck to you and yours.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:05 amBREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!!! Just leaked to dailykos by a high ranking Bush Admin official!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Pennsylvania Avenue Memos
here is a summary of the memos contents:
-POTUS pushing hard for invasion of all blue states. especially NY and CA. orders DCI to fix intell around the policy.
-VPOTUS and Ken Lay holding secret meeting in secure location with Hallibuton Execs and space aliens from the planet Gwildore to discuss using alien slave labor to build new Halliburton World Headquarters in downtown Baghdad.
-Rove gave POTUS and Card status repot on the Howard Dean cyborg planted @ DNC. It is performing beyond expectations and should destroy dem. party within 5 years.
-truth serum injected into Durbin by one of our covert agents has been an overwhelming success. the serum forced Durbin to expose all dems true hatred for US military. considering using serum on Clinton, but could cause breakdown if he is forced to tell the truth for the first time in his life. action pending approval of VPOTUS.
——————————————————–
This memo could be the smoking gun that finally brings down this corrupt administration!
June 21st, 2005 at 11:16 amWow! they released the right-wing brown shirts on this one. Bic, please credit the correct person for the housing boom, Greenspan. Bush had nothing to do with it at all. In fact, Greenspan was appointed to direct the Federal Reserve Bank by President Bill. Shrub wouldn’t know anyone that smart in his circle of contacts.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:18 amKeep squirming Teddy boy, the sooner we get on with the impeachment hearings the less pain you’ll feel.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:18 amAwesome! The flying monkey right are flailing out in every direction to fend off the truth. Feel the heat? Notice the childish antics? Send them running back to suckle at the teet of Rove for comfort.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:19 amJesus, this is why nothing constructive gets done in this country. People are too busy talking shit about each other and won’t stop to listen to other people’s opinions. I may not agree with conservatives, but I’ll listen to them and I’ll debate with them, not insult their intelligence. Raise the bar, gentlemen!
June 21st, 2005 at 11:20 amDavid B,
I think this thread is a pretty good indication of how nervous the right is on not only the DSM but the dire political situation their fearless fraud of a President is in. Things are looking pretty bleak at the moment, but I expect something dramatic from Rove and the boys to turn this thing around. Stay away from tall buildings.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:21 amXool, it started out that way and degraded back into the abyss. I agree with you, but sometimes it gets under your skin. I’m all for pulling back to reality. It was a long night.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:22 amDid you see inteligence in that ridiculous diatribe and mockery of serious issues? I didn’t. They were lost once the drones set in the post. Let’em bather till they pass out or thir fingertips grow numb. These guys weren’t the conservatives worthy of listening to.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:25 amRight on Skid, I don’t know why I bothered. Guess I was just in a scrappy mood last night. The nonsense factor was at an all-time high.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:27 amWhy do you lefties hate America so much? Love it or leave it, you commie bastards!
June 21st, 2005 at 11:32 amJay,
Who is your favorite president? ‘Course you lefties have so many from which to choose. Le’ssee, Slick Willie- no morals or integrity, solicits campaign contributions from China; Dhimmi Carter- fights wabbits, coddles khomeini, moans about malaise; LBJ- got us into the Vietnam war and launched us onto a hyper-inflation spiral; Kennedy- Bay of Pigs disaster, porked Marilyn Monroe.
Maybe Truman? You really have to go back a long way to when dhimmicrats were actually conservative.
Hillary will do swell, though. Just hope she nationalizes my industry last.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:42 amClinton makes our current pretender in chief look like the monkey that he is (as did Kerry in every debate and in the world of reality of which you are not a member). JFK, FDR, yeah even Carter was better than the slop the Republicans put up there. It’s all about who counts the votes and who controls the media. Right now, Republicans control both. You’re no fan of freedom, you wouldn’t know democracy if it slapped you in the mouth.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:51 amJay,
June 21st, 2005 at 11:53 amCheckout Chrisey’s post about Rep. Hostettler’s religous comments on the floor. I think its and obvious curveball to get everyone off the DMS, Iraq, Gitmo. A distraction back to the good old religion topic and we liberals/progressive hate God. Karl is grabbing at straws.
Jay, you cannot be serious about us controlling the MSM. Have you read the NY Slimes or the Wash. Compost lately or have you watched ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or MSNBC lately? Not exactly pro-Bush!
June 21st, 2005 at 11:59 amFreedom Fan did u start out as French Fan and then have to change your nick by congressional edict?
June 21st, 2005 at 12:00 pmwhy is it that when a news media reports the truth it is called anti-bush? these are facts, not opinion. unlike fox news which is pure opinion
June 21st, 2005 at 12:02 pmAllright, allright, I admit it!! You chaps are wonderful defending me this way but, yes, I am the same Michael Smith that worked for Mary Mapes. So when I got wind of the Downing Street Memoes I could not resist forging copies. I was quite creative there, and it is a shame that no one can really appreciate that. I trust all of you not to be wankers and keep this revelation to yourselves. Thank you so much, loves.
June 21st, 2005 at 12:13 pmBy the way David B., Greenspan was appointed reserve chair by Reagan, then Bush I, THEN Clinton, then Bush II. Odd how your memory hole ends at Clinton.
Only about 2 tenths of 1 percent of jobs moving offshore. Even compared to the number of jobs created in a given year these numbers are miniscule.
And if you want some explaination of why that is happening you may want to talk to some of the Unions not the Federal government. Most jobs lost to overseas are due to the fact in other countries, companies do not have to pay their janitors $25/hour like they do in North America. It’s a sad truth that in a free market society, companies will tend to try and find the best deal they can and since labour is often the biggest expense that means looking for cheaper labour. Unless you want the Federal government to step in and declare the States a communist regime then there is not too much they personally can do about it.
June 21st, 2005 at 12:28 pmTed,
If the the NYT, WashPort, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, et al was even close to fair I’d agree. Every one of them propagates the rightwing frame and covers bush’s ass on every important issue. They spent more time on the Swift Boat Veteran frauds than on Bush’s questionable service in the Texas Air Nat’l Guard. They ALL cheered for and carried the Administration’s water on invading Iraq. They barely covered the big lie the Repubs told on the cost of the Medicare, they made no issue that Bush stonewalled the 9/11 investigation, tried to stop the creation of the 9/11 commission and then held Uncle Dick’s hand when he testified. They may give a glancing mention of each story or bury it deep in their paper…..but the Swift Boats liars, Keery looks French, Dean screams, all this nonsense gets a week or more of play. Come on man. They are so complicit in the Bush fraud of a Presidency that it takes my breath away. I could go on with more stories that they bury and balognet that they run with if you like.
June 21st, 2005 at 12:36 pmSupport our great country, the US of A, unless it comes to supporting the American worker, which in that case, F*CK’EM because money is JESUS! How pathetic.
June 21st, 2005 at 12:47 pmJay,
Your buddy clinton was indeed smooth as a smarmy used car salesman. In fact, so slick that his lies were rarely caught; he was an ‘exceptionally good liar’.
Unfortunately for the libs, Senator sKerry is an exceptionally bad liar. From the SUV hypocrisy to Christmas in Cambodia dissembling, his lies were readily transparent. sKerry is a pompous pseudo-intellectual whose GPA was worse than Bush’s at Yale.
Oh yes, Bush’s IQ is slightly better than that of a chimp; any higher primate can easily snatch one of them Haavuud MBA thangs. I’m certain you have several jist hangin on yer wall.
Yes, I am a Freedom Fan, frenchie. To progressives, freedom is about as valuable as air. What’s the big deal? It’s always been there for everyone to enjoy, right? Huh? What patriots died? Wall ah nevah did very well in history class; but my we had some excellent weed in them days.
If you truly believe that Bush ’stole’ the elections, despite all the recounts, despite all the liberal judges, despite the army of yammering liberal politicians, notwithstanding the ocean of leftist lawyers and college professors; then you must really have no regard whatsoever for the U.S. or its commitment to freedom and justice.
Sadly, for you, the U.S. must be about the moral equivalent of Cuba.
June 21st, 2005 at 12:53 pmSkid,
Bush supports the American worker with across-the-board tax cuts, vehemently opposed by all the dhimmicrats. A healthy economy and encouraging older workers to learn new skills is the solution to job obsolescence in a global marketplace.
Libs support lawyers and unions to protect the lazy and incompetent from competition by the industrious and innovative.
June 21st, 2005 at 1:04 pmFF,
Crazy, crazy wingnut….blah, blah, crazy wingnut. We shall see how it all plays out but as I tell all the wingnuts, we will be pointing the finger at you when all is said and done for believing the lies and marching lemming-like over the cliff. It’s a long way to the bottom.
June 21st, 2005 at 1:07 pmBush supports the American worker with across-the-board tax cuts, vehemently opposed by all the dhimmicrats.
