President Bush came before the White House press corps for the last time on January 12 to thank them for doing their jobs. This exercise was akin to thanking the sharks who ate you.
The president said he didn’t always like the stories that were generated, "but always, the relationship, I have felt, has been professional." Walking in the footsteps of his father, he’d politely unfurled an obvious fib in a display of social graces.
Always professional? President Bush didn’t draw any attention to Helen Thomas in the front row as he praised the media for their never-failing professionalism. Helen’s accusatory rants at White House spokesman Ari Fleischer about the president’s bloodthirsty ways were legendary, like this one in 2003: "Why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?" She lectured Bush directly in 2006: "Your decision to invade Iraq has caused the death of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime." She wanted to know if the "real reason" he caused all these deaths and injuries was for oil, or for Israel.
The media’s abusive coverage wasn’t personal? Try Dan Rather, or Rather’s old White House hand puppet, John Roberts (now anchoring at CNN). In 2004, Rather first ran the sloppy, error-ridden National Guard hit piece, never telling his audience the president’s primary accusers were political opponents with personal and political vendettas. Then Roberts publicly and dishonorably mocked the First Lady for doubting CBS: "Laura Bush offered no evidence to back up her claim, and CBS News continues to stand by its reporting." That was a "Mission Accomplished" event for the entire media, which lapped up the CBS hit piece until the bloggers started to unravel it.
And yet, of course, there are many in the White House press corps who have dutifully churned out their stories for years and traveled the globe with the president in virtual anonymity, reporters just reporting – and nothing more. That said, it’s also true that the reporters who gathered daily in the briefing room were overwhelmingly Democrats who never really wanted Bush to be there when they preferred Al Gore or John Kerry. Many probably felt he was undemocratically imposed by the Supreme Court in 2000.
Republican presidents take a beating from the press and still praise them for their professionalism, even when some of them don’t deserve it. Democratic presidents can be just the opposite: the media coverage is generally good, yet still they whine. Bill Clinton expected the royal treatment, and mostly received it, and when he didn’t, he was furious. (Remember him denouncing the "knee-jerk liberal press" in Rolling Stone?) President Bush received about a month of respect – right after September 11. Clinton was treated with respect by reporters even after he was impeached.
For eight years, President Bush rarely raised a peep of public protest against the media’s partisanship (save his sneaky photo holding a copy of Bernard Goldberg’s insider expose "Bias.") Now, even as he praised the media’s professionalism, his resentment at the inaccuracy of long-established liberal media templates erupted in his final press conference.
Bush grew agitated as he remembered the press pounding him for seeing Hurricane Katrina damage from the sky on Air Force One without landing in Louisiana. He said – correctly – that had he actually landed in Baton Rouge, it would have required police to leave the disaster scene to protect him, and reporters would have savaged him for that. No matter what the president did or didn’t do, he was going to be attacked.
The president was also very animated in protesting the media’s similar no-win approach to terrorist surveillance. After 9/11, the executive branch was excoriated by the press for having failed to make the al-Qaeda connections and prevent it all. "And then we start putting policy in place -- legal policy in place to connect the dots, and all of a sudden people were saying, ‘How come you're connecting the dots?’"
Bush’s media critics are crowing about his legacy lying in tatters. Bush responds with his stubborn confidence that history will vindicate his administration. But how to explain Bush’s sudden interest in interviews? With only days left before the moving vans file out, he’s decided to go public, and publicly defend himself.
Why didn’t he start doing this seven years ago, when it would have mattered?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Helen Thomas is like an old
January 15, 2009 - 08:00 ET by WorriedHelen Thomas is like an old can sitting on a shelf. She must be full of chemicals that keep her alive.
I wish GWB would have slammed the media long ago, especially in the last year. With the bashing he received from them he had nothing to lose. Real historians will look back and decide Bush's legacy.
I dread the next 4 years but will enjoy watching the press ask questions of The One. I can see it now, he'll start with that smile of his, laugh, and lie about everything because that's all he's good at.
aaahhhh Helen
January 15, 2009 - 09:03 ET by AJBWell, we know what Helen tells us she's against. Therefore, she must be for torturing innocent civilians, servitude of women, ability of me to murder their wives with no criminal repercussion, disappearing citizens who are taken into the desert and shot, and the ever-popular feeding of live people into plastic shredders alive to watch them scream.
What kind of world do you REALLY want, Helen?
spot on
January 15, 2009 - 10:01 ET by kdizzydazeisn't it amazing how liberals always tell you what they are against and conservatives tell you what they are for?
Who would you rather have around - someone who tells you what they are for (you know their intentions) or someone who tells you what they are against (what in the hell do they stand for and what would they do to you to get there)
You knew what I was trying to say before I even knew what I was going to say - awesome!!
Helen
January 15, 2009 - 16:09 ET by jdubyaDo you think that if someone were to tug at her hair, it might just come undone and the rest of the flesh suit with it to truly reveal that she is a Troglodyte from the utter sulfur belching depths of the Abyss?
It won't be long
January 15, 2009 - 08:04 ET by cocodrieIt won't be long before Helen Thomas is interviewed by the King Of Kings and has to answer His questions. He won't be spinning the truth but He will want some straight answers. Dan Rather's turn will come also.
I believe that President Bush's interview with the King will be much easier and pleasant.
Jesus Loves You.
One of the things that has
January 15, 2009 - 08:14 ET by mrbucketOne of the things that has infuriated me about W's Administration from day one was their rampant inability to give it as well as they have taken it. Their marketing SUCKED. Now we're going to have the Messiah in charge for at least 4 years, he's going to get a total pass from the corrupt media, and the useful idiots are going to think his administration was a rousing success because of that - regardless of the actual outcome.
I agree with everything you
January 15, 2009 - 08:27 ET by SeashellI agree with everything you say but I think we all bare some responsibility for this also. We should from the very beginning have been more vocal about the Liberal MSM. We should have boycotted all newspapers. magazines, TV stations, etc. that didn't report fairly. The only way we're going to get fair reporting is to demand it, and the only real way to do that is to hit them where it hurts, the pocketbook.
I just wonder why
January 15, 2009 - 11:58 ET by SmartypantsI just wonder why Republicans remain so naive about the media. Too many conservatives still think that, if they are nice to the press and Democrats, the libs will in turn be nice back. It never works that way, yet too many continue to believe it.
if the "republicans" don't
January 15, 2009 - 12:11 ET by TruthMongerif the "republicans" don't start bitching ad nauseum pretty GD soon it's only a matter of time before someone acts on their growing thoughts of fatigues and semi-automatics and the concept of going postal...
congrats to all the new U.S presidents - and press secretary obama
Why didn’t he start doing
January 15, 2009 - 08:20 ET by SeashellWhy didn’t he start doing this seven years ago, when it would have mattered?
I wish he would have. Especially in regards to Katrina. He should have told Americns the truth, that the tragedy was a result from very poor planning from Nagin and Blanco. Frankly, I think everyone knows this, but the MSM can't help but throw this one on Bush as well.
Good morning Seashell
January 15, 2009 - 08:36 ET by cocodrieAlmost correct. There was NO planning by Nagin or Blanco. Aaron Broussard, the president of Jefferson Parish was their partner in crime and is equally guilty. All three are totally stupid and incompetent.
Jesus Loves You.
Agreed Coco
January 15, 2009 - 08:43 ET by SeashellAgreed. I wonder what the King of Kings will say to them?
The truth is that, even if
January 15, 2009 - 12:01 ET by SmartypantsThe truth is that, even if Bush had defended himself and his positions more often, the media would have painted a picture of a defensive, argumentative president. This is essentially what they are doing to Sarah Palin, who declared war on the press during the campaign. Republicans are never going to win with the liberal media. The only way a R becomes popular with the press is by bucking against his or her own party, that's it. Ronald Reagan was tremendously skilled at communicating direct to the public, and it led to significant success. Yet, even he was skewered by the media at every opportunity. The problem is that few politicians have the skill to overcome this like Reagan had.
Reagan didn't sit still for
January 15, 2009 - 12:17 ET by TruthMongerReagan didn't sit still for this sh*t - it's not exactly rocket science and it doesn't take a ton of skill - just call a dam spade a dam spade - ask yourself on any topic "how would a democrat handle this matter if the tables were turned?" Hell the dems not only piss and moan - THEY MAKE UP CRAP THAT ISN'T EVEN TRUE AND OUR TIMID LITTLE REPS CAN'T EVEN VOICE THE TRUTH.
If they all chime in the MSM can't hold it all back from the public now
congrats to all the new U.S presidents - and press secretary obama
Truth, I agree overall, but
January 15, 2009 - 13:51 ET by SmartypantsTruth, I agree overall, but it doesn't matter. Palin told the truth during the election and continues to do so---and the press ate here alive and continues to do so. They have successfully convinced enough of the public--even conservatives--that she's an uninformed idiot and a zealot at that. The media is not going to allow a conservative to win, plain and simple. Reagan did well, not because he took on the media directly, he ignored them altogether and went straight to the public with his message. He was a smooth communicator and it worked well for him. Bush is not nearly as smooth and he is simply not skilled enough to overcome the media's bias. (I do agree, though, that he should have done more to counter the lies; I just don't think it would have mattered all that much even if he had.)
The buck stops here
January 15, 2009 - 09:58 ET by kdizzydazeis the issue - the Republicans live by that style of leadership. We can already see "the one" throwing his minions under the bus to cover his sorry ass. Richardson bowing out (he should've shared that info with us and he didn't), the most Rev Wright (that's not the reverend I knew), and the list goes on.
Bush was damned if he did, damned if he didn't - had he explained how the chain of command works with regard to the response to Katrina and how things are supposed to be handled (indirectly blaming Blanco and Nagin) he would've been vilified by the MSM and they would've excoriated him for his lack of leadership skills. Having handled things the way he did (the correct and most expedient way), he was taken to task for not doing enough, nevermind that Nagin and Blanco are the real reasons Katrina was such a disaster (not to mention the leaders prior to Blanco and Nagin of New Orleans and Louisiana mishandling -- criminally, I am sure -- the funds sent them by the Fed to shore up that aging levee system which is truly what led to this disaster).
Naahh - Bush is right to handle things the way he is. It is up to us citizens to go after this media with a vengeance. When the next Joe the Plumber gets on the air with a pinhead like John Roberts and Roberts gets defensive about being called out about his journalistic integrity, that next Joe the Plumber needs to simply say, "yup, you are not a journalist and you have no integrity - for if you did, you would uncover the truth, regardless of who it might hurt. I find you weak and your faithful, blind listeners even weaker." Then let John piss and moan and cut the next Joe the plumber off. Whatever the case, we (the Conservative movement) need to continually be in atttack mode.
I do believe that "the one's" imminent waffling on important issues and continual throwing of former associates under the bus will force even the most ardent MSM supporter (I mean reporter) to be somewhat critical. And that will spell big trouble for his oneness.
War on Terror is wrong?
