Jump to content

Miz Hillary hosts B'day party for Byrd

stuckincincy

By stuckincincy
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Campy Veteran

Campy

Posted
Posted
Ole' Hill and other Dem female senators fete Sen. "KKK Wizard" Byrd on his birthday.

 

Think ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN will report this?

 

Naaa...there is no liberal bias. :)

 

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../511160346/1021

505044[/snapback]

A little slow on the uptake today, are you? That news is 2 days old.

 

I guess Americans must just be more concerned about a president who lied us into a war, money-laundering indictments, and White House staff indictments to get too worked up over a birthday party. :)

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111300857.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stuckincincy Hall of Famer

stuckincincy

Posted
  • Author
Posted
A little slow on the uptake today, are you?  That news is 2 days old.

 

I guess Americans must just be more concerned about a president who lied us into a war, money-laundering indictments, and White House staff indictments to get too worked up over a birthday party. :)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111300857.html

505079[/snapback]

 

I guess I'm slow because the unbiased media didn't talk about it? So you are OK with the excoriating of Lott but not Byrd?:)

 

PS - President didn't lie, unless you think the Dem luminaries did, too, or you have questions about the quality of information that the Clinton administration left for the next guy.

 

Of course, that the murderer Sadaam is out is of no consequence. Better he still be there?

 

Don't forget Bill's 1998 Iraqi Freedom Act, either. Or was Bill misled? :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Campy Veteran

Campy

Posted
Posted
I guess I'm slow because the unbiased media didn't talk about it? :)
Or more than likely it's because it didn't show up on your GOP talking points until today.

 

PS - President didn't lie, unless you think the Dem luminaries did, too, or you have questions about the quality of information that the Clinton administration left for the next guy.
I don't recall Clinton invading Iraq.

 

Of course, that the murderer Sadaam is out is of no consequence. Better he still be there?
Murderer? He was Reagan and Rummy's best friend in the 80's. I wonder what happened?

 

Don't forget Bill's 1998 Iraqi Freedom Act, either. Or was Bill misled? :)

505101[/snapback]

And again, leaning on a country's government through diplomacy by showing them a resolution to demonstrate we mean business doesn't bring over 2000 Americans home in body bags.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of BiB Veteran

Ghost of BiB

Posted
Posted

We're cleaning out the office, getting ready for our move to the new building. I came across a map showing all the Iraqi chemical weapons storage facilities as known in the beginning of 2002. It's marked SECRET/NOFORN. I'm not tossing it out, I'll have it shipped to the new building. I'm trying to find out now if it's been de-classified yet. It's really a nice map, about 2 1/2 by 4 feet. If it's been de-classified, I'm thinking of having it framed and hang in my home office, just as a collector's item. What do you think it might be worth on E-Bay some day?

 

Point is, as hard as anyone wants to push it, nobody lied. As with anything else that EVER happens in either government or even business, some people saw what they wanted to see. From the lowest levels to the highest. Whether it was truly the primary reason for invading Iraq or not, I still can't believe that after all this time there are people who actually think a Government would commit to a war based on a premise they honestly knew to be untrue. Get a grip, folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stuckincincy Hall of Famer

stuckincincy

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Or more than likely it's because it didn't show up on your GOP talking points until today.

 

Don't be absurd.

 

I don't recall Clinton invading Iraq.

 

No - focus groups said no. wouldn't want to hurt popularity and try to nip threats in the bud, after all.

 

Murderer?  He was Reagan and Rummy's best friend in the 80's.  I wonder what happened?

 

I don't recall the Democratic-led Congressional outrage. Recall Jimmie and Iran.

 

And again, leaning on a country's government through diplomacy by showing them a resolution to demonstrate we mean business doesn't bring over 2000 Americans home in body bags.

505107[/snapback]

Tell me about Wilson and Roosevelt and Truman and Johnson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Campy Veteran

Campy

Posted
Posted
Whether it was truly the primary reason for invading Iraq or not, I still can't believe that after all this time there are people who actually think a Government would commit to a war based on a premise they honestly knew to be untrue.