BULLSHIT! Yeah, the tax cuts really worked. Proof is in the pudding, but not the pudding between your ears. How do you say that without a conscience? Get the magnifying glass out of the drawer next to your bed and check the fine print on Georgie’s “across the Board” tax cuts, then post back.
June 21st, 2005 at 1:21 pmJay, if things fall apart, it will be because of the treasonus, traitorous ways that you America hating leftists have spent every waking hour trying to thwart our Commander-in-Chief during war time. Then will you be satisfied? Helping to defeat your own country yet again(i.e. Vietnam) Bush is cleanig up the mess left for him by President Ron Jeremy during the 90’s! He was too busy chasing pussy and taking illegal campaign contributions from the Chi-Comms in exchange for our nuclear technology to worry about the growing terrorist threat. Why don’t you spineless homos grow a pair and act like real men for once in your life! Who cares how many ragheads are killed in Iraq! I don’t, that’s for damn sure! You libs care more about the welfare of TERRORISTS in Gitmo than you care about the National Security of the US of A! And you wonder why the American people don’t trust you guys with our national security!
June 21st, 2005 at 1:38 pmJay, that cliff you’re standing on the edge of is not a cliff at all. It is a well shaft straight to hell drilled by Halliburton through a no-bid contract and Karl Rove is standing right behind you and he is about to push you in. Burn baby burn!
June 21st, 2005 at 1:42 pmTed, leftists aren’t America-hating. As a matter of fact, we love America, and we love her so much that we hate to see her be used and abused by the Bush admin. We hate to see American integrity squandered on the world stage. We don’t want to feel less safe because Bush and his people are bullying people around the world. We want to bring this country back to the ideal principles that the conservatives spout as empty words. How is it hating America to demand that our leaders tell the American people the truth, and not put us in harm’s way with fabricated justification?
June 21st, 2005 at 2:11 pmXool, see how nasty (desperate) they’ve become in light of all the bad news for the Bushmen. Try reasoning with that kind of logic. Good luck. I’d call Ted a Cretin, but that would be unfair to Cretin’s.
June 21st, 2005 at 2:28 pmI totally understand, Jay. They get under my skin, too. That’s why I have my blog. *wink*
June 21st, 2005 at 2:37 pmI think Ted is unknowingly crying out for a long overdue hug…
June 21st, 2005 at 2:46 pmWhat’s really got heir panties in a bunch is that they are losing on almost every front and so they are doing what all spoiled bullies and losers do, which is desperately flail away at their opponents with more lies and more desperation hoping that at least one of their confused and ridiculous punches will land, somewhere.
Support for the war in Iraq is dwindling faster than a bran muffin through my colon.
Bush has desperate poll numbers and they are moving south.
Bolton….blocked.
Patriot Act…..revamped.
Social Security Roullette Scheme….lost.
The Downing St. memo is just the tip of the iceberg. Is that light I can see at the end of the tunnel?
June 21st, 2005 at 2:49 pmOh and the Repugs did a bang up job on the Terry Schiavo matter too, way to go.
June 21st, 2005 at 3:04 pmI am hoping to bring these comments back to the subject of Michael Smith. The Michael Smith who used to work for CBS is not the same as the London Times reporter Michael Smith. However, they are cousins since they are both descended from Sir Michael Smith fourth Earl of Devonshire who lived from 1723-1798. A well placed source who prefers to reman anonymous has confirmed that both Michael Smiths did attend a Smith family barbecue outside of London during the most recent Christmas holidays and were seen spending considerable time huddled together in deep conversation. So, simply making a telephone call to determine that these Michael Smiths are not the same person is just scraping the surface of this conspiracy.
June 21st, 2005 at 3:27 pmWho cares about who Smith is? He admitted that he was given the memo, but he “destroyed the original” and retyped a copy which he refuses to offer the notes from.
Now, if liberals want to hang their hat on a memo of which the original was destroyed, be my guest.
June 21st, 2005 at 3:31 pmGrab your phonebook and start investigating!
June 21st, 2005 at 3:32 pmHey Gordie, check your facts! READ!
June 21st, 2005 at 3:34 pmIf the memos were in fact not authentic, wouldn’t you think that Blair and his government would be screaming from the rooftops to discredit them and the people that leaked/reported on them? They’re not because they are OBVIOUSLY authentic. Case closed wingnuts.
June 21st, 2005 at 3:37 pmParagraph two from this article states clearly that the legitimacy of the memo’s has BEEN CONFIRMED by none other than…..drumroll please…….the British government.
Sorry wingnuts!
June 21st, 2005 at 3:49 pmOoops….here is the link…
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/21/deceptions_damning_documents/
June 21st, 2005 at 3:50 pmThe actual ‘confirmation’ I believe you are referring two is from two unnamed British officials who stated they had no reason to doubt it authenticity. They did not confirm what was in the memo just the fact that yes, some third, unknown to them, British official may have written it. (Much like the ‘confirmation’ Newsweek got for their Koran stories. They asked a general DOD official to check things over. He corrected one aspect of the story, with which he was aquainted, but left everything else alone as he did not have any first hand knowledge to either prove or disprove Newsweeks claims.)
There has not been any real confirmation “the memo is true” by any official of either government involved. Essentially their asking someone to prove a negative (which can rarely be done in this type of case) and then using that as proof of the positive. “Since you can’t say it is a fake then it must be real.” I believe examples of that form of fuzzy logic have already been stated in this thread several times.
Even if it is 100% real, as the DSM is mostly an opinion piece anyways (with very few facts and no direct quotes from Blair or Bush) it would be very hard to prove where it came from and no court in either country would take it as evidence.
As several people have already pointed out at other sites, several American newspapers were running almost identical stories on and around the day this memo was supposedly written. Were they secretly bugging the PM’s home or did just just write editorials based on common knowledge.
(anyone else find the comment box extremely small on this site)
June 21st, 2005 at 4:42 pmSure is getting hot, huh Bic? Not nearly as hot as its going to get though.
June 21st, 2005 at 5:51 pmWow, some of the most mature debating in the blogosphere. On the subject of bias, MSM and newspapers. My local papers endorsed Kerry, the WaPo & NYTimes (the largest papers in the country aside from USAToday, which has never endorsed a candidate) also endorsed Kerry, in fact the breakdown of daily papers was Bush 129, Kerry 162, which candidate did your paper endorse? The right is at least honest about conservative papers (Chig Trib, Wall Street, WashTimes, NYPost) the left could at least face up that much of the MSM would love to see Bush be another Nixon. FoxNews is right-of-center, certainly, but it is ironic that they broke the drunk driving story that almost cost W the 2000 election, kinda goes against that whole mouthpiece of Bush theory. Furthermore I find it odd that the DSM were first reported (and have gotten continual in-depth coverage) by a Rupert Murdoch owned paper, but since it agrees with the left’s views all of a sudden the big bad conservative Rupert is a trustworthy news source after all (not that the right doesn’t do the same thing to the NYTimes.) I don’t have a problem with bias, it is unavoidable, if the facts check out so be it, I just wish people would be more honest with facts instead of disagreeing with an opinion based solely on the bias of who said it.
Anyway, please limit all response to actually address my views and treat me with respect, I promise to debate honestly and do the same for you.
June 21st, 2005 at 6:03 pmChuck,
June 21st, 2005 at 6:58 pm1st Question:
How is the MSM showing that they’d like to have Bush be another Nixon? I’m curious.
2nd Question:
June 21st, 2005 at 7:06 pmHow do YOU explain the less-than-adequate coverage of the DSMs, as well as the desperate attempts at discrediting the DSMs in childish ways?
Chuck,
One sincere question for you. Name the top three sources that you get your news from?
June 21st, 2005 at 7:15 pmIf you righties don’t want to take the word of the fine people that post here at TP, please read the word of a military careerist (not a left winder by ANY STRETCH) that worked directly for Rumsfeld and Doug Feith.
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/1482/Unleashing_the_Resistance
June 21st, 2005 at 7:22 pmHow is the MSM showing that they’d like to have Bush be another Nixon? I’m curious.
I was theorizing. I don’t think that they’ve shown it through actual attempts at impeachment but some have shown a continuous desire to print the negative news over positive news and to suppress if not falsify news that helps the right. As far as Nixon goes, given that more papers supported Kerry (Editor and Publisher ran some circulation numbers, on Oct 23, Kerry had almost 5 million more readers than Bush) to me that says that many editors would gladly run pieces that hurt Bush. After the deep throat revelation, Kos and other lefty blogs said things like “if only we had someone like him now,� you don’t think there isn’t any editor out there who doesn’t think the same thing? Hell I voted for Bush, but for all the accolades I would gladly bring him down if I found damning evidence. It may have been a silly comparison but I think it is ludicrous to think that the MSM suppresses news that would hurt the Bush admin. Or that the MSM wouldn’t love to break a story that would lead to W’s resignation, and really, that kind of story transcends party lines.
How do YOU explain the less-than-adequate coverage of the DSMs, as well as the desperate attempts at discrediting the DSMs in childish ways?
