Every now and then, a debate occurs on television that perfectly represents the differences between conservative and liberal ideologies in our nation. Such occurred on Friday’s “The O’Reilly Factor” when the host invited a Democratic strategist and a civil rights attorney to discuss Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-California) comments to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week (video available here courtesy of our friend at Ms Underestimated).
After he set up the segment, O’Reilly said to his first guest: “I didn't hear this kind of nonsense when Bill Clinton had military action in the Balkans or in Somalia. Why didn't I hear that?” Jane Fleming, executive director of the Young Democrats of America predictably responded:
Well, I don't think that it's a comparable situation, number one. And what Boxer was saying is absolutely 100 percent right is that we are not sacrificing. President Bush has not asked us to sacrifice by raising our taxes. He has not sacrificed by asking us to do more community service. He -- after 9/11, all he did for sacrifice was ask us to shop more. And so.
And there it is. To most liberals in this country, the answer to every problem is to raise taxes. It’s really that simple, isn’t it? In their view, things would be going better in Iraq if people were giving more of their hard-earned dollars to the federal government. Extraordinary, dontcha think?
As you might imagine, O’Reilly was having none of it:
All right, you neatly dodged the question, Ms. Fleming. I'll slow it down. I didn't hear this nonsense when Bill Clinton went into the Balkans and bombed hell out of them. And I didn't hear it when he went into Somalia and our guys got killed if Mogadishu. I didn't hear it. Why didn't I?
When Fleming couldn’t answer the question, O’Reilly moved on to Angela Alioto, civil rights attorney:
She said that she, Condoleezza Rice, doesn't understand the sacrifice of military people because she doesn't have anybody directly affected. That's exactly what Barbara Boxer was saying. Am I wrong, Ms. Alioto?
Alioto answered:
I think that Barbara Boxer was absolutely right on. And I have to tell you something, Bill. Anybody that says that having their child in the war doesn't make the war different than all of the rest of other people's children is just not being honest with you.
O'REILLY: It might make it different, but you don't make policy based upon.
ALIOTO: Of course.
O'REILLY: .who has people in the war. It's the same thing like saying Dick Cheney and President Bush never served in combat so they're not qualified to send anybody else there. And you've heard that argument, Angela. You've heard that.
ALIOTO: Yes, I have that argument. But that's just simply not what Barbara said. Barbara said you, Rice, do not have a personal stake in this. You don't have a family member in it. And she said neither do I. We fight wars with other people's children.
O'REILLY: But that's what happens throughout history, Angela.
ALIOTO: But.
O'REILLY: I mean, you want public servants looking out for the country. I think emotion -- if you have somebody over there, it might even cloud your judgment, Ms. Fleming.
Eventually, Alioto made the typical liberal, Charlie Rangel, John Kerry, Matt Damon comment that really ought to be made into a bumper sticker: “If everybody in Congress had a child in Iraq, we wouldn't be in Iraq.” O’Reilly pounced:
Oh, that's just bull. That's just bull. I mean, you don't make decisions -- the generals over in Iraq, by the way, I interviewed a general over in Iraq whose son lost his arm. His son lost his arm.
ALIOTO: I'm saying all of Congress.
O'REILLY: And the general said we need to be here. And my son's sacrifice was worth it. Come on.
ALIOTO: I'm talking about the people that vote on this. If they had their children there, we wouldn't be in Iraq. Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no.
O'REILLY: All right, I don't believe that for a second.
Yet, the real defining moment when O’Reilly perfectly exposed potentially the ultimate in liberal hypocrisy occurred when he asked Fleming the following:
Hillary Clinton have anybody in the military? OK? And Senator Obama doesn't have anybody. He didn't serve. Are you going to use the same standards, Ms. Fleming, on Hillary Clinton and Senator Obama if they become president?
Fleming responded, “I never would.”
Nope. And neither will most of her ilk that have been using this Chicken Hawk argument against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for years. Once we get into election season twelve months from now, military service and having children in the military are going to be totally irrelevant. And, the media, who have furthered the Chicken Hawk debate, will change its stripes as well.
How disgraceful. What follows is a full transcript of this segment.
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: But first, the "Talking Points Memo." Senator Barbara Boxer attacks Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice because the secretary doesn't have children.
At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, the liberal senator from California who opposes the Iraq War said this to Secretary Rice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D), CALIFORNIA: Who pays the price? Who pays the the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You are not going to pay a particular price as I understand it with an immediate family.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Now Secretary Rice was stunned and later said this to FOX News.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE: I guess it means I don't have kids. Was that the purpose? At that time, I just found it a bit confusing, frankly. But in retrospect, gee, I thought single women had come further than that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: And the White House was quick to react to Senator Boxer's attack. Tony Snow said this on FOX News Radio.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Here you've got a professional woman,Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. And Barbara Boxer is sort of throwing little jabs because Condi doesn't have children, as if that means that she doesn't understand the concerns of parents. You know, we're greatly backward for feminism.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Well, "Talking Points" doesn't think it has to do with anything with feminism. It has to do with the far left, which Barbara Boxer is certainly a part, using foolish personal arguments to debate issues vital to the country.
I mean, think about it, if you don't have a kid in the military, you can't make policy about war? I wonder what FDR and Abraham Lincoln would have thought about that.
But the far left doesn't care. All it wants to do is throw emotion at complicated problems. I ran up against that with Michael Moore and Phil Donahue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL MOORE, ANTI-WAR ACTIVIST: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PHIL DONAHUE: You wouldn't send your children to this war, Bill.
O'REILLY: My nephew has just enlisted in the Army. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
DONAHUE: Very good. Very good. Congratulations to you.
O'REILLY: Yes. And he's a patriot, so don't denigrate his service or I'll boot you right off the set.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Coming up, this ridiculous display, if Senator Boxer represents a sane view of the war on terror, including the Iraq War, we're all in very big trouble.
We need professionals in Congress, not foolish ideologues. And that's the "Memo."
Now for the top story tonight, two other views of this that disagree with mine. Joining us from San Francisco, attorney Angela Alioto, who knows Barbara Boxer very well. And from Washington, Jane Fleming, executive director of the Young Democrats of America.