January 15, 2009 - 08:38 ET by ThisnThatAnd now, this from the British: "In his editorial, Miliband said the correct response to terrorism was to champion the rule of law — adding that he welcomed U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's commitment to close the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba".
Points of fact:
1. Some 60-80 released terrorists from Guantanamo Bay have re-started their terrorist activities
2. Hamas doesn't recognize the rule of law. Their stated purpose is to eliminate Israel. How do you begin discussions under those conditions?
3. The Quoran states that if you can't convert an Infadel, then you must kill him. How do you begin discussions under those conditions?
4. Islamic terrorists (Taliban) will prevent girls from going to school and support family killings of women whenever it is "justified". What about the rule of law here?
I'm beginning to regret my father's participation in WWII to save the English's sorry a$$es.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
One of the biggest tragedies
January 15, 2009 - 09:28 ET by pbanks7One of the biggest tragedies of this mess is our Supreme Court conveying Nation status upon al Qaeda and signing the Geneva Convention for them. In addition, the SC made their "uniforms" just like civilian clothing.
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe, then confirming it with a poll.
Rule of law, my @ss!
January 15, 2009 - 11:07 ET by TailgunnerThis has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard from liberals.
First, the crime must take place. Only after thousands of Americans are murdered and US cities and aircraft are destroyed can the US act.
Then you've got to dig through the wreckage and hope you can find enough of what's left of the terrorists to arrest. (Where do you put the handcuffs?)
Then, you've got to go up to the border of Afghanistan with an arrest warrant and ask the Taliban, politely of course, to pretty please arrest Osama bin Laden and extradite him to the US for trial. (What's Arabic for 'Take a hike, infidel?)
And after all that, those same liberals who are calling for the 'rule of law' in the first place will be fighting to be bin Laden's defense attorneys so they can put him back on the streets.
These people are so breathtakingly stupid.
And now they're in charge.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Unfortunately the Right continues
January 15, 2009 - 09:11 ET by katiejaneto allow the media and the Left to walk all over it. We're so concerned about taking the high road that we pretend they won't trash everything we say or do if only we're nice to them. I guess the Republican Party has become appeasers. Personally I'm tired of being told "We shouldn't respond because we're better than that."
Yeah, right!
January 15, 2009 - 10:10 ET byNot buying it. Bush's "Legacy project" is trying to whitewash his pathetic presidency.
He's worse than Nixon and just as delusional.
"This exercise was akin to thanking the sharks who ate you."
The Press was so pathetic and flaccid the past 8 years...I think it's the other way around Bush was actually saying "See ya, suckers!" and giving them the one finger Commander-in-Chief salute as he exited off the stage.
Thanks for the memories, George!
Odd Job
(yawn)
January 15, 2009 - 10:11 ET by Free Stinker(yawn)
FS...
January 15, 2009 - 17:39 ET by RukusYep, new troll.
I second your yawn. Yawn 2.0!
Our resident trolls are SO much better! At least they have a sense of humor. Sigh!
Gary
"Mom's ROCK!!!" -Me
Who are YOU calling, 'delusional'?
January 15, 2009 - 10:53 ET by Tailgunner'Pathetic and flaccid'?
President Bush has displayed integrity, backbone and resolution not seen since President Reagan.
President Bush kept this country safe from terrorist attacks since 9/11. This despite the treasonous daily backstabbing from the left and the media (but I repeat myself).
President Bush completed two terms without personal scandal.
No 'interns', no 'groping', no perjury and obstruction, no illegal campaign contributions from Communist China in return for critical weapons technology. The Oval Office remains free of cigars and the bathroom undefiled.
President Bush did not cause the collapse of the economy. Democrats for forty years tried to drive the mortgage industry out of business by mandating that they make bad loans, and in 2008, they finally succeeded.
History is the true writer of legacy, and only one name will be there.
And it will not be the names of Helen Thomas, Keith Olbermann, Dan Rather or David Gregory.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
One by one...
January 15, 2009 - 13:10 ET byWho are YOU calling, 'delusional'? Bush is delusional without the quotation marks.
'Pathetic and flaccid'? The Media was pathetic and flaccid without the quotation marks.
President Bush has displayed integrity, backbone and resolution not seen since President Reagan. Your opinion reigns supreme over mine. He was the best President since Reagan ever to walk on the face of the Planet. It's not as if Bush was at the helm to oversee...the economy going to hell in a handbasket, the creation of two war fronts, 4200 dead US soldiers, the largest expansion of the federal government, intrusive government meddling into American lives, torturing people, a vice-president run amok, etc. Yeah, he's a peach! Golly, you think the war crime charges will stick...we all know he isn't as slick as Slick Willie!
President Bush kept this country safe from terrorist attacks since
9/11. This despite the treasonous daily backstabbing from the left and
the media (but I repeat myself). You're so correct...It's amazing he didn't prevent 9/11 since he was the President of the United States. I know GOD had shined upon him to protect this Great Nation little did we know GOD sent us Bush to protect us after 9/11.
President Bush completed two terms without personal scandal. It takes to accumulate the evidence. Plus, you need an actual Justice Department to prosecute.
No 'interns', no 'groping', no perjury and obstruction, no illegal
campaign contributions from Communist China in return for critical
weapons technology. The Oval Office remains free of cigars and the
bathroom undefiled. Ohhh, a reference to Monica and Bill two consenting adults sampling cigars. You got me there...I mean do you think Bush crapping on the Constitution should be a crime? Hey, is torture a crime?
President Bush did not cause the collapse of the
economy. OK! and repeat three times..."There's no place like home!" while clicking your red shoes together, Dorothy! Bush just watches on the TeeVee what happens to this Nation of ours...while choking on a pretzel.
Democrats for forty years tried to drive the mortgage industry
out of business by mandating that they make bad loans, and in 2008,
they finally succeeded. $350 BILLION Taxpayer Dollars doled out to the Banks with no OVERSIGHT...who got paid back?!?
History is the true writer of legacy, and only one name will be there. Actually, History is written by the victors not the losers...If memory serves me right, the last election was won by Obama...Yeah, you're correct The true historical moment of the first African American President will overshadow the pathetic presidency of George W. Bush. Much like FDR overshadowing...ummm...what his name...starts with an H...ummm...Herbert...George Herbert Walker Bush...no that's not it...HOOVER...Herbert Hoover..."yeah, that's the ticket!"(h/t Jon Lovitz with plenty of sarcasm!)
And it will not be the names of Helen Thomas, Keith Olbermann, Dan Rather or David Gregory. Helen Thomas has been around since 1960...though, you may not want to believe she is part of your history, she is part of current US history. Same can be said for Rather. You may hate him, it still doesn't change history and his reporting. Olbermann and Gregory...too recent...wait a few years...as long as you keep them in your thoughts they will continue to exist and have relevance to your history.
That was fun.
Got anymore?
Odd Job
Sarcasm does not equal
January 15, 2009 - 17:51 ET by TailgunnerSarcasm does not equal rebuttal. Just because you have demonstrated the ability to drool in complete sentences does not make you a debater.
Now as I respond to this, remember that I'm not responding to you. I'm writing for those who actually have an interest in the issue, not snarky trollmeisters who have only recently discovered Wiktionary.
Hey, pal, in case you forgot, Congress voted to go to war against Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats then turned around almost immediately and started claiming 'Bush lied' about WMD when many key Democrats, including both Clintons, John Kerry, Madeleine Albright, and Robert Byrd all said that Saddam was a danger with WMD. (John Kerry said Saddam was a danger with nuclear weapons. Even Bush didn't go that far.)
And BTW the US just secretly moved about 300 tons of uranium out of Iraq. You know, the uranium Saddam didn't buy from Niger?
Your definition of 'torture' (there's those darn 'quotation marks' again. Stick 'em in your ear.) would have every drill instructor in the US Armed Forces standing in front of a court-martial.
Are you more concerned with the mental and physical well-being of a Gitmo detainee than that of a Army or Marine recruit? Since you seem to be SO concerned about the number of troop deaths in the War on Terror, I'm sure you share my utter disinterest in the plight of Islamic terrorists.
Can you name ONE American who was arrested because Bush 'crapped' on the Constitution? And please tell me how you feel about FDR, since he rounded up over 150 thousand Japanese-American citizens and placed them into US concentration camps? Did FDR 'crap' on the Constitution?
Oh, and I'm so glad you brought up Bill and Monica, just two consenting adults doing what consenting adults normally do.
Let me put this another way:
Monica would repeatedly suck Bill Clinton's d*ck in the Oval Office.
Afterwards, Bill Clinton would masturbate into the bathroom sink in the Oval Office.
Doesn't sound so 'cute' when you describe the actual acts, does it? Now if I substituted Bush's name for Clinton's, would you liberals still defend it as 'consenting adults'? Of course not, you hypocritical SOB.
The rest of your driveling nonsense was incoherent, irrelevant and personal attacks not meriting a response.
NewsBusters should have an age verification system. That way certain little twerps with too much blood in their Ritalin system can't get on Mommy's computer and annoy the grownups.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Nope...no declaration of war...
January 15, 2009 - 19:42 ET byTailgunner,
You said you weren't responding to me, but, continued to call me out in your paragraphs. Confusing and humorous! So, I'll respond to your...response to those who actually have an interest in the issue, not
snarky trollmeisters who have only recently discovered Wiktionary.(trollmeister-"master troll", I bow to your compliment! Of course, personal name calling should be discouraged in most serious debates...I guess this should be considered a non-issue and more of a tongue-in-cheek tit for tat.)
Let's begin shall we...
It was called an "Authorization of the Use of Miltary Force" by the US Congress for Bush to lead us into the Iraqi war.
Here
are the actual Formal War Declarations issued by the US Congress- War
of 1812, Mexican-American War, The Spanish-American War, WW1, and WW2.
US history is hard when it doesn't fit into your little world of facts,
definitions and figures?
...the US just secretly moved about 300 tons of uranium out of Iraq. Holy Christ! You've got the link?
Your definition of 'torture' (there's those darn 'quotation marks'
again. Stick 'em in your ear.) would have every drill instructor in the
US Armed Forces standing in front of a court-martial. Wow! Have you listened to Bush and Cheney over the last couple of weeks? How about the statements by Susan J. Crawford?
BTW, I want justice to be served. The guards at Gitmo represent the US...if they tortured the detainees which subsequently leads to the dismissal of their court cases because of the mistreatment...justice served? Who's to blame...me? We have relied upon our system of Government to insure justice to be served. I didn't vote for this bullshit. They are human beings like the rest of us. Let's get them through the justice system with a guilty verdict and then kill them.
Can you name ONE American who was arrested because Bush 'crapped' on the Constitution? Yes...Brandon Mayfield and it cost you & me...2 million bucks...OUCH!
The comparison of Hoover and FDR to Bush and Obama is lost on you? Obama will inherit Bush's detainee problem...
You really need to take your blood pressure meds. The name calling and incoherent rant...well...it's disturbing.
