O’Reilly Says CAP Is “A Very Well-Oiled, Effective Character Assassination Machine”
O’Reilly Says CAP Is “A Very Well-Oiled, Effective Character Assassination Machine”
On last night’s Factor, Bill O’Reilly took a shot at CAP’s rapid response operation (i.e. ThinkProgress and The Progress Report). From last night’s broadcast:
BILL O’REILLY: All of these people are far left fringe players, but they know their money is going to smear merchants. They know it’s going into character assassins, correct?
JAKOB LASKIN, FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE: It’s actually interesting. That’s exactly what it was meant for. One of the biggest contributors to Media Matters is the Center for American Progress.
O’REILLY: That’s Podesta’s group.
LASKIN: Exactly. They operate out of Washington, DC. Basically it’s a partisan group that — what they do is rapid response to anything that offends them as far as the Republican or conservative agenda is concerned, which is just about everything. And so Media Matters operates in exactly the same way except for where the media is concerned. So it’s perfect.
O’REILLY: It is a very well-oiled, effective character assassination machine. There is nothing that exists on the right that I know of that can compare. Do you know of anything?
LASKIN: No. And one reason is because that right-wing publications have been very effective at getting out their message. They don’t need to smear.
O’REILLY: There was some smearing going on in the Clinton years to be fair.
Maybe Laskin isn’t exactly the right person to be throwing stones. The website he writes for, David Horowitz’s Frontpagemag.com, currently features an article entitled “George Galloway: Fascist Pimp and Prostitute.” Horowitz has also published a guide to the left that featured CAP president John Podesta next to the American Taliban, John Walker Lindh.
Head over to MediaMatters and form your own opinion about Mr. O’Reilly.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Um… ever heard any right wing talk radio, moron?
October 26th, 2005 at 10:17 am“O’REILLY: It is a very well-oiled, effective character assassination machine. There is nothing that exists on the right that I know of that can compare. Do you know of anything?”
The GOP doesn’t count? At the very least, the WHIG?
October 26th, 2005 at 10:19 amO’Lielly makes me laugh – he is so ridiculous.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:19 amDesperation is being observed in many of the right-wing pundits.
They can’t possibly believe that. They ARE the smear machine. The mob is the greatest spreader of the rumor “there is no mob.” They are exactly like the mob, except no honor amongst each other.
It’s quite a sad ride to watch, actually. We will have our revolution and justice will out. KARMA says so.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:19 amYou can’t assassinate what doesn’t exist. People like O”Reilly have no character.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:22 amIs Bill O’Reilly really worth writing about? Becuase hes certainly not worth reading about.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:23 amMaybe this is deliberate, but nice juxtaposing TP! You got this piece about how there’s apparently no wingnut character assassins out there… Just above a piece where Luntz recommends the demonizing of Fitzgerald.
Res ipsa loquitur.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:28 amThey can’t hide from the truth so they have to demonize the truth-tellers. O’Loofah, the game is over and you have been exposed as the fraudulent bully that you are. Move on. Maybe you can get back to covering the stories of great import that elevated you to such prominence. Stories like, oh I don’t know: Lapdancing banned in Seattle…who has the moral highground? Queue continuous loop of poledancers in strip club, again, again, again.
It’s all about the kids for Bill, protecting the kids.
Fraud!
October 26th, 2005 at 10:37 amWell oiled with smart contributers.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:37 amLaskin is pretty much correct – the lefties have it all over the right when it comes to the size and scope of their respective smear machines. The right has talk radio and a handful of blogs and websites, and that’s about it. The right tends to be old-fashioned – they try to convince people that their positions on issues are correct using facts and evidence rather than shrill hyperbole.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:37 amSceptimus, go back to whatever fantasy world you crawled out from under. The act is old and the talking points are silly. You have as much credibility as O’Dickhead.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:39 amKnee-CAP O’Reilly. He’s begging for it. Kill ‘em all, let the God of their choice sort ‘em out.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:40 amDon’t you see? Underneath the feigned self-righteous indignation, they admire this sort of thing. Fast response character assassination is their core competency. They’re acknowledging what they perceive to be a worthy opponent. The game is more fun if your opponent plays well against you.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:42 amBillbo is so over. Even his mother quit listening.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:46 amHow does Bill O’Reilly describe his hatchet job on Joe Biden?
October 26th, 2005 at 10:47 am#4, Marie -
“Desperation?”
Um, not even a little. What reason would there be? Republicans have the white house, the house, congress, a majority of the governor’s houses….we win election after election after election. Take out Rove. Take out Libby. The president has an unlimited choice of replacements – not a problem. The left has its hopes and dreams pinned on the stunningly ludicrous idea that somehow, conservatism is a “person” and if that person is gone, conservatism will also disappear. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but WRONG. Republicans win elections because more people prefer their ideas than those of the democrats – which makes total sense considering the fact that the last good idea the democrats had was when JFK suggested cutting taxes to stimulate a stalled economy.
You lefties just don’t get it, and it looks like you never will. There’s a reason why even now, in the midst of controversies surrounding individual republicans, only 20 percent of Americans consider themselves liberal, and there’s a reason why most who call themselves moderates tend to vote Republican. It’s because most of America has seen what your side tries to peddle, and, um, no thanks.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:48 am#16 Agree
Why else the trips to progressive shows? He has no dignity. He’s over compensating for visits to liberal media.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:48 amteh site of watching Bill O’Reilly and people from Frontpage magazine bemoaning “character assasins” is beyond parody.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:51 am#11 Jay (#12) is right, Sceptimus (if that is, in fact, your real name.) For about forty years now, the right has attempted to get “their message” out in the media, and they weren’t in the least bit shy about using lies to do it. In fact, if a conservative tried to use only truth and logic to make his argument, he would fail. Somewhere along the line, he would have to resort to some kind of factual distortion whether it be about race, poverty, religion, ethnicity or whatever. But whatever, they most certainly do NOT use “facts and evidence.” (Perfect example: Ann Coulter.)
October 26th, 2005 at 10:51 am#16, Angel, “hatchet job”? Tt’s called “editing” and you might be horrified to learn this, but it’s true – ALL network news media organizations do it. It would be a hatchet job it the edits showed Biden to say something he didn’t say or mean – but Biden is on record as saying he wants Gitmo shutdown. No hatchet job. Sorry!
October 26th, 2005 at 10:52 amThe right IS a smear machine. They do it so much that it looks pedestrian to them. Think Clinton dude, and then ask ‘who is the smear machine?’ It seems you could have had the forsight to see this coming. Just like all of these presidential powers that are being given and all of these new “rules” (nuclear option comes to mind) that are being either changed or disregarded for the sake of the right running amok, will also come back to haunt.
The right has set the smear standard. And just the act of saying you are righteous don’t make it so. The truth will out and history will be made. Sorry trolls, you have been found out.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:52 am“I’ve already said too much”
“Information will be declassified soon”
-Karl Rove, traitor, talking to reporters
October 26th, 2005 at 10:56 am#20, Wayne A. Schneider (IF that’s your real name), um, yeah, I keep hearing those same talking points from the left everytime democrats have to explain once again why they lost another election. Of course, when democrats are challenged to back up the talking points with actual facts, they can’t. Your side just can’t wrap your pointy little heads around the fact that America is more conservative than it is liberal, and the conservatism has increased over time. So you keep your hopes and dreams pinned on those talking points, Wayne, and stay stuck on stupid – meanwhile, we’ll keep winning elections.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:57 amSceptimus… are you still pushing that moral superiority BS? How moral is money laundering and war mongering. If repubs never practice character defamation what do you call the Swift Boat Pricks? Jesus your a numbskull wake up. I can’t believe how full of complete POOP your posts are!
October 26th, 2005 at 10:58 amPS Virgina Wolf is really boring
October 26th, 2005 at 10:59 amVibes, your reasoning skills are as poor as your literary taste. Wake up. Why do you guys continue to think that the average person simply believes the latest baseless charge from the left or their co-conspirators in the MSM leveled against a republican? The only thing that matters to a thinking person are facts and evidence. You have neither.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:04 amAh, I see the beginnings of a new campaign strategem. First they will discredit the blogs–except for those pathetic right wing blogs that, like O’Reily, can’t pull their heads out of their own crap in order to see the real world.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:06 amThen, when the indictments come down, once again they can cry they have been victimized–not by their own criminal behavior, of course, but by the “liberally biased media”–of which little remains except for the blogs.
At the end of the day, my family and I are going to go to the local Sonic and have a shake and fries and laugh and smile and thank God we live in America. I don’t think this is the way O’Reilly or Delay or Bush or Cheney or Rove live. Not by a mile. Their separation from mainstream america is compounded by their secrecy and duality and out right dishonesty. They served a purpose in that they made scared people feel comfortable after 911. But the people aren’t scared anymore. And the GOP should be terrified by this reality.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:06 amO’Riler and his pals don’t understand that all the CAPs in the world don’t make what this administration has done right… he’s criticising the messenger instead of the criminal…
October 26th, 2005 at 11:09 amLily, I don’t what leftie provided you with your current caricature-view of the right, but know one I know plans to call anyone who is indicted a “victim”. If anyone in the Bush adminstration is guilty of a crime, they should fry. That being said, I’d like a trial first. Is that OK?
October 26th, 2005 at 11:10 amOh my god, there is something like 500 right wing think tanks out there constantly bashing the left with their right wing ideology, everything from bashing the scientific community to bashing potential candidates for president. It’s a huge community. The left has nothing compared to the right wing propaganda machine that is out there. Wow, we create something on their level like Media Matters and Center for American Progress and all of a sudden were now a well oiled attack machine, LOL. What a joke. I guess the right doesn’t like being watched, especially during all these scandals in their party…they must really be feeling the heat.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:11 amIf the messenger is simply leveling accusations for partisan reasons and making up stories without facts or evidence, the messenger deserves to be shot. Or at least outed.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:12 am#17 what about the 90% of americans who think that the bush administration has acted either illegally or unethically? what about the 55% of americans who say they would vote for a candidate who opposed W? I think your numbers are old.
I think the recent abandonment of his base has left many people wondering what W really cares about. clearly the answer is money and nothing else.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:15 amI’m surprised anyone even listens to BO anymore. He’s such a sad clown.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:15 am“Oh my god, there is something like 500 right wing think tanks out there constantly bashing the left with their right wing ideology, everything from bashing the scientific community to bashing potential candidates for president.”
Translation – right-leaning think tanks “bash” the left by providing reasoned, fact-based logic in response to whatever hair-brained scheme the left is advocating at the moment. And what really pisses off the left, and makes them run to people like George Soros and create huge, well-financed attack machines is that the electorate has made it’s preference known – they’ve seen the “ideas” the left peddles. They pass.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:16 am#33 What Media Matters and TP do is cite facts, quotes and statements made. They don’t use the Fox News methods of outright lies and white house propoganda.
Many of the problems that Bill has had with MM have been issues where he claims to have not said something but MM has the clip of him saying it! How can he argue with that? It’s ridiculous.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:19 amSeptic Smith,
October 26th, 2005 at 11:20 amIf you are trying to raise the level of our future enjoyment over todays indictments you are doing a great job. Keep spoutin’ it genuis.
Frank Luntz, Republican pollster and strategist. said: “If [Fitzgerald] indicts, they [the White House] will have no choice but to attempt to demonise him. I think that is going to be really, really tough.”
So much for “The only thing that matters to a thinking person are facts and evidence.”
BTW, I can’t wait to see all the “facts and evidence”.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:21 am#34, Andrew – I won’t argue with you that Bush has made some moves that are not in keeping with conservative principles. I have a laundry list of complaints, in fact. My criticism of him, and the criticism has been echoed by many others, is that he hasn’t been conservative ENOUGH. I don’t think that’s the left’s criticism of him, though, is it?
I think we can dispense with the leftie charade of demonizing the president by using examples of criticisms from the right. It’s disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:22 amLooks like no announcements today. So I guess tomorrow? I can wait. Justice is worth waiting for.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:23 amThey are only smear merchants if that means they include facts and quotes to show that O’reilly is a fraud.
I love how O’reilly gives the Brent Bozell’s and the Ann Coulter’s of the world a free pass but is all over David Brock. That seems fair! Not.
The only diference is that Media Matters is transparent, Brock lays out all of the evidence. He uses O’reilly actually words and not some fake “media Bias” system that Bozell’s idiotic group uses that can’t be understood at all.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:27 amRats from a sinking ship they are. The wolves in sheep’s clothing are about to be sheared. Live and exist by theivery and die by that same sword.
KARMA people, KARMA. I know when I do something I shouldn’t, I wil pay for it. Too bad these guys’ parents didn’t teach them that.
All that crap they spewed on Clinton is back but now they have to swallow it. We are merely feeding them from their own lunchbox. Delay, Frist, Noe, Cheney…all they care about is themselves. They will now cannibalize one another as the beasts need to feed.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:29 amTrolls are so boring…yawnnnnnnnnn
October 26th, 2005 at 11:29 amI don’t see the WH attacking Fitz….not after the remarks by the president praising him. It wouldn’t make any sense. Unlike the public villification of Ken Starr by democrats and their willing pawns in the MSM, republicans have more class. I do see the WH defending Rove and Libby if the indictments look like Martha Stewart-type jokes, but you’re not gonna see Starr-like attacks on Fitz himself – unless there are NO indictments, and then of course the left, the DNC and the MSM will pile on Fitz like hungry wolves.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:29 am#37. I could have saved myself some time if I had only read your post. You have it exactly right. It is pretty funny to see O’reilly get upset with Brock when MM uses Oreilly’s own quotes. You hear his voice, it is pretty cut and dry. What is he arguing about? He isn’t taken out of context, he is fully quoted.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:31 amWonder where all of those “leaks” came from during Starr’s reign?
I see you, Scep, are latching on to the drunken Hutchison’s line. Hey troll, she abandoned that one. Did you miss that talking point? Remember Martha went to jail and my guess, you were all over it.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:33 amNo. 31 Sceptimus–My “cariacture” of the right wing was provided by the likes of Tom DeLay, Ken Mehlman, Dick Chaney, Karl Rove, Bill Frist, George W. Bush, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Edwin Vierra–now there’s a good caraiacture of the right wing–spouts the virtues of Joseph’s Stalen’s “death solves all problems” agenda–and right in front of the Dobson’s and the Schafly’s and other prominent neocons–try to find a report of the Conservative’s Union Conference on April 5. It might enlighten you as to how I come by some of my opinions about the right.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:34 amI noticed that too, Tigris.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:35 amWell, MM has been focusing on O’Reilly quite a bit, so it’s no suprise he’s trying to discredit them. ON another note, have any of you heard that O’Reilly may be retiring?? He hinted at that on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:36 am“I don’t see the WH attacking Fitz….”
yah, cause old Sceptimus there is more in tune with BushCo. than Luntz is.
whatever.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:39 amI think the wrong quote was highlighted. Instead it should have been (or at least included) the next one:
“There is nothing that exists on the right that I know of that can compare”.