Ms. Fleming, we'll begin with you. I didn't hear this kind of nonsense when Bill Clinton had military action in the Balkans or in Somalia. Why didn't I hear that?
JANE FLEMING, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I don't think that it's a comparable situation, number one. And what Boxer was saying is absolutely 100 percent right is that we are not sacrificing. President Bush has not asked us to sacrifice by raising our taxes. He has not sacrificed by asking us to do more community service. He -- after 9/11, all he did for sacrifice was ask us to shop more. And so.
O'REILLY: All right, you neatly dodged the question, Ms. Fleming. I'll slow it down. I didn't hear this nonsense when Bill Clinton went into the Balkans and bombed hell out of them. And I didn't hear it when he went into Somalia and our guys got killed if Mogadishu. I didn't hear it. Why didn't I?
FLEMING: I do not think that you need to serve in the military to understand the military. And that is not what Senator Boxer was saying.
O'REILLY: Sure, she was.
FLEMING: She was saying.
O'REILLY: She said that she, Condoleezza Rice, doesn't understand the sacrifice of military people because she doesn't have anybody directly affected. That's exactly what Barbara Boxer was saying. Am I wrong, Ms. Alioto?
ANGELA ALIOTO, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: No. Quite frankly I think you're right. I think that Barbara Boxer was absolutely right on. And I have to tell you something, Bill. Anybody that says that having their child in the war doesn't make the war different than all of the rest of other people's children is just not being honest with you.
O'REILLY: It might make it different, but you don't make policy based upon.
ALIOTO: Of course.
O'REILLY: .who has people in the war. It's the same thing like saying Dick Cheney and President Bush never served in combat so they're not qualified to send anybody else there. And you've heard that argument, Angela. You've heard that.
ALIOTO: Yes, I have that argument. But that's just simply not what Barbara said. Barbara said you, Rice, do not have a personal stake in this. You don't have a family member in it. And she said neither do I. We fight wars with other people's children.
O'REILLY: But that's what happens throughout history, Angela.
ALIOTO: But.
O'REILLY: I mean, you want public servants looking out for the country. I think emotion -- if you have somebody over there, it might even cloud your judgment, Ms. Fleming.
ALIOTO: Bill, it would not be honest to say that politicians don't consider that as a factor. If everybody in Congress had a child in Iraq, we wouldn't be in Iraq.
O'REILLY: Oh, that's just bull. That's just bull. I mean, you don't make decisions -- the generals over in Iraq, by the way, I interviewed a general over in Iraq whose son lost his arm. His son lost his arm.
ALIOTO: I'm saying all of Congress.
O'REILLY: And the general said we need to be here. And my son's sacrifice was worth it. Come on.
ALIOTO: I'm talking about the people that vote on this. If they had their children there, we wouldn't be in Iraq. Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no.
O'REILLY: All right, I don't believe that for a second, but I want to get back to Jane Fleming.
Now Hillary Clinton might be the next president, if you have anything to say about it, Jane, she will be.
FLEMING: Senator Edwards maybe.
O'REILLY: All right, Hillary Clinton have anybody in the military? OK? And Senator Obama doesn't have anybody. He didn't serve. Are you going to use the same standards, Ms. Fleming, on Hillary Clinton and Senator Obama if they become president?
FLEMING: I never would. And I have not with Condoleezza Rice. I am not saying that she is not equipped make military decisions or be the Secretary of State because she has not served in the military. That is not what I am saying.
What I am saying is that the president needs to ask America to make sacrifices to pay for the war.
O'REILLY: All right, but that's a different argument. I'm not -- look, that's a totally different argument. You should be on another program. All right?
This discussion is about a sitting senator who accuses the Secretary of State of not understanding the military conflict or not being sensitive enough to it, because she doesn't have somebody directly involved.
That's dangerous. That's dangerous. And that's what I resent. Look, the Michael Moore poll is saying nonsense. Donahue, you heard. Same nonsense. You don't make vital decisions for the country based upon what your children's circumstances are.
FLEMING: I absolutely agree with you. And I agree with you. And I don't think that is what Senator Boxer was trying to say.
O'REILLY: Of course she was. Ms. Alioto just.
FLEMING: No, do you think that Laura Bush was saying the same thing when she said Condoleezza Rice wouldn't be able to run for president because she didn't have any children and she didn't have any family to support her?
O'REILLY: I don't remember Mrs. Bush saying that.
FLEMING: She did (INAUDIBLE) time.
O'REILLY: But it has nothing to do with public policy.
Now Ms. Alioto, here's the big picture here. And this gets me very angry. I want responsible voices of dissent in this country. All right? I think it's absolutely necessary that we debate Iraq and that we acknowledge that it isn't going well. And you know that. If you watch this program, you see me. And I'm not pushing anything here.
ALIOTO: I agree.
FLEMING: You do. And you actually said you would pull out of Iraq.
O'REILLY: You can't have a responsible dissent -- Barbara Boxer has just lost all credibility. She's done.
ALIOTO: Well, that's absolutely.
O'REILLY: She's through.
ALIOTO: .that's ridiculous. She has been the dissent and she has been an incredible voice for us in the Senate, not just as women, but for all Americans. And she's been that way for the last, what, 20 years.
You know, let's not forget it was President Bush's son George Bush now president who was in the National Guard protecting Texas during Vietnam.
O'REILLY: So what? So what?
ALIOTO: He wasn't in Vietnam. My point is if he had been in Vietnam, how long would that war have gone on had his father been president?
O'REILLY: Who knows? I mean, it's ridiculous to make that assertion. It's an absurd assertion. You can't make it - it's - you're basically tying into if you don't have a kid on the front line, you can't make a decision.
ALIOTO: Absolutely not.
O'REILLY: You know, it's baloney.
ALIOTO: You can make all sorts of decisions, but the war doesn't have a face on it. We talk about.
O'REILLY: Sure, how do you know?
ALIOTO: We talk about.
O'REILLY: How do you know these people don't? I know for a fact President Bush feels very deeply about everybody who has gotten hurt and killed in Iraq.
ALIOTO: We talk about casualties.
O'REILLY: I know for a fact he does.
ALIOTO: We talk about casualties every night. We talk about injuries. We don't talk about human beings. We don't say 3,000 dead.