Yes, the right has tried to discredit them (rather poorly) but I don’t think the MSM has, if they have please link up a piece. From the MSM coverage I’ve read it’s because the DSM didn’t contain anything that we didn’t already know. The most damning line “…fixed around the policy…â€? doesn’t implicitly say anything about falsification, it just says that the admin already wanted to invade Saddam, something detailed extensively in Woodward’s book, and was ‘fixing’ policy to make the case to both the public and world for support. This is shown in the lunch memo with Wolfie where he says he thinks they should focus on Saddam’s atrocities more to make the case. I think the scarce coverage has hurt Bush because what the minutes further prove is that both US & UK intel thought Iraq possessed WMD’s and that Bush didn’t lie. In Straw’s memo in the section about what differentiates Iraq from N. Korea and Iran it says ‘’…has used WMD, and would use them again,â€? it also states, “Most of the assessments from the US have assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq’s WMD threat.â€? In Peter Ricketts letter to Jack Straw it states multiple times their belief that Iraq still had WMD’s and in the Overseas and Defense Secretariat, Iraq options paper it states “Despite sanctions, Iraq continues to develop WMD, although our intel is poor.â€? So other than the “…intel being fixed…â€? line, the minutes actually make the case Bush did not in fact lie about WMD, rather, he and the UK though Iraq still possessed them. I also think the lack of coverage is due to the fact that Bush cannot be defeated now, so much of the coverage focuses on congress (Shiavo, Gitmo, Patriot Act, Filibuster) because of 2006, if this had come out pre-Nov 2nd I think we would see wall to wall coverage, or at least much more than we do now.
June 21st, 2005 at 8:22 pmOK Chuck, you are clearly here with honest and fair intentions and I hope to offer you the same.
The mainstream media as a whole has done an extremely poor job of covering issues that are/were damning to the Bush Administration. There are a handful of so-called liberal editorialists in the major newspapers (Richard Cohen, E.J. Dionne, William Rasberry from Washpost…Bob Herbert, Paul Krugman, Frank Rich from NYT to name a few) that slant left but the proof is in what gets splashed across the front pages, that is what influences public opinion. The 4 or 5 mega media corporations (Vivendi, GE, Disney et.al.) have much at stake in the battles for power in DC. They have more to gain from a long-term strategy of tacitly supporting Republicans or complicit Dems (i.e. covering their asses) because Republicans strive openly for consolidation, deregulation, and general corporate Darwinism. This parlays nicely with the Republicans (and complicit Dems) plans to keep the masses misinformed/dumbed-down as they broaden their political power. So while a rogue journalist may gather the courage to break a major story, the news cycle delivers it and quickly moves on to the next joke of a story (Michael Jackson, runaway bride, whatever). So we get this garbage, or stories that are detrimental to Democrats recycled for a week while the HUGE LIES of the Republicans get buried and go away after they flash in the pan. There are endless examples of this from the last 3 or 4 years. They are in it for long-term profit not short-term buzz
June 21st, 2005 at 9:24 pmAlso, please name me three left leaning pundits that have their own network television show? I wouldn’t count Alan “the mouse” Colmes. Aside from AirAmerica (because they were still getting their legs prior to the 04 election) name three left-leaning radio hosts?
I can list bunches or rightwingers at both outlets.
June 21st, 2005 at 9:28 pm#386
-Morning paper (St. Pete times and Hearld Trib) and op-ed sections (I love the op-eds)
-home from work and check blogs, (Powerline, Instapundit, LGF, Kos and the links provided within)
-Online editons of the NYTimes, Wash Post and WashTimes, front page stuff and op-eds
Those are the three i check most, I don’t watch much TV or TV news, it’s so damn sensational about everything, but if I do I prefer MSNBC over Fox, Fox over CNN. But again I don’t really watch anything regularly and never sit through a whole program, because quite frankly most of the anchors opinions are dumbed down but I watch lots of interviews with people. Matthews (former speech writer for Jimmy Carter, wonder which way he votes huh?) asks some pretty damn good questions to just about everybody so I watch him if it’s on.
June 21st, 2005 at 9:37 pmJay, well first and foremost, I don’t care that much about bias, facts are facts, so we don’t really need to discuss bias because we will just talk in circles about it. But for post 390, as far as TV goes it’s pure speculation on which way people lean, for every quote you feel is right leaning there is a left leaning quote to boot. Furthermore I don’t really watch enough TV news to play this game. Radio is right wing but I doubt anyone confuses it for anything else other than right wing, hell it’s self-proclaimed right-wing. That is not the fault of anyone, it’s the market, if it didn’t sell ads it wouldn’t be on the radio.
Jay #389, I don’t know really what else to say other than I disagree, you haven’t actually offered an example other than saying that it is so. I would hardly call the op-ed pages of Wash Post, NYTimes slightly left, for the past 4 years they have been an all out assault on Bush, hell, Dowd can barely write a cohesive article now because she fills it with so many different anti-Bush subjects all at once. NYTimes held on to Abu Gharib for months and months, big story yes, but a front pager for multiple months? The Koran abuse articles I read after the pentagon released it’s report had the most loaded language I’d ever read in my life, i.e “Soldiers stepped on & kicked Koran” was a typical headline even though it was one solider who stepped on and one soldier who kicked the Koran, the articles where factually accurate, but they were exaggerated and to someone like me, who read the pentagon report first, the articles about the report sounded much worse than the report itself. Here is the most recent example of bias and factual inaccuracy I noticed about the lynching apology, in my local paper the AP article attributed the failed anti-lynching legislation of the past on ’southern conservatives filibustering,’ now given that conservative is synonymous with republican don’t you think it’s misleading when the filibuster came from southern democrats? Anyway that’s not that inaccurate but then I read the NYTimes piece, from June 14th, it said, “Although the House passed anti-lynching legislation three times in the first half of the 20th century, the Senate, controlled by Southern conservatives, repeatedly refused to do so.” Um, what? It wouldn’t of mattered if the black panther party controlled the senate because the legislation was filibustered, but guess what the word ‘filibuster’ doesn’t appear once in the whole pieceâ€â€why? Because the NYtimes spoke defended the filibuster in weeks prior, and they wouldn’t want to slight their opinion with a little thing called truth now would they?
June 21st, 2005 at 10:05 pmAnyway I think bias is evened out if you read enough stuff, with blogs and instant AP and Reuters news you can read about just about everything that has happened, left or right.
Jay;
It is my opinion the US media are generally leftist in their editorial slant. They certainly identify themselves as overwhelmngly “liberal” as opposed to “conservative” when polled about their political leanings. I certainly don’t believe that journalists manufacture facts to support their left-leaning politics or to undermine the right, but I do believe they have cut their political soul-mates a lot more slack than has ever been given to any politician on the right. I also belive that their politics influence which stories to cover. As an example, there was a lot of ink and air time expended on President Bush’s National Guard service – or lack thereof (fortunate son and all). The left believes that not enough was made of this and, so, fair enough. Conversely, there were several significant questions about Kerry’s service that were never addressed by the MSM much less investigated and answered. One example is that Kerry’s honorable discharge is dated 1978 while his term of service ended in 1972. Why the lag of nearly six years? There may be many explanations for the delay, but the questions were never asked. Was it because it was a non-story or because the MSM didn’t want to hurt their guy’s chances in the election?
My honorable dischage from the USAF arrived less than 90 days after I separated. In any case, my DD214 showed an honorable discharge when issued at my separation interview at Offutt. I’d like to believe the Navy would have been as efficient for one of their officer heroes.
Katie Couric and the Today show gave three days to Kitty Kelly and her book on the Bush family while the Swift Boat Veterans couldn’t even buy time on any of the major network morning “news” shows . The MSM may have thought the Swifties’ charges were egregious, malevolent fabrications and unworthy of coverage, and perhaps they were. Kitty Kelly’s books have also been filled with questionable “facts” or outright mendacities, yet her book was considered “news worthy.”
Your comments about the media megacorps is well taken. I tend to think of corporations as entities that seek self perpetuation and will support whomever they think will give them the least grief. That being said, these same corporations have given pot loads of money to both parties. I really think they don’t care who wins as long as they have ingratiated themselves to the winner. Sadly both Democrat and Republican politicians have shown themselves to be willing to take their money and work for their interests. Look at the raft of new “digital rights management” laws that threaten to deny purchasers of music, movies, as well as other entertainment media their fair use rights.
I do disagree with your implication that the media corporations support Republicans by supressing ebarassing facts because both Republicans and corporations want to screw the public for the same reasons, while the virtuous Democrats are fighting for the “little guy.” Right here in Minneapolis, the Star-Tribune (one of the most staunchly Democrat supporting newspapers in the country) regularly supports sports stadia or other commercial ventures that directly benefit them financially. They made a real bundle of money by selling some very valuable downtown property for a publically financed stadium and put on a full court press on their editorial pages to get the legislation to pass. No legislation, no stadium, no big bucks for the paper. The editorial board had no qualms about putting the taxpayer on the hook for the bonds to finance the stadium. You may argue that it was the “corporation” that was at fault, but the editors needn’t have written glowing, supportive editorials hyping the stadium. This example may not be of global importance, but it highlights that even organizations who belive they are dedicated to the “people” chase the bucks like everyone else.