Astounding they can say that with a straight face. I’m not sure what’s the most amazing, the audacity of such a blatantely false statement, or the irony of it coming from O’Reilly.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:39 amStefan, Bill O’Reilly could say anything with a straight face, we shouldn’t be surprised. That’s why he appears on Media Matters so often. No one needs to smear him, he smears himself with his own words.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:44 amThe “characters” in Washington are so obviously corrupt they assasinate themselves. O’Reilly remains an asshole.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:45 am#43
If you were a woman, would you want to be left in the room alone with Bill Clinton?
October 26th, 2005 at 11:46 am#45 Sceptimus The Republicans take away from the poor and middle class and give it all to the rich.
We went into a illegal war and now their is 2,000 military dead. Old Bushie went in Iraq for oil and to make his corporate friends richer.
The Bush admin is going down. They are a bunch of liars. The Dems will win in 2006 & 2008 and you can cry in your beer.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:48 amSS, you are one of the reasons why our country is in the terrible sitiuation that it is in. When the Democrates lie under oath, and no one has been harmed, its a crime and GOD let’s impeach the president. However, when the ENTIRE administration lies about there being WMD in Iraq, which has nothing to do with 9/11, then it’s OK and lying is fine. When people want to hold the administration accountable for this, or anything else, then the Republicans start screaming that this is “Criminilization of Politics”.
People like you are why we have lost 2000 US soldiers for a cause that is un-warranted, other than this was the presidents adjenda long before he got into the WH. It has been PROVEN that Sadam had no link to WMD or the Taliban. But yet it’s OK to lie about that and god forbid if anyone see’s a problem with that and wants answers and to hold the lies accountable.
You, and people who think like you, need to wake up and realize that this mess is not going to get better until the Republicans can admit that they made a mistake and try to fix that mistake. But we all know that will never happen because the Republicans are always right, at least in your own mind, and never make mistakes because GOD tells you to do all these terrible things.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:57 am#55 I would. He is intelligent (something our government is lacking) and is very well versed on international issues. He is very engaging and I don’t believe anything the party of crooks says. Their opinions are meaningless to anyone that doesn’t get their “facts” (I can’t stop giggling when I say that) from one freakin TV channel.
Yes, I would LOVE to be in the company of such a great leader. You know what? I bet Chelsea would be a great conversationalist as well. She’s a heck of a lot more intellectual than the half dumb cheerleader we have in office now.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:58 amBeing born WITHOUT a silver spoon in one’s mouth helps one understand a little bit about the “real” world. Bush has no clue, just like stupid Lamar Alexander not knowing how much a gallon of milk costs. Everyone needs a little humility.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:07 pmAnyone brave to suggest they are outraged by this attack on a media analyst website’s right to be influenced by partisan funding either in reality or appearance ?
Because it is a pretty reasonable arguement. Only if you listen to it of course. Only if it gets publicity. Personally I don’t find Bill O’Reilly pimped as much on fundamentalist christian millblogs like I do here.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:18 pm#58 I second that coment to #55. I would be honored and thrilled to be in the same room with President Clinton, our last legaly elected president. He is a true statesman and still loved around the world. I don’t remember any time when he had to have totaly staged press or photo op’s either. President Clinton is way smarter than any of the present pack of liers and thieves and history will show how much he did for our country and the legacy of the Bush bunch will be dreadful…Blessings
October 26th, 2005 at 12:20 pmFrom the transcript above:
O’REILLY: It is a very well-oiled, effective character assassination machine. There is nothing that exists on the right that I know of that can compare. Do you know of anything?
To which I say:
October 26th, 2005 at 12:22 pmDear Kettle,
You’re black.
Love, Pot
… sorry for being late to the party … but, am I the only one who is a tad confused? I mean, aren’t the GOPpers (and the So-Called-Liberal Media) always looking down their noses at us Dems for being DISorganized?
suddenly, we’re this well-oiled machine …
… how the hell did THAT happen?
October 26th, 2005 at 12:29 pmThere are two issues here:
#1 – Republicans imploding on themselves.
#2 – Democrats and their leadership.
So far, issue #1 is what has taken center stage. Regardless of all Sceptimus Smith’s writing on how conservative or liberal this country is (and there are lots of debatable details that get at those labels), it doesn’t change the fact that, as CNN’s new poll has shown, only 10% of Americans think BushCo hasn’t done anything illegal or unethical in the Plame Affair (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/cia.leak/index.html).
As most close observers know, and even a good number of Republicans have said, the party is in major flux right now, and could be, in some wars, approaching some sort of intercine warfare (e.g. Harriet Miers). Will this be good for progressive? Don’t know. But it certainly has possibilities, and, personally, I do think it will be a good thing.
HOWEVER, that brings us to issue #2; the lack of strong Democratic leadership. Now, it’s true that they have been less than stellar, and there are reasons for this, both of Democrats making, and otherwise. The Republicans can implode, but in the end, we can’t just root for the liars to do themselves in. Unless there is somewhere else for people to go, they will continue to dither, and side with the party that seems least likely to let them get killed (Yeah, 2000 dead, I know. But the Republicans are still the bullies on the block, and a weak person would rather be on the bully’s side than otherwise.)
The reality is, despite Smith’s writing, than history is completely on our side. Over the last century nearly all major progressive ideas have been installed, and the majority of the public favors them. Large majorities favor Social Security, a regressive tax system, racial and gender equality, environmental protection, a right to privacy, and yes, even abortion rights (only about 30% of Americans actually support an overturn of Roe v. Wade).
Now we are fighting to prevent a rollback of these policies and philosophies, but we’ve been tripped up by the stunning amount of deception the right uses. I think that phase has passed. Dems and progressives aren’t stuck staring into headlights anymore, and the 2006 election will be the first evidence of that.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:31 pm#58 and #60 – add me to the list – I’d LOVE to be in a room with Clinton … unlike our current WH occupant, at least Bill has some intelligence, wit and COMPASSION
October 26th, 2005 at 12:31 pmO’Reilly is a two bit propagandist and liar in my opinion. And that is beibg generous hahahahaha. He proves the old adage regarding opening your mouth to confirm that he is a retard.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:31 pm#55 – Would any women like to be left alone in a room with O’Reilly?
October 26th, 2005 at 12:34 pmBTW, my mother would literally push me aside and trample me to be in a room with Bill Clinton. She fancies him dreamy and gushes daily about the “good ole days.” He doesn’t need to coerce a woman, they are all over him. STILL!
October 26th, 2005 at 12:36 pm#66 I would rather be in Abu Graib.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:38 pmI keep hearing those same talking points from the left everytime democrats have to explain once again why they lost another election.
Yet another right-wing monkey trying to pretend that the 2004 elections weren’t rigged.
Let’s have hand-counted paper ballots, and then we’ll see who the losers are.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:42 pmOver time I see o’liely and rush are being exposed for the ‘preachers’ they really are. As the sheep in America slowly wake up, they see the ‘radicals’ , ‘fright peddlers’ are far far from the truth. I think the center works best for America, to do that we must pull the right to ‘center’. As these jerks lose ratings, so does their hate.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:44 pm#48 – Lily, of your laundry list of names, which ones have positioned Rove, Libby, et al as “victims”?
October 26th, 2005 at 12:45 pm#66 Hell no, I won’t even watch the dumb ass on the tv. Just another nut job for the right and promoting his book….Blessings
October 26th, 2005 at 12:46 pmSceptimus is merely following the playbook:
October 26th, 2005 at 12:47 pmBefore your opponent can accuse you of something, accuse them of the same.
If your opponent has the facts on their side (as we do) baldy lie and say WE have the facts on our side! Sorry, saying it doesn’t make it so.
Just another troll trying to dissuade us from our vital work. Boring.
Just because the republicans are in control of all houses and have won the election and 2nd time doesn’t mean they deserve it. It just means their right wing propaganda machine was successful in motivating the fundamental christian conservatives on moral issues. Karl Rove is a example of someone who did a efective job at getting the word out to churches and grassroot supporters. I personally don’t think this country is more conservative, I think it’s just they played the game better. That’s why organizations like Think Progress, Center for American Progress and Media Matters are so important for our cause and why Bill O’Reilly and his buddies on the right are feeling threatened, and having to resort to smearing us as “far-left” in the media in order to discredit the movement. Their scared!!!
October 26th, 2005 at 12:50 pmYo snuffy smith – get a job!!! You are spending way too much time here. You must be unemployed.
Guess O’Liely never heard of the Swift Boat Pansies. That’s funny too, I heard him talk them up for 6 months.
My guess is that lying makes your brain go to mashed potatoes. Then all you really care about is falafels, oogling their co-workers and sex toys.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:51 pmMary Poppin, yes! yes! Republicans steal from the poor and give to the rich, we start wars to enrich Halliburton, we starve children, we hate old people, we blow up levees in New Orleans to drown black people, we love to pollute the air and poison the water, and in our spare time, we enjoy quiet sundays at the lake drowning puppies.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:51 pmHey Scep, your probably a good guy with integrity and morals. The problem is that the current Repub party has taken advantage of you. You have been fooled by these people who pretend to be conservative. They are using the conservative ideals to get you to put them in office. But they are really not conservative, or morally correct, or have integrity. The Republican party has been overthrown by these guys. And your beliefs have been used. Sorry.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:53 pmHey Scep, read “What’s the Matter with Kansas” by Thomas Frank and you will get a clear idea how the neo-cons are using people like you as puppets to get their friends in power. It’s clear as broad daylight, but that brick wall inside you is blocking it from entering.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:56 pm#57 RB – News flash – when you get your world view and your history from the likes of Michael Moore, Al Franken, and the hysterical left in this country, you end up spouting nonsense like you just did.
No one in the Bush administration ever said there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11, nor did they say there was a direct link betweeen Saddam and the Taliban. YOU guys on the left simply make this stuff up, and repeat it as if it were said by the administration. I am only too happy to call you on your obvious, blatant BS.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:59 pmIn case anyone is wondering why Bill O’Liar is so scared, you only have to to look here:
http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?topic=Bill%20O‘Reilly
October 26th, 2005 at 1:00 pmSS is a true believer. What a delusional s.o.b.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:00 pmThinks that you can pillage the poor and middle class so the rich get richer. Probably has a 401K, and is probably in the upper middle class if not rich. Has no horse in the race, so could care less for our 2K soldiers dead for NO honerable reason at all. Ignores the lack of evidence for WMD, immenent threat and any other moronic reason given for this most immoral of war. How did our oil get under their feet anyway? Ignores the total incompetence of the aftermath, the flushing down the toilet of BILLIONS of our tax dollars (all borrowed from our children – as lord knows the rich pay no price for this war. shove it ss,
you arrogant greedy pig. Idiot, MSM is total right wing.
“O’REILLY: It is a very well-oiled, effective character assassination machine. There is nothing that exists on the right that I know of that can compare.
I can answer that question: The (wrong) right has FAUX NEWS to spin and slime.
I just don’t understand how o-LIE-ly can sit there and not worry about being struck by lightning.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:00 pm“There is nothing that exists on the right that I know of that can compare.”
Always a kernal of truth in BO’s silo of propaganda. There is nothing that compares on the right….because the Right has no interest in the truth. MM and TPR puncture the Right’s hot air balloons with the truth and they have the cites and links to back it up. The lies and hypocrisy keep biting BO in the ass….that’s his frustration.
Unfortunately for Bill, people do keep track of previous statements. The moral relativism of the RW propaganda machine is breathtaking.
Lie about sex? Impeach!!! Lie about a causus belli that kills 10’s of thousands? IOKIYAR
Bill, you said you’d never trust this pResident again if WMD were not found in Iraq….guess you’d lied about your personal integrity, too.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:02 pm“No one in the Bush administration ever said there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11, nor did they say there was a direct link betweeen Saddam and the Taliban.”
LOL, who wants to go first at this? Here is mine:
Bush said he still believes the former Iraqi president had ties to the al-Qaeda terrorism network, but he told reporters Saddam was not involved in the attacks.
His comments follow recent statements by senior Bush Administration officials that associated the former Iraqi leader with Sept. 11. Thu, 18 Sep 2003
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/09/17/saddam030917
October 26th, 2005 at 1:03 pmJeremy – I’d suggest to you a great book called “What’s the matter with Thomas Frank?”
See, Frank is a typical clueless liberal. His entire book essentially is a tirade against people who tend to vote AGAINST politicians who want bigger government, higher taxes, more social welfare programs, etc. He thinks there is something wrong with an individual who would prefer to stand on his own two feet without government assistance.
Individualism and a desire for less government intrusion in life is a hallmark of conservatism – Frank simply doesn’t understand this, and neither do liberals and democrats. They see government as the solution to all the worlds’s problems, and the bigger the government, the better. I see our bloated government (and yes, I blame Bush for not reducing the size of government)as being the CAUSE of most of the world’s problems.
The problem isn’t in Kansas. The problem is people who think like Tom Frank.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:06 pm“…but he told reporters Saddam was not involved in the attacks.”
Um, Jeremy? Was it your intent to post a quote that supported my original statement?
SWS
October 26th, 2005 at 1:08 pmThe administration absolutely tried to conflate Hussein and Iraq with Al Qaeda. There are dozens and dozens of quotes. You’re not paying attention or you’re lying. I go with option B.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:09 pm#76 is joking of course. Republicans don’t really do all of those terrible things. Only five of them. Actually, make that six.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:10 pmOk you said “No one in the Bush administration ever said there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11, nor did they say there was a direct link betweeen Saddam and the Taliban.” and then I respond with a link to a news story and then you say “Um, Jeremy? Was it your intent to post a quote that supported my original statement?”
Buddy, you posted that no one in the Bush administration EVERSAID there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11 and I gave you a news story proving you wrong.
What kind of funky drugs are you on? LOL
October 26th, 2005 at 1:12 pmUS President George W Bush – 17 June 2004:
“The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.”
9/11 Commission – 16 June 2004:
“We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States.”
US Vice-President Dick Cheney – January 2004:
“There’s overwhelming evidence… of a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq”.
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace – January 2004:
“The most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a co-operative relationship between Saddam Hussein’s government and al-Qaeda.”
US Secretary of State Colin Powell – January 2004:
“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed.”
US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice – September 2003:
“Saddam was a danger in the region where the 9/11 threat emerged.”
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld – November 2002:
“Within a week, or a month, Saddam could give his WMD to al-Qaeda.”
October 26th, 2005 at 1:16 pmSS,
There are a lot of tired soldiers over there. Why don’t you relieve one of them in Dear Leader’s unjustifed war on a sovereign country?
Excuse me while I watch the last throes of the insurgency on TV. Er, it may take a while…
October 26th, 2005 at 1:17 pmO’Reilly is just following his orders. Like my conservative in-laws said, “Your supposed to beleive what the President says.” Even Billy O. is being fooled. I’m not trying to convince anyone to go Liberal. The whole thing has been hijacked by corporate wealth, lobbyists, greed, and power. If I was rich and powerful, I would want to protect my interests too. Conservatives know it’s gotten out of hand, and they want to believe the ideals their party stands for, would be the answer. And if Repubs in D.C. were of a high moral standard, things would be better. However, the sad truth is that all this arguing and attacking is moot. The entire system has gotten out of hand, and I don’t think either party would make a real difference.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:18 pmSceptimus Smith,
October 26th, 2005 at 1:19 pmHow has Bush not been conservative enough?