O'REILLY: Oh, you can't fight a war that way, Ms. Alioto. You can't fight a war on terror by agonizing over every death. It can't be done. It has to be this is the military, this is their job, they're going to be taking casualties. And we can't say we're never going to fight because we're going to lose people.
ALIOTO: But Barbara Boxer never said she was never going to fight. You've got to get it straight if you're going to get it. She never said we're not going to fight.
O'REILLY: She denigrated Secretary Rice, because Secretary Rice...
ALIOTO: That is not true.
O'REILLY: .doesn't have any children.
ALIOTO: She would have said the same thing to a man. She would have said the same thing to a man.
O'REILLY: Listen, I'll agree with you there. She's nutty enough to say the same thing to anybody. Ladies, we appreciate it. We got to run.
ALIOTO: That's ridiculous.
FLEMING: Thank you.
O'REILLY: All right.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Family member in military = c
January 14, 2007 - 12:34 ET by EdhenryFamily member in military = clouds judgement. No family member = clouds judgement.
Back to basics. Setting aside personal issues to make state decisions. The women are imploding on this issue.
I saw this on TV, these Democ
January 14, 2007 - 12:44 ET by dscottI saw this on TV, these Democrats have demonstrated that they have no business being involved in national security matters under any circumstances. Emotionalism as a primary decision making factor is not only debiliatating in making hard decisions, it also means being easily lead to making the wrong decisions using false dichotomies.
Even more unseemly is Barbara Boxer's plantation mentality about Condi as a Black Woman, this is not the first time Boxer has exhibited her racist attitudes toward Condi, remember the confirmation hearings.
“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.” – Marcus Aurelius
This is so rich in hypocricy.
January 14, 2007 - 13:06 ET by EdhenryThis is so rich in hypocricy. Feminist, left wing, they call themselves "progressive" women argue for decades that family is unimportant. Argues they can be as objective as men. Now use lack of family as the argument against a woman making imporatant national policy.
Only the left can plow through this cognitive dissonance, because it fits their political position today, maybe not tomorrow unless I say so, but today when I need anything I can use (hypocritical or not) against politics I don't like.
Condi - what a great American.
The nonsense of the left would have long died in the marketplace without the MSM.
Hillary Clinton have anybody
January 14, 2007 - 12:50 ET by Eric TurnerFleming responded, “I never would.”
Point to Mr. O'Reilly.
Game, Set, Match - Mr. O'Reilly
___________________________________________
Noel, excellent piece of work!
Gotta love those liberals! Snake oil salesmen to the last. I guess they wouldn't include former President Clinton either uh?
"Perpetual itching without benefit of scratching to the enemies of America." - July 4th toast during the Revolution
Poor Jane--at such an early a
January 14, 2007 - 18:05 ET by Andrew H.Poor Jane--at such an early age. It's a pity that she has been smitten by democrat politics--deceit and destruction, socialism and death.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
You're A Chickenhaw If You've Never Had Kids Serving In Iraq
January 14, 2007 - 13:16 ET by emjem24These two women who Bill O'Reilly interviewed on Friday should be ashamed. Why can't liberals be intellectually honest for once? No, they can't because that would harm their cause. It was fine when liberals formulated their "Chickenhawk Foreign Policy Theory" which Bill described in the following words: A Republican who has never served in a war directly nor have his children is considered a chickenhawk while a Clinton and their offspring who have never served directly in a foreign conflict are not. Makes absolute sense...to THEM. Not the least hypocritical. I wonder what that would make me, a military spouse? A mindless zombie in their estimation? Or what if, as a military spouse, I had a child who never served in the military? Would that then make me a chickenhawk? Folks, this is why we have a political crisis right now in America. When we have these dweebs winning the PR war based on these nonsensical arguments and most of the American public believe them. The few, like us NB'ers, who don't are called either "stupid" or "chickenhawks" or "mindless zombies" or "hypocrites." Wonderful. And you wonder why most of the military snickered behind Clinton's back. Clinton was, like, some brilliant military mastermind and Bush is a hapless baffoon. It's very hard to follow this line of thinking but if you're a stupid American it's not and it's very easy to follow when you don't have a mind of your own and don't do the damn research on your own.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
That's funny.... you used t
January 14, 2007 - 14:26 ET by happyuscitizenThat's funny.... you used the words intellectual and honest in a sentence referring to liberals!
"I'm just a big fat hairy American Winning Machine!" - Ricky Bobby
O'Reilly doesn't remember Bil
January 14, 2007 - 13:42 ET by crsheddO'Reilly doesn't remember Bill Clinton going through this nonsense. Instead Bill Clinton was accused of starting wars to avoid the Lewinsky scandal.
O'Reilly naturally 'never heard' about Laura Bush's comment. How convienent. Conservative motto-either ignore it or make up a reason for it.
Retort
January 14, 2007 - 13:54 ET by UnsaneOh, you mean like Bill Clinton promising to pull our troops out of the Balkans by June 1998? (Oh, I forgot. I need to stop picking on Mr. Greatthings; the man who did thousands of nonillions of GREAT THINGS a day to personally feed, clothe, and slether the American people.)
And it is nice to see you contorting yourself completely out of shape trying to defend the indefensible. It is so painful to consider that Laura Bush might be echoing sentiments expressed to her by Dr. Rice, or is grasping at straws a hobby of yours?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Read what was written. O'Reil
January 14, 2007 - 14:08 ET by crsheddRead what was written. O'Reilly said Bill Clinton didn't have to go through this nonsense. I agreed. Then I pointed out Clinton had to face accusations of STARTING a war just to avoid a sex scandal, just different nonsense.
You said Dr. Rice told LBush she didn't want to run for President in a private conversation.
Conservative motto: Just ignore it or make up an excuse for saying it.
You, Mr. Educator with trilli
January 14, 2007 - 14:44 ET by UnsaneYou, Mr. Educator with trillions of degrees, know better than to lie. Leftists ignore lots of things inconvenient to their orthodoxy, and are the biggest apologists on the planet.
