The mainstream media’s coverage of the antiwar march in Washington, DC did its best to ignore the extreme Left views that were on display at the protest. A split-second image at the very beginning of Saturday evening’s NBC Nightly News showed some of the extreme views that were on display on signs, which included a call for the impeachment of President Bush for "war crimes," and a sign that cried "9/11 Truth Now!" The full NBC Nightly News report on the march devoted almost a minute to footage of the antiwar marchers, and only 15 seconds to comments from one of the pro-Iraq war counter-protesters who lined the march route. Anyone who tuned in would have to look carefully for any sign of radical views.
Video: Real (1.6 MB) or Windows (1.3 MB), plus MP3 (618 KB)
Both the New York Times and the Washington Post covered the march in their Sunday editions. However, they ignored some of the radical statements that were made from the stage at the antiwar rally before the march. The photos that accompanied both the print edition and online versions of the articles also glossed over the extreme views that were expressed on signs and banners at the march.
In a report made by Michael Lipin of the Voice of America (which also includes mp3 audio of the quotes from the rally), former attorney general Ramsey Clark, who was pro-Saddam enough to serve as his defense lawyer in Baghdad, was quoted as saying, "Nothing is going to stop this machine except the impeachment of George Bush and his gang... when you remove him for high crimes, then you know the next president will pay attention." Neither the Times nor the Post mentioned Clark’s work for Saddam in their articles.
Cindy Sheehan, who had "retired" from the antiwar movement only a few months ago, also addressed the crowd. "If we don't want to become like Nazi Germany, and you know, these people want us to become like Nazi Germany, it's time for us to stand up and lay down, and it's time for us to do civil disobedience on a massive scale."
The national edition of the Sunday New York Times only included one photograph of a antiwar protester being arrested by the U.S. Capitol Police with its article. The Sunday Washington Post had several photographs of both pro and anti-Iraq war protesters. But both papers chose to ignore extreme viewpoints, such as "9/11 Was An Inside Job," that were expressed at the anti-war march. (For a photo essay which compares the pro and anti-Iraq war protests, go to Michelle Malkin’s blog).
Marc Fisher of the Washington Post began a commentary on the competing protests by making an odd statement. "I hope you enjoy today's biased coverage of this weekend's Iraq war demonstrations." If you thought that was an admission of bias on the part of the Washington Post, think again. Fisher was actually lamenting the fact that all the media attention is on the outdoor demonstrations, and not on the raging war-of-words over the Iraq war that is being waged online.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Of course they want you to think the anti-war groups are clean
September 17, 2007 - 17:00 ET by terrigThis is surprising to anyone? It shouldn't be. The want these folks to look like the people next door or down the street. Eighty percent don't look like normal people and they smell awful. Their signs were foul, their messages on their shirts were foul. These are people who don't respect the military, regardless of what they say.
I'd say the people that
September 17, 2007 - 17:03 ET by LeonI'd say the people that sent our troops into harm's way with poor planning are the ones that had little respect for the troops.
It's amazing to me that you will all defend rampant, blatant mismanagement and then claim it's the people that decry this mismanagement that don't support the troops.
It would be laughable if people weren't dying.
Did you even read the
September 17, 2007 - 17:06 ET by Matthew BalanDid you even read the article? I didn't even mention either side's respect for the troops, nor did I defend any policy. I was highlighting the wackiness of many of these antiwar protesters.
not sure what he is reading
September 17, 2007 - 17:08 ET by TruthMongernot sure what he is reading most of the time - but it's a highly questionable source...
Did you even read my
September 17, 2007 - 17:13 ET by LeonDid you even read my reply? It was to terrig. Not you.
When a reply is indented, generally it means it is referring to a specific post.
I didn't notice the intent
September 17, 2007 - 17:15 ET by Matthew BalanI didn't notice the intent when I replied.
Apology accepted.
September 17, 2007 - 17:17 ET by LeonApology accepted.
the word "apology" did not
September 17, 2007 - 17:19 ET by TruthMongerthe word "apology" did not appear in his post...