Sceptimus is a deviant:
Poll: Bush would lose an election if held this year
(CNN) — A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election were held this year, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday.
In the latest poll, 55 percent of the respondents said that they would vote for the Democratic candidate if Bush were again running for the presidency this year. Thirty-nine percent of those interviewed said they would vote for Bush in the hypothetical election.
The latest poll results, released Tuesday, were based on interviews with 1,008 adults conducted by telephone October 21-23. In the poll, 42 percent of those interviewed approved of the way the president is handling his job and 55 percent disapproved. In the previous poll, released October 17, 39 percent approved of Bush’s job performance — the lowest number of his presidency — and 58 percent disapproved…
Democrats preferred on issues
On separate issues, a majority of those questioned felt the Democrats could do a better job than Republicans at handling health care (59 percent to 30 percent), Social Security (56 percent to 33 percent), gasoline prices (51 percent to 31 percent) and the economy (50 percent to 38 percent).
Forty-six percent also believed Democrats could do better at handling Iraq, while 40 percent said the GOP would do better. In 2003, 53 percent said Republicans would better handle Iraq and only 29 percent believed the Democrats would do better…
October 26th, 2005 at 1:20 pmOoh, don’t forget the Dick Cheney quote about “being welcomed with flowers”….That’s my fave….who knew Dick could be so sweet and sensitive, and, well, wrong?!?
October 26th, 2005 at 1:21 pmCream, to a degree you’re right, many of these so-called leaders are corrupt beyond amends. I do believe that there are elected officials in Washington that have done and will continue to do the right thing. They all have their pet project/money-making ventures to be sure, but there are many examples of R’s and D’s doing the right thing.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:22 pmDino, your name certainly belies your stunningly ignorant verbal atrocities…you don’t sound like a Democrat In Name Only, you sound like a poster boy for their failed ideas and their failed party.
See, in order to think like you do, one has to ignore the fact that the Clinton administration repeatedly stated that Saddam was in violation of his obligation to disarm, and even bombed Iraq a few times (somehow those bombings always seemed to coincide with the latest Clinton bimbo eruption, but that’s for a different post)himself. You’d have to ignore the fact that 55 million people in two different middle eastern countries voted for the first time in legit elections, thanks to the president you hate. You’d have to ignore the fact that “tax cuts for the rich” (that’s pretty much become one single word in the liberal lexicon of falsities)have resulted in an unemployment rate lower than the combined unemployment rate average of the last three decades. You’d have to ignore the fact that the increased revenue to the treasury in the last 2 years is paying down the debt much faster than originally predicted.
Essentially, in order to think like Dino, one simply ignores facts.
BTW, you witless sniveling cretin, unlike the vast majority of leftwing clods who criticize the military at every opportunity and relish in every combat death even though they never served, I served. Did you?
October 26th, 2005 at 1:22 pmSceptimus, please be a man and address the quotes in post #90 that clearly contradict your claim that the Bush administration never tried to link Iraq and 9/11. So when you get the truth shoved in your face you revert to: blah, blah Clinton…blah, blah.
Fool.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:25 pmIn Fact, Republicans are switching parties, not just to vote, but to RUN! And runaway from the runaway GOPstapo!
Johnson County DA to enter attorney general’s race as Democrat
TOPEKA, Kan. – Johnson County District Attorney Paul Morrison is gunning for Attorney General Phill Kline and is switching from being a moderate Republican to a Democrat to do it.
Morrison said Tuesday he’s running because he’s “deeply concerned about the direction the attorney general’s office is headed” under Kline, a conservative Republican.
Since 1989, Morrison has been Johnson County’s chief prosecutor, and for nine years before that he was an assistant prosecutor in the office. He has handled more than 100 jury trials, including those for serial killers John E. Robinson Sr. and Richard Grissom Jr., and said he has lost only two cases.
“I think Kansans deserve a strong, experienced lawman, not a politician,” Morrison said. “I think Kansans deserve someone with prosecutorial hands-on experience, not a posturer.”
Republicans immediately branded Morrison a turncoat. And, although Morrison stood on his record, the GOP labeled him soft on crime.
Morrison announced his plans for the Nov. 7, 2006, general election first in Olathe, followed by stops in Topeka, Wichita and Pittsburg.
“I will uphold the law for everybody in this state rather than pursuing a narrow agenda that serves the interests of only a few,” Morrison said.
Kline, who is anti-abortion, filed a lawsuit to block state-funded abortions under the Medicaid program, asking the court to declare that from conception, someone enjoys a fundamental right to life and liberty.
Also, the Kansas Supreme Court is considering whether Kline can inspect records from 90 patients at two abortion clinics, which Kline says he needs to prosecute child rapes and possible illegal abortions.
Morrison, 51, said he supports abortion rights while also supporting restrictions already in Kansas law, such as parental notification.
While Morrison said he switched parties because the Democrats are better focused on public safety issues, others say his decision is politically pragmatic.
Morrison said he wants to appeal to more than just moderate Republicans.
“I’m hoping I can pull moderate Republicans, and I’m hoping my that record as a prosecutor will pull conservatives my direction as well,” he said.
In 2002, Kline defeated then-Geary County Attorney Chris Biggs by fewer than 4,300 votes out of more than 821,000 cast, after winning the primary with 50 percent of the vote in a three-way race.
“It could mean a tough race for Phill. I certainly don’t think he can take a re-election victory for granted,” Ciboski said. “I think there’s a good percentage of people who think Phill Kline has just gotten too aggressive on the abortion clinics.”
Bob Beatty, Washburn University political scientist, said Morrison’s message needs to be about him being more professional than Kline.
“For Morrison to win, he has to inform relatively uninformed Republican voters to go against their natural instinct of voting Republican,” Beatty said. “The less informed a voter is, the more likely they will vote with their party. If he can get enough money to get his message out, he has a fighting chance.”
With Morrison’s candidacy only a few hours old, Republicans already were on the attack. State GOP Chairman Tim Shallenburger said Morrison “pulled a Benedict Arnold.”
Shallenburger noted Morrison supported legislation in 2000 that led to the early release of some people in prison because of probation or parole violations.
Shallenburger tied the law to Reginald Carr, convicted for five Wichita murders that followed his early release from parole supervision. The Department of Corrections said that a clerical error led to Carr’s early release.
But Mike Gaughan, executive director of the Kansas Democratic Party, said: “Paul Morrison is the toughest prosecutor in Kansas. For Phill Kline and Tim Shallenburger to spread outrageous lies about him is pathetic.”
October 26th, 2005 at 1:26 pmSceptimus is a pathetic little lying turd.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:27 pm“Ooh, don’t forget the Dick Cheney quote about “being welcomed with flowersâ€â€¦.That’s my fave….who knew Dick could be so sweet and sensitive, and, well, wrong?!?”
Texasexy, who knew liberals would collectively refuse to watch the news after the fall of Baghdad? It must have been so infuriating to you to know that an evil Republican had just dispatched on of the worlds worst dictators – afterall, you democrats are supposed to do that stuff, right? Anyway, let me describe what happened for you, because I actually DID watch the news – as troops approached Baghdad and once in the city. News cameras rolled as Iraqis approached US troops, smiled, shook their hands, kissed them, and gave them candy. Just like (GASP!) Cheney said they would.
Now if you want to argue it didn’t last, fine. But the troops were greeted as liberators initially, and more importantly, the fact that Iraqis continue to line up to vote at the risk of their own lives is more telling than anything else about how they feel about Saddam’s forced retirement and what direction they want their country to go.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:29 pmScoop Sceptimus up with a pooper scooper and put him in a paper bag. Light it on fire and leave it on the White House steps, the place is chock full of steaming, flaming bags of turd already.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:30 pmSceptum, admit it – you chose a name similar to mine because you want to be like me.
Perfectly understandeable….most people do.
SWS
October 26th, 2005 at 1:30 pmIs anyone stimulated by a bigger picture view here? All “facts” can be disputed, the news agencies are written off as being liberal. Scep will argue any point. Although, I am intrigued by the “sanctity of life at all stages” stuff, while the same people advocate so much killing. Any comment on that Scep? And please don’t give me that safety/security crap, which plays into the basic needs of humans.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:30 pmI saw the footage. I didn’t see soldiers greeted with flowers. I saw people venting against Saddam. Using the big dog as security.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:31 pmSceptimus only responds to what he pleases and then goes on his rant about Clinton, liberals and us not having facts. LOL. So obviously a BushBot.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:32 pmSceptimus,
You’ll have to try harder. The Army admitted that the Hussein statue toppling was a staged psy-ops event. Shucks, they just don’t teach you this stuff over at Faux news and on Limbaugh’s show do they?
http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=641
October 26th, 2005 at 1:32 pmsince the only thing #97 ever served (and still serves) is fries with a big mac, dungbreath is talking crap again. stick around, bozo, yer always good for a laugh.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:32 pm“Sceptimus, please be a man and address the quotes in post #90 that clearly contradict your claim that the Bush administration never tried to link Iraq and 9/11.”
I read and re-read your quotes. Which quote says Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks? I don’t see it.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:32 pm“I never call people names, you pin-head!” — Bill Oliely
Sad thing is 98% of Fox viewers believe this crap…
October 26th, 2005 at 1:33 pmWho knew conservatives would collectively refuse to watch the news after the fall of Bush? It must have been so infuriating to you to know that an evil Republican had just dispatched one of the world’s worst dictators – afterall, Republicans are supposed to do that stuff, right? Anyway, let me describe what happened for you, because I actually DID watch the news – as Federal agents bearing indictments reached the White House and once in the building, all the steaming bags of flaming turds did the frog march!. News cameras rolled as Federal agents frog marched corrupt White House officials down the steps, and Americans smiled, and shook the hands of Fitzgerald and his men, kissed them, and gave them candy. Just like (GASP!) we said they said they would.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:35 pmOh, irony; how we missed you for so long.
What can I say; it’s too perfect. The other side smears but we don’t because we have truth on our side. ROFLMAO
October 26th, 2005 at 1:35 pmI’m not a “Bushbot”! Bush’s lack of conservativism has had a DIRECT and DEVASTATING effect on every aspect of my lily white, perfect existance!
October 26th, 2005 at 1:35 pm““I never call people names, you pin-head!†— Bill Oliely
Sad thing is 98% of Fox viewers believe this crap…”"
Considering that the majority of Fox viewers consider themselves conservative, says it all about the type of people who watch that crap.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:36 pmSad thing is 98% of Fox viewers believe this crap…
Most people watch the networks. Fox, all cable news, doesn’t even make a dent in the ABCNBCCBSGOP.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:38 pmThis recent history will showcase for the first time a true, solid, indefensable dichotomy between what fox viewers see and reality. It will hurt fox.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:39 pm#109,
Huh? You’re joking right?
October 26th, 2005 at 1:39 pmIf there was an IQ test given to all Repubs, and all Dems, and then the scores were averaged, which one would be higher?
October 26th, 2005 at 1:39 pm“You’ll have to try harder. The Army admitted that the Hussein statue toppling was a staged psy-ops event. Shucks, they just don’t teach you this stuff over at Faux news and on Limbaugh’s show do they?”
Jay, you are confusing two different points. Another poster suggested that US troops weren’t greeted as liberators. I pointed out that anyone who watched the news for the first several days after we got to Baghdad plainly saw Iraqis very grateful for toppling Saddam. It was even shown on CNN – you’re not suggesting the Clinton News Network would lie, would you?
With respect to the toppling of the statue itself, if that was a pys-op, great. The psy-op folks handled it beautifully – the picture of the statue being stomped by Iraqis and the head being dragged through the streets certainly shut down the critics who were saying that the Iraqis would fight to the death (LOL)for Saddam.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:39 pmIt is a very well-oiled, effective character assassination machine. There is nothing that exists on the right that I know of that can compare. Do you know of anything?
um, Fox News?
October 26th, 2005 at 1:40 pmComment by Speculum Sniff
LOL!
Sceptum, admit it – you chose a name similar to mine because you want to be like me.
Perfectly understandeable….most people do.
SWS
Comment by Sceptimus Smith
I want to mock people like you. Most normal people want to kill you. I’m just niceler, kindler and gentler.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:41 pmIraqis want the dog back on the leash. Give me 2 big purple thumbs up!
October 26th, 2005 at 1:42 pmWell, maybe they just want to beat the crap outta you, and don’t give a rat’s ass or a gerbil’s fart if it kills you.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:43 pmJay, I’m totally serious – none of your quotes say that Saddam was behind 9/11. Here, lets examine them one by one:
US President George W Bush – 17 June 2004:
“The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.â€
–SWS: Nothing about 9/11.
9/11 Commission – 16 June 2004:
“We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States.â€
US Vice-President Dick Cheney – January 2004:
“There’s overwhelming evidence… of a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraqâ€.
–SWS: Once again, nothing about 9/11.
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace – January 2004:
“The most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a co-operative relationship between Saddam Hussein’s government and al-Qaeda.â€
US Secretary of State Colin Powell – January 2004:
“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed.â€
–SWS: And yet again, nothing about 9/11.
US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice – September 2003:
“Saddam was a danger in the region where the 9/11 threat emerged.â€
–SWS: Nothing connecting Saddam to 9/11.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld – November 2002:
“Within a week, or a month, Saddam could give his WMD to al-Qaeda.â€
–SWS: Nothing about 9/11.
I ask again, Jay, – which quote by a Bush administration official ties 9/11 to Saddam?
October 26th, 2005 at 1:44 pm“I read and re-read your quotes. Which quote says Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks? I don’t see it.”
Sceptimus….come on, did you already forget the original argument that this guy responded to with quotes?? Okay…now Im starting to think Sceptimus has memory problems.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:46 pmWith respect to the toppling of the statue itself, if that was a pys-op, great. The psy-op folks handled it beautifully – the picture of the statue being stomped by Iraqis and the head being dragged through the streets certainly shut down the critics who were saying that the Iraqis would fight to the death (LOL)for Saddam.
Psyops directed at the American people and the Iraqis are still fighting to the death. You are more dangerous than any communist, you are just like them, a true Stalinist-Leninist. Mao would be proud. Think of me as the New McCarthy. I want to see you run out of this country on a rail.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:47 pm“Most normal people want to kill you.”
Diseased Rectum, I guess that necessarily excludes you.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:47 pmScepi,
It’s just careful wording to not actually say it, but to mislead. The White House did present the info in a fashion which you are correct about. However, most mouth-breathing, innatentive, average folks were misled into interpreting the statements as saying Iraq and Saddam were somehow connected. It’s sophisticated manipulation.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:49 pmI ask again, Jay, – which quote by a Bush administration official ties 9/11 to Saddam?