As for making up excuses for saying things: what of Senator Kerry's attacking my former (and current part-time) profession and my education level? I bet you were his personal apologist for that crack. After all, nothing bad ever happens on the Left, does it?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
But it isn't nonsense. Lefty
January 14, 2007 - 15:56 ET by winston smithBut it isn't nonsense. Lefty favroite Scott Ritter himself accused Clinton national security officials of conspiring with UNSCOM to trump up charges against Saddam and submit a report to the UN security council with all its inaccuracies as a phony pretext to bomb Iraq. . This took place, interestingly enough, just a week before Clinton's impeachment proceedings in congress were to commence. Air strikes on Iraq began on the very day the impeachment debates started. Sounds a little fishy?
The Hypocrisy of Libtardism
January 14, 2007 - 15:07 ET by happyuscitizenThe Hypocrisy of Libtardism lives on. History will judge the legacy of Billary et al harshly, look how touchy he was when Chris Wallace asked him legit questions.
The same is true with the 'Wag The Dog' "coincidence" which could not have been better timed by his pals in Hollywood, probably in retaliation for not turning the US Military 100% gay like he promised in his campaign.
The only bad thing out of the whole incident was his launching cruise missiles on an aspirin factory and waiting for Osama to vacate the premises before they landed in Afghanistan, probably another Tenet "slamdunk ".
"I'm just a big fat hairy American Winning Machine!" - Ricky Bobby
crshedd
January 14, 2007 - 14:19 ET by Noel SheppardCR,
Forgive me, but like most liberals, your memory of the Clinton years is quite errant. Let me try to refresh it if at all possible, as I wrote about this issue a few months ago.
Although there was media discussion concerning the parallels to the movie "Wag the Dog," Republicans did not support such assertions. In fact, they almost universally refuted such claims:
CR, have we seen Democrats almost universally condemn media attacks on the president during a time of war like what happened when Clinton was in office? If so, could you do like I just did here and supply us with recent examples from high-ranking Democrats other than Joe Lieberman?
I await your evidence with great eagerness. ns
Amen, Brother Noel! Preach
January 14, 2007 - 14:29 ET by happyuscitizenAmen, Brother Noel! Preach on with the glorious truthaah!
"I'm just a big fat hairy American Winning Machine!" - Ricky Bobby
'But House Rules Committee Ch
January 14, 2007 - 14:34 ET by crshedd'But House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon of New York and Georgia Republican Rep. Bob Barr were quick to assume the worst, suggesting that Clinton's timing was not coincidental...'
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2_15/ai_53552687
Rep. Dick Armey, GOP majority leader: "The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."
Sen. Trent Lott, GOP majority leader: "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."
There are about 8 more quoted at this site:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/09/25/clinton_2/index.html
'But Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said he thought Lott had raised a "very legitimate question" about the timing.'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/lott121898.htm
Of course, several Republicans questioned the timing then backtracked.
But, you know, you convinced me. There were NO Republicans who gave Clinton any trouble over this.
Bill O'Reilly was right. Bill Clinton didn't go through any nonsense at all.
CR
January 14, 2007 - 14:43 ET by Noel SheppardCR,
"Of course, several Republicans questioned the timing then backtracked."
As I stated, there were some Republicans that initially questioned the timing. However, due to efforts by the leadership at the time, the Party rallied behind Clinton.
As such, I once again ask you to provide recent examples of Democrats doing the same for President Bush. In fact, I would like you to find quotes of Democrat leaders making such statements since January 2004.
Are you game, CR? ns
CR
January 14, 2007 - 14:50 ET by Noel SheppardCR,
Moreover, the point BOR was making is that even though Clinton dodged the draft, and didn't have a child going to war, the press never depicted him as being a Chicken Hawk not having the right to wage war.
Why the double standard, CR? Can you address that without bringing up Monica Lewinsky? Please? Pretty please? With sugar on top? ns
Don't mean to be disrespectfu
January 14, 2007 - 14:57 ET by crsheddDon't mean to be disrespectful, Noel, but my initial post responded to BOR falsely stating that Bill Clinton didn't go through any nonsense. I was not defending anyone, just pointing out that BOR was wrong.
On your reply, you stated a couple Republicans may have bad mouthed Clinton, so I replied that it was more than just a couple. And the fact that they later backed off does not change the fact.
You are trying to change the subject from the original post to cover that BOR was plain wrong. I am not a clinton defender but I look for honesty first in the media-even if it is biased.
I look for honesty first in
January 14, 2007 - 15:00 ET by 1sttofightI look for honesty first in the media-even if it is biased.
What the hell does that mean?
A news report, if honest, wil
January 14, 2007 - 15:06 ET by crsheddA news report, if honest, will be seen as biased by one side or the other. But, a biased report is not necessarily honest.
Now do you understand?
A biased report is not hone
January 14, 2007 - 15:08 ET by 1sttofightA biased report is not honest.
Do YOU understand?
An HONEST report will be de
January 14, 2007 - 15:30 ET by crsheddAn HONEST report will be declared BIASED by one side or the other.
Do YOU understand.
Usually by libs to whom fac
January 14, 2007 - 16:17 ET by 1sttofightUsually by libs to whom facts do not matter.
To ensure HONESTY, why not ha
January 14, 2007 - 20:06 ET by UnsaneTo ensure HONESTY, why not have the biases DECLARED?
Do YOU understand? Sie verstehen? Вы паномаетем?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
CR
January 14, 2007 - 15:04 ET by Noel SheppardCR,
No disrespect taken. :-)
That said, the nonsense BOR was referring to was of the Chicken Hawk variety. This segment was about what Boxer said to Rice, and how when Clinton was president, he didn't have to address his lack of military service or lack of a child in the military when he bombed Iraq and Afghanistan, and waged war in the Balkans.
Let's stick with this double standard, CR, and leave Monica out of it. Fair enough? ns
And if we actually look at wh
January 14, 2007 - 15:11 ET by crsheddAnd if we actually look at what Boxer said to Rice, we will notice she pointed out that NEITHER of them have ANY family in danger in Iraq. Boxer included herself in that comment.
But, the conservatives gloss right over the part where Boxer said her kids were too old, grandkids too young.
CR
January 14, 2007 - 15:17 ET by Noel SheppardCR,
I'm not glossing over this at all. Neither was BOR. Instead, we're wondering why folks like Boxer didn't ask similar questions of Clinton. Isn't that a fair question? ns
Fair question. But, Clinton w
January 14, 2007 - 15:29 ET by crsheddFair question. But, Clinton wasn't in a war that most Americans now feel was a mistake. Clinton wasn't committing more troops that Americans oppose.