Doesn't sound so 'cute' when you describe the actual acts, does it? Now
if I substituted Bush's name for Clinton's, would you liberals still
defend it as 'consenting adults'? Of course not, you hypocritical SOB.
Cute? No, but leave it to a conservative to describe sexual acts! I mean there might be kids on this site! Unless you're trying to educate them on safe sex! Remember, kids, no one every gets pregnant from masturbating & GOD created it for your pleasure. As for the rest of your ranting response, Good Lord!
Odd Job
OK, so what
January 15, 2009 - 20:27 ET by general companyThe U.S. government agreed yesterday to pay $2 million to settle a
lawsuit filed by an Oregon lawyer who was arrested and jailed for two
weeks in 2004 after the FBI bungled a fingerprint match and mistakenly
linked him to a terrorist attack in Spain.
How is this an example of Bush trampling the Constitution? Would had happend no matter who was POTUS, probably happend under Clinton too.
Also Clinton lied to the American people and was disbarred, as well as impeached.
Also nice job of deflecting all responsibility of the Senate and House for the invation of Iraq. I wont ask how it is possable for a President to fund a war without congresional approval, I wont ask, because it cant happen. Nice try though.
Nice child like rant, keep it coming.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
It's not.
January 15, 2009 - 23:06 ET by CobraMan"How is this an example of Bush trampling the Constitution?"
It's not, it's an example of SNAFU. As Oddjob is totally aware, there have been literally thousands of people arrested, detain, and, eventually, freed over the last 200 years, all because of a mis-identification. NONE of those have been declared an unconstitutional act, Until Bush took office, that is.
Like most uninformed liberals, Oddjob is just trying to justify his bias and hide his lack of knowledge, and failing miserably.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
'It was called an
January 16, 2009 - 11:52 ET by Tailgunner'It was called an "Authorization of the Use of Miltary Force" by the US Congress for Bush to lead us into the Iraqi war.'
That sounds like 'Congress voted for the war' to me. Do you see any other meaning other than the twisted and tortured justifications that cowardly Democrats used to explain to their fringe nutball leftwingnuts that they really didn't vote 'for' the war, but that evil BushHitlerCheneyHalliburtonSkullandBones invaded Iraq and Afghanistan anyway?
Tell me, where were the 'declarations of war' for Bosnia, Haiti, or the cruise missile attacks on Iraq and Sudan? Clinton never went to Congress, the UN or once even his Chiefs of Staff before his unilateral attacks.
And yes, I do have the 'link' for the uranium moved from Iraq. And so would you, too, if you really cared about the issue.
(I do have to apologize for one small error. The quantity was 500 tons of uranium, not 300.)
And you quote Susan J Crawford who 'assumes' (her words) that certain detainees were 'tortured'. The only problem was the Washington Post covered the interrogations and confessions of those same detainees and themselves said no 'coercive tactics' were used.
(There's a pretty good cover story on the Crawford issue on this great site called NewsBusters. You ought to go there sometime and check it out.)
BTW: Right now I'm being 'tortured'. The temperature in my house is 65 degrees. Last year I was also 'tortured' by being forced to endure 78 degree temps inside my house and (gasp) 98 degrees outside!
'They are human beings like the rest of us'. Right. People who fly airplanes into buildings and force people to choose between jumping a thousand feet or burning to death.
'Let's get them through the justice system with a guilty verdict and then kill them.'
Give em a fair trial...then hang 'em. Now that's my idea of justice.
I don't think you even believe that. You liberals would move heaven and earth to find any technicality to get the cases thrown out. You'd then help the terrorists get political asylum in this country, then blame Bush when they shoot up a shopping mall in Miami or New York.
Of course you ignored my point on FDR. If Bush is evil for the unlawful arrest of ONE American, then what does that make your liberal hero FDR, who on his own authority arrested 150,000 American citizens solely because of their race and transported them hundreds of miles to US concentration camps where they were confined, without charges or trial for FOUR years?
You're too cowardly to answer that so you'll probably blow some more smoke and bullsh*t.
As long as Michael Moore is walking around free as a bird no one can say a damn thing about freedom being 'in jeopardy'.
And once again you ignored my point on Clinton and Lewinsky. Children nowadays have a much more complete and detailed understanding of sex thanks to these two.
The acts I 'described' on this website? That was normal nightly fare on primetime news during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. If you need to refresh your memory, go ask the teenage skateboarders outside your Mommy's house.
Again: If it were Bush doing Monica in the Oval Office instead of Clinton, would you still defend it? You're too cowardly to answer that honestly but we all know the answer.
Condescension does not become you. Presumption is a more accurate term for your pathetic attempts at moral superiority.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Interesting comments...
January 16, 2009 - 18:17 ET byTailgunner,
I knocked down all of your statements, proved a few things, defined a few more...and you still rant on as if you're somehow correct. You're not making any sense by calling me names.
Formal Declaration of War by Congress...easy google search.
Still no link on the, now, 500 tons of Iraqi Uranium. I provided one
At least Bush can go down in history by saying, "Read my lips...We don't torture." It has a better ring than old Daddy Bush's "No new Taxes." line, don't cha think?
'They are human beings like the rest of us'. Right. People who fly
airplanes into buildings and force people to choose between jumping a
thousand feet or burning to death. Ummm...they were Saudis, they're not at Gitmo...and I hope they are burning in Hell. As for the enemy combatants/detainees, they need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...it's too bad the people we employed to get the job done f*ck*d up the cases.
How can I miss your point on FDR, when you didn't understand my point in the first place?
So, you do admit an American was arrested and detainedby the expanded powers of the FBI under the Patriot Act. It's hard not to when they admitted it themselves. The chain of command...the top Law Enforcer is...? As in the buck stops here...The POTUS!
Michael Moore?
As for kids and sex and understanding it...no they have conservatives to explain the RAW details of sex acts to them. I don't remember Bill and Monica on the TeeVee explaining the act, but, I do remember Starr and a host of conservatives getting into it!!!
Again, I have no problem with the President getting his groove on...it's his PRIVATE life. If Bush would have gotten blown, maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today! He would have been impeached! What's the line?..."Bill lied, no one died!"
And believe me, your opinion is far superior than mine! At least, I'm still laughin'!
Golly, you guys sure know how to whine!
Odd Job
Hang in there don't let 'em get to you Oddjob
January 16, 2009 - 18:19 ET by cocodrieYou're doing fairly good for a 12 year old. Keep at it, We need the entertainment.
Jesus Loves You
If I'm twelve...
January 16, 2009 - 18:25 ET bycocodrie,
...what's that say about the rest of you?!?
From the responses and whining, I'm realizing a number of posters rode the short bus to school or were "home-schooled'...phew, tough crowd...
Odd Job
Typical immature resonses Oddjob
January 16, 2009 - 19:47 ET by cocodrieYou ask a series of inane questions irrelevant to anything under discussion to divert attention from the fact that you are woefully uninformed. You will understand when you grow a brain why it is obvious that you research a subject to get a passing knowledge of one or two points.
If you are not a 12 year old boy then there are two possiblities.
You are putting up a fairly decent front considering. You are not the first grammar school troll we have had here.
Jesus Loves You
Thanks...
January 17, 2009 - 11:06 ET bycocodrie,
I truly appreciate your insightful description of me. Does it make you feel more powerful and manly to denegrate an anoynomous poster by calling them juvenile? I'm glad you think highly of yourself. It's great to see a positive self-confident person debate a "12 year old boy" and teach him the ways of conservative values. Nice...thanks for the lesson. Do you treat all kids this way?
Odd Job
Odd
January 18, 2009 - 22:14 ET by cocodrieYour juvenile posts speak LOUDLY for themselves.
Jesus Loves You
Hay OJ, Let me help you .....Your link is a DUD
January 16, 2009 - 18:27 ET by upcountrywaterheres a LINK
Why was Bush's uranium claim so important? Because if true, the mere
attempt by the Iraqi dictator to acquire uranium would show that he had
clear and incontrovertible plans to restart his nuclear program.
Maybe that's why the press seldom discusses the fact that Saddam
already had a staggeringly large stockpile of uranium - 500 tons, to be
exact.
FREEDOM
(D)
Formal Declaration of War
January 16, 2009 - 18:47 ET by BDFormal Declaration of War by Congress...easy google search.
At least Bush can go down in history by saying, "Read my lips...We don't torture."
As for the enemy combatants/detainees, they need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
it's too bad the people we employed to get the job done f*ck*d up the cases.
What's the line?..."Bill lied, no one died!"
Wowww...
January 16, 2009 - 19:30 ET byBD,
Angry?!?
Well, is it your position that a congressionally mandated use of force is satisfactory?
Torture implies permanent damage, which has not been the case for the techniques used...
Techniques used?!? Go ahead, I'm listening...start with waterboarding first...
Nope, the problem is that the left considers the GWOT a law enforcement exercise when it plainly is not. Nope...Bush and friends decided to open Gitmo and detain people...forever...as if he was going to be in office...forever...4 more days to catch Bin Laden...then Obama gets the prize if they do...
Come on, Bill, still sends a thrill up a conservative's leg...they can't get enough of him...right up there with Carter and FDR...shiver me timbers...Argghhhh!
Odd Job
Angry?!? Nope, just
January 16, 2009 - 19:50 ET by BDAngry?!?
Torture implies permanent damage, which has not been the case for the techniques used...Techniques used?!? Go ahead, I'm listening...start with waterboarding first...
What law would you charge Mohammad Ibni Al Saud for carrying an RPK Machine gun and can of 7.62mm rounds as he maneuvered to an ambush position prior to being handed over to SF troops? Question the soldier who decided not to kill the bastard on the spot...
Does he have to be mirandized upon capture? It's a battlefield, right? Dead men tell no tales!
Do we have to perform the classic "Knock upon entry and have an arrest warrent prior to executing the ambush in which he was captured? Like you said it's not a police action, they should have shot first and asked questions later...
Nope, the problem is that the left considers the GWOT a law enforcement exercise when it plainly is not. Nope...Bush and friends decided to open Gitmo and detain people...forever...as if he was going to be in office...forever...4 more days to catch Bin Laden...then Obama gets the prize if they do...
Come on, Bill, still sends a thrill up a conservative's leg...they can't get enough of him...right up there with Carter and FDR...shiver me timbers...Argghhhh!
I don't think this idiot realizes what he's saying...
January 16, 2009 - 21:14 ET by TailgunnerLet me see if I understand this moron's reasoning.
It's wrong, in his world, to waterboard terrorist detainees.
However, it's just fine for him to have a Special Forces soldier murder a terrorist who's already dropped his weapons and is in the process of surrendering.
Major fail. (click)
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Hey, did any of you
January 16, 2009 - 21:21 ET by Clear thinkerHey, did any of you actually read the link oddslob left as proof? For shits and giggles, I did. Here's the best part...
"A year ago, revelations by Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador sent to Niger to investigate whether Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Iraq, forced the administration to recant its public statements on the subject."
Anyone catch it? If you did, you should be laughing right now.
