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

[Calabrio]

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.

You've seen it 5,000 times and yet your still to stubborn or foolish to understand it. Here's the summary:

EVERYONE THOUGH IRAQ HAD A WMD PROGRAM. The Bush 43 administration didn't just make-it up. I'm sure you don't know this, but it was the Clinton adminisrtation that made it the U.S. policy regarding Iraqi regime change.

These weren't new ideas.

What Iraq had before the war, or what they were capable of will be forever an issue of debate because we waited six months waiting along the border before invading.

And, just on a side note, if you ever read the Duelfer Report, you'll see that Hussein did have a weapons program in place.

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.

You mean the CIA, FBI, and military intelligence, along with the intelligence gathering organizations internationally?

You're not one to let a limited grasp of facts,comprehension, or even the lack of a general understanding stop you from posting, are you?

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.

What are you saying? A warm body? What does that mean? Do you have anything constructive that will advance a debate, or are you just going to spew nonsensical diarrhea all evening?

 

[MonsterMark]

Speaking of liberal media influence in this country. Anybody catch on to this Commander-in-Chief show now on TV. We lost my post about it but what i said then was that this was an AD for the Democratic Party and an attempt to warm us up to the idea of Hillary for President.


Well, that turns out to be exactly what is going on. The Democratic Party and Hillary's own staff are involved in writing scripts for the show.

I am going to scream this from the mountaintops. I will not let the mainstream media decide the next election. The biased demonstrated by our media is shocking. You thought the last election where the media fabricated lie after lie in an attempt to defeat a sitting President was bad, wait till you see what happens this time around.

Mark my words. Hillary and her POS husband will not succeed in fooling the American people.

Guess I'll have to quit my job early and get started next week on defeating our own media and their political agenda.

 

[TheDude]

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

No, I never said Demorats don't lie, they do, all politicians lie, thats the nature of the beast. You're obviously blinded that you can't see how bad of a president Bush is. Look at his approval rating, it is the LOWEST of ANY president ever. I know several die hard republicans like you that hated Clinton, think J. Carter was the worst ever etc. etc., but after 5 years of Bush, they are intelligent enough to see that he is a lame duck. Has less to do that he's a republican than the fact that he is just a terrible leader.

Hillary for president? I dont think it will happen, nor am I sure I'd want her in office. I do believe a Democrate will take office next with a large helping of the right to ensure it happens. Oh, I forgot to add what you wanted to hear excuse me, but here it is "blah, blah, blah."

 

[MonsterMark]

No, I never said Demorats don't lie, they do, all politicians lie, thats the nature of the beast. You're obviously blinded that you can't see how bad of a president Bush is. Look at his approval rating, it is the LOWEST of ANY president ever. I know several die hard republicans like you that hated Clinton, think J. Carter was the worst ever etc. etc., but after 5 years of Bush, they are intelligent enough to see that he is a lame duck. Has less to do that he's a republican than the fact that he is just a terrible leader.

Hillary for president? I dont think it will happen, nor am I sure I'd want her in office. I do believe a Democrate will take office next with a large helping of the right to ensure it happens. Oh, I forgot to add what you wanted to hear excuse me, but here it is "blah, blah, blah."

Phil are posting under a different name? Am I talking to the same guy here?

Lowest approval rating? Better check the historical approval ratings of US Presidents again. You are wrong.

Nobody cares that Bush is a lame duck. I don't. I want him to piss off as many people as possible. Heck, he pissed me off because of the Miers nomination. That is why he took another hit in the polls.

If Miers turns out alright, his numbers go up.
When the media acknowledges the successes in Iraq, his numbers will go up.
As the ecomony continues to grow, his numbers will go up.
Hurricane Wilma hits and FEMA has a good response, his numbers will go up
I'm not too worried about poll numbers. Americans are fickle and have very short memories and most of America does not even know what is going on. They walk around in a fog all day. Just watch Jay Leno when he does his Jay Walking for proof of that.

I'm not worried like I said. History will paint this President as one of the greatest ever.

 

[barry2952]

Brian only believes the polls if they benefit his point of view. 39% and dropping fast. GWB is doing our work for us.

 

[MonsterMark]

Brian only believes the polls if they benefit his point of view. 39% and dropping fast. GWB is doing our work for us.