And no, I can’t re-enlist since I’m over 50 with heart problems.
June 21st, 2005 at 11:47 pmCan we please get back to the personal attacks and the name calling. I went to public school so I am not big on 500 word explinations.
June 22nd, 2005 at 8:53 amAlthough you both make excellent points(Chuck and Jay)
June 22nd, 2005 at 8:54 amChuck,
The problem with the MSM is that they give short-shrift coverage to matters that are critical to keeping the people informed. Here are some examples of stories (and I think things have gotten a bit better due the fact that the 04 election is behind us, but they are still grossly negligent in informing the public) that were virtually buried by the MSM when they were pertinent (before the election especially):
1. George Bush did everything in his power to thwart the 9/11 investigation and the formation of the 9/11 Commission. It wasn’t until the families of the victims (and specifically the Jersey girls) raised holy hell did the White finally capitulate for political reasons and reluctantly (i.e. withholding much documented evidence in the investigative process).
2. Several political groups submitted a FOIA request to have the secret Energy policy meeting details released (Cheney’s meetings with big energy CEO’s) and they WH refused. It went to the Supreme Court and Antonin Scalia was adamantly opposed to their release. The WH won, docs kept secret, Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco continue to drive our energy policy because there is no oversight.
3. Bush’s Town Hall meetings were CLOSED to non-Bush supporters. Now a Town Hall meeting by definition is supposed to be inclusive of all citizens with a sense of civic responsibility, not just R or D. His 40 day tour prior the election was also being paid for with our tax dollars, yet I have heard stroies (through alternative media sources) of people being escorted out or never let in by Secret Service if they were not Bush supports.
4.Gannon/Guckert
5. Valerie Plame
6. Iraq and WMD
Now think back to Clinton years and put the shoe on the other foot. They crucified the guy for some pretty measely shit and these guys are committing some honest to goodness heinous, corrupt at the very least SIGNIFICANT political acts that in my opinion hurt democracy…and we get bubkus for coverage. On the other hand the media is perfectly happy to baffle Americans with bullshite.
Also, Google the recent Tomlinson CPB issue and tell me there’s a liberal media. It just ain’t true. They try to paint Bill Moyers as some kind of fringe figure when I can’t think of a man in journalism with more integrity and dedication to uncovering truth. It just so happens that the right has made him public enemy no. 1 because they’re the ones telling the most egregious lies right now.
June 22nd, 2005 at 10:09 amNot to get this whole thing going again but by Clinton’s “measely shit” are you referring to his commiting perjury during sworn testimony while President. An act that got him disbarred by the Supreme Court (not really that big an issue) and suspended from for 5 years and fined by the Arkansas Bar.
Yeah I can see why he should have gotten a pass on that. He was a Democratic President after all.
As for your other points, do you actually watch TV or read a paper? Most of these things have been covered repeatedly. The few that haven;t had more to do with lack of a story than anything else.
Gannon/Guckert- received daily press passes (which according t several journalists are not that hard to get) using his real name but wrote under a pen name. He also had a evident right wnig slant but there were also several left slanted reporters in the same briefings. Big scandal there. Everything else about it held little interest for the media because no line could be made to connect him to the admin and outside of that he was just a small time reporter with an odd career path.
Town hall meetings are pure PR BS and everyone knows that. Again not a lot of a story there.
June 22nd, 2005 at 1:05 pmbic,
No offense but I think you hear and see what you want to hear and see. Every issue that I mentioned received little coverage with the possible exception of Gannon and that was because (like the Downing St. memo) there has been relentless pursuit of the story on the internet and in alternative media. You have been misled my friend.
Let me be clear on Clinton, I had my problems with the guy but when I look back now (and in contrast to what we are now experiencing) he presided over one of the better periods in American history on MANY fronts. I don’t care about the BJ and in the end that was really the sin that Republicans focused on. I submit that they wanted him destroyed for several reasons but first and foremost he passed legislature that made the wealthy pay more taxes not to mention that he was a two term impediment to the phony “conservative” movement)…thus he had to be destroyed. You’re not going to tell me that his silly “meaning of is” statement or the Lewinsky issues even hold a candle to all of Bush’s crimes and misdemeanors….are you? They don’t, and if you believe that all I can say is that you are badly misinformed.
June 22nd, 2005 at 1:53 pmTown Hall meetings are BS? Then why fvcking bother? That entire series of propaganda flew into our living rooms (and our faces) each night in the run-up to the election. The meetings weren’t as important as how they played on TV but the issue is secrecy, open government and democracy. They don’t like that.
Bic, I just reread your post. God, you are delusional. WAKE UP!
June 22nd, 2005 at 2:04 pm1. Can’t honestly say much about this because at this time I was not as into checking the news (as a sophomore in college I was more preoccupied with booze and girls…go figure) But a quick search found that Time magazine first reported on this in march, then had this http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html in may, then the Boston globe printed a piece in July that got the victims families angered.
2. A NYTimes search for cheney “energy task force� produces a slew of results (almost 5,000) many lamenting the loss of open government or criticizing Bush secrecy. Because no documents were released it is rather difficult to make news about anything, because nothing is known other than suppression.
3. I read about this all over the news, and I really don’t see why it is so damming, I mean you may disagree with it but it is hardly illegal or wrong. After getting heckled at every stop I would restrict the crowd also.
4.Gannon/Guckert — While I first learned of this through blogs it was prominent in the MSM for a week after, (a NYTimes search finds 7 pieces which I think is 6 too many.) Again, I don’t see what the big deal is, guy asks a favorable Bush question, goes by a fake name and runs gay websites…being liberal I wouldn’t think the gay thing would really be that big of a deal. I don’t think press conferences need to be exclusively anti-Bush, this kind of thing almost proves my point, the fact that it’s newsworthy when someone asks a loaded pro-bush question, I mean how dare they?
5. This was all over the news, much of it dealing with a reporters right to protect their source. Once again though it’s not the biggest deal in the world, unethical yes, but I think every admin since the advent of press has used the press in unethical ways to help itself, hell didn’t we just celebrate Felt leaking info to the press?
6. Iraq and WMD. Aside from the fact that this is plastered to the news and has since day one I am not sure I understand? The Wash Post agreed with the decision to invade Iraq but changed it’s tune after no WMDs were found, as did much of congress. Conversely, I haven’t read or seen too much about the history of Iraq’s WMD, I had to find out on the net all the Clinton and other quotes on Saddam and WMD. Also, would you at least grant that after the Dulfer Report, Woodward’s book and now the DSM that they prove once and for all that Bush did not lie about WMD? See so many liberals refuse to admit this and it just shows them overlooking facts in favor of their bias. I will grant that through insinuation and now with the DSM that they mislead about Al Queda but I think the WMD lie has finally been proven false.
Again, I’m to young to talk about Clinton and the press, while I feel I’ve read enough it would be others opinions and not my own first hand ones.
I don’t need to do a google search on Tomlinson/CPB because it’s been in the news a lot. In fact, I learned on TV last night that he was appointed by Clinton. Again, talking about bias is rather pointless, everyone has their opinions, it’s the job of the viewer to take the facts and make up their own mind. I don’t think the government needs to fund half the shit they fund and TV/radio is one of them. If it can’t exist in the market than that’s that, bias or no bias. On a side note, if you think Moyer represents balanced broadcasting than I can see your problem with the news and it is beyond help.
June 22nd, 2005 at 2:39 pmMost times a politician appears on TV it is just PR BS. Townhall meeting, the State of the Union (at least most), the Opposition response to the SOTU. Even most televised ‘debates’ and 95% of the political themed television shows are just excuses for both sides to lay out their well rehearsed talking points. Thats why no matter what the question is, the answer will most likely have little to do with it. Did I ever defend that system and say they SHOULD ‘fvcking bother’? NO.
As for Clinton, I believe it was the left who focused on the BJ aspect (outside of the fact that it came up while he was being sued for sexual harrasment). Its your standard straw man argument. A sitting President commited perjury (unlike the myriad of hypothetical crimes of Bush, this actually went to court). Can’t defend that, so make it all about the sex, not the crime. And BTW, I thought he was a bit slimey but I never called for his removal from office over the whole thing. I 100% agreeded with the final outcome, a letter of censure by the houses.
As for his presiding over a great time in American history, I believe the majority of his Presidency, he had a Republican majority in congress. But that was back in the day where the opposition members (Republicans) actually did there jobs despite political differences with the President and together developed policy. An era that ended sometime in 2000.