Ecofascists Losing War
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Excellent defense!
January 17, 2009 - 11:32 ET byBD,
Is it a police action or war?
Waterboarding is torture. Period. Bush authorized it. Torture is a war crime. Twist it and redefine it into anything you want...it's still torture. No one is above the law.
Mohammad Ibni Al Saud for
carrying an RPK Machine gun and can of 7.62mm rounds as he maneuvered
to an ambush position prior to being handed over to SF troops.
Let's change the above into a crime, shall we? Let it read something like this...
"Bad bad Leroy Brown, carrying a modified AR-15 and a box of 5.56mm ammunition was caught as he maneuvered to ambush his neighbor. He was handed over to the police."
What if the neighbor blew Leroy's head off in self-defense?
What if the neighbor decided to torture Leroy before turning him over to the police? Would the case be prosecutable?
What if Bad bad Leroy Brown was taken into custody and totured by police for more information on other criminal activity in the area? Detain him for life?
Dead is dead. Whether you kill him with a 500lb JDAM, a 5.56mm round to the head, a bayonet to the heart...Dead is dead. As my old Sgt. Instructor once said,"Blame the vanquished enemy for picking a fight with a US Marine. They brought it upon themselves when they decided to fight a superior force!".
We need to allow the Military to do their job...to wage war in order to defend this country.
Odd Job
Police action? WHat IS
January 17, 2009 - 16:35 ET by BDPolice action? WHat IS that? THose of us in the military do not recognize such, and only Harry Truman ever gave it much credence.
It is a WAR plain and simple.
Waterboarding is torture.
"Bad bad Leroy Brown, carrying a modified AR-15 and a box of 5.56mm ammunition was caught as he maneuvered to ambush his neighbor. He was handed over to the police."
What if the neighbor blew Leroy's head off in self-defense?
What if the neighbor decided to torture Leroy before turning him over to the police? Would the case be prosecutable?
What if Bad bad Leroy Brown was taken into custody and totured by police for more information on other criminal activity in the area? Detain him for life?
Dead is dead.
Whether you kill him with a 500lb JDAM, a 5.56mm round to the head, a bayonet to the heart...Dead is dead.
Sgt. Instructor
We need to allow the Military to do their job...to wage war in order to defend this country.
Option A or Option B
January 18, 2009 - 09:50 ET byBD,
I'm deciding on which to pick...
Option A-
Your bravado and seriousness belies a certain ignorance in regards to the United States Marine Corps, My Corps...Here's a few links for your education...#1 , #2 and #3. You'll need to scroll down to U.S. Marine Corps on the first link.
Option B-(my old Marine buddies liked this one...)
[retrieving old bitch slap glove]
A "Sergeant Instructor"...
[slap]
...is found at TBS, USMC OCS in Quantico.
[slap]
He trains USMC Officer Candidates.
[slap]
Officer Candidates refer to their instructors as "Sergeant Instructors".
[slap]
FYI- My Sergeant Instructor was one hell of a Marine and I'm indebted to him for the lessons I learned. With those lessons, I was able to come out on the winning side of a little hand to hand and save my buddies in the process. Enough of the personal ancedotes...who cares anyway...
You seem like a pretty good guy from your previous postings and comments...So, in the end I decided option A is the better choice over B.
Good luck out there...
Odd Job
Since you did not counter
January 18, 2009 - 13:05 ET by BDSince you did not counter them, I will now flow all of the arguments save the USMC pointers to my side of the board. Thank you.
Regarding your posts in reference the USMC, I will ask my USMC Liaison officers on Monday morning over coffee to confirm. He went through Quantico in 2000 and should be able to confirm.
Good evening BD
January 18, 2009 - 13:25 ET by cocodrieYou're wasting your time. Trying to rationalize with someone who has the mental capability of a grammar school child is hopeless. He has absolutely no understanding of the adult world.
Jesus Loves You
How was the Coffee? Learn anything?
January 21, 2009 - 17:47 ET byBD,
"Why do we need to further tie-up our already over-crowded federal court system with these illiterate, murderous camel-washers?
Most of them are enemy combatants caught out of uniform. As such, they
have no rights whatsoever, other than to be thrown up against a wall
and shot."
What do you think of this statement?
No intense rebuke?
Odd Job
LNO is TDY this week.
January 22, 2009 - 01:25 ET by BDLNO is TDY this week. Still awaiting word.
Regarding post just posted.
Why do we need to further tie-up our already over-crowded federal court system with these illiterate, murderous camel-washers?
Most of them are enemy combatants caught out of uniform. As such, they have no rights whatsoever,
Well thought out.
January 22, 2009 - 10:41 ET byBD,
Good opinions to...
...R.D. Helm's comment down below.
I see you decided to not comment on the 'lining them up against a wall and shooting them', though.
Thanks,
Odd Job
I have no problem with mass
January 22, 2009 - 17:55 ET by BDI have no problem with mass executions nor firing squads as long as the competant military authority has adjudicated them as illegal combatants.
Regarding RD's ownership of the comment, trust me I feel that way OFTEN, but realize I am more liable for my comments than others.
I OFTEN feel like lining up the entire MSNBC Staff for similar purposes, but cannot actually endorse such a thing due to my training and background. Others are more free to speak their minds and that is a good thing.
Thanks for the insight.
January 23, 2009 - 10:18 ET byBD,
Your statements are disgusting.
I'll strongly disagree with you. 'Illegal combatants' are defined by the laws of a Government which has determined itself as the Law of the Land. Deciding to rewrite and establish its own laws and throwing out treaties and the Geneva Conventions in order to torture and detain human beings without any rights is criminal.
I wish no harm to anyone in the Media. I may disagree with some of the reporting and in this day and age, everyone has a choice to turn it off. Lining them up and shooting them...for something they said...speaks volumes. Should we rewrite the Constitution for you and the rest of those who feel the same way? Actually, this kind of thing happens in Russia...Would you like me to buy you a one way ticket out of here?
Odd Job
Your statements are
January 23, 2009 - 11:27 ET by BDYour statements are disgusting.
I'll strongly disagree with you. 'Illegal combatants' are defined by the laws of a Government which has determined itself as the Law of the Land.
Deciding to rewrite and establish its own laws and throwing out treaties and the Geneva Conventions
in order to torture and detain human beings without any rights is criminal.
I wish no harm to anyone in the Media.
Lining them up and shooting them...for something they said...speaks volumes.
Should we rewrite the Constitution for you and the rest of those who feel the same way?
Actually, this kind of thing happens in Russia...Would you like me to buy you a one way ticket out of here?
Odd Job
January 23, 2009 - 20:58 ET by TailgunnerTerrorists are placed in the same Geneva Convention category as spies and saboteurs.
By the fact that they do not wear uniforms, hide among civilians and target innocents, they are not eligible for Geneva protections. The only thing they deserve is a fair trial and a bullet.
Such was the fate of four Nazi saboteurs put ashore in Florida by a German submarine during WWII.
Americans understood exactly why the Nazis were there. There was no handwringing or moral posturing over their 'rights' or their speedy execution.
And for someone who idolizes FDR, one of the greatest human rights monsters in US history, you're awful quick to point fingers at a wartime President who is acting like a wartime President.
Oh, and BTW: Apparently Mr President 'No Preconditions' Obama ordered a Predator strike across the Afghan border into Pakistan.
Way to Go, Obama! There's hope for him yet!
NOLI PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
The idea that you even think...
January 19, 2009 - 15:27 ET by Tailgunner...you're going to 'bitch slap' anyone here is ludicrous.
Keep the glove. You'll need it to plug the bullet holes.
And besides, nobody in basic training of any kind strikes a recruit or candidate in any way. The UCMJ specifically punishes this kind of assault under 'Cruelty and Maltreatment'.
I went through USAF recruit training in 1977. On the first day one of my training instructors merely threatened to 'knock my teeth down my throat'.
I never complained to anyone...and even though I thought we were out of earshot, he disappeared the next day and was never seen again.
I saw no other violence, threatened (credibly) or otherwise during either USAF or later USN recruit training.
Marine Officer?? I think I'd need to see a DD214 from you before I'd believe you ever wore a uniform (outside a Village People reunion, that is).
You're doing a great job as comic relief, though...keep it up.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Stop trying to denegrate my service to this country.
January 21, 2009 - 17:58 ET byTailgunner,
I've respectfully refrained from attacking your service. Let's stop it right here. For instance, I could have easily asked if you think your stewardess and loveboat training compared to the type of training you'd find in the Marine Corps...but...I won't. Let's face it you went into the service during Carter's Admin...what kind of inspiration did you get from Carter? Just asking...
Odd Job
Nothing you've said or done
January 21, 2009 - 19:06 ET by TailgunnerNothing you've said or done has been remotely 'respectful'.
As usual, there's a large helping of irrelevancy mixed in with your snide personal comments.
It hasn't escaped my notice that you are trying to disengage with honor. However, I'm not interested in helping you salvage what's left of your ego.
Let me make myself clear. I'm not 'trying to denigrate' your service. I'm saying that I don't believe a damn word of your claim to service.
(And my 'loveboat' training included three years in an F-14 fighter squadron working on the flight deck of several aircraft carriers, eight years in the military police (13 months in a combat zone) as well as two years as Assistant Chief Master at Arms of a restricted barracks, with duties including bailiff for courts-martial and air prisoner escort.)
Who's 'denigrating' whom?
See below.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Thanks for the personal anecdotes...
January 21, 2009 - 19:15 ET byTailGunner,
I'll stop here and say, "Thank you for your service to this country. It's men and women like yourself that keeps this Nation strong and resolute in dangerous times."
Let's try to find some middle ground in which to debate intelligently. There's no need to fight each other. I apologize for any insults and will refrain from any offensive personal remarks to your service and/or character.
Odd Job
Odd Job... Don't waste
January 21, 2009 - 19:21 ET by JerOdd Job...
Don't waste your time with Tailgunner. He has absolutely no integrity...zero, zilch, nada, none.
His most demonstrable skill is the ability to call people liars. For all I know, the guy may be 6'8" and 350 lbs., but he is, by far, the "smallest" person at NewsBusters.
Jer
There you go AGAIN...
January 21, 2009 - 19:34 ET by Tailgunner...talking about subjects you have no personal experience with.
When people imply that I am lying, and deny facts that are easily researched and verified, then I will call it as it is.
Would it have made a difference if I had called you 'deceptive', 'misleading', 'disingenuous' or even 'dishonest' instead of 'liar'? Those terms applied equally as well.
You made a false statement. It was easily rebutted with a minimum of effort. Since you are obviously not incompetent in the use of the Internet, especially with all the research tools at our disposal, I quite reasonably concluded that you intentionally lied to me.
I understand completely that you are angry with me for calling you a liar.
It just doesn't bother me that much.
See below.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Tailgunner... the simple
January 21, 2009 - 19:50 ET by JerTailgunner...
the simple facts are these: You falsely accused me of lying and demanded an apology. Consequently, in an effort to smooth things over, I proceeded to bite the bullet and apologize, more than once.