I have told you time and again the 'only' poll worth anything is Rasmussen and he has Bush down as well. Let's face it. Bush pissed off another 5-6% with the Miers nomination. Those that have supported Bush expected him to nominate a well known conservative and then take the fight to the Dems but Bush appears to have wussed out on this one.

The more his poll numbers go down, the more good he is probably doing for the country, on the left and the right.

Sorry Barry, I prefer to be the shepard, not one of the sheep.

 

[TheDude]

Phil are posting under a different name? Am I talking to the same guy here?

Lowest approval rating? Better check the historical approval ratings of US Presidents again. You are wrong.

Nobody cares that Bush is a lame duck. I don't. I want him to piss off as many people as possible. Heck, he pissed me off because of the Miers nomination. That is why he took another hit in the polls.

If Miers turns out alright, his numbers go up.
When the media acknowledges the successes in Iraq, his numbers will go up.
As the ecomony continues to grow, his numbers will go up.
Hurricane Wilma hits and FEMA has a good response, his numbers will go up
I'm not too worried about poll numbers. Americans are fickle and have very short memories and most of America does not even know what is going on. They walk around in a fog all day. Just watch Jay Leno when he does his Jay Walking for proof of that.

I'm not worried like I said. History will paint this President as one of the greatest ever.

My name is Phil, I thought you were responding to my earlier post, excuse me if you weren't.

I have to agree with your "America does not even know what is going on" comment. That is one of the reason's people like Bush and his cabinet get away with raping everything this country is supposed to stand for and was founded on.

Also, nobody cares if Bush is a lame duck? Are you serious? I think America as a whole cares if they have a weak leader. That's like saying sports teams don't care if they have a weak coach.

 

[TheDude]

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.

Just curious, were you for or against the impeachment of Clinton?

 

[barry2952]

Brian,

Your boys will pay for the BuSh debacle. Look at what he has spent. He has robbed your children of their financial future.

As a staunch Republican you must be driven crazy by how large the debt has gotten during GWB's administration. It must also make you crazy that no-bid contracts are being issued to rebuild entire countries while there are roofs that leak in schools, right here.

Fiscally, it appears that I am much more Conservative that you. It really pissed me off to see BuSh flying all over the country in his 747 with a back-up plane for reporters while he tells us we must conserve fuel. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

I am of the opinion that BuSh will go down in history as the President that bankrupted America making him the "Worst Preident Ever". I know, you'll now post that Congress spends the money but you know that's bull. They appropriate it, BuSh is spending it.

You'd better leave your kids a huge pile or their standard of living will be lower than their parents.

 

[Calabrio]

Your boys will pay for the BuSh debacle. Look at what he has spent. He has robbed your children of their financial future.

As a staunch Republican you must be driven crazy by how large the debt has gotten during GWB's administration.

Yes. Everyone is pissed that spending has grown. But you guys on the left making an issue of this are hypocrits.

First of all, let's not pretend that Bill Clinton exercised any voluntary fiscal discipline. Fortuantely due to the tech boom, the government had unexpected extra revenues, and the 1994 Republican take over of Congress forced Clinton to reign in spending.

But here's where the hypocracy comes in.
So we all acknowledge that the government is spending too much money right? O.K. So, with that said, where are you liberals ready to start making the cuts?

"Oh, we need to raise taxes." is the typical, uninformed, knee-jerk reaction I expect to get here. Here's the economic reality though, RAISING TAXES RESULTS IN A LONG TERM REDUCTION OF REVENUES. On the contrary, tax cuts result in a long expansion of tax revenues. See, when taxes are low, people earn more, spend more, get taxed more... As a result, though they are paying a lower rate, they are making more money, thus paying more. They make more, keep more, spend more, and pay more. So, repealing the tax cut won't work from an economic stand point.

So, where do you want to make the cuts?
Education? Social Spending? Pork Barrell projects? Which one of your socialist government programs will you support being cut? Let us know.

It must also make you crazy that no-bid contracts are being issued to rebuild entire countries while there are roofs that leak in schools, right here.

Why is it that every liberal who reads some talking points published by George Soros suddenly thinks they have some kind of deeper understanding of history and politics.

No bid contracts are not something new, and they serve a useful purpose. Do you know how long the bidding process takes when it comes to government work? But you tell me specifically what "no-bid" contract you're refering to, and I'll tell you why it made sense.

Also, in case your going to bring up Haliburton. Just so you know, that company is about a hundred years old and have used by Democrats like Johnson and Clinton just as they have been with Bush.

