Liberal MSM shows hypocritical true colors again, criticizing Bush/troops interview

[fossten]

Up the Creek: Out to Embarrass Bush Over Alleged Video Stunt, Today Gets Caught in Stunt of Its Own

Posted by Mark Finkelstein on October 14, 2005 - 07:10.

In a deliciously ironic twist of fate, shortly before airing a segment aimed at embarrassing the Bush administration by suggesting that it had staged a video conversation between the president and soldiers in Iraq, the Today show was caught staging . . . a video stunt.

In the Bush/Iraq segment, Today screened footage indicating that prior to engaging in a video conversation with President Bush, soldiers on the ground in Iraq were given tips by a Department of Defense official.

But the only advice that the official was shown as giving was a suggestion to one solider to "take a little breath" before speaking to the president so he would actually be speaking to him. It was also stated that some of the soldiers practiced their comments so as to appear as articulate as possible. But there was no indication, or even allegation, that the soldiers were coached as to the substance of their comments or in any way instructed what to say.

Video excerpt: Real or Windows Media

Today's timing couldn't have been worse. A preceding segment focused on the incessant rains and ensuing flooding in the northeast. For days now, beautiful, blonde - and one senses highly ambitious - young reporter Michelle Kosinski has been on the scene for Today in New Jersey, working the story. In an apparent effort to draw attention to herself, in yesterday's segment she turned up in hip waders, standing thigh-deep in the flood waters.

Taking her act one step further, this morning she appeared on a suburban street . . . paddling a canoe. There was one small problem. Just as the segment came on the air, two men waded in front of Kosinki . . . and the water barely covered their shoe tops! That's right, Kosinski's canoe was in no more than four to six inches of water!

An embarrassed Kosinski claimed the water was deeper down the street but that her producers didn't want to let her go there for fear she'd drift away. But Katie and Matt, perhaps peeved by her attempted scene-stealing, couldn't resist ribbing her.

Matt: "Are these holy men, perhaps walking on top of the water?"

"Gee, is your oar hitting ground, Michelle?" inquired Katie, as she and Matt dissolved into laughter.

Moral of the story: people in canoes in a few inches of water shouldn't throw video-stunt stones.

Finkelstein has degrees from Cornell University and Harvard Law
School.He lives in Ithaca, NY where he hosts "Right Angle," a local
political talk show. Finkelstein specializes in exposing liberal bias
at NBC's Today Show.



http://newsbusters.org/node/2199

 

[MonsterMark]

How bout the time Al Gore wanted to make an environmental speech in New Hampshire and went out to the river to film some footage. Instead of a raging river that Mr. Tough Guy was supposed to wade thru, there was less than 6 inches of water. So, with the media's help, they (Gore's group) went upstream to a dam and had them release the dam to create a flood scene. 4 million gallons came down the stream, enough for Al to get up to his knee caps in it. They got their footage. Unfortunately for the residents of the area, they were put on water rations the rest of year and could not water the grass or wash the car.

Liberal hypocrites... and I could name a dozen more.

Like Clinton and Hillary dancing on the beach with no music 2 weeks prior to the Monica bombshell. Or when Clinton was walking the beach in France and just happened upon some rocks that he laid out into a cross.

Give me a break. In this case with Bush, the 'media' caught this while all the cameras were rolling because the White House and the Pentagon had nothing they were trying to hide and there was nothing coached about it. Watch the video.

No wonder I have such strong distaste for our liberal, hypocritical media.

 

[fossten]

What about Edward Lee Pitts and the infamous soldier questioning Rumsfeld about the lack of uparmored Humvees?

December 10, 2004

A Blogosphere Failure


The story about the soldier in Kuwait who challenged Donald Rumsfeld over equipment shortages in Iraq is fading away already, but it should not pass without more penetrating comment. As we now know, the soldier's question was not spontaneous, but had been concocted in collaboration with an embedded reporter from his (and my) local paper, the Chattanooga Times Free Press, who was trying to work around the DoD's decision to restrict the questioners on this occasion to soldiers. We know this background because the reporter told all in an injudicious email to his colleagues, one of whom passed the email along to Matt Drudge. It is worth reading in whole, because it says a lot about the way reporters habitually wrap their own naked personal ambition and moral corner-cutting in the flag of telling a story that "needed to be told."