Despite that, you weren't man enough to accept it, acknowledge it, or even respond. Do you think that speaks well of your integrity?
Jer
Okay. I take it back.
January 22, 2009 - 02:25 ET by TailgunnerOkay. I take it back. You're not a liar. That's a value judgment that requires proof. I had none.
But I stand by my belief that you were at best sloppy, at worst misleading, in your factually false statement.
NewsBusters exposes liberal bias, dishonesty, and propaganda. It follows that most who post here share that passion. \
Speaking for myself only, if you're going to come on here and make factually false statements that you can't or won't back up, inadvertently or otherwise, don't get your panties in a wad if someone like me calls you on it.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Tailgunner... Thanks. It
January 22, 2009 - 02:48 ET by JerTailgunner...
Thanks. It was a sloppy mistake--the kind I really try not to make. What I said about Berger was technically true, but, there were clearly important additional details which frankly, much to my regret, had slipped my mind, and, as a result, were omitted from my initial post. But, I can and do assure you, the omission was not intentional--nor any sort of deceptive effort on my part to gloss over or misrepresent Berger's culpability. Anyway, I reinstate all my apologies and withdraw my remarks about your integrity. You have now shown that I was wrong in that assessment.
I hope it's okay with you if we just go ahead and close the book on this.
Jer
Okay. Truce.
January 22, 2009 - 03:17 ET by TailgunnerOkay. Truce.
Hey KnobJob,
January 16, 2009 - 18:59 ET by R D Helm"...they need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law..."
Why do we need to further tie-up our already over-crowded federal court system with these illiterate, murderous camel-washers?
Most of them are enemy combatants caught out of uniform. As such, they have no rights whatsoever, other than to be thrown up against a wall and shot.
Oh, and I hate to break it to you, but the FISA Court released a ruling today that says it is actually legal to spy on our enemies and their possible associates in a time of war.
Gee, imagine that. :-)
You and your enemy-enabling friends must be all kinds of torn up over that.
BTW, when your Dear Leader gets himself anointed POTUS next week, what are you and your fellow terrorist-coddling friends going to be in here saying once it becomes apparent that Barack Hussein Obama is using the exact same tactics that GWB was using?
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
Once again you evade,
January 16, 2009 - 21:18 ET by TailgunnerOnce again you evade, ignore and bullsh*t your way out of providing direct answers to direct questions.
Even your link is a damn lie. It has nothing to do with the 500-plus tons of uranium moved from Iraq to Canada in July 2008.
You lose.
Goodbye, troll. (click)
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Afterwards, Bill Clinton would masturbate into the bathroom sink
January 15, 2009 - 21:14 ET by shawn228What would even be the point of having Monica do what you said, if Bill has to resort to manual transmission? ;-)
He had my vote
First of all, it's not what
January 16, 2009 - 09:04 ET by TailgunnerFirst of all, it's not what I said. It's what Monica said.
Secondly, don't ask me. Ask the Pervert-in-Chief.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Shawn,
January 16, 2009 - 18:30 ET by RESTLESS 1It would mean to me that Monica wasn't very good at it.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Flaccid?
January 15, 2009 - 11:48 ET by Lord ErondOdd, if the press seemed flaccid with GWB it's because they already had their story written before the press conference and it usually had nothing to do with facts and always contained some slam to GWB.
Why should they pay attention at the press conferences when the work was already done? That's why the press was flaccid.
"What you can not enforce, do not command" -Sophocles-
Welcome to NewsBusters, HandJob.
January 15, 2009 - 20:35 ET by R D HelmWould you prefer we revert to the Clinton years, in which Osama's camel-washers carried out five attacks against this country, while our alleged CIC was busy playing Hide the Cigar?
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
Hey Number One
January 15, 2009 - 20:51 ET by BlondeWe need a better class of troll, here.
Do you need an assist? Or can you kick this n00b to the curb all by yourselves?
:)
That's okay, Captain J...
January 15, 2009 - 21:23 ET by R D Helm...as I don't think this particular troll has the intellectual wherewithal to cause any real damage to the ship.
I think this one will be a minor annoyance, at best.
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
Pretty good one, Dave...
January 15, 2009 - 21:01 ET by JerPretty good one, Dave...
But the Slickster was capable of handling a cigar with one hand while confronting terrorism with the other. GWB, with both hands free, proved unable to host barbecues at his ranch and simultaneously act on stunningly ominous PDBs.
And why the hell is bin Laden still over there in his Pakistani/Afghan hide-out calling for jihads more than seven years after 9/11?
Jer
Bill Clinton couldn't confront his wife
January 15, 2009 - 21:20 ET by choselife3xMuch less terrorism.
Stop defending the man whore, makes you look cheap, Jer.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
choselife...
January 15, 2009 - 21:39 ET by Jer"Bill Clinton couldn't confront his wife..."
He most likely found it easier to confront terrorists.
Stop defending the man whore, makes you look cheap, Jer.
I appreciate the advice, but I'll defend what I think deserves defending, and criticize what I think deserves criticizing--regarding both Clinton and Bush. It's what I've done here in the past with respect to both and no doubt will continue to do so in the future. It's called objectivity. Why don't you try it some time? Maybe it will improve your mood.
Jer
Jer
January 15, 2009 - 21:41 ET by Free StinkerHe most likely found it easier to confront terrorists.
Even if he found it easier, when exactly did he do that ?
"Gov. Palin has been subjected to one of the most massive and dishonest pile-on smear attacks in the history of liberal media." -- Lowell Ponte
Free... Clinton did not
January 15, 2009 - 21:51 ET by JerFree...
Clinton did not give it nearly enough attention during his first term, but, even though there were still missteps, he was well-focused on the problem during his second.
Jer
Jer
January 15, 2009 - 21:54 ET by Free StinkerHe issued additional subpoenas ?
Good evening Jer
January 15, 2009 - 22:19 ET by cocodrieMarie Antoinette was well focused on the guillotine as it was coming down.
Jesus Loves You
Hi coco... Right...there
January 15, 2009 - 22:32 ET by JerHi coco...
Right...there was a quote that went something like "nothing concentrates the mind like being led to the gallows."
Jer
Jer
January 15, 2009 - 22:43 ET by cocodrieMy favorite gallows scene was in Blazing Saddles when the horse was on the gallows.
More BS. Sudan tried to
January 16, 2009 - 08:59 ET by TailgunnerMore BS.
Sudan tried to give bin Laden to Clinton. He refused. Clinton said, on tape, that 'we had nothing to hold him on'.
Clinton had several other opportunities to kill or capture OBL. He passed on all of them.
During Clinton's watch we were hit by Islamic terrorists at least five separate times, including the first WTC bombing and a direct attack on a US warship.
Clinton's only response was to bomb some empty tents in the desert and an 'aspirin factory' that was mistakenly called a WMD factory. (Did Clinton 'lie', Jer?)
And let's not forget that Clinton sent Sandy Berger into the National Archives before the 9/11 hearings to steal and destroy highly classified evidence to obstruct the investigation and cover up Clinton's absolute incompetence in fighting Islamic terrorism.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Sudan tried to give bin
January 17, 2009 - 00:37 ET by JerSudan tried to give bin Laden to Clinton. He refused. Clinton said, on tape, that 'we had nothing to hold him on'
This one has been run around the track so many times, it's amazing it still has a leg to stand on. I've personally heard Hannity repeat it at least a dozen times, and I rarely tune him in. Sudan was ruled by a gang of terrorist-supporting, bin Laden loving,. duplicitous thugs. Their bona fides, to say the least, are highly questionable. Richard Clarke, who should know the truth if anyone does, called the story a complete fable. Could it have happened? Maybe. If so, did it happen in the manner the anti-Clinton right has depicted? Very doubtful.
Clinton had several other opportunities to kill or capture OBL. He passed on all of them.
Perhaps, if you count trying to blow OBL to bits with 47 cruise missiles as taking a "pass". That was 47 more than GWB launched.
During Clinton's watch we were hit by Islamic terrorists at least five separate times, including the first WTC bombing and a direct attack on a US warship.
Yes, and...what? During Bush's watch, terrorists hijacked four planes, flew two of them into the WTC, one into the Pentagon, and murdered nearly 3000 Americans which was over 2900 more than were killed during Clinton's watch. This was after Bush and been repeatedly warned about the bin Laden/Al Qaeda threat by Albright, Berger, Clinton, the Hart-Rudman commission early in the Bush administration, and by George Tenet running around with his "hair on fire" during the summer of 2001 when all the intel warning lights were blinking red.
Clinton's only response was to bomb some empty tents in the desert and an 'aspirin factory' that was mistakenly called a WMD factory. (Did Clinton 'lie', Jer?)
Indeed, the aforementioned 47 cruise missiles would definitely qualify as a response. And you are sure it was only an aspirin factory? Are there not occasions where targets are misidentified even during the Bush administration? Or did our intelligence capabilities suddenly become infallible when Bush became President.
And let's not forget that Clinton sent Sandy Berger into the National Archives before the 9/11 hearings to steal and destroy highly classified evidence to obstruct the investigation and cover up Clinton's absolute incompetence in fighting Islamic terrorism
Berger attempted to unlawfully remove classified materials [he claims] in order to assist in his preparation for 9/11 commission testimony. The rest of your statement is propagandistic crap spoonfed by Limbaugh.
Here is a link to one of the items I had been searching for. I still haven't located, but will continue looking for, the one which gave a thoroughly detailed list of all the anti-terrorism measures implemented and/or sought by Clinton [some were blocked by Congressional Republicans].
Jer
Sorry, Tailgunner, that linked improperly. I'll try to correct it.
Sudan was ruled by a gang
January 17, 2009 - 08:56 ET by BDSudan was ruled by a gang of terrorist-supporting, bin Laden loving,. duplicitous thugs. Their bona fides, to say the least, are highly questionable. Richard Clarke, who should know the truth if anyone does, called the story a complete fable. Could it have happened? Maybe. If so, did it happen in the manner the anti-Clinton right has depicted? Very doubtful.
Perhaps, if you count trying to blow OBL to bits with 47 cruise missiles as taking a "pass". That was 47 more than GWB launched.
Berger attempted to unlawfully remove classified materials [he claims] in order to assist in his preparation for 9/11 commission testimony. The rest of your statement is propagandistic crap spoonfed by Limbaugh.
→ Berger Traitorous tool
January 17, 2009 - 09:15 ET by Cool ArrowThose papers were already safely ensconced into an American History yet to be written.
Except for 9/11, the papers Berger stole would have meant little to historians, but the reality of 9/11 made the papers toxic to Clinton's legacy.
The 9/11 survivors and their loved ones effectively saw Sandy Berger stuff the truth into his pants, rub it against his privates, and discard that truth like so much toilet paper.
Class Act there Mr. Clinton. Was it worth it? Never mind, you don't have to answer.