Fiscally, it appears that I am much more Conservative that you. It really pissed me off to see BuSh flying all over the country in his 747 with a back-up plane for reporters while he tells us we must conserve fuel. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

He's flying all over the country? Would you rather he drive? Maybe he could rent a minivan? Can you make a more petty argument?

I am of the opinion that BuSh will go down in history as the President that bankrupted America making him the "Worst Preident Ever". I know, you'll now post that Congress spends the money but you know that's bull. They appropriate it, BuSh is spending it.

And I am of the opinion that you are completely intellectual dishonest- or- just completely uninformed and confused.

He may very well go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents, but we'll have to wait and see how Iraq resolves itself. The events of last week are extremely inspiring.

You'd better leave your kids a huge pile or their standard of living will be lower than their parents.

And what do you base this on, your extensive study of economics and history?

 

[barry2952]

All I need to know is that if you spend more than you take in you either have to cut back or go bankrupt, Oh Great Wise One.

 

[TheDude]

All I need to know is that if you spend more than you take in you either have to cut back or go bankrupt, Oh Great Wise One.

Geesh, I can't imagine what corrosive line he would of shot back at you if you had brought up the fact that good old GW has spent an atrocious amount of time vacationing on our tax dollars.

 

[Vitas]

Just curious, were you for or against the impeachment of Clinton?

I think that the biggest tragedy that came out of the way he handled the "Monica" situation is that, privately, he lied to his own White House staff in "assuring" them that, no, not ever, and many of them resigned because of that very fact. He lied to their face. Reich, and Stephanopoulos RESIGNED because of that lie in private. Democrats.

 

[TheDude]

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.

EXACTLTY!

 

[Vitas]

All I need to know is that if you spend more than you take in you either have to cut back or go bankrupt, Oh Great Wise One.

That is a vast oversimplification, and a dangerous one. When times are "bad,"
a recession for instance, the worst, and absolutely most stupid thing that a government can do, is use the simplistic approach that Democrats use, gee, deficit high, have to raise taxes. Stupid beyond belief. Last respectable Democratic President was Carter, or was it before that? No wonder you guys feel so disenfranchised.

 

[Vitas]

EXACTLTY!

That was the "legal" reason. There is the actual reason.

 

[TheDude]

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....

So if you were to cheat on your husband it would be all of America's business? Is that what you are saying? So everyone that cheats on their spouse is a sexual pervert? I can guarantee you that many and I mean many of the replubicans as well of the democrats in office have and do cheat on their spouses.

And yes, Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, the key word there is 'DID'. He disarmed after the guld war I believe it was. But then again, thats not the issue, the issue is were are they now? We have been in Iraq for early five years and not a single weapon has been found, not a SINGLE one. So what about that? The truth is, the Bush admin new he didnt have any, but used it as a rallying force to go to war.

Saddam is a mass murderer, I think he should be punished for his crimes. But there are many mass murderers in power and their are many terrorist harboring countries that openly admit to having WMD's, why arent we there instead?


I find the hypocrisy of you republicans with equal amounts laughter and disgust. You would of burn Clinton (A.K.A Slick Willie) at the stake for lieing about a personal private act (though wrongful, it was personal) but you worship Bush (A.K.A Chimpboy) as if he is the new messiah. Ask yourself, are we any safer now that we're at war? The person and group of people that actually took responsibility for the 911 attacks are still out there, and I assure you, they're not in Iraq. I also assure you that the thousands on miles of coastland on the east and west coast as well as the northern and southern borders are not being held lock tight.

 

[TheDude]

That is a vast oversimplification, and a dangerous one. When times are "bad,"
a recession for instance, the worst, and absolutely most stupid thing that a government can do, is use the simplistic approach that Democrats use, gee, deficit high, have to raise taxes. Stupid beyond belief. Last respectable Democratic President was Carter, or was it before that? No wonder you guys feel so disenfranchised.

Just curious, how do you think we are going to pull ourselves out of the highest deficeit in American history now thanks to our glorious and accountant savvy leader? If the Democratic approach is 'Stupid beyond belief' as you say. Do tell us, I am willing to accept a great idea no matter what side of the fence it comes from.

 

[fossten]

So if you were to cheat on your husband it would be all of America's business? Is that what you are saying? So everyone that cheats on their spouse is a sexual pervert? I can guarantee you that many and I mean many of the replubicans as well of the democrats in office have and do cheat on their spouses.