Comment by Sceptimus Smith
Any of the drivel that came out of Cheney’s mouth.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:49 pm“Sceptimus….come on, did you already forget the original argument that this guy responded to with quotes?? Okay…now Im starting to think Sceptimus has memory problems.”
You’re right Jeremy, I must have memory problems. I thought the original argument was that Bush said Saddam was behind 9/11. Clearly that wasn’t it, since no one can find such a quote.
So refresh my failing memory, Jeremy – what was the original argument again?
October 26th, 2005 at 1:50 pm“Jay, I’m totally serious – none of your quotes say that Saddam was behind 9/11.”
Sceptimus….thats not what the original argument was!
You said that the Bush administration never ever said that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 and Jay simply posted quotes that showed the administration did think there was a connection.
Now come on, don’t play games with us!
October 26th, 2005 at 1:51 pmMost normal people want to kill you.â€
Diseased Rectum, I guess that necessarily excludes you.
Comment by Sceptimus Smith
Is your sceptum in your rectum?
I just want to mock you while the angry mob beats you to death with a crowbar. They can always say they were trying to get your head out of your ASS!
October 26th, 2005 at 1:52 pmFirst, I’m no democrat.
Second, I’m no republican.
Now, since I have no party to fawn my admiration upon, I am left with squawking hacks on both sides. And I think this gives me a little perspective. And to mention briefly that this regime drove Texas Educ system to nearly last on the list….bankrupted its healthcare system by leaving it with no accountability….and traded Sammy Sosa….
Thing is about Cheney’s Admin is that they never spoke to moderates, or leftists; rather, they spoke only to their base of christian radicals who, apparently, think we’re fighting some holy war to rid the world of “evil doers”. This kind of simplistic rhetoric is not lost on the faithful flock: those simpletons are always looking for a new messiah or mission. So the Admin trumps up its faithful base, knowing full well, these sheep will bite.
On the other had, and back to point, the Cheney Admin spoke in 8th grade-level-speak about evil and good and all sorts of single-syllable, easily digestible words. The sheep–who probably don’t see any reason to school themselves beyond 8th grade, at least not the women folk–bit.
Now, I ask you, how does a person like me (and millions of other Americans) believe any of this simplistic bullshit when we are not leveled with as adults? Why didn’t the admin tell us what their agenda was INSTEAD of pretending it was ‘fer freedom’ or ‘to fight’em therr so we don hafta fight’em herr’? Why all the rhetoric and grand–standing?
October 26th, 2005 at 1:52 pmSceptimus, I’m going to help you out cause I think you’re trying really hard to be honest (it’s not working but you’re trying). Context needs to be applied to this argument, not a face-value argument.
All of these quotes were made by administration officials in the runup to the invasion of Iraq. They told us that this invasion had to happen because after 9/11 we could not afford to take chances with our national security by allowing potential threats to go unaddressed. So if Al Qaeda committed 9/11, and Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda…..logic brings you to the obvious conclusion that…..tada! Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda which attacked us on 9/11. Now, are you going to tell me that they didn’t want the American people to draw that conclusion to catalyze support for attacking Iraq? You see, it’s a creative lie (as opposed to a blatant lie with no plausible deniability)…but it’s still a lie. You know this.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:54 pmJust cut to the chase. They will try to play the pity card, “we are victims of liberal hate!”
Trouble is, everyone hates them now, it doesn’t work anymore. Dumbasses! Yeah, we hate you, now fvck off!
October 26th, 2005 at 1:54 pmOkay, sceptimus is trying to pull us into his fuzzy brain by trying to confuse us on what his original argument was….here is your quote:
“No one in the Bush administration ever said there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11, nor did they say there was a direct link betweeen Saddam and the Taliban. YOU guys on the left simply make this stuff up, and repeat it as if it were said by the administration. I am only too happy to call you on your obvious, blatant BS.” Post #80
Straight from your own words:)
October 26th, 2005 at 1:54 pm“It’s just careful wording to not actually say it, but to mislead. The White House did present the info in a fashion which you are correct about. However, most mouth-breathing, innatentive, average folks were misled into interpreting the statements as saying Iraq and Saddam were somehow connected. It’s sophisticated manipulation.”
Cream, I see lots of careful wording that ties Iraq to Al Qaeda, but we all knew that already – it was confirmed in the 9/11 Commission’s report.
What I don’t see anywhere are quotes that tie Saddam to 9/11, and that was what was suggested – that Bush was on record as saying that Saddam was behind 9/11. Only he never said it. Nor can I find any quotes where he IMPLIES it. He does say, as have many, that Saddam was a supporter and harborer of terrorism and terrorist groups, but this is a known fact. Try to separate fact from fiction a bit, ok? Here’s a primer:
Bush said Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda – TRUE
Liberals say Bush said Saddam was behind 9/11 – FALSE
SWS
October 26th, 2005 at 1:55 pmHonestly:
I believe Bush and Cheney are sincere about the war on terror.
I think the Iraqi elections are a good thing.
I believe there was a good case for war with Iraq that was only indirectly associated with Bin Laden.
BUT THEY F*CKING LIED ABOUT IT ANYWAY BECAUSE THEY ARE NATURAL BORN LIARS. THEY DO NOT CARE WHAT YOU THINK!
October 26th, 2005 at 1:56 pmThey don’t care what you think either, Speculum.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:57 pmSceptimus Liar,
Richard N. Perle, who until recently was chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, long argued that there was Iraqi involvement, calling the evidence “overwhelming.”
Similar reporting occurred through faux and other outlets that claimed Iraq was behind 9/11, and the administration had proven it.
Bush himself used the following language:
“If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.”
Deborah Tannen, a Georgetown University professor of linguistics who has studied Bush’s rhetoric, said it is impossible to know but “plausible” that Bush’s words furthered such public impressions. “Clearly, he’s using language to imply a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th,” she said.
“There is a specific manipulation of language here to imply a connection.” Bush, she said, seems to imply that in Iraq “we have gone to war with the terrorists who attacked us.”
October 26th, 2005 at 1:59 pmSS,
For someone who claims to be a lover of great literature, you sure do split hairs like a man before a grand jury debating the meaning of ‘is’. Get a clue!
October 26th, 2005 at 1:59 pm“What I don’t see anywhere are quotes that tie Saddam to 9/11, and that was what was suggested – that Bush was on record as saying that Saddam was behind 9/11.”
But that wasn’t what your original argument was…you said “No one in the Bush administration ever said there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11″
Thats what you said, and if you deny it…then your hopeless, because this is not a discussion about facts but just a place for you to beat up on liberals…and thats pathetic.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:00 pmNeed Proof of how much the country hates you and your pseudo-conservative bullshit? It’s gonna get worse, not better. Leave the country while you can. Soon, a Bush sticker on your car will get your ass kicked. Most of them are off those bumpers now. How many do you see these days?
Americans’ anger may threaten GOP control of Congress
WASHINGTON – Americans have turned so sour about the state of the country and their lives that Republican strategists fear they could rise in a wave of anger and sweep Republicans out of power in Congress in next year’s elections, much like they swept the Democrats out in 1994.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:00 pmDon’t engage him in actual debate. He’s not interested in honest discourse. Mock him, ridicule him and belittle him. He’s a provacateur, so provoke him. He has no defense to that and it foils his intent.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:04 pmIt’s over bitches!
“As angry and pissed off as we were in 1994 about politics, I think it’s worse today,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist who helped his party capture Congress in 1994. “This House of Representatives’ Republican majority is in jeopardy.”
“Today,” added Republican pollster Ed Goeas, ” President Bush and Republicans face a political environment that, as reflected in current polling numbers, is the most negative environment of his presidency.”
October 26th, 2005 at 2:05 pmThat freak knows his machines. He knows how they operate. He knows how to shine them up. He knows how protect them. They are is bread and butter.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:08 pmWhat’s he going to do now that the faux news isn’t working anymore? What is he going to do now that he looks like a JOKE? His problem.
Sceptimus and his pseudo conservatives are scummunists.
Lenin wants to Privatize Social Security.
I told you they were scummunists. Kill one for Jesus today!
October 26th, 2005 at 2:09 pmTitle: ACHIEVING A “LENINIST†STRATEGY
Cato Journal, vol. 3, no.2 (Fall 1983) (700kB PDF). copyright © Cato Institute.
It began in 1982 at the “Rebuilding Social Security” Conference at the radical-right Heritage Foundation, but the plot against Social Security was fleshed out by Butler (a Cato director) and Germanis (an analyst at Heritage) in the Fall 1983 issue of Cato’s journal, summarized through quotes here: [Emphasis added.]
“Lenin recognized that fundamental change is contingent upon … its success in isolating and weakening its opponents. … we would do well to drawa few lessons from the Leninist strategy. (p. 547)
“we must recognize that we need more than a manifesto … we must … construct … a coalition that will … reap benefits from the IRA-based private system Ferrara has proposed but also the banks, insurance companies, and … that will gain from providing such plans to the public.” (p. 548)
“By approaching the problem in this way, we may be ready for the next crisis in Social Security.” (p. 548)
“From a purely political standpoint, it should be remembered that the elderly represent a very powerful and vocal interest group. (p. 549)
A Plan of Action
“The first element consists of a campaign to achieve small legislative changes that embellish the present IRA system, making it in practice a small-scale private Social Security system. … the natural constituency for an enlarged IRA system must be … welded into a coalition for political change. (p. 551)
“The second main element … involves what one might crudely call guerrilla warfare against both the current Social Security system and the coalition that supports it. (p. 552)
Creating a Private Model
“The reason for designing a “super IRA†law with these restrictions is purely political.” (p. 552)
“Social Security reform requires mobilizing the various coalitions that stand to benefit from the change, … the business community, and financial institutions in particular … (p. 553)
“The banking industry and other business groups that can benefit from expanded IRAs …
“… the strategy must be to propose moving to a private Social Security system in such a way as to … neutralize, … the coalition that supports the existing system.” (p. 555)
“The next Social Security crisis may be further away than many people believe. … it could be many years before the conditions are such that a radical reform of Social Security is possible. But then, as Lenin well knew, to be a successful revolutionary, one must also be patient and consistently plan for real reform.” (Concluding paragraph, p. 556)
October 26th, 2005 at 2:11 pm“But that wasn’t what your original argument was…you said “No one in the Bush administration ever said there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11″
Jeremy, I frankly don’t understand why you are having trouble here – I said exactly what you quoted, and I stand by it. Here, I’ll say it again for you:
“No one in the Bush administration ever said there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11″
You initially then posted a bunch of quotes – NONE of them, as I pointed out, said there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11.
You then backpedaled and said that after reading the quotes, logic dictates that a connection between Saddam and 9/11 was what Bush wanted America to think.
Aside from the fact that those are two different arguments and I addressed them in a different post, I still stand by my original statement. Bush never connected Saddam to 9/11 in any speech, quote or whatever. The connection exists in the wishful thinking of liberals, and that’s about it.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:16 pmSS,
You really don’t think BushCo allowed the public, whether they said it or implied it or just let the public believe it, to think the Iraq war is part of the retaliation for 9/11?
The quotations above form a pretty clear algorithm:
AQ caused 9/11 + Claims Saddam helped AQ = Saddam helped cause 9/11
I don’t think the claims are true, but this was certainly the prevailing public logic for a few years, and BushCo did nothing to disabuse the American people of this perception because it helped the war effort and two winning election cycles.
At one point over 70% of the American people believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11. We all now know this is untrue, yet around 35% of Americans STILL think this is true. Who is convincing them of that? The so-called liberal media?
C’mon man. At this point I just have to assume you’re being mendacious and that this is a waste of time.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:20 pmLiberals don’t really care about any Saddam-9/11 connection. But you go on ahead and keep beating youreslf up over it.
Gas prices
October 26th, 2005 at 2:24 pmWar deaths
FEMA
Homeland Security
And all that “CIA leak stuff”
Sceptimus, you’re wrong and you’re dishonest. Nothing else needs to be said in regard to you or your argument.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:24 pmUS President George W Bush – 17 June 2004:
“The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.â€
Sceptimus said:
“I still stand by my original statement. Bush never connected Saddam to 9/11 in any speech, quote or whatever.”
You have to be brain dead retarded not to see what kind of hypocrite you are.
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez, there is no sense in you at all is there?
October 26th, 2005 at 2:32 pmThe impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13323
From the BBC:
Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two.
And how about Wolfie? He was part Deputy SecDef? And this is from FreeRepublic. Are you sure it was the “liberals” that created this link that you say doesn’t exist?:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/921398/posts
October 26th, 2005 at 2:36 pmWow! 7 in 10 Americans believed that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11. How the fu*% did that happen?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32862-2003Sep5¬Found=true
October 26th, 2005 at 2:40 pmIf Al-Qaeda is connected to 9/11 and Al-Qaeda is connected to Saddam, that does not mean that 9/11 is connected to Saddam.
That’s the point.
Reminds me of yesterday’s deal about indictments. You guys pounce on SS because he later restates that he means indictments regarding the outing of a CIA agent. But you guys get your panties in a wad because he originally said any indictments. But today you can’t handle the same accountability in what you say. You want to change it.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:43 pmI can understand why the barely literate who post here defend this administration, but I always find it fascinating when obviously educated wordsmith’s like Sceptimus carries water for these criminals.
I suspect that Scept has a job to do….and he is doing it very well.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:45 pm“You are more dangerous than any communist, you are just like them, a true Stalinist-Leninist. Mao would be proud. Think of me as the New McCarthy. I want to see you run out of this country on a rail.”
Diseased Rectum, interesting that you compared me to those murdering leftists and not Hitler, which is typically the case when liberals start losing debates with conservatives. I’ll chalk it up this time to your ignorance of history, but get it right next time – the rules state you call a conservative a Nazi (or Hitler), OK?
October 26th, 2005 at 2:46 pmSS,
Works for me. You’re like hitler.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:49 pmWhat….more evidence of GOPers trying to link Saddam and 9/11:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1433348/posts
And this from the President himself in his War Declaration letter to the House of Representatives:
I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001
BUT YOU’RE RIGHT, no link made there.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:52 pmBen,
Not true. Richard Perle specifically claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11. You and the SS Nazi are both wrong.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:54 pmThe President killed a CIA man? What?! Huh?
October 26th, 2005 at 2:54 pmWhat’s a “Plane Gate”?! Is there something going on at the airport?!
I just don’t understand. Why is the president DOING all this bad stuff?!
Why is gas so expensive?! Wasn’t the President suppose to fix that?! Huh?!
Jay,
We both know that diehard republicans never admit their failures – they’re lost causes… And lying losers!
October 26th, 2005 at 2:56 pmDiseased Rectum, interesting that you compared me to those murdering leftists and not Hitler, which is typically the case when liberals start losing debates with conservatives. I’ll chalk it up this time to your ignorance of history, but get it right next time – the rules state you call a conservative a Nazi (or Hitler), OK?
Comment by Sceptimus Smith
I’ll chalk it up to your ignorance of history. In fact, I’ll just chalk it up to your ignorance, and fear of the ” evils of the state”.