My guess is if GWBush were to send in more bombers and use 'surgical strikes', he would have gotten more support for it, instead of sending in more troops.
CR
January 14, 2007 - 15:35 ET by Noel SheppardCR,
Yeah, but that's not really the point, and is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? After all, which came first: Americans losing faith in the war, or Democrat presidential candidates like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, and, eventually, John Kerry speaking out against it? And, how has the media's change of heart on this issue impacted public opinion?
Regardless of the answers, are you suggesting that the Chicken Hawk analogy only works if a war is unpopular? So, if a war is popular, a president without military experience and absent children in the military is qualified to wage war? ns
Clueless
January 14, 2007 - 15:36 ET by BlondeSending in bombers in an infantry war.
That one statement sums up the problem with the left.
You all scream and moan about "losing the war" which you so obviously know NOTHING about.
Why don't you call for some torpedos, while you're at it?
Well, Isreal seems to be able
January 14, 2007 - 15:57 ET by crsheddI don't claim to be the great strategist that you are, Blonde, but what we are doing is not working. Since this is 'unlike any war we have ever fought' (GWBush), maybe we should try something different.
Isreal seems to be fairly competent with surgical strikes (at least most of the time).
Yes, Iraq is a ground war. But, instead of sending troops into a suspected house, bomb the shit out of it. Warn Iraqis that we will bomb suspected targets so if you know of suspects in your neighborhood, either turn them in or get out, we WILL come.
If what we are doing in Ira
January 14, 2007 - 16:07 ET by UnsaneIf what we are doing in Iraq isn't working, perhaps you also advocate we completely withdraw from Spain and the U.K.?
And as for Israel...they would be very competent if their opponents had decency and separated the civilians from the military targets. But since Israel's opponents are depending on suckers like you to fall for their tactics, they continue to have lots of civilians live in and around legal military targets.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
All you can do is warn the ci
January 14, 2007 - 16:17 ET by crsheddAll you can do is warn the civilians. They know who is in their neighborhood. In war civilan deaths are VERY tragic, but also unavoidable.
Another tactic would be to emulate the Israelies when they went after the Olympic terrorists. Although the world knew who was doing it, they had deniability. If we were to pull back in Iraq, started getting real intelligence, then taking the leaders out one by one, others will eventually be less likely to step up. And if they do, take 'em out.
Reports were available that s
January 14, 2007 - 16:24 ET by UnsaneReports were available that show that Hizbollah was forcing the civilians to stick around, or at least cutting off their routes to escape to make getting out of the danger all the more difficult. But again they knew what they were doing: sandbagging suckers like you.
Another tactic is what history tells us always works: the massive application of violence. Violence solves lots and lots of problems. It is historically proven to work. Isreal did indeed go after the Olympic terrorists one by one, but it sure as hell was cold comfort for those who went on the Entebbe raid in 1976...
Let's see here...if we pull back in Iraq, we can start getting real intelligence...well, I am quite thankful that you are not in the military, I can say that. Sure, we can take out people we don't like, one by one, but that will only undermine pro-American leaders who will be seen as cowards saying what they can to avoid getting killed. The massive application of violence, instead of being as PC as possible as Leftists demand all the time, will work best.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Huh? Huh?
January 14, 2007 - 20:52 ET by emjem24What the hell are you talking about? That's your opinion, you little snert, and you know it. Not even qualified. If the military heard, which I'm sure they've heard from liberals, they'd laugh themselves silly (I know I am). Yeah, your take makes real sense. Withdrawal, get intellegence, and then come back in and take the baddies out. We're not fighting Israel's war against terrorists, we're fighting our own with our own guys. I wonder what military analyst would even sign on to your idea? Where or where can they be? I'm waiting..........but I won't hold my breath 'cause you have no credibility in this department (I really want honesty in the media you said........yeah, right when it's useful for you). I just love how mere, uninformed civilians think they have a corner on military matters. Who are you, Patton? Eisenhower? You bring the stormtroopers, I'll bring the beer! No, you'd probably bring...professors, war protestors and the like. You know what you're talking about then so does the rest of the uninformed, American public. DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH. REALLY...DON'T!!!
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
Ol, CR gave us a plan. We should respect that.
January 14, 2007 - 21:05 ET by acaiguanaOl, CR gave us a plan. We should respect that.
Let's see what it is:
1. Warn the civilians. OK. We ask everyone who is a civilian here?
Answer: "We are."
"OK, you all are about to see your neighborhood reduced to rubble."
(shades of Israel in Lebanon)
Hey, CR, that comment about 'unavoidable' - where was that in the Israel attack against Hezbollah when they were 'warned' and hid among civilians with their AK-47's at their heads? Not really gonna answer that are you?
2. Withdraw - to Puerto Rico I suppose - and then attack.
Great logistics. Great strategy. Let's see if I can get my silly (as I was called yesterday) 'little right-wing whacko' brain wrapped around that one:
"Cut and run"
Come back - with a megaphone - "Hey, guys, we're gonna reduce your neighborhood to rubble in a couple of days - film at 11:00."
Drop bomb from 25,000 feet.
It worked for Clinton, didn't it?
Get a life, give me a break and quit helping out the enemy's morale. I'd be happy if you would just quit helping out the enemy's morale.
Thanks -
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
Sorry, I missed the daily att
January 14, 2007 - 16:19 ET by crsheddSorry, I missed the daily attacks against us in Spain and the UK.
Where the heck did they come from?
Your ignorance of internation
January 14, 2007 - 16:28 ET by UnsaneYour ignorance of international affairs is only surpassed by your arrogance.
As much of the violence in Iraq is Iraqi on Iraqi, the violence in Spain is Spaniard on Spaniard (or to be ethnically specific, Basque on Spaniard) or Catholic subject versus Protestant subject. Should we therefore leave Spain and the U.K.? Spain and the U.K. are clearly embroiled in civil war in this case, using the Left's own standards.
Or are you helping the Left move the goalposts yet again?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Again, sorry I missed the dai
January 14, 2007 - 21:06 ET by crsheddAgain, sorry I missed the daily attacks on AMERICAN SOLDIERS in Spain and the UK.