RIF
September 17, 2007 - 17:21 ET by Free StinkerReading (comprehension) Is Fundemental
. . . and no matter how horrific the terrorist attack, it's conducted by losers. Winners don't need to hijack airplanes. Winners have an Air Force. --P.J. O'Rourke
(chortle). Yes, it didn't,
September 17, 2007 - 17:21 ET by Matthew Balan(chortle). Yes, it didn't, but I did accept responsibility.
and once again he
September 17, 2007 - 17:23 ET by TruthMongerand once again he accepts this second apology:)...
This is kind of like the
September 17, 2007 - 17:24 ET by Matthew BalanThis is kind of like the "argument" sketch on "Flying Circus." ;-)
is not! is too...
September 17, 2007 - 17:27 ET by TruthMongeris not!
is too...
Matthew, to steer away
September 17, 2007 - 17:25 ET by LeonMatthew,
to steer away from this troll session. What percentage of the American population do you think would say that they support the start of impeachment hearings for Bush?
Do you guys at the MRC have any stats/seen any stats?
I haven't so I'm speculating, but I would bet more than 25% of the population would say that they would support impeachment proceedings.
Again, just a guess, but what percentage is the ceiling for a view to be considered extreme? 10%? 5%? 15%?
Certainly not 20% that's one of out every 5 people.
So couldn't one argue (*once we have the stats of course) that the impeach Bush crowd isn't really all that extreme?
Bah!
September 17, 2007 - 17:27 ET by Free StinkerHa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Thanks for asking ME!
September 17, 2007 - 17:29 ET by TruthMongeras if we could measure these things...but...
I would say the Bush impeachment crowd is about 1% at best...
TM, If it's 1% then it is
September 17, 2007 - 17:33 ET by LeonTM,
If it's 1% then it is an extreme viewpoint. However, I'll bet it's not 1%. I'll bet it's way more.
you betcha... I wonder if
September 17, 2007 - 17:36 ET by TruthMongeryou betcha...
I wonder if 100% of the MSM hadn't been drumming defeat into the "news" - O - sphere for the last 5 years that ANYONE WOULD EVEN BE DISCUSSING IMPEACHMENT WHATSOEVER...?
bush impeachment
September 18, 2007 - 09:23 ET by kdizzydazeA million people can believe in a dumb idea, but it's still a dumb idea.
Dumb People
September 18, 2007 - 09:35 ET by Sergeant ROCKPeople like Leon are just bent out of shape that Bill Klinton is only the second President in U.S. history to be impeached and that Bush will escape such fame. The leftist fanatics have no case.
Sgt. I'd love to see you
September 18, 2007 - 10:40 ET by LeonSgt.
I'd love to see you show me where I said Bush should be impeached.
Go ahead. Just click the search link above.
Question
September 18, 2007 - 10:43 ET by Sergeant ROCKSo, you're not bent out of shape that Klinton got impeached and in all likelihood Bush will not be?
Rock, the dems will not
September 18, 2007 - 10:48 ET by bassndudeRock, the dems will not impeach Bush. Can you see how big Pelosis eyes would get when Cheney was sworn in? Murtha would break down and cry in a corner.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Let me take a wild guess.
September 17, 2007 - 17:30 ET by Matthew BalanLet me take a wild guess. You're a Ron Paul supporter.
No, but that's your
September 17, 2007 - 17:32 ET by LeonNo, but that's your answer?
I'm trying to get back to seriously talking about your post and you want to continue with the troll show.
Fine.
If you actually feel like debating, what % of the population must support something for it to be considered extreme, b/c so far as I can tell the extreme designation is depended on proportion.
speculation nation..
September 17, 2007 - 17:38 ET by TruthMongerhow about asking some questions that actually have a chance of being answered?
like how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?
I would say I can't count
September 17, 2007 - 17:41 ET by Free ThinkerI would say I can't count that high
...but if you like to get
September 17, 2007 - 17:43 ET by TruthMonger...but if you like to get high, then leon has something else to ask you about...
"Troll show?" How can a be a
September 17, 2007 - 17:42 ET by Matthew Balan"Troll show?" How can a be a "troll" on a MRC-run blog run I work for MRC?
As for whether advocating impeachment is an "extreme" viewpoint, I think I quote by Marcus Aurelius is appropriate in this instance.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
I'd say "the ranks of the insane" is an apt description of the pro-impeachment movement.
this is why we have elections...
September 17, 2007 - 17:45 ET by TruthMongerimpeachment is not for expressing policy disapproval - the knowledge on the left regarding our system of government is woefully inept...
when we have a crime then maybe we can talk impeachment...?