Nice tactic, DeVille, attack somebody personally in order to make your point.

Forget that your attack is totally irrelevant to Eleanor's point, which is that Clinton was playing hide-and-seek with a cigar and a 'Barely Legal' intern 30 years his junior IN THE OVAL OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. His act degraded the office and made fools of all those who voted for him.

Forget that he WAS FOUND GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR LYING UNDER OATH IN A COURT OF LAW AND EFFECTIVELY DISBARRED (FORCED TO SURRENDER HIS LAW LICENSE) FOR 5 YEARS.

But remember this: Clinton will not be remembered nearly as much for anything else he ever did as he will be for his sexual peccadilloes, and no amount of posturing and equivocating (see dictionary) by you Fiberals will ever change that.

And yes, Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, the key word there is 'DID'. He disarmed after the guld war I believe it was. But then again, thats not the issue, the issue is were are they now? We have been in Iraq for early five years and not a single weapon has been found, not a SINGLE one. So what about that? The truth is, the Bush admin new he didnt have any, but used it as a rallying force to go to war.

You were doing fine until you said "The truth is...", then you started in with accusations that you can't prove. Ironic that when you assert the truth, you speak conjecture.

Saddam is a mass murderer, I think he should be punished for his crimes. But there are many mass murderers in power and their are many terrorist harboring countries that openly admit to having WMD's, why arent we there instead?

In case you didn't notice, we are heading for Syria next. But you forget that we can't simply declare war on multiple nations at the same time, and you can thank Der Schlickmeister for that inability. However, your rhetoric is two-faced, because if we cut and run now on Iraq in order to go somewhere else, Bush would be accused of chickening out and not finishing the job. He can't win no matter what he does when it comes to you Fibs, although even your Dem leaders in the Senate acknowledge grudgingly that we can't leave Iraq now. Even the treasonous Howard Dean admits that we can't leave.

I find the hypocrisy of you republicans with equal amounts laughter and disgust. You would of burn Clinton (A.K.A Slick Willie) at the stake for lieing about a personal private act (though wrongful, it was personal) but you worship Bush (A.K.A Chimpboy) as if he is the new messiah. Ask yourself, are we any safer now that we're at war?

You obviously don't read the posts here before you make accusations, because one thing we CONSERVATIVES are is intellectually honest. We disagree with our President and even EACH OTHER at times. We don't blindly follow Bush like you people follow Soros, Ted "Lifejacket" Kennedy, and Michael Moore-on. None of these thoughts I have put here even resemble talking points, unlike your ranting tirade.

The person and group of people that actually took responsibility for the 911 attacks are still out there, and I assure you, they're not in Iraq.

How can you assure this? Funny, I thought Zarqawi WAS in Iraq. And we just intercepted a letter addressed to him from bin Laden's #2 guy? Geez, either you need to work for the CIA, you're a terrorist and have connections, or your credibility has just been blown.

I also assure you that the thousands on miles of coastland on the east and west coast as well as the northern and southern borders are not being held lock tight.

I TOTALLY agree with you. But let's not bicker about this. Let's challenge our leaders to address this problem. It's a big deal, and I'm as pissed about it as you probably are.

 

[Vitas]

Just curious, how do you think we are going to pull ourselves out of the highest deficeit in American history now thanks to our glorious and accountant savvy leader? If the Democratic approach is 'Stupid beyond belief' as you say. Do tell us, I am willing to accept a great idea no matter what side of the fence it comes from.

You will get the answer in this thread:

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=13623

once Barry gives a genuine response. Don't hold your breath.

 

[TheDude]

Nice tactic, DeVille, attack somebody personally in order to make your point.

That wasn't a personal attack, I asked a question. Reread it if you must.

"But remember this: Clinton will not be remembered nearly as much for anything else he ever did as he will be for his sexual peccadilloes, and no amount of posturing and equivocating (see dictionary) by you Fiberals will ever change that."

Talk about a personal attack. Can we say 'Hypocrite', look that up.

"You were doing fine until you said "The truth is...", then you started in with accusations that you can't prove. Ironic that when you assert the truth, you speak conjecture."

Yes, it is the truth as I see it. With the mass amounts of money, superior intelligence & technology this country puts into knowing the affairs of other countries, how could we 'guess' Saddam had weapons. People on the left and a few on the right were saying that there is no definite proof of Saddams WMD program, yet Bush charged in. That was to say the least irresponsible and you can't make irresponsible decision's when people's lives are at risk.