Maybe you could provide a post depicting these attacks.
You are being willfully obtuse.
January 14, 2007 - 21:10 ET by acaiguanaYou are being willfully obtuse.
You are also being silly. But what the hell, it's a New Year.
The issue here is terror. Terror. Terror.
Kinda like the terror you practice when you abet the enemy by tearing apart any effort to confront them as has President Bush confronted them. Sorta grates on you, doesn't it. President Bush.
President Bush.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
While you were learning to be
January 15, 2007 - 00:35 ET by UnsaneWhile you were learning to be a professional school bully, er, a principal, and a mediocre teacher, I was living in Germany where our facilities had the occasional bomb threat. Down the road from here is a A1C, buried at the nearby national cemetery, who was killed in a bombing on Rhein Main. Every other week, it seemed, we in Germany were treated to headlines of facilities/people of both U.S. and NATO interest being attacked. Should we have pulled out of Europe in the 1980s? We should have, by your standards.
Why did we not pull out of Italy in 1981? The Red Brigades taking BG Dozier hostage should have been our first clue as to what a quagmire that place was. Besides, our presence in Italy was only making more Communists. Right?
Like it or not, Spain and the U.K. are embroiled in civil war (by your standards) so we should pull out (by your standards). You can't handle the possibility of one of our service members paper-cutting themselves in those countries (by your standards), so why do we have U.S. personnel stationed there? Shouldn't we just get them out of the quagmire called Europe?
The problem is, crshedd, is that you see the military as something neat to look at during parades and ceremonies. You seem to be deeply troubled by their actual role and what they have to do to accomplish that role. I forget who said it, but ships are indeed a beautiful thing to behold when sitting in a harbor; but ships are not designed to sit in a harbor.
Why do you insist on talking about something about which you know absolutely nothing?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Sorry, I should have typed s*
January 14, 2007 - 16:11 ET by crsheddSorry, I should have typed s**t.
I will do better.
What a simpleton...
January 14, 2007 - 16:18 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasGawd you are a simpleton aren't you...let's see, warn the Iraqis among whom many terrorists hide, of the the list of suspected targets you are going to bomb. Your genius has only begun. Then the terrorists who know which targets force civilians in these facilities and presto, we have killed tens or hundred of civilians. Thanks genius, NEXT PLEASE.
You don't the first thing about the nature of the engagement in Iraqi you clown, never mind warfare in general.
If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal.
Can't believe how much needs
January 14, 2007 - 21:10 ET by crsheddCan't believe how much needs to be explained to conservatives.
You tell Iraqis that they either turn in suspects or leave their neighborhoods BECAUSE when we find suspect locations we will bomb the s**t out of the location. It is a standing warning, you do not tell them in advance of each bombing.
Eventually, the citizens will not allow these guys in their neighborhood or there just won't be a neighborhood.
Since you know so much about warfare, maybe you should be directing the war, our generals and president don't seem to be able to pull it off.
Generals are a dime a dozen. By the way, what are your cred..
January 14, 2007 - 21:15 ET by acaiguanaGenerals are a dime a dozen. By the way, what are your credentials?
Generals are littering the landscape and not all are fit for war.
Big surprise?
But I suppose if you had served (I assume you haven't but I could be wrong) you'd think every General knew how to kill you.
I've prersonally known a couple three Generals. I know why Lincoln fired them and I know why Eisenhower fired them. And I know why a lot of Majors don't make Colonel. Do you?
Try again.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
crshedd,Well, for someone wit
January 14, 2007 - 16:53 ET by Blondecrshedd,
Well, for someone with all those degrees and all, you certainly are a strategic and tactical buffoon. There are plenty of things you could read which would allow you to type at least a somewhat cogent dialog on your keyboard before you hit the "post" button.
Whom are you going to surgically strike?
Why "warn the Iraqis" first? The idea, in case you missed it, is to kill the terrorists. With that statement of yours...you let your ignorance show.
Typical liberal. Bemoan, bemoan, bemoan.
Can't believe how much needs
January 14, 2007 - 21:12 ET by crsheddCan't believe how much needs to be explained to conservatives.
You tell Iraqis that they either turn in suspects or leave their neighborhoods BECAUSE when we find suspect locations we will bomb the s**t out of the location. It is a standing warning, you do not tell them in advance of each bombing.
Eventually, the citizens will not allow these guys in their neighborhood or there just won't be a neighborhood.
Can't believe how much should
January 14, 2007 - 21:24 ET by BlondeCan't believe how much should be explained to you, crshedd.
Mr. nine or ten college degrees.
You are such a fakir.
Why don't you read up a bit on tactics, and try again.
I cannot believe how much I h
January 15, 2007 - 00:43 ET by UnsaneI cannot believe how much I have to explain to a Leftist that still thinks war can be fought "gentlemanly". (Never mind that the concept of a "gentleman's war went out the window in 1864 when the March to the Sea took place, among other operations, during the Civil War. crshedd, the Civil War was...forget it.)
I say you just bomb the hell out of a militarily legal target with ZERO warning to kill as many of the bad guys as possible. I could be wrong, but we never did place a phone call to the Third Reich and say "Hey guys, we are going to bomb Hamburg in a few hours. Before we do that, we want to place a courtesy phone call telling you this so you can evacuate your civilians."
I also cannot believe that you once taught in our public schools, and were once even a professional school bully. And here I am wondering why our schools are so screwed up. Why, its people like you who think you can teach when your grasp on the fundamentals of history and human nature are just pathetic at BEST.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
dang! I've heard that song before
January 15, 2007 - 01:18 ET by tumbler_2007"You tell Iraqis that they either turn in suspects or leave their neighborhoods BECAUSE when we find suspect locations we will bomb the s**t out of the location. It is a standing warning, you do not tell them in advance,"
We have guys here in our midst who disagree with you. (In fact so do I); yet when it comes to bombing the sh-- out of illegal aliens, much for the same reasons you recommend, they like to say, LETS!!!! (Eventually the illegals will not cross over the border --or there just won't be any illegal imigrants. Lol! )
"Don't mean to be disr
January 15, 2007 - 00:52 ET by ckc1227"Don't mean to be disrespectful, Noel, but my initial post responded to BOR falsely stating that Bill Clinton didn't go through any nonsense."