“Private ownership is the cure for all problems, despite the historical record of privately owned states such as Nazi Germany, Czarist and Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China.”
“There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses.”
Andrew Jackson
“The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all.”
G. K. Chesterton
“… liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power…”
James Madison, The Federalist, no. 63.
Brian (not wanting to be a messiah): “You are all individuals…”
October 26th, 2005 at 2:56 pmCrowd (in unison): “We are all individuals…”
Monty Python’s “Life Of Brian”
“You have to be brain dead retarded not to see what kind of hypocrite you are.
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez, there is no sense in you at all is there?”
I’m brain dead and retarded obviously – I’m hanging out here, aren’t I?
Now that’s outta the way, explain to me the “hypocrisy”…
October 26th, 2005 at 2:57 pmRyan, don’t they realize that every lie that they tell is on tape, in an article, available on the web and easily produced? They must HATE that! ;)
October 26th, 2005 at 2:59 pmYeah! I heard that too! It was in one of those LONG DRAWN OUT speeches with all them fancy jingoistic one liners!
“I’m Mr. Fixit!” He done said!
“I kill terrists!” he said!
“I’m the ONE LINER FIXES IT ALL President!”
“I’m here to make it perfect and peaceful!”
the President said
October 26th, 2005 at 2:59 pmI agree, don’t debate Snuffy Smith, or at least ask him to lay out the facts that supports the notion that the Bush administration was forthcoming in the run-up to the Iraq war regarding its now stated purpose–namely, to usher a democracy in the heart of the Middle East.
Of course, he cannot, because everyone in the administration knew that such a war could not be sold to the American public. Rather, 9-11 was shamelessly exploited to scare the shit out of us. And this Bush-toadie knows that.
Don’t waste your time on the little shit.
D.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:00 pmRyan again, seriously, are you older than 20? Has anyone ever told you that you behave like a little girl? Whoever said it yesterday was dead on. It is people like yourself that make it an absolute lock that Democrats will remain out of power for some time to come.
Again, relax.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:01 pmYea I’m with Ryan.
Your a brownshirt at least. You’ve lined up for the KoolAide a few times.
Listen, we aren’t going to change conservatives minds here. For the most part, they come in looking for liberal ass to kick. It is some wierd kind of ego thing I would guess. But in truth, I don’t have the time for your bullshit and I don’t have the patience to treat you with the respect you all whine to us about not getting. You don’t deserve it. You’re arguments are little more than condensed or verbatim talking points issued by any other righty talking head or Republican organization.
Surprizingly, there are areas that you would agree with us, if you were to look for those. Most of us probably supported Senator Coburns failed amendment which sought to cut funds for that $220 mil bridge to 50 people on an island in Alaska. We do support freedom, but we don’t think bushco is looking for freedom in the world. They’re looking for control, specifically control of the energy, extraction and media industries.
ss, you are no better at what you do than poor little ned. Go back to Little Green Footballs or redstain or some such hitler youth site. nuf said.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:02 pmThose damn libruls are the ones that created the lie about the nexus between Saddam and 9/11…Clinton did it. Blowjob…..dum-de-dum-dum-dummies. Funny I was able to find so many articles on the free republic website that touted hihgly reliable sources that confirmed that 9/11-Saddam link.
Sceptimus is a dumbass!
October 26th, 2005 at 3:03 pmIf you want to shut the trolls up just convey to them what you see on tv and hear on the street.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:03 pmSince Jay is no longer talking to me (wah!), maybe someone will tell him that this was in his own cite:
President Bush said in September 2003 that “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks].”
Just as I said and continue to say – neither the president or anyone in the Bush administration ever said there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11.
File it under “m” for yet another liberal myth debunked, right next to “Black people are eating their dead to survive in New Orleans!” (my personal favorite)
October 26th, 2005 at 3:04 pmJust wait until some cocky red blog censors one of it’s own. It will happen. It’s just one of a long string of events that end facsism.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:05 pm“ss, you are no better at what you do than poor little ned. Go back to Little Green Footballs or redstain or some such hitler youth site. nuf said.”
Diseased Rectum, THIS is how it’s done…see how Kindness (LOL) injected the Hitler reference? Kindess knows the rules.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:07 pmThere is only empirical evidence of gravity.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:09 pm168, no, no, no, NO. Get it right, son. We went war with Iraq to steal their oil and enrich Halliburton.
Geez.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:10 pmss,
You are so easily discredited.
In December 2001 in The New York Times Richard Perle, then Chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Review Board, nominated Iraq’s Salman Pak as the 9-11 “terrorist training facility…complete with a passenger aircraft cabin for training in hijacking,†a view seconded by Clinton’s former CIA director Woolsey on Sept. 12. The Bush White House describes the facility as an al Qaeda training camp.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:10 pm#172,
Yes, Bush had to make that statement because people were getting wise to their little semantic game and they embarassingly had to back off the conflating lie. I remember it well. When Bush made that statement, he looked like he just found out that he had to put down his dog.
You’re lucky it’s not painful to be stupid.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:10 pmSceptimus: believe the rhetoric of whichever side you want but your statement that this administration is paying down debt is a complete fiction. According to the Cato Institute, Bush spending growth exceeds that of LBJ. The deficit will exceed 400 billion in the year just ended and will likely grow that much this year. Tax receipts this year have run higher than anticipated (individuals) but there is no reduction in the deficit.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:10 pm“no, no, no, NO. Get it right, son. We went war with Iraq to steal their oil and enrich Halliburton.
Geez.
Comment by Sceptimus Smith”
Ok daughter, whatever you say… You seem to feel you ‘know’ everything, despite the evidence contradicting you, why shouldn’t you go all parental and asshole on this point…
October 26th, 2005 at 3:11 pmTJM,
SS doesn’t let fact cloud his state of delusion. He’s shell shocked just like Septimus Smith, so he now lives in a fake world with fake ideas.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:11 pmBen,
You’re an idiot… ‘enuf said.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:12 pmDidn’t we go into Iraq to kill Osama bin Laden?
October 26th, 2005 at 3:15 pmThat IS where he was staying, wasn’t it? In the mountains?
And it isn’t just administration officials, it’s the proxy press and PNAC propagandists who spread the ‘official’ information.
â€This could not have been done without help of one or more governments,†Perle told The Washington Post on Sep. 11. â€Someone taught these suicide bombers how to fly large airplanes. I don’t think that can be done without the assistance of large governments.â€
Woolsey was more direct. â€(I)t’s not impossible that terrorist groups could work together with the government…the Iraqi government has been quite closely involved with a number of Sunni terrorist groups and — on some matters — has had direct contact with (Osama) bin Laden,†he told one anchorman in a series of at least half a dozen national television appearances on Sep. 11 and 12.
That same evening, Kristol echoed Woolsey on National Public Radio. â€I think Iraq is, actually, the big, unspoken sort of elephant in the room today. There’s a fair amount of evidence that Iraq has had very close associations with Osama bin Laden in the past, a lot of evidence that it had associations with the previous effort to destroy the World Trade Center (in 1993)â€.
According to an account by veteran CBS newsman David Martin last September, Rumsfeld was â€telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks†five hours after an American Airlines jet slammed into the Pentagon.
â€Wolfowitz argued (at the meeting) that the real source of all the trouble and terrorism was probably Hussein. The terrorist attacks of Sept 11 created an opportunity to strike. Now, Rumsfeld asked again: ‘Is this the time to attack Iraq’â€?
But even as the DPB was locked in the Pentagon, Kristol was gathering signatures on a letter to Bush, eventually published in PNAC’s name in The Washington Times Sep. 20, advising him on targets in his war on terrorism, an agenda that so far has anticipated to a remarkable degree the evolution of Bush’s actual policy. In addition to calling for the ouster of the Taliban and war on al Qaeda — as well as cutting off the Palestinian Authority (PA) under Yassir Arafat and other moves — the letter stated explicitly that Saddam Hussein must go regardless of his relationship to the attacks or al Qaeda.
â€It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States,†it said. â€But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.â€
The letter was signed by 38 prominent neo-conservatives, many of whom — especially Perle, Kristol, Gaffney, William Bennett, DPB member Eliot Cohen, AEI’s Reuel Marc Gerecht and Kirkpatrick, Robert Kagan, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, Clifford May and Randy Scheunemann (who would go on to head the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq) — would emerge, along with Woolsey, as the most ubiquitous champions of war with Iraq outside the administration.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:16 pmMy aunt plays PNAC on thursdays. Damn gossips.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:18 pmCan’t tell us how old your are, uh? I had you pegged way back. See mature adults argue points, children engage in name calling. And Ryan, you’re just a young kid. But that’s okay. One day you will realize that more people will listen to your arguments when they don’t think they are debating a child.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:22 pmpResident Bush said in September 2003 that “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks].â€
Why didn’t he say that in 2002/2003 when he was building a false justification to invade Iraq? I’ll grant you, semanticly speaking, that Bush was careful never to link Iraq diectly to 9/11. But Cheney certainly did with his “Atta met with Iraqi agents in Prague”…remember that lie? But even you know that subliminal linkage between Saddam / 9/11 / AQ was repeated over and over by this administration and the SCLM. It was effective too…at one point almost 80% believed the Big Lie.
By all means, continue to show us how good you are at dancing on rhetorical pinheads….you get an “A” for debating skills….but you get an “F” for intellectual honesty.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:23 pm“Sceptimus: believe the rhetoric of whichever side you want but your statement that this administration is paying down debt is a complete fiction.”
TJM, facts to liberals are like kryptonite to Superman, so I have to say, I’m not surprised that you would simply post something ridiculous without actually checking it. Here, I’ve done your research for you:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1944&sequence=0
The federal budget deficit totaled about $317 billion in fiscal year 2005, CBO estimates, $96 billion less than the shortfall recorded in 2004. Relative to the size of the economy, that deficit is equal to about 2.6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP), down from 3.6 percent in 2004. Growth in revenues–from 16.3 percent of GDP in 2004 to about 17.5 percent in 2005–accounted for the improvement
You’re welcome.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:25 pmAvg TV – I think he was in the mountains in that place where 100,000 Russians died because they were too stupid not stop chasing the Afghan rebels in terrain that made them easy targets.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:25 pmHow can they get good grades on debating skills if everything out of their mouths is false?
October 26th, 2005 at 3:26 pmss
at one point better than 60% of Americans believed that Saddam was complicit in the attacks of 911.
How do you suppose that happened:
a. Americans are stupid
b. left wing MSM mislead them
c. Bush adminstration and right wing MSM did eveything
to perpetuate this fallacy.
I pick C, the evidence is overwhelming along with the
October 26th, 2005 at 3:29 pmWMD lies. Clinto has been out of office for several years – so don’t even try the Clinto believed it too.
Clinton did not kill 100K Iraqis and 2K of our own
you a-hole.
Isn’t an Afghan a dog owned by gay men?
October 26th, 2005 at 3:30 pmThis admin has been WRONG constistently. They have no credibility.
My god, how many licks *does* it take for an ass-kiss apologists to finally resist?
October 26th, 2005 at 3:30 pmSeptic Smith—-another name for Janitor? or just an example of a survivor of partial-birth abortion?
October 26th, 2005 at 3:33 pm“In December 2001 in The New York Times Richard Perle, then Chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Review Board, nominated Iraq’s Salman Pak as the 9-11 “terrorist training facility…complete with a passenger aircraft cabin for training in hijacking,†a view seconded by Clinton’s former CIA director Woolsey on Sept. 12. The Bush White House describes the facility as an al Qaeda training camp.”
You got me, Ryan – yep, at the time of this quote in December of 2001, a month and a half after the attacks, I admit it, I, like Perle, probably wondered aloud whether Saddam was involved. And of course, since I did it, Bush must’ve done it too. So there you go – you win. Bush linked Saddam to 9/11. No doubt. Time to impeach.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:33 pm“Can’t tell us how old your are, uh?” With your line of attack, I think we can safely assume he’s quite a bit older than you are.
It’s pretty obvious to most posters here that you can’t match wits or facts with Mr. Neat and your weak resort to sophomoric attacks using the “age” canard signals your surrender.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:35 pmOsama was killed, buried, and immortalized in the mountains.
Zawahiri is the man they can’t catch because they are too f*cking stupid.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:37 pmNo but Clinton could be responsible for the many deaths that preceded today for his lack of response to terrorists acts on his watch. He could be responsible for cutting intelligence budgets by 40%. He could be responsible for allowing the situation to get to the level it got for 8 years in was in office and did nothing. Then having his party try to pin the blame on someone who had only been in office 10 months. Clinton has plenty of room for blame. Plenty.
Tell us what Clinton did about all of the terrorism that was happening on his watch? He did nothing. He talked a lot. I think he was busy with something, someone, else.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:37 pmIB – its’s pretty obvious that Ryan has an immaturity problem. It is pretty obvious that you have a intelligence problem since you can’t see the point. How is calling people you disagree with nazis, morons, etc., a valid matching of wits? That is your sophomoric behavior.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:41 pmWho is Clinton?
October 26th, 2005 at 3:41 pmWho is Zawahiri?
Why hasn’t the CIA busted Zawahiri and presented HIS head on a platter?
THAT would send shivers through the ranks of the Islamofacsists.
Why are we bringing up Clinton when we are talking about the current incompetents occupying the WH?
Perhaps, we should bring up former incompetents who resideed at 1600 Penn….first one that comes to mind is Reagan…Iran Contra! Now there’s a scandal (stangely enough with similar palyers) we could discuss…
But it’ll bore the juveniles who can’t get enough of sex in the oval office.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:42 pmClinton could not fart – with out you bastards screaming Monica distraction and wag the dog. Clinton
October 26th, 2005 at 3:43 pmbusted the wanabe coming in from Canada. He also got the a-hole that placed the truck in the world trade center. He alsoe warned dufus that terrorism was the worse enemy facing us. Clinton is also not in power Bush is – why do you a-holes continue to obfiscate by bringing this non-sequitor into the mix. f.u.
911 happened on your boys watch – you can never change
that. OBL is still at large, Zarqawi is now a big time terrorist and there is ample evidence that Ws b.s. war has made the situation much worse for us. What the hell has W done – from what I can tell made it worse.
What’s a CIA? Didn’t the President kill them?
October 26th, 2005 at 3:43 pmNot that there’s anything wrong with talking about sex in the oval office….if offered, who would pass that up?
October 26th, 2005 at 3:44 pm“You got me, Ryan – yep, at the time of this quote in December of 2001, a month and a half after the attacks, I admit it, I, like Perle, probably wondered aloud whether Saddam was involved.”
Wondered aloud? You’re a MORON. And your reading comprehension sucks. Read the previous posting, Perle didn’t just ‘wonder aloud’, the quote from him was that the evidence of a connection was ‘overwhelming’.
You’re such a putz!
October 26th, 2005 at 3:44 pmBen, either follow me or go eat some cheese out of a rat trap.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:44 pm“pResident Bush said in September 2003 that ‘We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks].’