June 22nd, 2005 at 2:43 pmChuck, since you seem like a curious guy, do me one small favor and read this speech. Tell me if you think it can be described as the rantings of a political ideologue….or an honest assessment of a man, a journalist with integrity and smarts.
You insinuate that by my admiring him and his work and his beliefs that I’m beyond help and I could certainly say the same about you. You have been told by a Moyers detractor that he a left-wing loony and I would argue that you have been misled.
Please read:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/21/deceptions_damning_documents/
June 22nd, 2005 at 3:08 pmDamn, pasted the wrong link sorry:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0516-34.htm
June 22nd, 2005 at 3:09 pmBic,
Yeah…it was the Dems that focused on the BJ. You’re right. Dude, listen to yourself…you sound silly.
June 22nd, 2005 at 3:29 pmBill Clinton was a flawed man but an incredibly worthy President, politician, and diplomat. He had a gift for speaking extemporaneously like noone I’ve ever seen. GWB can’t go through the drive-thru without a script. It’s night and day.
June 22nd, 2005 at 3:32 pmWow, amazing, there is more than one Michael Smith. Who would of thunk it. Those republican’s aint too bright, ere they.
June 22nd, 2005 at 3:37 pmJust to take a second and post something on topic here, here is a timeline for this whole VRW Michael Smith conspiracy you think we (the right) cared about:
* June 19th (7:55 PM): Scylla & Charybdis notice the name similarity
* June 19th (8:52 PM): Charles notes the S & C story on LGF
* June 19th (8:58 PM): Comment #5 on LGF notes the fact Michael Smith is a common name. Not yet totally dismissed, but conspiracy already in question.
* June 19th (8:59 PM): Comment #7 seconds the coincidence theory.
* June 19th (9:31 PM): Comment #8 at S & C sheds further light on the past works of the two Michael Smiths and everyone accepts that they are in fact two separate reporters.
* June 19th (11:45 PM): Comment #106 at LFG repeats Comment #8 from S&C’s claims.
* June 20th (12:42 PM): Think Progress creates a post to show how the conservative blogosphere “desperate to discredit the Downing Street Minutes” is abuzz with this Michael Smith thing.
So there you go. It only took 15 hours AFTER us conservatives already proved that the two MSs were different people (a theory that no one took seriously) for Judd to create a thread about how we were all abuzz. I guess it just matters what your definition of ‘abuzz’ is.
June 22nd, 2005 at 4:06 pmSo Jay, lets me get this straight.
Clinton, the president that for the last 2 years in office authorized almost daily bombings of Iraq (the heaviest of which coincedentily starting the day before the impeachment hearings and continuing until just after the vote) with no discernable result is good because he can talk nice and makes you feel all warm and tingly inside.
Bush, the president that in 2 and a half years has brought democracy to 25,000,000+ Iraqis and removed a dictator that on average killed 26,000 (some estimates as high as 50,000) of his own people ANNUALY is evil.
Makes perfect sense to me.
There is an old saying involving “actions” and “words” I’m trying to remember here. Personally I would rather have a leader that walked the walk rather than one who just talked the talk (and took the occasional step when he determined it was politically convienient).
June 22nd, 2005 at 4:23 pmBic,
Here is your problem:
“Bush, the president that in 2 and a half years has brought democracy to 25,000,000+ Iraqis”
…I’m sorry but there is no other way to say this. You are an idiot.
June 22nd, 2005 at 5:14 pmSo Jay, please enlighten me and deconstruct that statement so that I can see the truth.
June 22nd, 2005 at 5:19 pmI’m afraid it’d take a team of psychologists and a bible to deconstruct any of your statements. You are squarely in the category of lost cause as far as I’m concerned. I can’t continue to beat my head against the wall that is Bic’s perception of reality. Best of luck though.
June 22nd, 2005 at 6:32 pmJay,
According to you, we Conservatives all have a warped world view. Some like Bic, Chuck, and Jeff have spent time thoughtfully responding in detail to your charges. You have been dismissive but rarely challenged them, other than to reference a link and smugly say ‘read it and get back to me’, as if you are the only one who has ever read anything. Reading is easy; comprehending, assimilating, reconciling new facts with existing facts, aka thinking, that’s the tricky part. You have pompously convinced yourself that you are the sole proprietor of the truth, but it is beneath yourself to have to explain it to lesser beings.
Do you think that intelligent folks are unaware that an ad hominem is a logical fallacy, typical of the end stage of a debate in which the attacker has been utterly vanquished?
So tell us about your world view:
1) Do you think that there is anything special about the contribution that the U.S. has made to the world? How many countries has it liberated from tyranny? How many scientific, industrial and medical innovations has it achieved?
2) Is there another country which is more free than the U.S.? Has another country a constitution which guarantees a list of freedoms, which are rigorously enforced by an equally well designed legal and political structure? Has such a country consistently demonstrated its commitment to the freedom of its citizens over the last 100 years?
3) How would the world today be different had the United States never existed?
4) What sociological and extrinsic factors caused the fall from dominance of each of the great civilizations of the past: Egypt, Maya, Greece, Rome, France, Spain, Britain?
5) Are these factors, responsible for the decline of other civilizations, presently growing in the U.S.?
6) What are the implications of a fall from dominance of the U.S.? How would the world be different if the U.S. yields its dominance to another country–say China? What does the spread of radical Islam and Shar’ia mean in terms of loss of freedom worldwide?
7) Which political party cares most about the U.S. and is better prepared to defend it? Which party better promotes democracy and freedom both domestically and around the globe?
8) Do you care about any of these questions? Are they the ‘wrong’ questions? Will you answer my questions with more questions? An ad hominem perhaps? Tell me how warped my world view must be, to even ask such questions? Or will you respond thoughtfully and enlighten us and other readers of this blog?
June 23rd, 2005 at 12:23 pmFreedom Fan,
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I think that this country is the greatest nation in the history of mankind. I can honestly say that I agree that all of the resourcefulness, hard work, inventiveness and spirit that Americans have executed and displayed over the last 229 years is something for all of us to proud of. These factors only contribute to the disgust and disappointment over what I’ve watched happen over the course of the last 5 years. I think that the current adminstration is muddying (bloodying?) our hard-earned reputation as a nation founded on freedom, democracy and sovereignty.
What pisses me off about the Bush-backers is that they have no problem looking the other way or rationalizing behavior that clearly flies in the face of all of the ideals and made this country great. So you see, it’s not the country that I’m
disappointed in it’s the bastards that are in power at the moment.
The folks that get the bulk of information from Rush, Drudge, Fox, or even CNN and MSNBC et al.are being fed a different reality, one that I know to be bogus. I’m almost as disappointed in the Democrats as I am in the Republicans and the Americans that are marching in lock-step with the liars. The Dems are not fighting hard enough in my opinion to scream the truth from the top of the hill. Now we can go back and forth with the facts but I’ve done that many times and I’ve come to the conclusion that the folks that I’m arguing with are armed with talking points (I hear the exact same arguments here as I hear from the right-wingers I just mentioned). So the spin and the lies are standards and they don’t hold up to scrutiny. So as I’ve said before, you have your reality and I have mine.
If you truly believe that we went to war to liberate the Iraqi people, I say that you have taken the bait and swallowed it. It’s a fvcking lie. Liberating the Iraqi people had NOTHING to do with it. Nor did WMD or Al Qaeda and these guys knew it. Are you familiar with PNAC? Did you know their plans before 9/11? If not, you are missing a key piece of the puzzle.
Are you aware that we are nearing peak oil? Do you realize the steaks around who controls the oil that remains? these are the questions that you need to ask yourself. This is bigger than the Downing St. memo and the other political hot-button tit-for-tat issues that we argue about here.
I love this country and I want it to be as great a place for my children as it has been for me.
If you want to debate a specific topic or talk over the facts, I’m happy too. I just get frustrated with the parallel universe that I think we can’t get to converge. I’m an honest guy and I think you probably are too, and I’d love to find common ground….trust me.
June 23rd, 2005 at 2:35 pmFreedom Fan, Chuck, Bic,
I think you’ll find this interesting and it sort of highlights the point that calling the Bush admln out for being WRONGHEADED is not just for Dems/progressives/liberals:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Republican_candidate_calls_Bush_Admin_Nazis_q_0623.html
June 23rd, 2005 at 2:58 pmJay,
Thanks for taking on these asshats. You were a worthy opponent to the obvious neocon dogs. Defend the liberal dream, the mother ship is on self distruct mode.
June 23rd, 2005 at 7:07 pmJay,
Since we’re all using point form now I may as well continue. Here are my three points.
1) Rachael Lea Hunter, the link you point to, is a rejected candidate for the Supreme Court of NC who was beaten by the candidate the Republican party supported, Newby. No sour grapes there. The fact she uses the term ‘Nazi’ in her critique kind of says it all.
2) The reason you often hear the same thing repeated from the right is because the facts do not change. Most arguments from the left however, deal more with feelings than fact. Just look at any speech Howard Dean has been giving lately.