Then, perhaps you should read BOR's words again, because he didn't state that Clinton didn't go through ANY nonsense; he said he didn't have to go through any of THIS nonsense, referring to the subject at hand, which was Condi being unqualified to make decisions involving our military since she had no family in the military.
Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid.
crshedd's motto
January 14, 2007 - 14:45 ET by Unsanecrshedd's motto: "THEY DID IT!!! WAAAAAAHHHHHH!!! THEY DID IT!!!! THEY DID IT!!!!! WWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!"
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Too witty as usual, Unsane.
January 14, 2007 - 14:58 ET by crsheddToo witty as usual, Unsane.
Спасибо
January 14, 2007 - 15:07 ET by UnsaneThank you! I hope you learned something from that...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Once again, crshedd is comple
January 14, 2007 - 14:39 ET by PeskyDaneOnce again, crshedd is completely out of his depth.
CR is on a potty break tryi
January 14, 2007 - 14:58 ET by 1sttofightCR is on a potty break trying to clear his mind.
You are also so witty, I am u
January 14, 2007 - 15:02 ET by crsheddYou are also so witty, I am unable to respond.
Wake me when you say something of substance.
Why wake you and set off th
January 14, 2007 - 15:10 ET by 1sttofightWhy wake you and set off the BS alarm again?
Oh come on, that was kind of
January 14, 2007 - 15:26 ET by PeskyDaneI showed that BOR was wrong w
January 14, 2007 - 15:01 ET by crsheddI showed that BOR was wrong when he said Clinton didn't have to go through any nonsense.
I showed that Noel's reply was partly right, but selective. Republicans, in droves, threw nonsense at Clinton for bombing Iraq, but when they saw Americans were supporting the bombing, they backed off-oops, maybe we were too hasty.
Out of my depth? Post something that actually adds to the conversation, not just try to berate someone who does not think in lockstep with you.
CR
January 14, 2007 - 15:08 ET by Noel SheppardCR,
But that's not really the case. The leadership of the Republican Party back then quite quickly came to Clinton's support, and moved to enlist a universal consensus. This included Lott and Gingrich.
Such has certainly not been the case within the Democrat leadership since less than twelve months since the Iraq war began. In fact, prominent Democrats were beginning to voice displeasure with the war in the second half of 2003 just months after the invasion. ns
You are right about Gingrich.
January 14, 2007 - 15:21 ET by crsheddYou are right about Gingrich. But, Lott's first reaction was to question the timing as I pointed out (with site reference). Only later did he backtrack-I believe conservatives call it a flip-flop.
The Democratic party was, basically, entirely behind GWBush, as you say for almost a year. Then reality set in and they realized that Iraq was a mistake. I don't get upset with those who disagree with the war, it is still a free country. The ones I get upset about are the ones who think it is going 'swimminly' (ann colter, et al) over there. I get upset that GWBush didn't realize things weren't so good over there until December '06 (we're not winning, but we're not losing).
And, I'm sorry again. Just because Democrats don't do something, does not make it right if Republicans do it, and vice versa. That is 3rd grade talk. We all should look at the facts and decide if it is right or wrong, not 'gee, the other side did it, so we can skate'.
CR
January 14, 2007 - 15:30 ET by Noel SheppardCR,
Well, I've identified the problem. Your Lott quote comes from December 1998. Mine comes from August 1998. Yours was about attacks in Iraq. Mine was about attacks in Afghanistan.
Regardless, this is getting silly as you said. As such, why don't we stick to BOR's point, which was that Clinton was not debased as a Chicken Hawk for waging war without having been in the military or having a child at risk? ns
As I just posted above, Clint
January 14, 2007 - 15:34 ET by crsheddAs I just posted above, Clinton wasn't involved in a war that most Americans are now against, nor was he sending in more troops which most Americans oppose.
I also stated that if GWBush were to commit more Air Force conducting 'surgical strikes', he would probably have a much higher approval of the escalation.
CR
January 14, 2007 - 15:37 ET by Noel SheppardCR,
Yeah, but that's not really the
point, and is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? After
all, which came first: Americans losing faith in the war, or Democrat
presidential candidates like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, and,
eventually, John Kerry speaking out against it? And, how has the
media's change of heart on this issue impacted public opinion?
Regardless
of the answers, are you suggesting that the Chicken Hawk analogy only
works if a war is unpopular? So, if a war is popular, a president
without military experience and absent children in the military is
qualified to wage war? ns
You are again pulling the con
January 14, 2007 - 15:48 ET by crsheddYou are again pulling the conversation away from what BOR said, which is what I originally responded to.
Your 'which came first' question is interesting. I think that when we did NOT find weapons of mass destruction, did NOT find a link between Saddam and al-Queada, etc was the point when Americans started to lose faith in the war. The Democrats and media fed that dissatisfaction, but didn't start it. If they had that much power, GWBush probably would not have won 2004.
And the Chicken Hawk analogy, again, was in response to BOR saying Clinton didn't have to face any nonsense over his war in his time. May not have been the same nonsense, but nonsense by any other name...
CR
January 14, 2007 - 16:07 ET by Noel SheppardCR,
No I'm not. I'm trying to get you back on topic which is why Clinton wasn't called a Chicken Hawk for waging war with no military experience and no children in the incursions he started. Your contention is that this is because his wars were popular, and this one isn't. I don't see the connection.
Once again, are you saying that a person with no military experience and no children in the military is only qualified to wage a popular war? Furthermore, what if the war is popular initially as this one was, but becomes unpopular later? Are you saying that this person is qualified initially, but not so once public opinion changes? Isn't that preposterous? ns
crshedd, I believe the 'nonsense' was a contextual 'nonsense'.
January 14, 2007 - 16:11 ET by acaiguanacrshedd, I believe the 'nonsense' was a contextual 'nonsense'. What O'Reilly said was: (Bold is mine)
“I didn't hear this kind of nonsense when Bill Clinton had military action in the Balkans or in Somalia. Why didn't I hear that?”
Like most Liberals, you try to equivocate Clinton's very brief criticism from some about 'wagging the dog' to consistent, long-term and cheap criticism about Bush's actual military service in the National Guard; chickenhawk status; and Condi Rice's lack of children.