"Perhaps, if you count
January 17, 2009 - 13:35 ET by Tailgunner"Perhaps, if you count trying to blow OBL to bits with 47 cruise missiles as taking a "pass". That was 47 more than GWB launched."
But Clinton failed. And he didn't try again for the remaining two years of his term.
Clinton knew what a danger OBL was...that's allegedly why he tried to kill him.
(Even the New York Times noted that the attacks occurred at the same time Monica Lewinsky was testifying in front of a grand jury about her sexual relationship with Clinton, although they made no direct connection.)
Doesn't Clinton's failure to kill or capture such a known danger to the US like Osama bin Laden make him more responsible for 9/11 than President George W Bush?
After all, Clinton had at least two full years to deal with OBL, while GWB had only a few months...especially since Al Gore delayed Bush's transition team with his blatant attempts to steal the election.
That means the Clinton Administration was a failure in the war on terror. And they knew it.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Berger attempted to
January 17, 2009 - 13:15 ET by Tailgunner"Berger attempted to unlawfully remove classified materials [he claims] in order to assist in his preparation for 9/11 commission testimony. The rest of your statement is propagandistic crap spoonfed by Limbaugh."
What you just said is completely and totally false.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18989-2005Apr1?language=printer
(excerpt) "In acknowledging the crime to Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson, Berger said he knowingly took five copies of different versions of the same classified document -- briefings for the Clinton administration on terrorism threats -- from the National Archives in the fall of 2003. As part of his plea, Berger also acknowledged that he destroyed three of the copies, and returned the remaining two to archives officials and said he had "misfiled" them. "
'Preparation' my @ss. Berger admitted in a court of law to stealing and destroying critical evidence needed by the 9/11 Commission that reflected badly on him and the Clinton Administration.
The rest of your claims are probably equally false and/or misleading. Someday, when I'm bored, I may research them.
You just outright lied to me. I have nothing more to say to you, sir, without an apology.
See below.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
→ The same document
January 17, 2009 - 13:25 ET by Cool ArrowDoubtless there were certain handwritten notes in the margins of these destroyed documents.
I wonder whose copies got destroyed?
Tailgunner...
January 17, 2009 - 14:08 ET by JerRegarding your following accusations:
What you just said is completely and totally false.
You just outright lied to me. I have nothing more to say to you, sir, without an apology.
That is, by far, the biggest overreaction to a statement I have posted in my one and a half years at NewsBusters.
But I erred in using the word "attempting" in the sentence in question. I apologize for that. I was in no way trying to minimize the actions for which Berger pleaded guilty.
Now, do me a favor. Reread your statement about Clinton ordering Berger etc. and compare it to the facts as stated in the article which you linked to discredit me. Is the Justice Department lying or are you? Can you back up your claim with facts. Maybe you owe me an apology as well, sir.
Jer
→ Liar Liar
January 17, 2009 - 16:51 ET by Cool ArrowI really hate it when ppl find it convenient to shout "Liar! Liar!"
In more genteel times, somebody would be laid out and measured for a wooden box after the back-and forth y'all just had.
I'm not sure we're better than that, I'm just sure we should be.
Sorry (not). When
January 17, 2009 - 19:22 ET by TailgunnerSorry (not).
When someone tells me my claim is 'propagandistic crap' spoonfed (to me) by Rush Limbaugh, I don't feel under any further obligation to consider his 'feelings'.
See below.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Tailgunner...
January 17, 2009 - 19:38 ET by JerThen provide a factual basis for your claim. It appeared to me you were passing off naked speculation as "truth". I'll be more than happy to restate the characterization and apologize if you can do so. There is certainly nothing in your linked article which supports the allegation. Indeed, it seems to be contradicted by it.
Jer
I stand by my conclusion
January 17, 2009 - 20:22 ET by TailgunnerI stand by my conclusion that, based on what we now know Sandy Berger told a Federal Magistrate during his guilty plea, that it is logical that Bill Clinton sent Berger to 'sanitize' the files in the National Archives.
Why else would Berger steal five copies of the same document, destroy three copies, then return the remaining two copies with a lame-@ss excuse about 'misfiling' them? (Remember, you completely denied that any of that took place.)
Berger knew the severe penalties of such an act. For him to take such an extreme step the order must have come from on high.
Actually, I complimented you. The only other possible explanation for the complete load of crap you tried to sell me was that you were so dumb you couldn't even 'Google' "sandy berger national archives classified material" to find the facts.
Don't like that? Sorry.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
→ Glad I could help
January 17, 2009 - 19:44 ET by Cool ArrowNow make up and carry on. Or not.
Doesn't make much difference in the overall scheme of things.
Nobody's budging, and those who interject opinion get bitten.
Those were the exact words
January 17, 2009 - 19:19 ET by TailgunnerThose were the exact words of the Washington Post's report of Sandy Berger's guilty plea before a Federal Judge.
You said:
"Berger attempted to unlawfully remove classified materials [he claims] in order to assist in his preparation for 9/11 commission testimony. The rest of your statement is propagandistic crap spoonfed by Limbaugh."
You attempted to claim that Berger didn't even actually take classified materials...he only said he did. And you denied totally my claim that Berger did steal classified materials and did destroy them by claiming that it was a Rush Limbaugh lie.
That means you were calling both me and Rush liars. But you didn't hear me whining about it.
I backed up my claim with black and white evidence. Not one word of your claim was true.
My claim that Bill Clinton sent Berger to the National Archives is my own conclusion based on long experience with political criminals like those in the Clinton Administration.
You have the same search resources as I and everyone else does. You could easily have found this same article if you were interested in presenting (instead of misrepresenting) the facts.
Therefore I reached the logical conclusion that if you are not completely obtuse, you are therefore being deceptive.
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.....well, not really.
See below.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Sorry to disappoint,
January 17, 2009 - 19:19 ET by JerSorry to disappoint, gunner, but you didn't hurt my feelings. It just bothers me when I'm dealing with an individual with a low integrity level. And yours, sir, is absolute zero--the worst I've encountered at NewsBusters. Congratulations.
Jer
Please. It hurts when one
January 17, 2009 - 19:30 ET by TailgunnerPlease. It hurts when one such as you speaks of 'integrity'.
You just made a false claim you couldn't back up. You implied I was a liar for making such a claim. I proved it with an ironclad source, the Washington Post.
Since you could easily have found that same article, but chose instead to make outrageously false claims and slander Rush Limbaugh and myself by extension, I quite logically concluded that you knew you were doing so.
You aren't exactly a judge of 'integrity'.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Tailgunner... To my
January 17, 2009 - 20:27 ET by JerTailgunner...
To my knowledge, there has never been a shred of credible evidence that Clinton ordered Berger to steal and destroy classified documents to conceal evidence of malfeasance or embarrassing details regarding 9/11. If you have such evidence, I'd love to see it.
That said, I think my description [propagandistic crap, etc] was over the top and I'm sorry for that characterization. But, I also think your retaliation, which included a direct accusation that I was lying, was wholly unnecessary and offensive. My brief summarization of the Berger affair was slightly in error--which I admitted and for which I have apologized. But to suggest every word of it was false and a deliberate lie which I concocted out of thin air was really unfair.
Again, I'm sorry for my error and for the overstated characterization of your words. I hope you will accept the apology in the spirit in which it was intended, and we can move on.
Jer
By the same standard, there
January 17, 2009 - 20:33 ET by BDBy the same standard, there has never been a shred of evidence that OBL order the AQ terrorists to take over four airliners in September 2001.
But we analyze the information and come to logical conclusions. That is what analysis does.
THe logical conclusion is that Berger needed to destroy SOMETHING that was presented to a small number of people in order to protect them. SInce he did not attempt to destroy ALL the documents, it is not the document itself that is in question. Rather it is what was likely written in the margins of one or two of them that required their destruction.
Who would Berger have been willing to do jail time to protect? Himself (One document), and Clinton (The other).
Do you see Berger sneaking the documents out to protect the CIA chief? RIIIGGGHHHTTTT.
BD...
January 17, 2009 - 21:16 ET by JerBy the same standard, there has never been a shred of evidence that OBL order the AQ terrorists to take over four airliners in September 2001.
Apparently, those in a far better position to possess, be apprised of, assess, and draw conclusions from relevant information than are you believe otherwise. And, I assume, you recall the reports about bin Laden successively raising his fingers as word of each hijacked airliner was disseminated.
THe logical conclusion is that Berger needed to destroy SOMETHING that was presented to a small number of people in order to protect them. SInce he did not attempt to destroy ALL the documents, it is not the document itself that is in question. Rather it is what was likely written in the margins of one or two of them that required their destruction.
Once again, your logical conclusion seems to be at odds with the findings and explicit statements of the Justice Department investigators and lawyers. So, I repeat, who is in a better position to know? You or them?
Jer
Aha! Soyou are finally
January 18, 2009 - 09:32 ET by BDAha!
Soyou are finally able to think like an analyst rather than a lawyer, right?
If I were to think like a lawyer I would say that All that THAT points out is that OBL KNEW about it.
But like you I also believe that OBL ordered it, and CLinton asked Berger to shred ebarrassing material.
Aha! What's with the
January 18, 2009 - 12:21 ET by JerAha!
What's with the dramatic "Aha!", BD? I feel like I'm on the set of a Pink Panther movie.
Soyou are finally able to think like an analyst rather than a lawyer, right?
Wrong. I've been thinking like both for a long, long time.
If I were to think like a lawyer I would say that All that THAT points out is that OBL KNEW about it.
And if that were the only evidence offered to prove the allegation, you would win your case. [Although it does suggest, in and of itself, that he had intimate knowledge of the details of the attack.] However, when combined with other evidence, some of which is publicly known and much of which is known only to our intelligence agencies, it is reasonable to reach, or at least concur with, the conclusion that OBL ordered the 9/11 assaults. I'll tender the findings of the 9/11 commission into evidence on the issue of bin Laden's culpability. What exhibits do you have to counter the Justice Department's conclusions regarding Berger?
But like you I also believe that OBL ordered it, and CLinton asked Berger to shred ebarrassing material.
Again, BD, you are simply making a naked assertion. You believe it based on what? Because you don't like Clinton and, if it were true, it not only makes him look bad but actually criminalizes his conduct? The investigation of the Justice Department and the statements made by its attorneys--entities in a much better position to know all the facts--fly directly in the face of your highly partisan theory.
Hardly a week goes by without someone here implicating the Clintons in Vince Foster's death. Limbaugh still "hints" at it. Yet multiple federal investigations, several headed by Republicans desperate to "get Clinton", concluded it was suicide. Nevertheless, elaborate, dark--but seemingly plausible--scenarios continue to be floated. Repeating a palatable myth a thousand times doesn't make it true.
Jer
Jer
January 16, 2009 - 09:33 ET by MrShyThat Arkansas slimeball really did nothing, nada, zilch, all during his 8 do-nothing years, with regards to foreign policy and waging any fight against terrorism.