Why didn’t he say that in 2002/2003 when he was building a false justification to invade Iraq? I’ll grant you, semanticly speaking, that Bush was careful never to link Iraq diectly to 9/11. But Cheney certainly did with his ‘Atta met with Iraqi agents in Prague’…remember that lie? But even you know that subliminal linkage between Saddam / 9/11 / AQ was repeated over and over by this administration and the SCLM. It was effective too…at one point almost 80% believed the Big Lie.
By all means, continue to show us how good you are at dancing on rhetorical pinheads….you get an ‘A’ for debating skills….but you get an ‘F’ for intellectual honesty.”
Thanks for the grades, IB, but you’ll have to forgive me if I’m not at all excited about getting an “A” from you for debating skills when you can’t even recognize your own flawed logical fallacies. “Building a false justification”? That’s like asking “When did you stop beating your wife, sir? And you want to lecture me about intellectual honesty? Please.
As for the Cheney/Atta/Prague “lie”, this is the quote:
“With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story . . . the Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming or discrediting it. (Washington Post, September 29, 2003).
Sorry, but that doesn’t sound to me like Cheney is earnestly trying to connect Saddam to 9/11, particularly when the quote was made AFTER the war started.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:46 pm“its’s pretty obvious that Ryan has an immaturity problem. It is pretty obvious that you have a intelligence problem since you can’t see the point. ”
It must suck then to continually get your ass kicked by someone with a maturity problem who you think is like a little girl. That can’t be good for your ‘anxious masculinity’ that so many republicans suffer from.
“How is calling people you disagree with nazis, morons, etc., a valid matching of wits? That is your sophomoric behavior.”
Actually I call the person based on their actions. Some repubicans act like fools, some act like idiots, some like morons and some like nazis, and some act like all of those items. See unlike you, I use language that’s appropriate to the situation of the person. I ‘play to my audience’ as it were. Since you act like a child and a propagandist ‘tool’, I treat you as one…
Now I keep posting quotes and evidence, and the best you can do is a character assassination – who’s acting like a little girl again? That would be you!
October 26th, 2005 at 3:47 pmFace it Sceptimus, the lie is over.
Good night!
October 26th, 2005 at 3:48 pmSceptimus Smith is boring me….my god, son, don’t you have another blog to pester?
You are so see-through.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:50 pmHey, sceptimus…only problem is that in your original argument (#80) you said that the Bush ADMINISTRATION never quoted a link between Saddam and 9/11.
Here is some better quotes from Bush and also from Rumsfeld and Cheney:
“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror…We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th — the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.” [Remarks by the President, 5/1/03]
Vice President Cheney States That The War In Iraq Is A Strike Against the Terrorists Who Had America Under Assault On 9/11. On Meet the Press, Vice President Cheney stated, “If we’re successful in Iraq…we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” [NBC's Meet the Press, 9/14/03]
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Stated That Going To War With Iraq Costs “A Heck Of A Lot Less” Than The Cost Of The September 11th Attacks. Secretary Rumsfeld stated that although he could not estimate the cost of a war with Iraq, “It would cost a heck of a lot less than 9-11 cost and 9-11 would cost a heck of a lot less than a chemical or biological 9-11.” [AP, 2/13/03]
And than Bush says this….
“We went to war because we were attacked.” [Radio Address, 6/18/05]
And this….
“This war reached our shores on September 11, 2001.” [Bush Speech at Ft. Bragg, 6/28/05]
Now the spin stops here once and for all. Really what this argument should be about, instead of what you said is the fact that the Bush administration tried to make a link between Iraq and 9/11 many times. They didn’t tell us directly in one sentence but they did imply the notion in their speechs. It’s republican spin which explains how close to 80% of Americans thought there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11 just before we went to war. They did try to manipulate us. There is no question about that.
Just because Bush never said there was a link between Saddam and 9/11, doesn’t mean he didn’t imply it with his own speeches and his administrations speeches. So your original argument is mute and based on technicality of words rather than the deception in itself through speeches.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:51 pmNa na na na…na na na na……hey hey hey….goodbye.
The champagne awaits, time to celebrate the fall of the most evil presidency in U.S. history.
Do not pass go, do not collect your oil profits!
October 26th, 2005 at 3:52 pmHe’ll never see it, Jeremy. His head is too far up his turd blossom.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:53 pmSS,
You’re wrong AGAIN:
Cheney said on the Dec. 9, 2001 Meet the Press: “it’s been pretty well confirmed that he [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.â€
The Atta Claims did not occur AFTER the war, they began by cheney Before the war. You’re really bad a this propaganda and lie thing aren’t you?
October 26th, 2005 at 3:53 pmHe keeps changing his arguments just like the current incompetents do. He really is a petal off the ol’ turd blossom.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:54 pmTexasexy,
It’s a common tactic of reichwingers. When you dismiss prove their arguments wrong, they try to pretend they were arguing a different point, or they move on to yet another lie. It’s part of the ‘how to talk to liberals’ nonsense that their propagandists teach them. It’s a kind of pathology that seems to have set in that lets them keep believing their delusions, even when they’re proven wrong. It’s really quite sad and pathetic.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:56 pmRyan Neat,
But oh so entertaining…I bet his pimply little face is going all blustery red….
Hmm… that could be Man Coulter’s actual lipstick color.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:57 pm“Yes, Bush had to make that statement because people were getting wise to their little semantic game and they embarassingly had to back off the conflating lie. I remember it well. When Bush made that statement, he looked like he just found out that he had to put down his dog.”
So when faced with direct quote I provided to you that Bush said flat-out, there was NO connection between 9/11 and Saddam, your NOW going to argue that he HAD to say it? Jay the one thing about moving goalposts – everyone can see you. It’s not like you can hide them.
Sorry Jay, but your lame conspiratorial theories about a Bush/Cheney-engineered Machiavellian trance induced upon the public with sublimal messages to gain support for a war has been thoroughly debunked. You are now officially twisting in the wind.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:57 pmSS,
Bush flipflopped. Is that so hard to understand?
October 26th, 2005 at 4:00 pm#174Sceptimus I disagree whole heartedley with your politics… but I like your sense of humor. Kinda… better than NED or that other douche bag Brian anyway.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:00 pmSS’s semantic acrobatics are more difficult to read than Derrida…..
October 26th, 2005 at 4:07 pm“Hey, sceptimus…only problem is that in your original argument (#80) you said that the Bush ADMINISTRATION never quoted a link between Saddam and 9/11.”
I thought I had revised my statement in another post specifically mentioning Bush, but if I didn’t here it is again – President Bush never said there was a link between Saddam and the attacks on 9/11. Not once. Not a single time. In fact, he stated the exact opposite, which I also quoted here.
[...]
“Just because Bush never said there was a link between Saddam and 9/11, doesn’t mean he didn’t imply it with his own speeches and his administrations speeches. So your original argument is mute and based on technicality of words rather than the deception in itself through speeches.”
We’ve also traversed this silly “implied” argument too, after I thoroughly debunked the myth perpetrated by some in this forum that President Bush had linked Saddam to 9/11. I’ll repeat it again – if you want to believe that Smirky McChimpler and gang orchestrated a
trance on the entire nation and fed us subliminal messages to garner support for the war in Iraq, fine. I suppose one can believe anything.
Don’t look now, but your tinfoil hat antennae are drooping.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:07 pmSublimal. Machiavellian Trance.
The new perfume by Brittany Spears is coming to a Walmart near you!
October 26th, 2005 at 4:08 pmSS, you really need help.
If you go back and pull up old quotes and video before we actually attacked Iraq, you WILL find where the administration (and yes Bush) clearly stated that there was a link between Iraq and Alqueda. This is on record, Period. It has only been recently that the administration tryied changing it’s tune that they never said that, but it is on record that they did. This is how they obtained the support to get the war.
Also, I have read most of the comments here and you keep stating that someone said that there was a direct link to Sadamm. Here is the comment, my comment, that started your mis-direction that the Repuplicans like to do.
“People like you are why we have lost 2000 US soldiers for a cause that is un-warranted, other than this was the presidents adjenda long before he got into the WH. It has been PROVEN that Sadam had no link to WMD or the Taliban. But yet it’s OK to lie about that and god forbid if anyone see’s a problem with that and wants answers and to hold the lies accountable.”
No where in there does it state a direct link! So get off that track. I did state a link, and that has been supported by many quotes by your president and other administration.
Get a clue, and read and listen and perhaps you might actually learn something.
Just so that you can’t say I am saying that because I am a Democrat; I have not affiliation to any party. I vote for the best man, and I certainly did not vote for Bush.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:08 pmWake up and die right, sceptic stank. Better yet, don’t wake up, just stay dead. Conservatism is history.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:09 pm“Sorry Jay, but your lame conspiratorial theories about a Bush/Cheney-engineered Machiavellian trance induced upon the public with sublimal messages to gain support for a war has been thoroughly debunked. You are now officially twisting in the wind.”
Huh? You’re an idiot. The bush administration spent the majority of the war ‘implying’ a connection. That’s why the majority of americans believed there was a connection in the polls. And why did they believe this? Because Faux News and virtually every outlet pushed this propaganda, including the quotes from ‘whitehouse officials’ like it was doctrine.
Actually SS you’re the one proven wrong. I showed you were wrong on every point you made. That makes you a propagandist lying moron!
October 26th, 2005 at 4:10 pmSS had to change his argument, because I proved him wrong. It’s what all republicans do when they’re wrong, they lie about having lied.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:11 pmY’all know what a sceptic stank is full of, doncha?
October 26th, 2005 at 4:12 pmDon’t use the toilet! The sceptic stank is full!
October 26th, 2005 at 4:13 pmThe market joined the bushies in the sceptic stank today!
October 26th, 2005 at 4:15 pmWatchin’ this “What did Bush Really Say” show was almost as good as a Golden Girls marathon!
October 26th, 2005 at 4:16 pm#218,
I know what he said. It’s what they did that was the lie, jackass. They did EXACTLY what you claim they never did, which was try to link Saddam and 9/11. They say lots of things, like “Mission Accomplished” that are false and empty. The only one moving the goalposts is you.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:16 pmOhhhhh, okay Sceptimus….so the fact that 70% of the country thinking there was a 9/11/Saddam link is just a result of what? Thin air? Where did the people get this idea??? Doesn’t sound like tin foil crap to me.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:20 pm“Now the spin stops here once and for all.”
Only if you cease posting.
“Really what this argument should be about, instead of what you said is the fact that the Bush administration tried to make a link between Iraq and 9/11 many times. They didn’t tell us directly in one sentence but they did imply the notion in their speechs. It’s republican spin which explains how close to 80% of Americans thought there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11 just before we went to war. They did try to manipulate us. There is no question about that.”
There are lots of questions about that. Tons. For one, I disagree completely with virtually your entire screed. The Bush administration was being provided intelligence from multiple sources and from numerous countries about what was believed to be a gathering threat in Iraq. The Bush administration shared what wasn’t classified with the American people. No one FORCED you believe anything. Frankly, I thought Bush waited too long to take Saddam out. That punk had been sitting fat, dumb and happy for 12 years after the first Gulf War on black market oil proceeds, and he was NOT cooperating with his UN obligations to disarm, despite the binding surrender agreement that HE signed. And aside from the fact that Bush never connected Saddam to 9/11 then, nor does he now, the fact of the matter is, Saddam was a harborer and supporter of terroists. There’s no denying this. It is a simple fact. I don’t give two shits whether Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 – he was a cancer on the ass of humanity that need excising, and Bush was the surgeon. Good riddance.
You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t lose any sleep over his demise.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:20 pm“Ohhhhh, okay Sceptimus….so the fact that 70% of the country thinking there was a 9/11/Saddam link is just a result of what? Thin air? Where did the people get this idea???”
Like I said, the evil Smirky McChimpler put you in a trance against your will, entered your brain, and put a spell on you so you’d think there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:24 pmWeren’t Saddam and Osama “Wipe buddies” (if you know what I’m sayin’!). All those hours together on the dunes killin’ and crappin’ and stuff?
October 26th, 2005 at 4:24 pm“SS, you really need help.”
So I’ve been told.
“If you go back and pull up old quotes and video before we actually attacked Iraq, you WILL find where the administration (and yes Bush) clearly stated that there was a link between Iraq and Alqueda.”
And no one, including myself, is denying that there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. It’s a fact. What I’m debunking is the long-perpetrated liberal myth that Bush connected Saddam to the 9/11 attacks. He didn’t. I doubt seriously Saddam had any clue what was being planned for 9/11. It doesn’t change the fact that Saddam was a harborer and supporter of terrorists, to include Al Qaeda.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:28 pmI never knew there was a liberal myth alleging Bush associated Saddam with Osama and as a cosequence wanted to invade Iraq.
But I do now!
OH MY GOD IT MUST BE TRUE!
October 26th, 2005 at 4:39 pmCan you debunk that ol conservative myth that Soc Sec was in crisis? Or was it a liberal myth first?
Can you help me out, oh self-proclaimed myth-slayer SS!
October 26th, 2005 at 4:41 pm” No one FORCED you believe anything. ”
SS, I’m sure Goebbels used the same argument. You’re an IDIOT!
October 26th, 2005 at 4:45 pmAre YOU having a myth crisis?
Try “Machiavellian Trance”, the new fragrance for commie pinko wimps.
“SMELL like you mean it!”
October 26th, 2005 at 4:45 pmWhy bother? This troll reminds me of my five year old (minus the sociopathic tendencies and delusional thinking). At least she can come up with an original thought, silly as it may be.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:46 pmNothing to compare???…God I must have been drunk throughout the campaign and just hallucinating about a group called Swiftboat Veterans for Truth….Oh and let’s not overlook Senator Chambliss’campaign that put Max Cleland in between Osama and Saddam in a slimily timed ad .
October 26th, 2005 at 4:47 pm#243
OH! THAT myth!
October 26th, 2005 at 4:48 pm†No one FORCED you believe anything. â€
None of us *did* believe it.
This has passed funny. It’s getting hysterical!
October 26th, 2005 at 4:48 pm“And no one, including myself, is denying that there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. It’s a fact. “SS
Bahaha, the idiot who claims the administration didn’t ‘link’ them, then ‘links them’. You’re a MORON SS. The links between Osama and AlQueda were disproven. There are more links between the US and North Korea than existed between Osama and AlQueda. You’re TRULY A MORON!
October 26th, 2005 at 4:50 pmTyped too fast. That should have read. ” There are more links between the US and North Korea than existed between Saddam and AlQueda.”
October 26th, 2005 at 4:50 pmIs the myth that there was a connection? Or that they thought there was a connection. Or was there a myth they thought there was a myth that there was a connection? Or is there really a connection and a myth that there isn’t? Or is there a right wing myth that there is but another myth to debunk the pro myth right for the sake of making the left look like myth makers? Okay. I almost have it. Now, is the myth that the left thinks there is a myth? Or do the left think the myth is in fact a myth.
October 26th, 2005 at 4:57 pmOh goddamnit.
All I know is that the President said Saddam and Osama were in the same chapter of local Freemasons.
October 26th, 2005 at 5:00 pmThat’s right. Some dude named “Septic” told me.