505109[/snapback]

 

Two words:

 

Nixon

 

Laos

 

But on the other hand, you may hold our president in higher esteem than I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kelly the Dog Hall of Famer

Kelly the Dog

Posted
Posted
We're cleaning out the office, getting ready for our move to the new building. I came across a map showing all the Iraqi chemical weapons storage facilities as known in the beginning of 2002. It's marked SECRET/NOFORN. I'm not tossing it out, I'll have it shipped to the new building. I'm trying to find out now if it's been de-classified yet. It's really a nice map, about 2 1/2 by 4 feet. If it's been de-classified, I'm thinking of having it framed and hang in my home office, just as a collector's item. What do you think it might be worth on E-Bay some day?

 

Point is, as hard as anyone wants to push it, nobody lied. As with anything else that EVER happens in either government or even business, some people saw what they wanted to see. From the lowest levels to the highest. Whether it was truly the primary reason for invading Iraq or not, I still can't believe that after all this time there are people who actually think a Government would commit to a war based on a premise they honestly knew to be untrue. Get a grip, folks.

505109[/snapback]

I don't think that is most people's problem with it, or hardly any people's problem with it. That's not what I think and I don't know anyone who thinks that they knew all of the intelligence was bullshitt and still produced it.

 

My problem with it, and I believe that a lot if not most people's problem with it, was they took all the very bad stuff, spoke about it like it was fact, intentionally didn't say or even imply that there were any dissenters in this opinion, or any questioning of it by the intelligence community, took the worst case scenarios and scared the public into being supportive of the war. They convinced people if they didnt do this, doom was near. In effect, that is lying without technically lying because I don't believe they believed doom was near. They just wanted Saddam out and believed he had WMD. I also believe if they didn't do it this way, the vast majority or even the simple majority of the public would never have been behind the invasion at all, and they may not have been able to pull it off without this. So this was, in effect, lying without lying, too. Because I think they knew this clearly.

 

I think they absolutely believed 100% that Saddam had WMD. But they had no proof of it, and they knew they had no proof of it. So they misled the public without ever officially lying figuring everything would be fine when they found it. But they bet and lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Campy Veteran

Campy

Posted
Posted
I think they absolutely believed 100% that Saddam had WMD. But they had no proof of it, and they knew they had no proof of it. So they misled the public without ever officially lying figuring everything would be fine when they found it.
Well said.

 

But they bet and lost.

505153[/snapback]

Bush is the e-dog of American politics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Campy Veteran

Campy

Posted
Posted
Really?  I recall lots of bitching and creebing over Clinton's repeated "acts of aggression" over Iraq. 

 

Oh, but that was invading their air space and bombing them.  Big difference...  <_<

505275[/snapback]

The difference is 2000 body bags.

 

It may not be a big deal to the CLINTON BAD crowd, but I guaran-damn-tee it's a big deal to 2000 American families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Campy Veteran

Campy

Posted
Posted
So war's only bad if it kills people?    :P

505289[/snapback]

Please give the monkey back his username. The monkey is smart enough to know that there's never been a war that hasn't killed people.

 

The key is to keep your guys alive, not send them home in body bags. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of BiB Veteran

Ghost of BiB

Posted
Posted
Please give the monkey back his username.  The monkey is smart enough to know that there's never been a war that hasn't killed people.

 

The key is to keep your guys alive, not send them home in body bags.  <_<

505296[/snapback]

 

That's why folks like you, are huge fans of "Clinton War".

 

Go bomb some Balkan country, and give strict instructions to the Pentagon that no Americans will get hurt.

 

Aren't video games fun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Campy Veteran

Campy

Posted
Posted
Think so?

505295[/snapback]

Know so.

 

I didn't mean to touch a nerve there. I know you've been conditioned to tow the company line, but the reality is that Bush gambled and lost (hence the e-dog reference).

 

I don't have access to classified information, but if these non-existent WMDs actually existed W the chimp would be telling the world "I told you so." Fox News would be shouting it from the rooftops. I'm listening, but I don't hear it.

 

Whatever.

 

Sorry for pointing out the obvious and being critical of your real American hero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...