It happens that I have some younger friends in that same unit, and I'm aware of the fact, since this unit does not yet have direct experience of Iraqi conditions, the questioner could not possibly have based his question on firsthand knowledge. Nor could the embedded reporter. That there would be widespread anxiety prior to a deployment, on a variety of matters, is entirely understandable. There always is. For a reporter to gin up the anxiety level with one guy, and then manipulate the results into "news" is precisely the kind of MSM behavior that bloggers have rightly been complaining about. Also misreported is the fact that Rumsfeld gave an excellent answer to this ambushing question. Even if you grant that it was a good question, why not also report that it got a reasonable answer, from a SecDef who was not afraid to field such questions?

Why then have the folks at Powerline and Kerry Spot given the reporter a pass on this one? Beats me. But a much better analysis can be found here, at The Daily Polemic. Even there, though, one should not take too seriously the mild criticisms of the reporter by TFP editor Tom Griscom reported therein. This morning's TFP (registration required) has a front-page defense of the reporter, quoting from "an ethicist" at the Poynter Institute (the same outfit that took a week to notice the Rathergate phenomenon) who said it was all OK, and even praising the reporter's "enterprise." And the editorial page has an end-zone-dance of a blast entitled "A Need for Armor, Not Excuses," and a blistering op-ed from E.J. Dionne.

Of course, the net effect is next to nil. Most folks in these parts would trust Rumsfeld before they'd trust the local paper, and people who know something about war know that such problems are the rule rather than the exception. The whole affair is yet another inconsequential example of the press's instinct to think it is doing something important by trying to embarrass the Bush administration, nipping ineffectually at its heels, and interjecting itself into the story rather than reporting the news intelligently. And make no mistake, this reporter's fortunes will surely rise because of his actions, whatever Tom Griscom may say publicly. The victory-dance editorial tells it all. Too bad that the bloggers cooperated this time.

UPDATE: I may have misunderestimated the self-corrective virtues of the blogosphere. The Kerry Spot entry today gets right to the heart of the matter, i.e., the orchestration of the question, rather than the question itself. Good show. At best, the verdict on this little interchange cannot be better than "fake but accurate." And where have we heard that before....

 

[97silverlsc]

You guys need to wake up and smell the coffee, stop drinking the kool aid!!!!
Caught on Tape

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, October 14, 2005; 3:00 PM

White House spokesman Scott McClellan repeatedly insisted that the troops participating in a videoconference from Iraq with President Bush yesterday morning hadn't been coached.

But the satellite feed of painstaking rehearsals led by a senior Pentagon official said otherwise.
And as a result, television journalists for once had a field day exposing the sleight of hand to which they are more often accessories.

Up until now, the degree to which most Bush events are meticulously choreographed has not been a great story for TV. That's because the elaborate preparations -- the stage-setting, the screening and prepping of participants, and any number of steps to ensure that nothing remotely like dissent intrudes upon the president -- all typically happen behind the curtain.

In fact, TV tends to lap up precisely the kind of stirring, spotless imagery the White House normally cranks out for public consumption.

But yesterday, all that changed when an errant satellite feed fell in their laps.

Suddenly, instead of covering a highly artificial and largely newsless event the normal way -- broadcasting the desired images, playing the hoary sound bites and making it seem like something new was said -- pretty much everyone today led with the artifice.

On TV

It was extraordinary.

Brian Williams and Andrea Mitchell turned four full minutes at the top of "NBC Nightly News" into a report on the imbroglio -- and a discourse on the staged nature of so many White House events. (If the Williams/Mitchell link isn't working, Kelly O'Donnell used some of the same video this morning on the Today Show.)

Here's Williams:

"It was billed as a chance for the president to hear directly from the troops in Iraq. The White House called it a 'back and forth,' a 'give and take,' and so reporters who cover the White House were summoned this morning to witness a live video link between the commander in chief and the U.S. soldiers in the field, as the elections approach in Iraq.

"The problem was, before the event was broadcast live on cable TV, the satellite picture from Iraq was being beamed back to television newsrooms here in the U.S. It showed a full-blown rehearsal of the president's questions, in advance, along with the soldiers' answers and coaching from the administration.