October 26th, 2005 at 5:01 pmSceptimus Smith,
I have been coming in here for a couple of weeks now and have not seen you. Welcome aboard if you are new. I have a great time in here reading the posts of the truly nutty libs. Good times, indeed. Have a ball!
October 26th, 2005 at 5:05 pm“I have a great time in here reading the posts of the truly nutty libs. Good times, indeed.”
Aren’t you the same schmuck that accuses others of name calling? Nutty libs huh? – hypocrisy seems so second nature to republicans. It must be genetic.
October 26th, 2005 at 5:22 pm“The Bush administration was being provided intelligence from multiple sources and from numerous countries about what was believed to be a gathering threat in Iraq.”
References. The evidence disagrees with you. You’re posting generalities – post specifics and stop lying.
October 26th, 2005 at 5:25 pmSceptimus
Mom says it’s time for dinner. Wash your hands.
October 26th, 2005 at 5:59 pm“Mom says it’s time for dinner. Wash your hands.”
My brother! Hey, bro! Sup?
October 26th, 2005 at 6:04 pmSS,
Where is the proof of the ‘gathering threat’ you claim exists? The italians were discredited because Hadley apparently GAVE them the forged Niger document, and MI5 it was discovered had used a college grad student’s paper as the grounds for their ‘evidence’. So who’s left? The israeli government maybe? Bahaha, you got nothing!
October 26th, 2005 at 6:10 pm“Why bother? This troll reminds me of my five year old (minus the sociopathic tendencies and delusional thinking). At least she can come up with an original thought, silly as it may be.”
I’ll have you know I was given an “A” in debating skills here, bucko, so watch it.
October 26th, 2005 at 6:12 pm“I’ll have you know I was given an “A†in debating skills here, bucko, so watch it.
Comment by Sceptimus Smith ”
Home schooling doesn’t count…
October 26th, 2005 at 6:23 pm“I’ll have you know I was given an “A†in debating skills here, bucko, so watch it.
Comment by Sceptimus Smith â€
If you were such a good attorney, you’d be in court, not here, and this is no debate. If it was there would be judges and structure and you would have lost already, which brings us back to why you aren’t in court today.
October 26th, 2005 at 6:28 pmfor ss and other trolls,
from Newsweek,
Cheney and the commissars seemed especially determined to prove a now discredited claim: that Muhammad Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker, had secretly met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer in April 2001. If true, it would have backed administration assertions of a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, one of Bush and Cheney’s arguments justifying an invasion. The story fell apart on serious examination by the FBI and CIA—Atta was apparently in the United States at the time of the alleged visit. But Cheney CONTINUED to repeat the story in speeches and interviews, even after the 9/11 Commission found no evidence to support it.
- yeah sounds like they did not try to tie the two.
October 26th, 2005 at 6:31 pmsure uhuh. stupid trolls.
“Where is the proof of the ‘gathering threat’ you claim exists?”
What, do you want a laundry list? Here, start with the NIE on Iraq, entitled “Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction”…some key judgements:
-Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.
-Most agencies believe that Saddam’s personal interest in and Iraq’s aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors–as well as Iraq’s attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools–provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad’s nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.)
-All agencies agree that about 25,000 centrifuges based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire would be capable of producing approximately two weapons’ worth of highly enriched uranium per year.
-We judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives.
October 26th, 2005 at 6:46 pm“If you were such a good attorney, you’d be in court, not here, and this is no debate. If it was there would be judges and structure and you would have lost already, which brings us back to why you aren’t in court today.”
I’m trying to figure out where YOU are – what color is the sky in your world, junior?
October 26th, 2005 at 6:48 pm“Home schooling doesn’t count…”
I wasn’t home schooled, but I find this elitist, oft-repeated liberal meme that denigrates home schooling interesting…a good chunk of evidence indicates that home-schooled students often meet or exceed most states’ educational standards and do very well on SAT tests.
October 26th, 2005 at 6:55 pmSS,
You’re such a miserable and horrible liar.
1) It was 60,000 and not 25,000 tubes.
2) This claim was refuted within 24 hours by the Energy Department, which issued three papers debunking the idea over a four-month period in 2001, and by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
You’re a FOOL, why do you repeatedly post debunked lies? Are you just stupid, or inept? Or are you like bush, and you’re both?
October 26th, 2005 at 6:56 pm““Home schooling doesn’t count…â€
I wasn’t home schooled, but I find this elitist, oft-repeated liberal meme that denigrates home schooling interesting…a good chunk of evidence indicates that home-schooled students often meet or exceed most states’ educational standards and do very well on SAT tests.
Comment by Sceptimus Smith ”
They also think the world is flat and 8000 years old. Ignorance is bliss, and republicans are the most blissful people in the country.
Part of it is the complete lack of standards and curriculum that usually comes with this practice.
Since 1993 homeschooling has been legal in every state, albeit with differing degrees of oversight. According to the Home School Legal Defense Association:
* 10 states have no regulation. Parents aren’t required to notify the state that they’re homeschooling their children.
* 14 states have low regulation. Parents are required only to notify the state that they’re homeschooling their children.
* 15 states have moderate regulation. Parents are required to notify the state that they’re homeschooling their children, and they must also send test scores and/or professional evaluations of their child’s academic progress.
* 11 states have high regulation. Parents are required to notify the state that they’re homeschooling their children; they must send test scores and/or professional evaluation of their child’s academic progress; and they must fulfill other requirements as well, such as using only state-approved curricula and allowing home visits by state officials.
October 26th, 2005 at 7:00 pm“but I find this elitist, oft-repeated liberal meme that denigrates home schooling interesting…”
Bahaha, the republican moralist is making fun of others being elitist? The republican party’s entire foundation is based on elitism of one form or another, and typically it’s based on unfounded and irrational mythology! Bahahah, god you’re stupid!
October 26th, 2005 at 7:01 pm“They also think the world is flat and 8000 years old.”
Who? Liberals? Maybe if they were home-schooled, they’d be smarter. Then again, mom and dad are probably liberals too, so….maybe they should stick to (shudder) public schools.
October 26th, 2005 at 7:06 pm“1) It was 60,000 and not 25,000 tubes.”
Thanks for increasing the gathering threat.
“2) This claim was refuted within 24 hours by the Energy Department, which issued three papers debunking the idea over a four-month period in 2001,
They did??? Wow, that’s an amazing, AMAZING feat, considering the fact that the NIE wasn’t published until October of 2002.
Brilliant research on your part, Ryan, just brilliant.
October 26th, 2005 at 7:11 pm“They did??? Wow, that’s an amazing, AMAZING feat, considering the fact that the NIE wasn’t published until October of 2002.
Brilliant research on your part, Ryan, just brilliant. “SS
Exactly, it was REPEATED after it had been debunked you stupid jackass! In otherwords, they repeated KNOWN FALSE INFORMATION in 2002 you moron! You’re right, it is brilliant – it shows that they repeated a lie again, even though it had been PROVEN to be a lie over 1 year before. Classic republicanism, here we are in 2005, and you’re still repeating the same debunked lies. You’re clearly a swiftie – you are allergic to the truth.
October 26th, 2005 at 7:13 pmI think we should have offered up therapy and indictments in the face of the gathering threat, like we did after 911.
October 26th, 2005 at 7:22 pm“Cheney and the commissars seemed especially determined to prove a now discredited claim: that Muhammad Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker, had secretly met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer in April 2001. If true, it would have backed administration assertions of a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, one of Bush and Cheney’s arguments justifying an invasion. The story fell apart on serious examination by the FBI and CIA—Atta was apparently in the United States at the time of the alleged visit. But Cheney CONTINUED to repeat the story in speeches and interviews, even after the 9/11 Commission found no evidence to support it.”
The 9/11 report does speak to the Atta/Prague issue and they do conclude there was no evidence to support it. What I find more interesting is how they came to that conclusion – the 9/11 commission was told that security camera images around the Iraqi embassy were reviewed on the day the meeting was to have taken place, and there wasn’t anyone who looked like Atta. They also asked Czech border officials if they remember seeing anyone cross the border who looked “arab.” I find those reasons used to discount the report weak.
It’s also interesting to note that the Czech intelligence service and the US legal attache who initially took the report of the meeting
still maintain they believe the original source who said he witnessed the meeting.
I have no idea whether the meeting took place, but clearly Cheney thought there was some veracity to it – but if he put as much stock in the report as you suggest, then why wasn’t he openly claiming a link between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks? To this day, neither he nor the President have ever stated there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11.
October 26th, 2005 at 7:49 pmWhy argue with a dead man?
October 26th, 2005 at 7:54 pmSS,
What evidence does the U.S. government have that Mohammed Atta was in the United States on April 8, 2001?
The US governement has no record of Mohammed Atta leaving and re-entering the US in April 2001. They also were unable to locate a plane ticket that would have been used Mr. Atta to fly between the US and the Czech Republic. Finally, the U.S. Government has tracked Mr. Atta’s movements before 9/11 via phone records, cellphone bills, and credit card receipts as part of the investigation of the 9/11 attacks.
Czechoslovakian government officials have quietly acknowledged that they may have been mistaken about a supposed meeting at the Iraqi Embassy last April in Prague between suspected Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent, Newsweek reports in the current issue. U.S. intelligence officials now believe that Atta, the hijackers’ ringleader, wasn’t even in Prague at the time the Czechs claimed. “We looked
at this real hard because, obviously, if it were true, it would be huge,” one senior U.S. law-enforcement official tells Newsweek. “But nothing has matched
up.”
After Sept. 11, a Czech intelligence source inside Prague’s Middle Eastern community saw Atta’s
picture in the media and reported that he had seen the same person meeting al-Ani at the Iraqi Embassy five months earlier, Isikoff reports.
On closer scrutiny, the evidence became less convincing. Although Atta had indeed flown from Prague to the U.S. in June 2000, the Czechs had placed the
alleged meeting in April 2001. The FBI could find no visa or airline records showing he had left or re-entered the United States that month. “Neither we
nor the Czechs nor anybody else has any information he was coming or going [to Prague] at that time,” says one U.S. official.
The CIA and FBI do not believe that Mohammed Atta ever left the United States during April 2001. That is the OFFICIAL position of everyone but republican tinfoil conspiracists – that would be YOU!
October 26th, 2005 at 7:59 pmGR,
Good question – it’s clearly a waste of time. The lies keep coming from republicans like explosive diarrhea.
October 26th, 2005 at 8:00 pm“I have no idea whether the meeting took place, but clearly Cheney thought there was some veracity to it – but if he put as much stock in the report as you suggest, then why wasn’t he openly claiming a link between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks? To this day, neither he nor the President have ever stated there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11.”
Actually by claiming that the Atta trip took place, they are in fact making the claim you say they aren’t. Or had that simple concept never dawned on you? Of course it hadn’t. Now you say he saw some ‘veracity’ to it, but that would require him believe it to be ‘true’. Whether it was true or not was clearly less important than whether it was useful. Any disinformation that could be used to go after saddam was used, and reused, even after it had proven to be false. This is what propagandists (you qualify at this point) do. They lie to justify their immorality.
October 26th, 2005 at 8:03 pmSceptimus,
You’ve been thoroughly debunked here. Your arrogance makes you seem desperate and insecure.
October 26th, 2005 at 8:04 pmJay,
Right on!
These guys rehash the same lies over and over, like they’re new. They’ve been debunked more times than paris hilton – and yet the same lunatic lies bubble back. These morons are just as inept as the whole administration is! Just goes to show you how dangerous it is for the mainstream media to belong to a handful of conservative companies. Propaganda, lies and disinformation make 39% of americans as stupid as the president!
October 26th, 2005 at 8:20 pm“Czechoslovakian government officials have quietly acknowledged that they may have been mistaken…”
Indeed. They were SO quiet about it, in fact, that apparently they never told anyone. The above quote just appears out of thin air in Isikoff’s Newsweek article. He doesn’t cite any sources or print any quotes from anyone to suggest this is anything other than his own opinion.
October 26th, 2005 at 8:25 pm“You’ve been thoroughly debunked here. Your arrogance makes you seem desperate and insecure.”
I’ll have you know, sir, that I am proud of my desperation and insecurities. They are but a few of the qualities that make me so loveable and endearing to so many.
October 26th, 2005 at 8:29 pmSS,
October 26th, 2005 at 8:35 pmwhat I find more interesting is how how you ignore the fact that Mr F*ckOFF was repeating the lie about the Atta meeting – even though it was proven to be untrue.
Many millions of us smarter folks that are not Bush lickers knew he was spewing a lie at the time. But so many other Faux news watchers just ate it it up as fact. Such as the aluminum tubes, when Condelissa Rice repeated the lie a year AFTER it had allready been debunked on a Buzzflash link I found – I was astounded at the audacity of the bald face lie.
He also said with certainty “Simply said, Saddam has reconstituted Nuclear Weapons”. How do you support such lying wicked evil bastards?
“Indeed. They were SO quiet about it, in fact, that apparently they never told anyone.”SS
Wrong again. You sure a lazy and stupid fvck. Not only did has this debunked from SEVERAL official sources, but the liar was identified as a partisan moron who hated palestinians…
“The much publicized allegation that the man named as the ringleader of the September 11 terrorist attacks met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague was a lie, and the Czech president told the Bush administration so, according to an article appearing in the New York Times October 21. Yet top administration officials have continued to insist upon this phony Iraqi-Al Qaeda connection in order to bolster their case for war.
According to the Times report, Czech President Vaclav Havel warned the Bush administration early this year that there existed no evidence that Mohamed Atta, who piloted one of the passenger airliners into the World Trade Center, met with Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, an official at Baghdad’s embassy in Prague.
The conduit for the purported Czech intelligence report was the country’s former Prime Minister Milos Zeman, a politician known more for bluster and demagogy than intelligence.”
October 26th, 2005 at 8:38 pm“I’ll have you know, sir, that I am proud of my desperation and insecurities. They are but a few of the qualities that make me so loveable and endearing to so many.
Comment by Sceptimus Smith”
Delusion is a deep well…
October 26th, 2005 at 8:38 pmAnd this:
“We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on,†FBI Director Robert Mueller said in a little reported speech in April. The conclusion: Atta was never in Prague on the day of the alleged meeting and there was no evidence that he ever met with Iraqi intelligence.
Czech intelligence officials attributed the report to a restaurant owner anxious to discredit a rival by claiming he catered to terrorists. They likewise found that the Iraqi diplomat in question regularly met with a friend, a used car dealer, who bore some physical resemblance to Atta.
October 26th, 2005 at 8:39 pmSS and #71–Sorry for the delay in answering–I’ve been out since noon but it seems you’ve run quite a dialogue through the day. I don’t know what the issue is with the word “victim”, but–for starters, Tom DeLay has been posturing himself as a “target”–his word–of DA Ronnie Earle since his indictment. He also once accused former Rep. Chris Bell of being a “partisan stalker”–again, his words; and has accused Nany Pelosi of “persecuting” him–I think that what his word. Now he may not have specifically spoken the word “victim” but being a “target”, or being “stalked” or “persecuted” certainly implies victimization. Then, there was Ken Mehlman and other GOP stragegists–e.g. Kristol–all over the cable news shows for days following his indictment accusing the Dems of “conspiracy” against conservatives–specifically targeting Delay, Frist (SEC investigation) and another Repub whose name I can’t recall at this time. Again, conspiracy implies there is a victim. This is certainly not the first time Mehlman or the GOPer’s have cried “left wing conspiracy”.