Matthew
September 17, 2007 - 18:41 ET by BlondePerfect response. "The ranks of the insane" fits the pro-impeachment crowd to a tee.
Leon's reference to the troll show is a self-reference. He's calmed down a bit of late, but again, instead of posing a proposition and backing it up, he trolls along by asking a question in an inane fashion, then chewing on your responses like a bulldog on a bone.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
}}---> That was no bulldog
September 17, 2007 - 18:44 ET by Cool ArrowThat's my Shi-Tsu
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Blonde, My question is
September 18, 2007 - 10:42 ET by LeonBlonde,
My question is entirely relevant to the topic at hand and important to the validity of Matthews post.
yeah, probably 25 % would
September 17, 2007 - 17:32 ET by Free Thinkeryeah, probably 25 % would say we should start impeachment hearings. Unfortunately for them, those who know better realize there is nothing to impeach the President for and they would look foolish in even trying. You see, he has to be guilty of something other than not being a liberal. The law and that silly constitution just keep getting in the way of the impeachment crowd.
SO FS, If what you say is
September 17, 2007 - 17:35 ET by LeonSO FS,
If what you say is true, than it appears that the CHIMPEACH sentiment is not all that extreme. (*Sorry had to use Chimpeach, saw it spray-painted on a wall today)
That's my only point. I'm not saying whether the belief is valid or not, I'm just addressing how many people support the belief.
FT or FS
September 17, 2007 - 17:36 ET by Free StinkerUh, that is Free Thinker you are replying to.
I'm Free Stinker.
See the Th and the St ?
What impeachment if really for...
September 17, 2007 - 17:41 ET by TruthMongerread dammit:)!
the question is how many reps are for impeachment...
not as many as for Clinton...
it helps when the prez is actually convicted of a crime...
there is a real live purpose for impeachment you know...and support of dictators, terrorists, and socialism/communism is not it...
what leon should be focusing on is ELECTIONS...
I don't understand
September 17, 2007 - 17:40 ET by Free ThinkerI don't understand chimpeach?, perhaps it was a typo, but it is an extreme position because it is implausible.
Leon makes lots of mistakes.
September 17, 2007 - 17:45 ET by Free StinkerLeon makes lots of mistakes.
Typos, lack of reading comrehension, thinks I'm you or you're me.
extreme guessing...
September 17, 2007 - 17:53 ET by TruthMongerbut seriously - how many angels can fit on the head of a pin...?
I'd say 25% at least...
Take the diameter of an
September 17, 2007 - 18:02 ET by Free StinkerTake the diameter of an Angels' arse, and divide by the diameter of a pinhead.
The actual math is left as an exercise for the student.*
* From "Friday" by Robert A. Heinlein
"What percentage of the
September 17, 2007 - 18:53 ET by dabal"What percentage of the American population do you think would say that they support the start of impeachment hearings for Bush?"
Doesn't matter how many people support impeachment...he has to commit an impeachable offense first.
Wake up and smell what you're shoveling, Leon. There's an entire Hill in D.C. just waiting for Bush to make an "impeachable" mistake. They control the Senate and the House, a room full of hostile, Bush Derangement Syndrome idiots just like you, and still they can't even START an impeachment hearing because BUSH HASN'T COMMITTED A SINGLE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
Get that through your tinfoil hat, ok?
Dabal et. Al, You've all
September 18, 2007 - 10:29 ET by LeonDabal et. Al,
You've all turned this into a debate about whether or not the call Bush's impeachment is valid.
I've never called for his impeachment and I've never supported those who have.
My point is simple, which of course means you all missed it, but a view can only be classified as extreme based on the proportion of people that support within a given context.
So, within the American population after a certain proportion of people ascribe a certain view, that view can no longer be classified as extreme.
It's a very simple concept and an even simpler answer (which Mr. Balan blatantly chose to ignore), at what point can a view no longer be considered extreme?
If 25% of people think that Bush should be impeached, than that is not an extreme viewpoint. Period.
Extreme?
September 18, 2007 - 10:31 ET by Sergeant ROCKI would bet money that 45-50% wanted Klinton impeached.
Semantics aside, what brand of tin foil do you use?