That’s why the left cannot make a coherent argument on anything. In the absense of fact they have to go on assumptions and they can’t even agree to what assumptions they are all going to run with at a given time. “He invaded for the oil”,”He invaded for the WMDs”,”He invaded because Saddam tried to kill his father”. So you get people arguing it was all for the oil, and then others arguing it was revenge, etc.. but none can be proven to a certainty because they are all based on pure guesses as to what someone was thinking at a particular moment.
3) Since we’re handing out links I think you’ll find this interesting. Feel free to try and convince yourself that this is a Republican plant:How the Western ‘Left’ has Misread Iraq
June 23rd, 2005 at 7:12 pmBic, to say that we base our opinions on emotion rather than facts is utterly ridiculous. You just don’t agree with facts that don’t jive with your preconceived notions. I could list 25 facts about the Bush administration that in my opinion prove that it is the worst certainly in my lifetime and based on my knowledge of history (not expert by any stretch) it’s among the worst ever and due to the despicable nature of destructive politics that is this crews’ signature I’d have a hard time believing it’s ever been this bad.
What brand of facts do you prefer? Quotes from people on the right? Statements and stories from people that were part of Bush’s inner circle that have spoken out to say that these guys are doing things that are unprecedented and foolsih (according to the rightwing they’re all a. disgruntled because they’ve been passed over for a promotion, b. they’re CRaZy or c. they’re just liars bacause the Bushies outed their deep cover CIA agent wife). How about some historical context? How did Bin Laden come to power? What about Saddam? Does it bother you that hard core right wing Republicans are determined to destroy the opposition party (see Norquist, Grover) completely and if you want America to survive that has to bother you. No oppostion party and we have tyrrany, dictatorship, plutocracy, whatever you want to call it…it’s not democracy. I don’t care if the opposition is Democrat or something else but right now they’re all we’ve got. The right believes that anyone that questions the results of the last two elections is a sore loser. Well I’m not a sore loser but I heard and read SHITLOADS of evidence that their was much foul play in the last election. Documented, scientific evidence not EMOTION. These are not conspiracy theories but hard cold facts, but you’ve been told that it’s a conspiracy so you believe it. Do your homework. Read Greg Palast (I’m sure he’s just bitter about something), check out Bev Harris and the empirical data that she’s compiled regarding voter fraud. These aren’t anomalies man, there is too much proof.
The Republicans whole game plan is based on tapping into your emotions, wedge issues, visceral reactions to gay marriage and abortion, stem cells etc. They spend more than half their time ripping down their public enemies with words and staements that are designed to illicit an emotional response. The Frank Luntz strategy is based on focus groups and tapping into words and phrases that evoke emotional reactions. YOU’RE SIDE preys on the emotions of the weak-minded and the disgruntled.
June 23rd, 2005 at 9:34 pmOh and Bic,
I consider Howard Dean something of a hero these days. He is the just about the only one (Barbara Boxer qualifies too) that is speaking truth to power right now. He believes in calling it likes he see’s it, the grassroots, reaching out to EVERYBODY, and not backing down. These are the reasons I fear he winds up at the bottom of a river. We are after all, dealing with a crime family.
June 23rd, 2005 at 10:02 pmThe reason we on the right deny the previous election was stolen is because EVERY SINGLE UNBIAS (or for that matter bias) INVESTIGATION SAYS SO.
For example, after a DNC (yes that DNC) review of the Ohio elections (last Novembers ‘Florida’) was completed they determined there was no discernable action by either party to disenfranchise the electorate. This was a DNC report. In fact, according to another investigation by election lawyers in Ohio, the majority of fraud that did occur, mostly illegal registrations and such, was committed by DEMOCRAT SUPPORTERS! ( Washington Times)
There’s also the case in Milwakee, where surprise surprise DEMOCRATS were arrested for interferring with Republican election efforts.
Or the cases of the dead and fictional rising and voting in Democratic districts (too numerous to link).
These are real documented cases of election fraud or attempts. Not just some reporter guessing at fraud where he doesn’t like the results.
To go even further back every recount of Florida from 2000, determined that under every legal counting method GWB still won but most of the left still refuse to admit that. All the investigations also found that all the claims of disenfranchisement were in fact usually due to improper training of poll personel and in Florida, I believe the districts where the majority of the ‘disenfranchisement’ occurred were Democratic run. Or do you have a link to a conviction from 2000 or 2004 for election fraud.
June 23rd, 2005 at 10:03 pm“Speaking truth to power”
A perfect example of the lefts need to feel good about themselves. What does that mean exactly. Speaking truth to power is just a phrase that you use because it’s catchy and easy to remember. You don’t needs facts to back up anything when you’re “Speaking truth to power”.
For instance, Dean is a rich white guy from the whitest state in the union with an entirely white cabinet while governer and he makes claims about the Republicans and people of color, repeatedly. Meanwhile the Bush administration has appointed more minorities to positions of actual power than any previous administraion but that is ignored because they weren’t real minorities, because they weren’t democrats.
Dean is single handedly driving a large portion of the independants to the Republican camp and driving a large number of Democrats out theirs. And why? To show the hard liners of his party that he’s not soft. Hardliners to which anything less than calling this admin. Nazis is the same as joining the RNC.
He is a perfect example of the politics of hate, and most people prefer not to join ‘hate groups’ which is what he is turning the Democrats into. Of course he does have a lot of help from the various Democratic Senators and Congressman who also see these hardliners as core constituency. Is there any wonder that in the last 10 years Democrats have managed to become the minority in the Senate, Congress and to lose the White House, even when popular trends said they should have gained ground in the two houses last election.
Just look at some of your own comments in this post. I could ad Justin’s too but he’s Canadian so I can’t really hold that against you guys.
June 23rd, 2005 at 10:25 pmElection fraud:
http://www.nov2truth.org/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud_review.html
http://imagicke.blogspot.com/2004/11/compendium-of-vote-fraud-links.html
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
There is enough evidence on these sites to cover it.
As for speaking truth to power as “catch phrase”. What the fvck do you think “death tax”, “investment accounts”, “embryonic stem cell research”, “security moms”…blah, blah….I could go on. These are all right wing catch phrases designed to frame things in language that benefits the rightwing. Besides, speaking truth to power sounds so much more civilized than “you’re a fvcking liar” doesn’t it?
I printed out your marxist.org article and I’m going to give it a read….just so you know that I check out all points of view. I have my highligher in hand though so I’ll get back to you if anything strikes me as bull.
June 23rd, 2005 at 10:40 pmDean is the perfect example of the politics of hate? But Dick Cheney telling Patrick Leahy (a Senator no less) to “fvck himself” on the Senate floor was what, a playful jab?
June 23rd, 2005 at 10:45 pmKarl Rove’s statement today about the “liberal” reaction to 9/11 was what? Partisan banter?
June 23rd, 2005 at 10:48 pm“embryonic stem cell research” as a catch phrase?
It’s a description of the type of research being done and is used to differentiate it from “adult stem cell research”.
Either way, it’s not a good idea to bring up stem cells when talking about truth.
Truth:
1) the only currently available treatments derived from stem cell research has come from adult stem cell.
2)the democrats have been using stem cell as a political tool for years, even going so far as to say that under a Kerry Presidency, parapalegics would be walking again.
3) Despite the the rhetoric from the left, embronic stem cell research is not in any way banned in the US (except for actual cloning). The ‘ban’ they constantly refer to only applies to federal funds outside of the existing 22 lines. Private investors, companies and states are free to give money to whatever labs they want.
June 23rd, 2005 at 10:52 pmEverybody loses their cool every once in a while but when it becomes a pattern of behaviour you have a problem. There are people on both sides that have said things in anger, but Dean in particular does it on a pretty regular basis.
I wouldn’t take on Roves statement if I were you. I’m actually in another forum discussing that right now and you really don’t want to being up all the quotes out there to support that claim. If you want to find some easily just look for anything Michael Moore said in the last 3 years.
June 23rd, 2005 at 11:00 pmBic, the one thing I have to give you is that you know the right wing talking points cold. You’re dead wrong on every issue that you discuss, but you’re dead wrong.
I read through your article and it’s packed with lies and it felt like I was reading a Bill O’Reilly transcript. The “left” this and “liberals” that. Throws a bunch of crap against the wall to see what will stick. Honestly, you people need to come up with better stories to support your claims.
BTW, Michael Moore posted multiple references for EVERY claim he made in F911. All of them. Has he been sued for slander? Not to my knowledge and that’s because his facts were CORRECT. Go to his website and check. Every claim has multiple sources to back it up.
Here I’ll help you in your quest for the truth:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/
June 23rd, 2005 at 11:09 pmpardon the typos…it’s late…time to crash.
June 23rd, 2005 at 11:09 pmName for me anything that Dean has said that rivals potty-mouth Cheney on the Senate floor? You think he sounds hateful because the truth hurts. His words are music to my ears and I love that certain Dems are lining up to criticize him, makes identifying the weak/corrupt elements of the party like shooting fish in a barrel.