October 26th, 2005 at 8:40 pmBut, again, I’m not sure why you’re picking on the word “victim”. I would think you would have been more offended by a few other comments in my original posting.
“Actually by claiming that the Atta trip took place, they are in fact making the claim you say they aren’t. Or had that simple concept never dawned on you? Of course it hadn’t. Now you say he saw some ‘veracity’ to it, but that would require him believe it to be ‘true’.”
Actually, simply stating “We believe Saddam was behind the attacks on 9/11″ is making the claim. Citing a report of a meeting between Atta and an Iraqi diplomat and calling the credibility of the report “an open question” as the vice president did, is NOT. Or is that simply a concept that never dawned on you?
October 26th, 2005 at 8:40 pmActually SS you moron,
October 26th, 2005 at 8:48 pmContinuely repeating LIES that “infer” a connection between Iraq and the attacks on 911 – had the effect to convince many people that the two were in fact connected. This to start a war for PNAC goals, which is
a fantasy as we all the left claimed and have been proven right. No joy in gloat, the cost was too high.
Just a reminder SS….I gave you an “A” for debating skills, but an “F” on intellectual honesty. The former means a whole lot less to me than the latter.
2000 Americans have died fighting an elective war that was built on lies to further the Republican domestic political agenda. That’s criminal and no amount of well structured sentences can mask the fact that you are an apologist for these criminals. Glad I don’t have to live with your conscience.
October 26th, 2005 at 8:49 pm“Actually, simply stating “We believe Saddam was behind the attacks on 9/11″ is making the claim. ”
Direct language
“Citing a report of a meeting between Atta and an Iraqi diplomat and calling the credibility of the report “an open question†as the vice president did, is NOT. Or is that simply a concept that never dawned on you?”
Ah, But that’s not what happened, you’re ‘twisting’ the event.
Citing a report which claims that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence before 9/11 makes a case that Iraqi was involved in 9/11. You are in fact stating Iraqi involvement. Just because Cheney ‘backpeddled’ on this claim, did not mean the claim was made. It was made, it was repeated – hell you repeated it on this site today.
The fact is you and the republican spin machine have repeated a debunked lie, over, and over, like it was never debunked. That makes you an idiot, a propagandist or most likely BOTH!
October 26th, 2005 at 8:52 pmAnd here:
On March 24, 2002, Cheney again told NBC, “We discovered . . . the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague.”
On Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney, again on “Meet the Press,” said that Atta “did apparently travel to Prague. . . . We have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer a few months before the attacks on the World Trade Center.”
“What does the CIA say about that?” asked host Tim Russert. “Is it credible?”
“It’s credible,” Cheney replied.
October 26th, 2005 at 8:57 pm“But, again, I’m not sure why you’re picking on the word ‘victim’. I would think you would have been more offended by a few other comments in my original posting.”
Eh. I think there’s an element of truth to how DeLay describes what Ronnie Earle is doing – considering the fact that Earle initially indicted him for violating a law in 2002 that wasn’t written until 2003, then running to the grand jury like a scalded dog on the last day they are empaneled to get a second indictiment…and then when he doesn’t get it, running to ANOTHER grand jury, finally finding one willing to indict on a second charge. It stinks.
With respect other possible indictments on other people – I just disagree with what you suggested would be the “strategery”, as it were, of playing the victim. The president is on record praising Fitzgerald as are other Republicans. Fitz is apparently honest and a straight-shooter, unlike Ronnie Earle. Playing the victim just doesn’t work.
I think the strategery will be much more simple – if there are indictments, the WH is going to hope like hell that whoever is indicted defends themselves successfully in court.
October 26th, 2005 at 9:09 pm“Citing a report which claims that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence before 9/11 makes a case that Iraqi was involved in 9/11. You are in fact stating Iraqi involvement. Just because Cheney ‘backpeddled’ on this claim, did not mean the claim was made. It was made, it was repeated – hell you repeated it on this site today.”
I repeated “the claim” insofar as I noted that the veep commented on the report, which he clearly thought
had veracity, and was a piece to the puzzle. Your tortured stretch from that to a Bush/Cheney claim of links between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks simply doesn’t hold up to the facts, as I have proven to you about a dozen times already.
Your theory has been debunked, you aren’t credible, yet you continue to repeat your lame screeds. Why? Is it a mental defect? Off your meds? What?
October 26th, 2005 at 9:21 pmSS you are a mental midget.
October 26th, 2005 at 9:25 pmHe lied when he said it. that is the point that Ryan and I are making. If lay people like many of the readers of this site KNEW that the Atta meeting was bulls!t – how is it that the VP of the US did not know.
He did, and chose to lie, that is the point you nimrod.
I don’t really give a crap about the Iraqi connection to 911, or Atta’s whereabouts and/or link to all this. But Ryan Neat is clearly clobbering what’s his face in this debate. Hands down. I think both need a shot of Jack, but Ryan is better equiped.
When you truly inspect it, however, Ryan is stating examples which seem to strongly convey an accurate representation of history, whereupon what’s his face just simply denies it or changes the subject or lies.
Ryan? Why are you doing this? Go play a video game! Thanks for being on my side!
October 26th, 2005 at 9:28 pmSS 290: We shall see, we shall see.
October 26th, 2005 at 9:29 pmBut the comments I’ve read from the Repubs about Fitz over the last few days have not been kind. Like overzealous”. And what about the TP’s post yesterday quoting a WH “ally”–I would assume that to be a Republican–who described Fitz as “a vile detestable” man with “no conscience”. That doesn’t sound like praise!
No doubt, the next few days should reveal who is closer to the true Republican response.
I believe Sceptimus Smith is the same individual who used to be “Editors”, american federalist urinal. Same writing style. Same smug delivery.
October 26th, 2005 at 9:31 pmA nimrod is probably not what you think.
October 26th, 2005 at 9:32 pm“2000 Americans have died fighting an elective war that was built on lies to further the Republican domestic political agenda. That’s criminal and no amount of well structured sentences can mask the fact that you are an apologist for these criminals. Glad I don’t have to live with your conscience.”
I really wish you guys would find someone to write new talking points. These old, stale, discredited and debunked ones are tiresome. I feel like I’m debating robots.
How’s that for intellectual honesty?
October 26th, 2005 at 9:34 pmNimrod is a scalable routing architecture designed to support a dynamic
thanks #296
dipsh!t then.
October 26th, 2005 at 9:34 pmThey keep you comin back, that’s for sure. Do you have any friends what’s his face?
October 26th, 2005 at 9:36 pm“And what about the TP’s post yesterday quoting a WH ‘ally’–I would assume that to be a Republican–who described Fitz as ‘a vile detestable’ man with ‘no conscience’. That doesn’t sound like praise!”
I read that too, Lily, and I find it quite suspicious and convenient that the quote is from yet another anonymous “ally” – I find the comments completely offensive, and if a Bush ally did in fact make them, he (or she) did so in direct conflict with Bush’s own statements about Fitz. Bush has praised Fitz on more than occasion. I wouldn’t be surprised if this “ally” turned out to be a paid Post shill who says whatever they ask him to say.
October 26th, 2005 at 9:42 pmI agree with you, Sceptimus Smith.
October 26th, 2005 at 9:48 pmPardon me(Hee hee!), I am referring to the “vile” comment.
October 26th, 2005 at 9:49 pm“He lied when he said it. that is the point that Ryan and I are making. If lay people like many of the readers of this site KNEW that the Atta meeting was bulls!t – how is it that the VP of the US did not know.
He did, and chose to lie,”
Dumbastard or whatever your name is,
No “lay people on this site” had a CLUE whether the report about Atta was true or not at the time the report was provided to Cheney and you still don’t. You have absolutely no way of knowing whether Atta met with anyone in Prague or not – none. You are doing what all good little DNC spin monkeys do, you are operating on a set of preconceived assumptions. You don’t want to believe anything that supports the Bush administration, so you simply dismiss anything that does – facts and evidence be damned. Cheney thought the report was credible – you don’t. That’s the sum total of your argument. It doesn’t mean Cheney “lied” or Bush “lied” or any other silly, juvenile talking point you acquire from Michael Moore and the DailyKos.
October 26th, 2005 at 9:56 pmIdiot SS,
I provided a direct quote by Newsweek indicating it had been disproven by both FBI and CIA. Here is a different link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192327/site/newsweek
“undermined by a series of recent U.S. government reports, including the September 11 Commission report, which concluded there was no “collaborative operational relationship†between Iraq and Al Qaeda”
read it and come back with some modicum if intelectual honesty you moron – or stfu.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:18 pmlying ass.
Hey Guys,
When is someone going to point out Richard Mellon Scaife- the hoover institute – heritage foundation etc etc etc.
O’Reilly sugested that there is nothing like Media Matters or CAP… what a lying piece of trash.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:19 pmNotice the references were from mainstream right wing media not from Moore or Daily Kos. Not that there is anything wrong with those references as they do tell the truth you a-hole.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:19 pmI think any cogent rational reason for war should have been better spelled out. CLEARLY, by listening to Septic man there was enough evidence. OH! But wait, Cheney said he knew under the table stuff that little people aren’t privy to. Oh well, better luck next time!
October 26th, 2005 at 10:41 pmThat’ll teach ya to go off to war in the heat of a national uproar and loyalty blackmail! Goshgolly! How were we to know we would actually HAVE TO be held accountable! Gosh darnit!
“No “lay people on this site†had a CLUE whether the report about Atta was true or not at the time the report was provided to Cheney and you still don’t. You have absolutely no way of knowing whether Atta met with anyone in Prague or not – none.”SShithead
Sure there’s a way to know. The CIA and FBI had full access to the czech intelligence, and they dispute the findings. Not to mention the fact that the person who was ‘mistaken’ to be Atta was later identified.
Not only ‘can’ we know, but we DO know.
Once again, you lose, you lie, you’re an IDIOT!
October 26th, 2005 at 11:40 pmDAN,
So true. Mellon-Scaife is the very face of evil itself.
October 26th, 2005 at 11:44 pmYAY!, they are afraid of us again!!! YAY!!! I can’t wait to be called a “red” or a communist again!
October 27th, 2005 at 11:29 amThe neo-cons who have taken power in this country are not your grandfather’s conservatives. This is a group of very well-connected insiders who have used religion and fear to convince just enough of the American voters that they have the best plan for America. You get voters to vote against their best interests when you bait them with religious dogma. So the right-wing has been able to bait and switch America by proclaiming itself the “Christian” party that will uphold Christian moral values and their talk-radio machine follows the talking points given out by the White House to the letter. Funny thing is those who are in the Bush Administration tend to behave as if they have never heard of Jesus or read the New Testament. Their war on the poor to line the pockets of the rich and powerful certainly wasn’t a part of the teachings of Jesus I ever read. Their assault on science & education will put America at a greater disadvantage in competing with China, India and other emerging nations in the years to come. Their enviornmental legacy is that corporate profits mean more than saving our precious natural resources. They have learned well from the lesson left by the Nazis. Those lessons are to use religion and nationalism as a method to advance your agenda and to attack anyone who dissents as a disloyal citizen who hates their country. To get a glimpse of the mindset of the neo-cons, read Richard Steigmann-Gall’s “The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945.” Then substitute any right-wing mouthpiece for the Nazi mouthpiece in the book and amazingly you get the same propaganda as we hear out the White House and the right-wing talk machine. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat those mistakes… much to the detriment of our freedoms and way of life.
October 27th, 2005 at 11:58 amI think the Dems are doing fine keeping their mouths shut and not reacting to the wide open baiting I saw last night from Tucker Carlson and Scarborough. O’Reilly needs a session with his loofah. JWC
October 27th, 2005 at 1:34 pmI found this a very humorous article. The right invented charicter assination. (Remember Clinton?) What did they think the left was going to do when all republicans were in control, roll over and play dead? The shoe is on the other foot now and the right HATES that! If they want to talk hatefull charicter assination just tune into Rush Limbaugh – he’s a master at it!
October 27th, 2005 at 1:40 pmNaturally, the common people don’t want war, but they can always be brough to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and endangering the country. It works the same in every country. — Herman Goering, Hitlers Reichsmarschall at the Nuremberg trials
October 27th, 2005 at 1:46 pmRE: posts #96 and #187 – The deficit may have been less this year than last year, but clearly you’ve got your terms slightly confused if you think this decreases the DEBT. Your link to the CBO’s projections shows that through 2015 (the last year on the report) there is no projection for a budget surplus. In other words, each year until 2015 (and likely beyond) we are INCREASING the debt. In fact, the report projects that by 2015 the debt will have increased by nearly 50% due to the year-by-year deficits. Given that Bush in the 2004 campaign pledged to halve the deficit by 2009 and the CBO projections show that the 2009 deficit will be only slightly less than it is this year I think he has a long way to go in fulfilling his promises. And you’d be naive to state that the deficit is not the direct result of Bush’s huge increase in spending combined with tax cuts. Considering that real income has stagnated (except for the top 10% of earners), that poverty has increased in four consecutive years, that unemployment is still a full percentage point higher than it was at the end of the Clinton administration and that there’s been a tremendous increase in the number of people without health insurance, it’s fairly clear that Bush’s economic policies have hurt those who are worst-off while benefiting only a small portion of the population – namely the upper class.
October 27th, 2005 at 3:32 pm“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”
-Harry Truman-
“A man compounded of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole country with his religion and then destroy them under color of law.”
-Benjamin Franklin-
“Redefining the roll of the United States from enablers to keep the peace, to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment.”
October 27th, 2005 at 3:41 pm-George W. Bush-
Lenore @ 312 –
“I found this a very humorous article. The right invented charicter assination. (Remember Clinton?)”
It started loooong before Clinton. My first recollection of the new Republican politics of personal character assassinations started with them going after Ed Muskie’s wife.
October 27th, 2005 at 8:28 pmMedia Matters….sounds safe, smells bad, not good….
November 26th, 2005 at 3:19 amPrivate Media Group, one of the largest Porn Companies in the world, will soon release a movie called “God’s Will.†Apparently the movie is a shameless parody of Bill O’Reilly, America’s favourite ultra-conservative, and his incredibly popular program, The O’Reilly Factor. I have not seen the movie as yet, but it appears that the movie is making fun of O’Reilly’s constant “holier than thou†attitude. In the film our anchor man is endowed with the powers of God after claiming that he would make a pretty good job of it, but instead of solving the problems of the world as you would think a good ultra conservative right wing radical would do, he uses his powers to engage in several acts of sexual debauchery… I can’t wait to finally see it :D
February 24th, 2006 at 4:53 pm