Bush literally walked into a mess. Our military was stripped down during the 90's, CIA and FBI were at odds with each other, the nation in general had it's collective heads in the sand with matters beyond our borders. I will even admit that Bush was lulled into a false sense of security to some degree, too, but that culture of blissful ignorance was entirely JB's making.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
That Arkansas slimeball
January 17, 2009 - 01:01 ET by JerThat Arkansas slimeball really did nothing, nada, zilch, all during his 8 do-nothing years, with regards to foreign policy and waging any fight against terrorism.
Didn't I give you a reading assignment last summer [Richard Clarke Against All Enemies] which would have exposed your above statement as pure baloney?
Here is another link for a very brief summary of just some of Clinton's efforts. There was much more, however.
[Sorry, I still can't get it to link. I'll try to copy the URL and post it. I don't know what the problem is.]
Jer
Article is located at http://www.xent/pipermail/fork/Week-of-Mon-20031027/026664.html
Dammit, still not loading: Okay, in essence, it conclusively proves that William Jefferson Clinton is the greatest fighter against terrorism in the history of the Free World. ;-)
"Arkansas slimeball" I
January 17, 2009 - 01:24 ET by RR GOP"Arkansas slimeball"
I had to read your comment to see if you were talking about Slick Willy, Shrillary or Huckster.
Rather confusing.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Jer
January 16, 2009 - 09:49 ET by choselife3xIt depends on what the definition of 'well focused' is.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Objectivity
January 15, 2009 - 22:08 ET by choselife3xIn my objective opinion, Bill Clinton is a classless putz who couldn't keep it in his pants if his life depended on it.
*edit* you're right Jer, I feel better now.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Jer...you little jester
January 15, 2009 - 21:23 ET by bigtimerJer...you little jester you...
You mean while BJ was busy doing everything possible to avoid the real problem, even when Osama was offered up on a silver platter....that other hand of his was always waving in the air deciding which way the wind was blowing for him with his popularity polls before taking on anything like al Qaeda...and you know it.
He left the mess of the death and destruction that hit this country...while whining later because President Bush was soaring in popularity that he wished he had 9-11 happen on his watch...I'll never forget what the narcissistic ba$tar#d did, or didn't do and said.
Now the Clinton Duo get to run the State Dept. which Hill has grand plans for with expansion and all kinds of good stuff.
You are really being beyond pathetic tonight.
"You've gone beyond the law"... Sen. Kerry~ Head of Foreign Relations Committee to Hillary at Sec.of State confirmation hearings~1-13-09
Really bt?
January 15, 2009 - 21:34 ET by shawn228"...... because President Bush was soaring in popularity that he wished he had
9-11 happen on his watch...I'll never forget what the narcissistic
ba$tar#d did, or didn't do and said"
Did he say he wished 911 happen on his watch, or is that just your assumption?
He had my vote
Shawn
January 15, 2009 - 21:43 ET by choselife3xI've heard that quoted as something he said.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
choselife, bt, and shawn...
January 15, 2009 - 22:18 ET by JerI don't recall the exact words, but he did make a comment which expressed his interest in facing the awesome challenge of an event such as 9/11 during his presidency. He certainly wasn't suggesting that he wished the awful tragedy had actually occurred.
It might be googleable.
Jer
Jer
January 15, 2009 - 22:27 ET by choselife3xI don't use Google, I'm a homophobe.
(3000 innocent civilians dead on American soil. AWESOME challenge.)
BC is a classless putz. Ahhhhhhh....better.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
No shawn...I'm just making
January 15, 2009 - 22:08 ET by bigtimerNo shawn...I'm just making it up.
"You've gone beyond the law"... Sen. Kerry~ Head of Foreign Relations Committee to Hillary at Sec.of State confirmation hearings~1-13-09
bt...
January 15, 2009 - 22:03 ET by Jerbt...
Read a little history. The "narcissistic bastard" and his wife were out publicly rallying support for President Bush--and I and the overwhelming majority of Democrats did fully support him-while the right-wing talk jocks were screaming "it's all Clinton's fault...blood is on his hands". That's what I call "pathetic".
But, by all means, continue with the personal attacks if that makes you feel good.
Jer
Listen Jer... Don't mess
January 15, 2009 - 22:11 ET by bigtimerListen Jer...
Don't mess with me tonight, I'm not in the mood for your usual BS after reading what Matthews said.
By the way, the wall that was built between the FBI and the CIA ect was a major part of the problem, whose watch and intentional plans were those on genuis?
The msm still protects those no good critters...they always have...always will.
"You've gone beyond the law"... Sen. Kerry~ Head of Foreign Relations Committee to Hillary at Sec.of State confirmation hearings~1-13-09
bt...
January 15, 2009 - 22:25 ET by JerYou listen, bt. If you don't want to be messed with, then stop messing with me and calling me "pathetic". I don't consider that honest or friendly debate.
The "wall" had long existed between the CIA and FBI. Gorelick clarified the parameters. Brush up on your history, cool off, and then come back.
Jer
Knock it of with you usual
January 15, 2009 - 22:40 ET by bigtimerKnock it off with you usual line of telling others here to brush up and read some history.
Read this...all of it...there is plenty of history here about all of this.
Google the rest...
...right at the moment I don't need you telling me how to be polite Jer...you are always the antagonizer...it gets old.
"You've gone beyond the law"... Sen. Kerry~ Head of Foreign Relations Committee to Hillary at Sec.of State confirmation hearings~1-13-09
Oh, that's just dandy.
January 15, 2009 - 22:52 ET by JerOh, that's just dandy. History according to Professor Rush Limbaugh. Now there's an objective source. Did you actually post that link with a straight face? Brush up on some real history, bt.
As far as the "antagonizer", why don't you review the threads. I've bent over backwards to be nice to you. If you think I haven't been, then report me. Otherwise, either leave me alone or stop the namecalling.
Jer
Did you even bother to read
January 15, 2009 - 22:57 ET by bigtimerDid you even bother to read all the histoy there Jer.
I also didn't call you any names.
I said YOU were being pathetic.
Please quit acting like a spoiled child.
Oh, I forgot...you are a lefty...usual fare.
"You've gone beyond the law"... Sen. Kerry~ Head of Foreign Relations Committee to Hillary at Sec.of State confirmation hearings~1-13-09
Actually, you said I was
January 15, 2009 - 23:23 ET by JerActually, you said I was being "beyond pathetic". Not that my argument was weak, or unsupported, or even pathetic, but that "I was being beyond pathetic". [Even worse than merely pathetic]. That's namecalling.
But if you are really bothered by my "usual lefty fare", then just ignore it--and me.
If you want to debate it, engage in some good-natured sarcasm, get in some digs, etc., then I welcome it, but the namecalling is unnecessary.
Jer
Jer (& BT)
January 16, 2009 - 09:25 ET by MrShyI have to side with BT, and most of us here, that for someone who generally holds different beliefs from most of us regarding politics, that we really don't treat you all that bad AT ALL, for the most part.
When you "couldn't take it anymore" a while back and went MIA, you complained of one or two people. BT is a tough cookie, but like she's pointing out, the worst thing she said is you are ACTING pathetic (or "beyond", or whatever) and that's hardly anything to get your knickers all tied up in a knot over.
And, oh Jer, if you would like, I'll gladly share with you the "tolerance" I've been subjected to by all my liberal "friends"... many now being ex-friends, sadly. NB is a walk in the park, believe me, which is a reflection of the basic cultural and behavioral differences between Reps and Dems, IMO.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Well, Shy... You're on
January 17, 2009 - 01:43 ET by JerWell, Shy...
You're on the wrong side.
And, by the way, remember all of those complimentary things I said several months ago about your musical talent? I was lying.
[Not really. :-)]
Jer
Jer
January 17, 2009 - 01:47 ET by MightyMouthyou seem a desent sort, why not come over from the dark side?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM... Bright lights hurt
January 17, 2009 - 01:56 ET by JerMM...
Bright lights hurt my eyes. And I don't look too good in shades.
But, in all honesty, I'm probably not nearly as liberal as most of you think I am.
Jer
haha
January 17, 2009 - 02:07 ET by MightyMouthJer, damn near everyone looks good(or cool) in shades! Well they can't be clown shades, but you know what I mean. When I am wearing my shades there is a slight bump in self-esteem (but that just may be me).
And yes, you are as liberal as we think you are :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM...
January 17, 2009 - 02:31 ET by JerAnd yes, you are as liberal as we think you are.
Okay. You busted me. Plus, I look dayem good in shades.
Jer (signing off)
lol nite jer...
January 17, 2009 - 02:34 ET by MightyMouth"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
jer
January 15, 2009 - 21:29 ET by botgyou forgot your smilie face to go with your obvious sacasm
;^ )
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Well, botg.... That part
January 15, 2009 - 22:06 ET by JerWell, botg....
That part about preferring to confront the terrorists rather than Hillary was slightly sarcastic--so half a smiley.
Jer
no jer, your assertion
January 15, 2009 - 22:13 ET by botgno jer, your assertion that he confronted either is what i found as just high comedy
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
I figured that, botg... I
January 15, 2009 - 22:37 ET by JerI figured that, botg...
I had some relevant links at one time. I'll see if I can dig them up. I'm not sure I saved them. [But you can always read Clarke's book Against All Enemies.]
Jer
yeah uh Wesley? no
January 15, 2009 - 22:53 ET by botgyeah uh Wesley? no thankee.
i think we both know the history
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
botg...
January 16, 2009 - 01:03 ET by JerNot Wesley...Richard.
Jer
Jer,
January 15, 2009 - 21:36 ET by R D Helm"But the Slickster was capable of handling a cigar with one hand while confronting terrorism with the other."
LOL-Hey, now there is talent. :-)
As for Osama, I can't help but be at least a little curious as to why it is that the last several times we have heard from him, its always via audio tape.
Why no video?
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
Dave...
January 15, 2009 - 21:44 ET by JerWhy no video?
I think his make-up guys got taken out by a Predator.
Jer
'Stunningly ominous PDB's'...
January 16, 2009 - 11:30 ET by Tailgunner...is a load of horsesh*t.
The Presidential Daily Briefings (PDBs) mentioned dozens of investigations of Islamic terrorists, and contained general threat information, but nothing specific such as, 'A Bunch of al-Qaeda Hijackers Are Going To Fly Three Jets Into The Pentagon, The WTC Towers, And The Ground On September 11, 2001'.
In fact, the most specific threat information never mentioned the WTC.
Even if Bush knew exactly what was going to happen on 9/11/01, what was he to do?
Suppose he had issued an order to arrest any Middle Eastern men in or around an airport or a boarding gate. Failing that, let's say he ordered all US flights to land immediately. Yes, he would have prevented 9/11.
But the left would have made sure he was impeached for the emergency steps he took to save three aircraft, the WTC towers, and over 3,000 American lives.
Look at what the left has been doing for nearly eight years to tear Bush down and undermine the war on Islamic terrorism; even going as far as knowingly aiding the terrorists on many occasions.