It is extreme because it is
September 18, 2007 - 10:54 ET by Free ThinkerIt is extreme because it is implausable. How many people believed in eugenics? Would say that position was not an extreme position? How many islamo-fascists believe in jihad? Would you argue jihad is not an extreme position because many support it?
FT, I am arguing that
September 18, 2007 - 11:11 ET by LeonFT,
I am arguing that within the context of certain Muslim countries, the idea of jihad is not extreme b/c many people do support it.
From our viewpoint, it is extreme.
So the Nazi's execution of
September 18, 2007 - 12:05 ET by BDSo the Nazi's execution of six million jews was not "Extreme" because they all knew about it and contributed?
Sorry, but extremism must be measured by our own yardstick or it is meaningless TO US. Aint ethnocentrism a bitch?
Wow, that answer reveals
September 18, 2007 - 12:16 ET by Free ThinkerWow, that answer reveals alot about how dangerous the left is to future generations of this country. Since we have the viewpoint that has the moral highground on this one I am going to step out and say jihad is extreme. This has gotten away from your original question, but I can't believe we are arguing whether you put evil into the right context that makes it not extreme.
Leon sez...
September 18, 2007 - 12:21 ET by Sergeant ROCK...The glass is half full when I use the same logic to prove my point, but half empty when you attempt the same using the same logic.
Depends on what IS is.. Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs!!
You shouldn't be surprised, FT
September 18, 2007 - 12:23 ET by RJIt's just another verse of the old Liberal Song of Moral Equivalence.
It's also impossible to say
September 18, 2007 - 15:44 ET by TruthMongerIt's also impossible to say how many would really be for impeachment had it not been promoted so heavily by the MSM.
To really answer leon's question we would have to redo the last 7 years of the Bush Presidency with a fair media - pro-American would be even more accurate...
Uh TM, That was the
September 17, 2007 - 17:23 ET by LeonUh TM,
That was the joke.
He admitted he was wrong to address me.
Same thing.
I accept your apology:)
September 17, 2007 - 17:24 ET by TruthMongerdid not
did too
See specifically this
September 17, 2007 - 17:13 ET by LeonSee specifically this line:
"These are people who don't respect the military, regardless of what they say. "
Which war are ya referring
September 17, 2007 - 17:18 ET by TruthMongerWhich war are ya referring to? The Iraq war was impeccably planned and a resounding success...
Now that's respect...
Matthew, I may be the cause of the confusion
September 17, 2007 - 18:10 ET by terrigI was just adding in my own personal thoughts & belief that these protestors do not respect the troops. I have had enough contact with these people to have formed my opinion through the contact with these people.
Hey Leonnitsky......based upon People Dying....
September 17, 2007 - 17:27 ET by JayTeeWe should pull out of Detroit, Philidelphia, Baltimore, and when 2000 per year were murdered in New York .......did Rudi PULL OUT of NY ?
15,000 murders a year in America.....PULL OUT NOW, LEON !!!---- and LEON.... DON"T DRIVE away, 45,000 Traffic Deaths per year in America....walk, don't RUN to Canada. !!!
Oops...Sorry, I thought I was still in DC....Please remove one "!" from the above Post....
SEE YA !!!
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Wow great comparison. Very
September 17, 2007 - 17:30 ET by LeonWow great comparison.
Very relevant.
I'll pretend you don't actually believe that your post proves anything or makes any sort of argument.
What an absurd comparison. haha.
you don't have to pretend
September 17, 2007 - 17:34 ET by TruthMongeryou don't have to pretend man - just be yourself:)
Leon...let me try again....the comparison...
September 17, 2007 - 17:51 ET by JayTeeDems say........Soldiers are dying, PULL out of Iraq.
Uh....question..how many per year are dying in Iraq ?
Uh...ans: 6 years 3,000.......
uhhh..that is 500 per year....and WE"RE STILL IN NEW YORK, at 700 per year....
We're still in America at 15,000 murders per year...
and for people (Military) who carry guns and Shoot'em for a living, the Military is doing a damn good job of staying Alive.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
its apples to bananas but...
September 17, 2007 - 17:55 ET by TruthMonger...are you saying this grossly "mismanaged" war is still much safer to be in than living in New York???
}}---> It's bananas and donuts
September 17, 2007 - 18:28 ET by Cool ArrowAnd what about all the deaths caused by smoking in America?