"While we should quickly point out this was hardly the first staged political event we have covered -- and we've seen a lot of them in the past -- today's encounter was billed as spontaneous. Instead, it appeared to follow a script."

Williams then turned things over to Mitchell, who showed a brief clip of deputy assistant defense secretary Allison Barber coaching the troops:

"If he gives us a question that is not something that we have scripted, Captain Kennedy, you are going to have that mike and that's your chance to impress us all. Master Sergeant Lombardo, when you are talking about the president coming to see you in New York, take a little breath before that so you can be talking directly to him. You got a real message there, ok?"

Says Mitchell, showing video of Bush on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln: "This isn't the first time the administration used troops to help sell the Iraq war.

"In fact, the Bush White House has choreographed everything from town hall meetings on Social Security to campaign events with planted questions. Many administrations, Democrat and Republican, stage-manage events. Often the news media ignore the choreography."

But the satellite feed, Mitchell concluded, offered "a rare look behind the curtain of a White House trying to sell an increasingly unpopular war."

Here's Terry Moran on ABC last night: "Well, as you know, this is a White House that's prided itself on expert stage managing and polished events of Mr. Bush's public appearances. Today, we got a glimpse behind the scenes.

"It was billed as a simple, straightforward back and forth conversation, a video teleconference between the president and a group of soldiers in Iraq. . . . But those questions, it turns out, came as no surprise to the soldiers. . . .

"Before the president appeared, Allison Barber, a senior Pentagon official, prepped the troops thoroughly, and in a rare White House slip-up, was caught on camera."

Lara Logan reported on the "CBS Evening News" that Bush's message "was overshadowed by questions about how much staging went into the event."

And even Fox News was in high dudgeon.

Here's Shepard Smith: "At least one senior military official tells Fox News that he is livid over the handling of U.S. troops in Iraq before their talk by satellite live with the president. . . .

"As the White House tries to prop up support for an increasingly unpopular war, today -- to hear it from military brass -- it used soldiers as props on stage.

"One commander tells Fox it was scripted and rehearsed -- the troops were told what to say to the president and how to say it. And that, says another senior officer today, is outrageous.

"It's certainly not the first time a photo op has been staged for the president -- far from it -- but it's the first time we know of that such a staging has touched off such anger."

On comes Carl Cameron: "First, the White House and the Pentagon claimed it was not rehearsed. But for 45 minutes before the event, the hand-picked soldiers practiced their answers with the Pentagon official from D.C. who, in her own words, drilled them on the president's likely questions and their, quote, scripted responses.

"There are folks here at the White House now walking around shaking their heads about how badly it appears to have gone."

On CNN this morning, Miles O'Brien amused himself by apparently reading from a transcript of what Barber said during the rehearsal.

"Here's the part I like," he said. " 'OK, so let's work on that answer a little bit, Captain Kennedy. Why don't you work on -- "We're working with the Iraqi soldiers and to my right is Master Sergeant." ' And then a little later, she says, 'You know, a few smiles wouldn't hurt back here on the TV.' A few smiles."

But it's doubtful that anyone has had as much fun with this story as MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, who under the rubric "White House follies" last night paired what he called "the president's choreographed satellite back-slapping session with the troops" with "the press secretary's knee-capping session with the White House press corps."

"It's like watching the Jesse Ventura show," he said after showing extensive clips of the troop rehearsal, and the ensuing event.

Olbermann asked Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank to explain what happened.

"It really is inexplicable," Milbank said. "This was a White House that did everything right, in terms of imagery, and now they just seem to have completely lost their mojo on fairly simple things. . . .

"It is tempting to say that none of this would have happened if Karl Rove were still alive, but that is oversimplifying. . . .

"I think what you are seeing here is a White House now sitting at 38 percent in the polls, and it has never been there before, and there's a bit of a panic setting in. They don't really know how to get out of this. They have always operated being out in front before and they don't know how to run it from behind."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Greene of NPR offers listeners four and a half minutes of audio from the rehearsal. He explains: "While it's common to use a trial run to ensure things go smoothly when the president arrives, the event, recorded by NPR, offered some insights into the meticulous nature of advance work."http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4957379
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas M. DeFrank and Corky Siemaszko write in the New York Daily News: "President Bush's supposedly unscripted Q&A session with the troops in Iraq yesterday was unmasked as a sham when a Pentagon official was caught coaching the soldiers Bush was going to question. . . .