"In case you didn't notice, we are heading for Syria next. But you forget that we can't simply declare war on multiple nations at the same time, and you can thank Der Schlickmeister for that inability. However, your rhetoric is two-faced, because if we cut and run now on Iraq in order to go somewhere else, Bush would be accused of chickening out and not finishing the job. He can't win no matter what he does when it comes to you Fibs, although even your Dem leaders in the Senate acknowledge grudgingly that we can't leave Iraq now. Even the treasonous Howard Dean admits that we can't leave."

Of course we can't just leave, we ruined any infrastructure Iraq had. That country is screwed and it will be screwed for a ong time. Hey, America did back up Saddam's rise to power, maybe we can put another tyrant on the throne and then leave. Also, why do you want to declare war on multiple nations? Talk about not following your own beliefs.

"You obviously don't read the posts here before you make accusations, because one thing we CONSERVATIVES are is intellectually honest. We disagree with our President and even EACH OTHER at times. We don't blindly follow Bush like you people follow Soros, Ted "Lifejacket" Kennedy, and Michael Moore-on. None of these thoughts I have put here even resemble talking points, unlike your ranting tirade."

I guess I could respond with 'No you do.' Tirade? maybe you should go back and read some of your past post,especially the religious ones.

"How can you assure this? Funny, I thought Zarqawi WAS in Iraq. And we just intercepted a letter addressed to him from bin Laden's #2 guy? Geez, either you need to work for the CIA, you're a terrorist and have connections, or your credibility has just been blown."

Well, if we know where they are, why are they in prison yet? How long have we been there? Besides, would you stay in an area that had thousands of people looking for you. These people are not stupid. Also, even if Bin Laden had a home in Iraq, does he speak for the country of Iraq? Let me guess, that will be the next excuse of why we're there since no 'WMD's' have or will ever be found. That's the pattern, when one reason fails, fabricate another. This is a fabricated war (I know you don't agree on this), if it wasn't better planning would of been laid out, like an exit strategy to say the least before it started. Trust me, just like Vietnam, in 20 years everyone that was for the war will suddenly be saying "It was a bad idea and we had no business being there."

"I TOTALLY agree with you. But let's not bicker about this. Let's challenge our leaders to address this problem. It's a big deal, and I'm as pissed about it as you probably are."

My point was to unvalidate one of the main reason's besides the 'WMD's' of why we are in Iraq. If we're there to secure this country, why are we not securing our borders first?

 

[fossten]

Yes, it is the truth as I see it. With the mass amounts of money, superior intelligence & technology this country puts into knowing the affairs of other countries, how could we 'guess' Saddam had weapons. People on the left and a few on the right were saying that there is no definite proof of Saddams WMD program, yet Bush charged in. That was to say the least irresponsible and you can't make irresponsible decision's when people's lives are at risk.

Ok, I keep hearing you Fibs say 'Bush Lied, Bush Lied' over and over again. I just have one question for you:

For Bush to have lied, he must have known ahead of time that there were NO WMDs in Iraq and deliberately decided to falsify claims in order to prosecute a war. So WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS INFORMATION?

 

[barry2952]

Nice word twisting.

 

[fossten]

Nice word twisting.

Ok, barry, fair enough, I'll give YOU a chance to explain what DeVille meant, since you must already know.

I was just clarifying so we can debate this openly.

DeVille, if you don't like the way I rephrased your supposition, you are welcome to rephrase before answering my question, which still stands:

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR INFORMATION???

 

[TheDude]

Ok, barry, fair enough, I'll give YOU a chance to explain what DeVille meant, since you must already know.

I was just clarifying so we can debate this openly.

DeVille, if you don't like the way I rephrased your supposition, you are welcome to rephrase before answering my question, which still stands:

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR INFORMATION???

Same place you do, the news. Both foreign and domestic. Do you really mean to tell me that everyone agreed that Saddam had weapons? As I recall people in both parties had said there was no definite proof and a hastily started war based on mostly 'maybe's' and 'could be's' would be costly. Guess what, it has become so.

Yes, I do realize that legally Bush can't be held accountable for lieing since he has the excuse of "I was told wrongful information." But come on, he is the president, he called the shots. Be a man and own up to it. If we're going to let this go by we might of as well let every war criminal from the Nazi's on up go free since they all had the excuse of "I was following orders."