What about all the fatal obesity caused by the evil farmers.
We need to pull out of the US entirely and return it to the buffalo and the Natives who herd them off of cliffs.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Truth Monger....I'm saying that...
September 17, 2007 - 18:43 ET by JayTeePick another reason for pulling out of Iraq, than the Emotional plea that we have to save our Soldiers from Dying. Don't Fire shots at Bush while on your front Porch in Philledelphia....your Neighbor may shoot back. Don't casually accept 45,000 Traffic Deaths of really good Americans in the USA, and then get emotional when when Volunteers in the Military beat that Death Statistic by 99% livng in a hostile environment. We live on a Dangerous Planet, only the strong survive, and that goes for Houston and Bagdad, New Orleans and Anbar province, and your local commute to work may kill you before we get out of Bagdad.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Liberation is us!
September 17, 2007 - 17:33 ET by TruthMonger...potential slogans:
"Your liberation headquarters for 100 years!"
"We liberate your country with fewer than 4000 troop casualties or your money back!"
"USA - number one in liberation troop safety"*
*result of JD Power and associates survey of world superpower liberations from 1995 to 2005
Leon, as you know I've sent
September 17, 2007 - 17:57 ET by terrigLeon, as you know I've sent my husband off 3 times. The unfortunate thing you cannot grasp is that unfortunately in war mistakes were made. There were more people who died in the first few hours of D-Day then have died in this war. All deaths are tragic but it's tools for AQ, such as yourself who make this worse. AQ is in Iraq and was there before we came. It's laughable that you are so deluded by your leftists pals.
we lost a few thousand in a
September 18, 2007 - 15:45 ET by TruthMongerwe lost a few thousand in a D-day traning exercise alone...
good thing we didn't have today's MSM back then
I would say that the level
September 17, 2007 - 18:22 ET by BDI would say that the level of planning for the invasion of Iraq was complete and thorough, especially in comparison to all previous wars fought by the US.
It is assumed in some quarters that because you do not know the exact place to emplace an MP road patrol on D+60 prior to D-Day to maximize the effect on looting, then planning has failed. It is not so.
That may be BD but in wars,
September 17, 2007 - 18:25 ET by terrigThat may be BD but in wars, mistakes are made and plans need to be changed. Or would you disagree?
TerriG I would not
September 17, 2007 - 18:46 ET by BDTerriG
I would not disagree with you. Wars are essentially won by the side that makes the fewest mistakes, is capable of exploiting the enemies mistakes, or is capable of reacting to their own mistakes and recovering.
My point is that todays military decision making process used to plan the Iraq War is a vast improvement on previous campaigns. It accounts for items that no previous war has ever considered such as use of computers, satellite usage etc.
People today claiming that the war in Iraq was poorly planned and thus a diservice to soldiers because it is killing soldiers are not able to tell me what it is poorly planned in comparison to.
Just a gripe from a guy who trains staffs in this process.
BD... I have always
September 17, 2007 - 18:52 ET by Clear thinkerBD...
I have always thought that the winner of any war is the one that can react to "Murphy's Law" the fastest.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
To an extent you are
September 17, 2007 - 19:01 ET by BDTo an extent you are correct, but it is not always the case. That is if all other conditions are equal.
Sometimes an enemy can simply overwhelm an enemy with sheer numbers regardless of the other force reacting to Murphy better.
No worries BD, I think it
September 17, 2007 - 18:53 ET by terrigNo worries BD, I think it was well planned too and they have recovered from most ot their mistakes.
I imagine it's not fun training people in this process! :)
Actually you would be
September 17, 2007 - 18:58 ET by BDActually you would be surprised.
The introductory parts are DULL! But when you get into the practical exercise portions and you can see a staff begin to solidify, it is very gratifying.
Oh holier than thou
September 17, 2007 - 20:44 ET by kdizzydazeHold up a minute -- "rampant, blatant mismanagement???" That has been a lib talking point since before we went into Iraq and it is as bogus a statement now as it was the first time anybody yelled it. If anything, the speed with which we took Baghdad shocked everybody, including us. The plan wasn't poor, it simply was too effective.
As for claiming, in defense, that the people that decry this supposed mismanagement do not support the troops, let us be clear; many of the people that claim such mismanagement of the war are the same people that claim 9/11 was an inside job and that this war was just a war for oil and that George Bush is not their President. Hell, that not only means these people don't support the troops - that also makes them traitors.