"The White House is notorious for stage-managing Bush's events, notably the town hall meetings where prepicked participants ask Bush carefully screened questions. But it's rare that Bush's handlers get caught doing it so brazenly."

Jim VandeHei, writing in The Washington Post, describes it as "one of the stranger and most awkwardly staged publicity events of the Bush presidency. . . .

"Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) was not impressed. 'The American people and our brave troops deserve better than a photo-op for the president and a pep rally about Iraq,' he said. 'They deserve a plan. Unfortunately, today's event only served to highlight the fact that the president refuses to engage in a frank conversation about the realities on the ground.' . . .

"After a day of White House damage control, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence T. Di Rita put out a statement last night apologizing for 'any perception that [the soldiers] were told what to say' at the event. 'It is not the case,' he said. Di Rita said technological challenges prompted government officials to advise the soldiers what questions they would be asked 'solely to help the troops feel at ease during an obviously unique experience.' He said the soldiers decided who would answer."

Warren Vieth and Mark Mazzetti write in the Los Angeles Times: "President Bush touched off a new round of controversy over his policies in Iraq on Thursday when he conducted a videoconference interview about this weekend's constitutional referendum with a small group of handpicked troops stationed in Iraq who reinforced his upbeat view of the conflict."

The Event

The ultimate irony was that after all that rehearsing -- and maybe because of that rehearsing -- the event seemed awkward at best. It was choreographed, as Olbermann put it, "like your fifth grade class play was choreographed."

Pay close attention -- here's the transcript, here's the video -- and you'll notice that the answers Bush gets to his questions are not very responsive, as if Bush didn't ask the questions in the order the troops were expecting.

Bush asks if the Iraqi troops have improved, and Capt. Steven Pratt tells him about all the rehearsals for voting day.

Bush asks what the locals think, and Capt. David Williams explains that voter registration is up -- and then describes what someone else has heard from the locals, since he himself evidently hasn't spoken to any.

Bush asks how life has changed since the troops first got there, and Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo tells him about the time she met Bush before in New York after 9/11 -- and then answers his earlier question about whether Iraqi troops have improved.

Bush's own delivery was awkward, and his attempts at bonhomie were stymied by the time-lag.

 

[barry2952]

That might shut them up. :N

 

[TheDude]

That might shut them up. :N

It's pointless, you can show the die hard repub's video proof, written proof or whatever, they will deny it. In their eye's Bush can do no wrong, no matter how plain it is laid out. Come on now, the man can barely form a coherent sentence and yet they follow. As for liberal media, what about Fox News? They are the right wing news agency. But I suppose the repub's will say they never alter news media to favor the right.

 

[TheDude]

How bout the time Al Gore wanted to make an environmental speech in New Hampshire and went out to the river to film some footage. Instead of a raging river that Mr. Tough Guy was supposed to wade thru, there was less than 6 inches of water. So, with the media's help, they (Gore's group) went upstream to a dam and had them release the dam to create a flood scene. 4 million gallons came down the stream, enough for Al to get up to his knee caps in it. They got their footage. Unfortunately for the residents of the area, they were put on water rations the rest of year and could not water the grass or wash the car.

Liberal hypocrites... and I could name a dozen more.

Like Clinton and Hillary dancing on the beach with no music 2 weeks prior to the Monica bombshell. Or when Clinton was walking the beach in France and just happened upon some rocks that he laid out into a cross.

Give me a break. In this case with Bush, the 'media' caught this while all the cameras were rolling because the White House and the Pentagon had nothing they were trying to hide and there was nothing coached about it. Watch the video.

No wonder I have such strong distaste for our liberal, hypocritical media.

Ya, like Clinton's staged dancing is the same as a staged talk between Bush and the troops at war. Come on now! But then again, you (repub's) were ready to impeach Clinton for lieing about a private act that should of only concerned himself, his wife and M. Lewinsky but yet you won't even slap Bush's wrist for lieing to gain support for his war. WMD's anayone?

Also, the right has expressed it's concern's recently that even when the voting starts in Iraq they dont expect any real outcome towards stability. So I ask again, why are we there?