Karl Rove is slime.
June 23rd, 2005 at 11:17 pmThe article I posted was a freakin’ MARXIST website. How much further to the left do I have to go to get an opinion that you’ll accept!
As for Moore, I didn’t even mention his movies just his statements. Look them up, you know the type, the insurgents are the minutemen etc. etc..
As for his movies, anyone who believes his distortions are anywhere close to the truth is out of his freakin’ gord. You can check out multiple site to show how his ‘facts’ check out. Off the top of my head Dave Kopel’s page and Moore Watch (look under the Start Here link) are a good start but by no means the only sources.
Some quick Moore history for you:
In Roger and Me he completed distorted the actual sequence of events to make it appear that GM was responsible for the economic crisis in Flint (which although he claims it repeatedly is NOT his hometown).
In Bowling he parsed two entirely different speeches by Heston together, and at times entirely different sentences, to get the words he wanted together. He also directly lied to several people, such as the bank staff where he ‘got his gun’ to get them to do things on camera. He had to bring that gun with him since the bank actually only handed out coupons for guns at a loval gun store and never ever had any on the premises.
In 9/11 he distorted headlines to make a letter to the editor appear as an actual article. He plays clips of people making statements that he knew were in fact false, and already well proven to be so. But the clips themselves were real so therefore by his definition, he didn’t lie. He once again presents time lines in such a way as to give false impressions (Bin Ladens left only after commercial air travel was allowed, and after they were in fact questioned).
His entire ‘act’ is the same as a magicians, misdirection, or in cases like David Blaines Levitation trick, just plain lying. Unless you really believe in magic in which case I’m sorry to ruin it for you.
And the old excuse of a lawsuit is another simple minded liberal defense.
1) It is very hard to sue for libel/slander in the US. The rules are very strict and almost impossible to meet. They require intent to injure as a requirement, not just a lie being told.
2)most people do not sue when attacked anyways. They prefer to just ignore him. Especially a person like a prominent politician that gets these types of attacks all day every day. It’s part of the job.
3)Moore never claims his movies are documentaries. Instead he usually claims them as some sort of humorous film. This protects you from just about everything in a legal sense.
Though I’m sure you believe everything presented on ‘The Daily Show’ is fact too because Jon Stewart has never been sued either.
June 23rd, 2005 at 11:57 pmI don’t know Bic, sounds like you’re really reaching to me. I don’t care if your article was written by Karl Marx himself, it was very weak. I’d point to specific examples except that the entire premise was completely ridiculous. Right off the bat it made claims about how wrong the anti-war movement had been in light of the events that had unfolded up to that point. Riiight…..Mission Accomplished. It’s gibberish from start to finish.
Again, you’ve been spun and lied to so frequently and by so many sources that purport to be factual that you’ve got no idea as to what’s true and what’s false. I think you’re a lost puppy (but don’t feel bad you’re not alone).
June 24th, 2005 at 8:46 amJay,
You still seem to be avoiding the truth of Rove’s statement. Honestly, look at Moore’s or if you prefer MoveOn’s statements right after 9/11 to see what he was talking about. Then there’s the actual elected Democrats. Since yesterday, there are a lot of sites with list of their comments but since any link I post here you dismiss outright, I’ll let you look them up yourself.
As for your claims of lies, you have yet to actually present anything with more weight than op-ed peices from liberal journalists or rejected candidates to back up your claims.
Most cases you just dismiss outright any claims with statement like you last one: “I’d point to specific examples except that the entire premise was completely ridiculous.” That’s a cheap avoidance technique which is often used by people without a strong arguement. It’s on par with putting your fingers in your ears and chanting “na na nana na”.
I still can’t believe I’m arguing FOR a Marxist website with someone who thinks they are closet Republicans because they have an opinion that differs from his. I can honestly say you are the first person I’ve ever seen try to make that case.
June 24th, 2005 at 9:19 amIf Karl Rove believed that “liberals” reacted to 9/11 in an appeasing way (wanting to provide therapy to those that threaten us while the R’s got their war footing…what a beauty) why is he saying it now? I’ll tell you why, because when this administration gets in trouble they crank up the anti-Democrat rhetoric to get their base mobilized (hey that’s you…and it’s working). They’re feeling the heat because things have gone sour for them and they are trying to distract the American public from Iraq, Downing St. memo, Social Security flop, etc. with red meat. It’s a disgraceful statement and a perfect example of the destructive politics that I mentioned earlier. Karl Rove will stoop as low as he needs to in order to change the subject. Unfortunately for you and your lemming friends, it’s not going to work. The good ship lying slimeballs is sinking and I think you know it. Why would you spending so much time arguing with me if there weren’t some kernels of doubt in your mind about your fearless leaders? Aren’t the powerless Dems the ones that need converts? Why waste time trying to convince a “liberal”?
So you’ve now mentioned at least three “techniques” that I’ve used in our back and forth. I think that’s funny. I’m arguing in good faith based on what I know and understand to be the truth and somehow this is a technique. Yeah, it’s called the truth. You outta look into it.
June 24th, 2005 at 10:44 amThanx Jay.
Tell us more about your world view. Are you a liberal democrat because your party defends the “little guy”? Did you oppose the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court because he would favor wealthy interests over the little guy? Is the U.S. Constitution a “living, breathing” (ie. malleable; virtually meaningless) document subject to the whim of judicial activists like john paul stevens? Do liberal democrats favor appointing more activist judges like stevens and fewer strict-constructionists like Thomas?
Do liberal democrats favor more decisions like this? Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Did this decision accurately interpret the the “public use” stipulation of the “takings” clause of the 5th amendment? Did it expand or restrict your personal freedom?
Do you still believe it is the Conservatives who have a warped world view? Is it really the liberals who fight for the little guy (like lawyers, hollywood actors, union leaders, corporate strip mall developers)?
June 24th, 2005 at 11:38 amOnce again, read your statement. All you are arguing is what you believe Rove’s motivations were for making these statements by drawing in totally unrelated issues. No facts, nothing to back up your statements but your belief he is trying to misdirect the public.
Here’s something you may not like to hear, but once again it’s the truth. Rove said this in front of a conservative group and the only reason this speech became public was that the Dems made it so (even though oddly enough the party itself is not mentioned). This was most likely to draw some of the heat off of the recent bad press over Durbin’s remarks, but could also just be because, as several Dems have publically acknowledged, they generally do not like Karl Rove. It was the Dems who brought this up NOT the Republicans. If these comments are distracting the public from other issues whose fault is that?
Have you ever known this president to give a damn about opinion polls? Thats a Dem thing. He ran on a policy and keeps to it because he believes it is the proper course of action. Right or wrong you know what he is going to do today, tomorrow and the next day. Unlike previous Dem presidents, he does not believe the right thing changes when polls start to turn south. It’s called leadership, look it up.
As for Downing St., that memo has no legal ramifications at all. It’s only purpose is to try and affect public opinion (see previous paragraph). As has already been discussed it is inelligable in any court and does nothing but point out that both the US and UK did indeed think Iraq had WMDs. Remember they went to the UN after this memo was written. If the UN had taken action then, Iraq could have been different.
And Social Security, while he didn’t get his ‘private accounts’ there is a bill being drafted to modify SS to make it more stable and solvent, exactly what his stated goal was in the first place. From the get go he asked for the congress and Senate to suggest other options.
As for Iraq, let’s check the score card:
Dictator removed from power: check
Democracy in Iraq: Check
Iraqi citizens organizing for their own defense against the ‘insurgents’:check
Seems he’s doing ok there, despite your attempts to make it sound like a lost cause. Which I believe kind of ties back to Rove’s statements about liberals and their commitment to the WOT.
June 24th, 2005 at 12:04 pmFF, before this adminstration came along I considered myself squarely in the center of the political spectrum. I’ve never been registered as a D (always I) and voted for the man in every case, never the party. I voted for Ross Perot in 92 (not Clinton…what a shocker huh). So maybe that gives you a clue as to where I stand. I got very interested after 9/11 because of the magnitude of the situation. I set out to research everything I could about why it happened and I’ve been paying close attention ever since.
Clarence Thomas’ appointment to the bench didn’t bother me at the time because back then R’s got some of theirs and D’s got some of theirs and there was a balance of power that seemed to keep both parties honest. You knew that one party wouldn’t successfully impose all of their policies because the opposition was viable and strong. That is no longer true.
As for judicial activists, I can’t think of a more clear example of judicial activism than the Terry Schiavo matter. Republicans are ok with such activism when it suits them and they cry foul when it doesn’t. How many judges had to review that case and rule (in harmony) before Republicans backed off and agreed that it was the right ruling? There is a conservative majority in the SC and Bush is going to likely get more appointments including the Chief…so how much do you want?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46798-2004Nov12.html
I’m not sure I get your point on the eminent domain ruling. Let me know where you stand. Personally, I think it’s wrong to force folks out of their homes so that a new Wal-Mart or Home Depot can be built. I don’t know all of the details of this case, but I think it’s got to be a situation that’s judged extremely impoortant to the greater good in order to uproot someone from their home. Big chain stores and ballparks don’t fit that criteria in my opinion.