Oh holier than thou????
September 17, 2007 - 21:09 ET by Dave RLOL-Oh, sorry kdizzydaze, I thought Debra was back.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Ha ha!!!!
September 18, 2007 - 09:33 ET by kdizzydazeI couldn't think of any other way to put it. I was almost stammering in my efforts to post a response.
Example: 190,000 weapons
September 18, 2007 - 10:44 ET by LeonExample: 190,000 weapons gone missing, now in hands of troops.
Those that caused that mismanagement did not support the troops.
Clear example.
Clear example.???????
September 18, 2007 - 10:47 ET by MightyMouthWhere are you getting this info? And what the hell are you talking about: "now in hands of troops"???
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Sorry I was typing in a
September 18, 2007 - 11:10 ET by LeonSorry I was typing in a hurry.
Meant to say, now in the hands of the enemy.
My hands were going faster than my mind could think.
Well, you know, they don't
September 17, 2007 - 17:02 ET by motherbeltWell, you know, they don't want anyone to get the "wrong" impression.
This was just a nice, quiet, polite bunch of people carrying around signs and singing "Give Peace a Chance".....
#1 rule for parents
September 17, 2007 - 23:53 ET by Cape Conservativeis DO NOT reward bad behavior! Why there was so much media coverage of these few thousand people's antics is beside me. Ignoring them would have been much better!
Remember when there were groups supporting the troops assembling in DC and the coverage was nil...everyone was across the park televising the anti-war idiots!
Sure wish we could get the same coverage by acting in a positive manner as they get acting negatively.
wow, I didn't even know
September 17, 2007 - 17:14 ET by Free Thinkerwow, I didn't even know there was an "anti-war" rally this weekend. who planned that during college football season? Let me guess, Bush lied, Cheney conspired 9-11, some celebrity wore their Che shirt and made some senseless comments, nobody showered, pot was smoked, and Cindy Sheehan was arrested.
FREE thinker...gee you're uncanny
September 17, 2007 - 17:45 ET by JayTeeYou didn't go...but you knew that....
CHE Signs were there....on the Anti war side.
BUSH LIED signs were there.
911 was an INSIDE JOB signs were there.
They Smelled bad, and I smelled Pot smoke wafting over the Capitol steps.
But, the GOE had a CHE sign..."CHE is DEAD, GET OVER IT" and I don't know about Cindy and don't remember in Cheny signs...BUT...the BEST Anti war sign was....
A Hillary paper mache figure in a Dress, with NAZI Swazticas on her Arms......They don't even like Hillary....these guys were Left of hillary...that's in foul ball Territory of Left Field.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Thanks for the Connect....to MM sites....
September 17, 2007 - 17:21 ET by JayTeeIF you watched the C-SPAN replay on Sunday, you saw the Contrast in the Rally's speakers.
C-Span shows everything multiple times, maybe they will show the 2 hour GOE rally again this week....and if you Watch the GOE Rally, have a hankerchief handy....You won't be screaming at your TV set. ...it's a goosebump welling up experience....be prepared. I was onsite Sat., and it was an attitude changing experience.....and some of the marchers will remember GOE participants...it wasn't a "Have a nice Day" exchange of political views, at all.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
To ALL "Truthers"
September 17, 2007 - 18:52 ET by drillanwrExhibit # (whatever) of who is responsible for 9-11:
http://pmw.org.il/bulletins_sep2007.htm#b170907
Cindy's a bit confused. What else is boring.
September 17, 2007 - 19:59 ET by Jack BauerIf Cindy Sheehan didn't already exist, conservatives would be wise to invent her. She does such a bang-up job making liberals look incredibly stupid.
Mmmm, Nazi Germany. Now wasn't Nazi Germany quite famous for blaming uh, THE JEWS for the world' woes. Making it okay for them to exterminate them?
That sounds familiar.
*neo-con and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) are, of course, used as code for JEWS by leftists.
Sounds to me that Cindy's a bit confused
Remind me again. Who is more sympathetic to Nazis?
And now Sally Fields
September 17, 2007 - 23:55 ET by Cape Conservativeis trying to take over 1st place as "nut" of the week...move over Cindy!