 

[Eleanor]

Ya, like Clinton's staged dancing is the same as a staged talk between Bush and the troops at war. Come on now! But then again, you (repub's) were ready to impeach Clinton for lieing about a private act that should of only concerned himself, his wife and M. Lewinsky but yet you won't even slap Bush's wrist for lieing to gain support for his war. WMD's anayone?

Also, the right has expressed it's concern's recently that even when the voting starts in Iraq they dont expect any real outcome towards stability. So I ask again, why are we there?

Okay...I have to reply to this one...........
Slick Willie...aka Clinton commits an act of adultery in the oval office while he is the commander and chief. Then lies to every U.S. citizen by stating “I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Wow….go Dems!!!!! got to love a sexual pervert in office!!!!
No matter how you slice it...we all know what happened. Thank god clinton's time was up.....I cant wait till his once gay wife runs for office, hmmm....
will she cheat on him? But if she does its non of my business right..?

Anywho….as for the WMD’s
bbc news link
Who do you think did this in 1988?

Yep…good idea. I know….we should have ignored Saddam…even though in his recent court hearings he admits to killing thousands. Ignore every terrorists group under the sun. Kind of like the ostrige syndrome, if you cant see them they are not really there. Live ourlives ignoring it all and not be on the OFFENSIVE....

 

[MonsterMark]

I have the perfect example of how the Democrats, if ever allowed back in the Oval (Oral) Office would deal with the terrorists and those that seek to harm us. They would be like the poor person in this video. Freaked out and stuck. Back and forth they would vasilate as we got the crap beaten out of us. Terrorists are waiting for another Bill Clinton type to take over the Commander-in-Chief position so they can attack without fear of retaliation.

This video is not for the faint of heart (warning) but pretty much demonstrates what I THINK we are dealing with. Terrorists are people that cannot be negotiated with. They are crazy like this guy and will take it out on whoever is closest and most convenient. (BTW, this guy needs to be choked out or run over several times)

~ Remember, if you watch the video, I warned you. ~

Is it simply a coincidence that we have not been attacked again? I haven't even heard a fart in a toilet from a terrorist on US soil since 9/11. What gives?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Anywho….as for the WMD’s
bbc news link
Who do you think did this in 1988?

Yep…good idea. I know….we should have ignored Saddam…even though in his recent court hearings he admits to killing thousands. Ignore every terrorists group under the sun. Kind of like the ostrige syndrome, if you cant see them they are not really there. Live ourlives ignoring it all and not be on the OFFENSIVE....

Your argument for Saddam ONCE HAVING WMDs nearly 20 years ago is ancient history. Not applicable in the 21st century. It has long been proven that the sanctions imposed on Saddam after Gulf-War I actually WORKED, despite all the lies and web of deception spun by the BuSh administration in '01 and '02.

 

[Calabrio]

Your argument for Saddam ONCE HAVING WMDs nearly 20 years ago is ancient history. Not applicable in the 21st century. It has long been proven that the sanctions imposed on Saddam after Gulf-War I actually WORKED, despite all the lies and web of deception spun by the BuSh administration in '01 and '02.

I guess you accidently forgot to include all those other people who maintained that Saddam was risk...


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Not to mention guys like:
Tony Blair
Jacque Chirac
Vladamir Putin

I guess you just forgot to mention these people...

 

[MonsterMark]

Calabrio, watch out. You might get in trouble like Fossten has for posting fact based, irrefutable arguments on this forum. This forum is dedicated to conjecture and innuendos.

When libs want to act tough, they run their mouths. But when it comes time to act, nowhere to be found.

 

[MonsterMark]

He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Even the Libs hero Hillary saw a clear connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Hummmmmmm.

 

[raVeneyes]

When libs want to act tough, they run their mouths. But when it comes time to act, nowhere to be found.

Funny...I can usually be found right in the thick of things.

 

[Calabrio]

Funny...I can usually be found right in the thick of things.

I haven't been here long, but I will give you credit for that. :bash:

 

[97silverlsc]

Okay...I have to reply to this one...........
Slick Willie...aka Clinton commits an act of adultery in the oval office while he is the commander and chief. Then lies to every U.S. citizen by stating “I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Wow….go Dems!!!!! got to love a sexual pervert in office!!!!