I'm glad someone brought up Osama bin Laden. The left's new benchmark for victory (after the capture of Saddam) is the capture of bin Laden. Somehow, as long as he is 'free' (living in fear under a rock) he is 'winning'.
This shows an amazing ignorance of even recent history.
No one would seriously challenge the fact that the Allies 'won' WWII. Yet Hitler's whereabouts were unknown to everyone but the Soviets (and they weren't talking) for over forty years.
Legends grew about Hitler and his remaining henchmen living in luxury in South America and planning his return to power.
And Japan's 'unconditional' surrender allowed the Emperor to keep his throne unmolested.
LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.
White wash? Please add a
January 15, 2009 - 23:21 ET by BDWhite wash? Please add a rationale to flesh out this comment.
Both oil & Israel
January 15, 2009 - 11:30 ET by Nortoare national security issues, and if The President had made that clear from the outset, it would have been a more honest and less vulnerable position politically. That was huge mistake, because the other issue, weapons of mass destruction, that term fits a description to a tee of Sadaam and his boys.
Helen Thomas - The Old Arab
January 15, 2009 - 11:45 ET by Lord ErondI would love to see GWB take out a coconut cream pie and paste Helen's face with it. If nothing else just to see the look on her face afterwards. I wonder when they are going to scrape that woman's festering corpse out of her chair. That's not a human talking, it's an undead zombie, or at least she looks like one.
"What you can not enforce, do not command" -Sophocles-
LB, I'm Middle Eastern, and
January 15, 2009 - 12:07 ET by marpelLB, I'm Middle Eastern, and I'm a conservative. So, us Old Arabs are not all alike. :o)
President Bush's biggest
January 15, 2009 - 11:54 ET by SmartypantsPresident Bush's biggest mistake in my book was allowing his enemies to define who he is; this is a recipe for disaster. Overall, this is a good man and a very good leader, who governed through unprecedented times--from 9/11 to Katrina to corporate malfeasance and now to this historic economic meltdown. The truth is that most of these occurrences had little to do with Bush or his policies; yet he was saddled with cleaning up the mess and, ultimately, took much of the blame from an unfriendly media. I will never forget the one press briefing where the beltway press were cajoling Bush to apologize for something--anything--on record. Never before had I seen even a Republican president treated with such disrespect. The idea that these arrogant elites think it is their job to elicit apologies from the president is astounding to me, and it always will be. Bravo to Bush for not giving in at that time; I only wish he would have been as forceful on a regular basis.
You are so right. 9/11
January 15, 2009 - 12:05 ET by marpelYou are so right. 9/11 defined his Presidency, but he allowed the media to define how he carried out some of his duties. My frustration for the past 8 years was Bush's silence about the criticisms. He seemed not to want to defend himself and I wanted to scream. I don't know if it would have done any good, but I bet more of the American people would have discounted what the media said and he would have kept a lot of his popularity. I think he's too late to want to defend himself now.
Don't get me wrong, I think history will be much kinder to him. I like the man and I thank him for keeping us safe and trying to keep in his heart the best interests of the American people.
marpel, I have mixed
January 15, 2009 - 13:57 ET by Smartypantsmarpel, I have mixed feelings about all of this. I too wish Bush would have fought back more; however, as I posted earlier in this thread, I believe it would not have mattered all that much. Even if Bush had fought back harder, the media would have portrayed him as bitter, combative, stubborn, etc. He may have won over a few more people in the proces, but he may also have lost some support in the process. Still, he should have come up with a better way of defining himself instead of allowing the media to do so. Reagan defnined himself by speaking directly to Americans, essentially circumventing the media. (I'm reading his diary and he was clearly frustrated with the press on a continual basis, but he managed to work around it.) Bush is not so skilled, however. In a way, I think he is too idealistic. Bush believes if he is doing the right thing that most people will eventually see the truth. Maybe that is correct, but it could take decades for that to happen.
Smarty, I hope I'm around
January 15, 2009 - 16:48 ET by marpelSmarty, I hope I'm around to see him vindicated. In all honesty, I could count on one hand the times I disagreed with him. The one big one was over illegal immigration. He was my Governor before he was President. He should have been more open to trying to stop illegal immigration. It's eating Texas alive and he knows it.
But, he was a wonderful Governor, and was so well liked (and still is by most Texans). I think he was a completely different person as President.
smarty, you are probably
January 15, 2009 - 17:01 ET by JIMMY1660smarty,
you are probably 100%-however, the lefties spew vile bile, with no facts. if GWB would have just spoke as much of the truth as security would allow, and factual truths like cream, rise to the top and unrefutable.
hard to spin the truth with back up.
allow me to Love America
marpel...
January 15, 2009 - 20:00 ET by JerDon't get me wrong, I think history will be much kinder to him.
Don't get me wrong, either. I posted those exact words about a month ago [re the verdict of history].
I like the man and I thank him for keeping us safe and trying to keep in his heart the best interests of the American people.
Ditto.
My frustration for the past 8 years was Bush's silence about the criticisms.
Remember, for the first 2 1/2-3 years of his presidency, Bush enjoyed approval ratings fluctuating roughly between 60% all the way up to 90%! Not bad for someone who had received fewer votes in the 2000 election than his Democratic challenger. Furthermore, Bush was the recipient of generally favorable treatment by the media during the 2000 campaign, and the mostly positive press continued well into his first term. When no WMDs were found in Iraq and the war turned sour, so did much of the media (which felt it had been duped).
Jer
Furthermore, Bush was the
January 15, 2009 - 23:34 ET by BDFurthermore, Bush was the recipient of generally favorable treatment by the media during the 2000 campaign,
When no WMDs were found in Iraq and the war turned sour, so did much of the media (which felt it had been duped).
When no WMDs were found in Iraq and the war turned sour, so did much of the media (which felt it had been duped).
BD...
January 16, 2009 - 00:58 ET by JerTHey branded him an idiot.
Cite, please. Who is the "They" who branded him an "idiot"?
and spoke disparagingly about his capabilities during the 2000 campaign
I don't doubt some did. Some also spoke very disparagingly about Gore. In my opinion, overall, Bush received more favorable treatment than Gore during the 2000 campaign. There is considerable evidence of media disdain for Gore. But, I suppose reasonable minds can differ on who was treated worse.
THen during the 2004 campaign they shifted it to "Bush the crafty but incompetant."
You seemed to have forgotten or ignored the time frame to which I alluded in my post.
Boy, do you NOT remember the way the press coverd the war.
Yes, I do. Reporting on and analyzing the potential difficulties of the Afghan war is not tantamount to critcism of Bush or the decision to liquidate the Taliban--even if some analyses and predictions may have proved erroneous.
During the invasion of Iraq when my old unit made it 1/2 way to Bagdhad and got stopped by a Shamal, the Press began the QUAGMIRE storyline all over again.
Then we would never take Bagdhad or get past the Najaf line.
I would submit that was the minority opinion. I, and most others, believed that stage of the Iraqi intervention would be virtually a cakewalk. Saddam's military assets had been substantially degraded during and after the first Gulf War. And his army's willingness to stand and fight in that earlier conflict was--as bt would say--beyond pathetic.
However, I do believe a growing sense in the media that the inspections should have been given more time, combined with the failure to find WMDs and the burgeoning insurgency after the fall of Baghdad, resulted in the media sharpening and broadening its criticisms of Bush.
With respect to the consolidation of the Sunni triangle and the surge success, I would refer you once again to my time parameters.
Since WMD was only ONE rationale of sixteen, WHY did the press key on trhis? Simply because it was the only rationale THEY could comprehend. They cannot keep multiple rationale in their heads at once.
You apparently have attempted to answer your own questions--with mockery. So I'll assume you're not interested in seriously addressing this issue.
Jer
Cite, please. Who is the
January 16, 2009 - 08:35 ET by BDCite, please. Who is the "They" who branded him an "idiot"?
I don't doubt some did. Some also spoke very disparagingly about Gore. In my opinion, overall, Bush received more favorable treatment than Gore during the 2000 campaign.
Yes, I do. Reporting on and analyzing the potential difficulties of the Afghan war is not tantamount to critcism of Bush or the decision to liquidate the Taliban--even if some analyses and predictions may have proved erroneous.
Since WMD was only ONE rationale of sixteen, WHY did the press key on trhis? Simply because it was the only rationale THEY could comprehend. They cannot keep multiple rationale in their heads at once.
You apparently have attempted to answer your own questions--with mockery. So I'll assume you're not interested in seriously addressing this issue.
Jer, with all due respect,
January 16, 2009 - 09:31 ET by marpelJer, with all due respect, I disagree that 43 EVER was given a fair shake in the press. The press was not duped into the War. They were against it from the beginning, even though Clinton had been speaking about WMD for years before that. And I still think he had them. It just took so long for us to go in there, they were moved to Syria. And they're still in Syria and that's the country we need to watch.
No, I believe truly that 43 had the best interests of the country in his heart and on his mind. So much so, he did not address illegal immigration as I felt he should. But, we were safe and that I will give him an enormous amount of credit.
OMG
January 15, 2009 - 12:01 ET by Lord ErondI clicked on that old link of Perino scolding that filthy Arab Helen Thomas and I think it burnt out a quarter of the pixels on my monitor. But I have an explanation for Helen Thomas
First, she looks like she was beaten several times with the biggest ugly stick that could be found.
Second, she probably can't sit 5 minutes before her bladder incontinence causes her to piss all over herself, making her crotchety and grumpy (smelly too)
Third, she was in the third week of no bowel movements when it all came rushing out into her Depends at the start of the press conference and she was a bit unhappy about sitting in her own feces.
Fourth, her dementia has made her forget that she's supposedly a journalist and when she remembers, she gets all confused and irritated.
Fifth, she pulled off her back, the fifth note of the press conference from her colleagues that said "GO CHANGE YOUR DEPENDS, HELEN".
I can see why you'd behave like Helen Thomas if you had all that going on.
"What you can not enforce, do not command" -Sophocles-
Helen is proof....
January 15, 2009 - 12:22 ET by Lord Erond..that some people are just as ugly on the outside as they are on the inside.
"What you can not enforce, do not command" -Sophocles-
Speaking of Jabs, CNN Disses President Bush Again
January 15, 2009 - 15:01 ET by Rush FanThis morning CNN's Senior Bush Disser Bill Schneider did another hit piece on President Bush. It was Schneider's usual schtick, including "betrayed the trust" thrown in for good measure.
On CNN's American Morning John Roberts interviewing Democratic campaign consultant Doug Schoen asked this question:
ROBERTS: We all remember the famous speech that Hugo Chavez gave at the
United Nations where he called President Bush the devil and said you
could smell the sulfur in the air from his appearance at the United
Nations the day before. Of course Chavez blames President Bush for 2002
coup attempt against him. My question is, is Chavez at war with America
or is he at war with President Bush and will things be different in an
Obama administration?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"There is no longer a media in this country. There is simply an established propaganda arm for the Democrat Party and any and all who relate to it in any way, elected and unelected." ~ Rush Limbaugh