June 24th, 2005 at 12:31 pmJay,
OK. Let me clearly state my point:
Activist Supreme Court justices, appointed by your liberal buddies, have just dramatically reduced our property rights and personal freedom. They have “interpreted” the “public use” wording in the fifth amendment to allow the government to forcibly take property from one private individual for the benefit of another private individual. The advantage typically will flow from weaker folks to more powerful, wealthier individuals who pay higher property taxes, because politicians will never get enough tax revenue. Democrats, who pretend to champion the rights of “the little guy” but support judicial activism epitomized by this decision, are transparent hypocrites.
This decision supports my world view that the Democrat party doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the “little guy”. Your party is all about transferring power from individuals to government bureaucrats. Almost everything Democrats do is consistent with this–”my perception of reality”. The arguments Democrats make are merely smokescreens to persuade weak-minded folks to give up their freedom in exchange for security, or to at get even with another race, or to satisfy class envy, or act out of fear of something like a bogus draft (Rangel introduced this bill himself so he could somehow blame Republicans).
The argument that “Conservatives do it too”, is not relevant, even if it were true. Your link dwells on opposition to abortion in the Republican campaign platform (not judicial decisions) and incoherently concludes that “judicial activism” exists only in the eye of the beholder. Your link does not give any examples of judicial activism by consistent strict-constructionists like Scalia and Thomas, both appointed by Conservatives.
I understand from your comments that you love the U.S. as I do; that you want the best for all of our citizens. So you know that this decision is wrong; it is unfair; it is obviously unconstitutional.
However, your vote for democrat politicians will lead to more decisions like this and further reduce our freedom. I am repectfully requesting that you reconcile this glaring inconsistency in your world view. There is only one reality. Whose perception is correct?
June 25th, 2005 at 3:38 amThere was no “judicial activism” in the Terry Schiavo case. The court did not even take the case:
Supreme Court, state judge deny appeals to resume feeding
Let’s all be clear on the meaning of “judicial activism” since there’s a lot of irrelevant statements being made:
-Thomas Sowell
June 25th, 2005 at 12:06 pmJay you said
Between 1975 and 1990, saddam hussein spent $65 billion on military arms; he was one of the largest purchaser of arms in the world. His ultimate dream was to possess nuclear bombs; he fervently was pursuing this dream.
In 1980 saddam hussein attacked Iran which began a bloody war that lasted eight years and cost about a million lives. In 1988 he dumped poison gas on his own dissident people, resulting in the deaths of about 100,000 mostly civilian Kurds. In 1990 hussein invaded Kuwait without provocation.
Having attacked his neighbors to the east, then his neighbors to the south, do you doubt he would have attacked his rich, weak neighbors to the west? Then with saddam in possession of the oil of Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, he would control over 70% of the world’s oil. He easily would become the richest man on earth. He could dictate world oil prices; triple, quadruple the price and we still would have to pay. While this evil dictator was enriching himself and building weapons of mass destruction, the rest of the world would plunge into desperate economic depression and collapse into third world nation status, or be consumed in thermo-nuclear fire.
This is what we conservatives dare to call a “threat to our national security�. I’m sorry if you do not believe or feel threatened by this scenario. You see no parallel between saddam’s plans and hitler’s; you feel that we should have appeased his ambitions, like chamberlain in WWII. Do you think we stopped saddam because of his skin color? Did we really invade Iraq to enrich Haliburton? How utterly stupid does someone have to be to display, or wink at people who display, signs proclaiming “End War and Racism� and “No Blood For Oil�?
I care about the future of people like Nahle Sabet, once a pretty architecture student from a respected Christian family. But that was before she was abducted, raped, tortured, and finally served as food for uday’s vicious, starving dogs. uday was next in line to be dictator of Iraq.
Today in Iraq, the long, dark reign of terror, rape and murder is over. Thousands of people will live, who would have died under saddam. Bombings of muslims by other muslims have not ceased, but the future belongs to the millions throughout the Middle East who eventually will breathe the sweet air of freedom and justice.
Liberals wring their hands over the small number of accidental civilian deaths, smooch repulsive traitors like ward churchill, and giggle at michael moore “documentaries�. Real Americans enthusiastically cheer the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the world, courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue.
So Jay, despite these facts you still believe:
Regardless of how you initially felt about the wisdom of our invading Iraq, are you really prepared for the disastrous consequences of a humiliating defeat for the U.S. in the Middle East? Do you think the danger is over? Do you think islamists would hesitate to use nuclear weapons on the Great Satan (you and me) just as soon as russia or the france or the iran or north korea sells them the technology in exchange for petro dollars? Will you change your mind after they incinerate an American city, or will you blame the victims again like ward churchill did?
Again I ask whose world view best matches reality? Yours or mine?
June 25th, 2005 at 12:54 pmUmmm…freedom fan, the eminent domain ruling isn’t as clear cut as you try to paint it to be. The only two justices that I would consider staunchly to left are O’Connor and Bader Ginsberg. Souter and Kennedy are more centrist. O’Connor was adamantly opposed to the eminent domain ruling, so don’t try to broadbrush the decision as “liberal” because it doesn’t jive with the fatcs. Now, regardless of who voted which way on eminent domain, I think that it’s the wrong decision. The assertion that Republicans and not Democrats look out for the interests of the little guy as opposed to big pharma, big oil, Wall St., etc. is absurd in its face. The word “conservative” is about “conserving” wealth and power and in the case of todays R’s turning back the steady progress and growth of the middle class. Believe it!
The Democrats have been the defenders of all of the New Deal social programs that Republicans have been trying to undermine and destroy for 40 years. That is a fact as well, so while I agree that some Democrats can be hypocritical and work against the interests of the “little guy” on particular fronts (Biden supporting the bankruptcy bill for example), for the most part they have been the defenders of the middle class. If you think otherswise, you simply haven’t been paying attention to the big picture.
Charlie Rangel supports a draft (and I heard him on the radio talk at length about this) so that the chickenhawks in power think twice about waging another ill-conceived, illegal war. If the sons and daughters of the priveledged class have just as fair a chance of being sent to war, the powers that be have to contend with influential (i.e wealthy) constituents when they draft their next war plan. He’s trying to keep them honest. This is another good example of a Democrat fighting for the “little guy”.
June 26th, 2005 at 11:53 amFF, I guess my point on “judicial activism” is that it’s a fallacious catchphrase. Judges at every level make decisions that impact people’s lives. To call that activism when it doesn’t suit your political goals is rubbish.
A good and neutral perspective:
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/06/the_many_meanin.php
June 26th, 2005 at 12:37 pmI know that Seymous Hersh has become an enemy of the right, but in regard to Iraq and intelligence and WMD he wrote an article about “stovepiping” long before the majority of Americans publicly opposed this war. It connects many of the dots and is well-sourced invertigative peice. Please give it a look and it will help you understand:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
June 26th, 2005 at 12:42 pmBic, I was wrong on O’Connor, thanks for correcting that, I was thinking back to specific decisions and she has gone in different directions as opposed to sticking rigidly to one ideology or the other. Here is what I consider a good explanation of her career:
Legal scholars have had difficulty categorizing O’Connor’s jurisprudence. Her opinions are conservative and attentive to detail, but also open-minded; they reflect no profound ideology and rarely contain any sweeping rhetoric. Critics say that her opinions have no passion, no lofty vision, and lack a personal tone. O’Connor has been compared to Justices Powell and John Marshall Harlan, “whose careers were distinguished by a devotion to pragmatic resolution of the issues before them.” She is described as a justice “who looks to resolve each case and no more, one with no overarching philosophy that might preordain a result.”
June 28th, 2005 at 10:21 amInteresting WWW page. Our family is using it I placed your site into favorites. I have found some of the information here helpful. I wish i had the skills to design sites as good as this one – brilliant site!
January 4th, 2006 at 3:30 pmItsamobiles
Itsamobiles
April 11th, 2008 at 7:51 pmItsamobiles
Itsamobiles
April 11th, 2008 at 7:51 pmItsamobiles
Itsamobiles
April 11th, 2008 at 7:51 pmBest contract phone deals
some of the greates contract phone deals for anyone to find, jim says that your blog has great deals
April 11th, 2008 at 7:51 pmBest contract phone deals
some of the greates contract phone deals for anyone to find, jim says that your blog has great deals
April 11th, 2008 at 7:51 pmtakeabreak bingo
takeabreak bingo
April 13th, 2008 at 12:08 amparty bingocom
party bingocom
April 13th, 2008 at 2:50 amparty bingocom
party bingocom
April 13th, 2008 at 2:50 am