Yep, and lying about a BJ to the country had the same consequences for the country as lying about and deliberately disseminating known false intel to justify a war in Iraq!
After all, he did end up running up over 200 billion and counting tab for dress cleaning that we will pay for for years to come. And it really destroyed the credibility of the country that he lied about sexual improprieties while in office. And we all know that it was a real recruitment tool for terrorists that he invaded Monica like he did.
Get real. What shrub has done has far greater and far reaching consequences for this country than lying about a BJ!!!

 

[MonsterMark]

Phil, you love to accuse Bush of lying. Does this mean that all of your heros from the Democratic Party are also liars? Including former Vice-President Gore, Former President Clinton, and soon to be President Hillary? Are they not all liars as well? Even your last Presidential candidate was a liar. Are we being a hypocrite here?

I wait with baited breath for your response and blah, blah, blah.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

 

[Calabrio]

Yep, and lying about a BJ to the country had the same consequences for the country as lying about and deliberately disseminating known false intel to justify a war in Iraq!

Bill Clinton never faced legal consequence for lying during a press confrence. It was the perjury and the conspiracy to have other people commit perjury and impede an investigation that got him into trouble.

Lying under oath is a big deal.

As for your second incorrect claim, No one deliberately disseminated false intelligence to the public. Whether the international intelligence community was right or wrong regarding the assement of Iraq remains to be debated, but Bush certainly didn't "lie."

After all, he did end up running up over 200 billion and counting tab for dress cleaning that we will pay for for years to come. And it really destroyed the credibility of the country that he lied about sexual improprieties while in office. And we all know that it was a real recruitment tool for terrorists that he invaded Monica like he did.

I can't think of an appropriate comment for your failed attempt at being "clever."

Get real. What shrub has done has far greater and far reaching consequences for this country than lying about a BJ!!!

Again, you've misrepresented the truth.
Clinton broke the law. He's been impeached. He was found guilty of perjury. He was disbarred and could not practice law. He didn't get introuble because of an affair. He got introuble because he broke some serious laws.

 

[barry2952]

Mark my words. BuSh will be impeached in the next three years, guaranteed.

 

[MonsterMark]

Mark my words. BuSh will be impeached in the next three years, guaranteed.

For What? You have to be impeached for something. Go ahead, take a stab at it.

 

[barry2952]

Substitute George Bush for Clinton in the following quote and you'll have your answer:

Calabrio wrote:

"Bill Clinton never faced legal consequence for lying during a press confrence. It was the perjury and the conspiracy to have other people commit perjury and impede an investigation that got him into trouble."

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

I guess you accidently forgot to include all those other people who maintained that Saddam was risk...


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a [snip]

s had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Not to mention guys like:
Tony Blair
Jacque Chirac
Vladamir Putin

I guess you just forgot to mention these people...

Broken record time. That has to be about the 5,000th time I've seen that pathetically lame attempt on spreading the blame around for the illegal invasion of Iraq posted on this site. I see how you and Bryan are becomming good buddies.

So who does BuSh listen to for making his decisions? The same people that have been spoon-fed the same pack of lies? That's reassuring.

The buck still stops in the oval office. It'll be nice when a warm body actually shows up there to take it in three or less years.

 

[mespock]

Calabrio, watch out. You might get in trouble like Fossten has for posting fact based, irrefutable arguments on this forum. This forum is dedicated to conjecture and innuendos.

When libs want to act tough, they run their mouths. But when it comes time to act, nowhere to be found.

And that is only one sided?

Only your facts are facts and not conjecture and innuendos?

Only your media sources are factual as they agree with your point of view..

Bryan come on.. Oh and the conservative have not jumps any of your self named libs...

 

[Vitas]

Mark my words. BuSh will be impeached in the next three years, guaranteed.

What you are wishing for is for a serious, unwarranted, blow to the United States of America.

Maybe you should move to that place which would make you happier.

 

[Calabrio]

Substitute George Bush for Clinton in the following quote and you'll have your answer:

Calabrio wrote:

"Bill Clinton never faced legal consequence for lying during a press confrence. It was the perjury and the conspiracy to have other people commit perjury and impede an investigation that got him into trouble."

What an uninformed statement.
Bush has never perjured himself. Never engaged in a conspiracy to have people obstruct a legal investigation. And furthermore, Bush isn't a lawyer. He's never been convicted of perjury. And he's never been disbarred either.