That's not only an incorrect paint of the context of this discussion; but also disingeneous to the max.
Noel isn't cherry picking facts here. The Democrats have adhered to the enemy and sold their souls to the Terrorists. When they criticize the President as a Baffoon; a low-IQ bumbler; a chickenhawk; a loser who only won because of a biased Supreme Court; an illigitimate President who 'started' a war in Iraq because he wanted to be like his Daddy; and the list goes on - then
The democrats are boosting the morale of the enemy helping them to believe that Public Opinion will win the war in Iraq for them; attacking the morale of the American people - driving the point home day after day week after week, year after year; and finally investing their intellectual capital and reputations on the US losing this war.
But unfortunately, they also bet the future of the country's security with that bank of capital and therefore in my opinion cannot be ever trusted with the security, safety and protection of this country.
A Democrat President at any price would be one who guarantees failure of the War in Iraq just to save the investment I have described.
That's sick.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
LOL!!! Actually, there is PLE
January 14, 2007 - 19:33 ET by Del DolemonteLOL!!! Actually, there is PLENTY of evidence showing links between Iraq and terrorism in general, and also links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. But elites like yourself are afraid to admit Chimpy McHitler wasn't "lying" when he said Iraq was part of the War on Terror.
Here's an interesting article from last month, detailing some of Iraq's terror activities in the 1990s and early 21st century. Much of this info comes from numerous documents we captured after the 2003 invasion.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2006/12/
As the author states, we've only translated a fraction of all of the documents we captured, so this is only the tip of the iceberg. Disclaimer: I know that many of your far-left friends (Bill Moyers comes to mind) have repeatedly tried to discredit the author in question (Stephen Hayes) but this article refers to more "recent" developments, not his earlier allegations.
As for ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, President Clinton (remember him?) had a US Grand Jury indict bin Laden in 1998. According to "Item 4" in the indictment, quote:
"4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in
the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist
group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their
perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.
In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of
Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on
particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
Complete indictment text is here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
FYI, this link to the indictment text is from the Federation of American Scientists, hardly a pro-Bush group.
BTW, in 1998, Bill Clinton said Iraq had WMDS, as did Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, and even John Kerry. Were they all lying too?
BTW, in 1998, Bill Clinton sa
January 14, 2007 - 19:41 ET by Clear thinkerBTW, in 1998, Bill Clinton said Iraq had WMDS, as did Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, and even John Kerry. Were they all lying too?
They were misled in 1998 by the future Bush administartion, everyone knows that.
Dammit, Clear.Do you have to
January 14, 2007 - 19:48 ET by BlondeDammit, Clear.
Do you have to muck up the perception with actual facts?
Again?
Blonde,,,As you know, I take
January 14, 2007 - 19:52 ET by Clear thinkerBlonde,,,
As you know, I take my job seriously!
Pointing out logic to liberals is a tough job, but someone has to do it.
Quite so, Clear.And may I say
January 14, 2007 - 19:56 ET by BlondeQuite so, Clear.
And may I say....you do it so extremely well!
Thanks, I do what I can.You h
January 14, 2007 - 20:02 ET by Clear thinkerThanks, I do what I can.
You have to admit though, they make it so damn easy.
Logic is like scrabble to Liberals.
January 14, 2007 - 19:59 ET by acaiguanaLogic is like scrabble to Liberals.
Uh... got five letters... uh...
cogil...<nope>...ilogc,,,<nope>...cigol....<not there yet>...um.....
logci <um nope>....
I got it!
"Logic"
Wonder what the hell that means?
:-)
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
Who cares about liberals anyw
January 14, 2007 - 20:04 ET by Clear thinkerWho cares about liberals anyway, the new season of 24 is on. Bye!
I've seen a few. I should get the CD pack and catch up.
January 14, 2007 - 20:10 ET by acaiguanaI've seen a few. I should get the CD pack and catch up.
I have the 'region' issue here that slows me down. I just don't do much TV.
However, 24 is a good show. As my Army Chaplain said when I went the first (read only) time to mention that mom was sick; dad was nuts; brother was an idiot; sister had red hair and white skin; and going to Viet Nam would just cause a great deal of worry at home; not to mention that jumping out of airplanes and shooting off rifles indiscriminately was hazardous to your health (had a couple of NY kids in my group);
he said:
"I understand."
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
The Air Force Disagrees
January 14, 2007 - 21:07 ET by emjem24As a military wife, let me say this again, you little worm, YOU KNOW NOTHING. Your liberal handlers only tell you want you want to hear. The MSM never called Clinton a Chickenhawk (which you continue to ignore for your own purposes) but when it comes to GWB no quarter is given. ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK. Did you vote for him? Don't think so. Did you agree with this war? Don't think so. Did you agree with the Bosnian campaign...probably as long as it was a NATO thing. BTW, do you know that the US military disagreed with participating in the Bosnian campaign and that they barely disagreed with Wesley Snipes Clarke, a proven analyst just like yourself. Were you ever in the Air Force? Do you even know what a surgical strike is? Yeah, let's bomb them (and the civilian population) to hell and let's see what the Iraqis and the American people will think of that. Oh, no, we'll warn them first...yeah, that makes a lot of sense, we'll just bomb empty buildings for the hell of it. They don't like the war now but an air campaign will make it all better? Give me a break. Why don't you actually talk to an airman before spouting off? But then, you are just spouting off like john ryan, another snert twerp, and you know it. Let me know when you have a useful, objective opinion. I'm waiting..............
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
em,Please, please, ignore the
January 14, 2007 - 21:17 ET by Blondeem,
Please, please, ignore these trolls.
And know that YOU, and your husband, have our most sincere thanks, on a daily basis, for what you do.
We support you. And thank you.
Snipe at the trolls, if it makes you feel a little better. We don't mind at all (in fact we enjoy you chewing on them).
But just know, we support YOU, and your family. (And I emphasize the YOU, becuase I understand how hard that is to do).
"I get upset that GWBu
January 15, 2007 - 00:31 ET by ckc1227"I get upset that GWBush didn't realize things weren't so good over there until December '06 (we're not winning, but we're not losing)."
And I get upset over libtards who really think the President didn't know things were tough in Iraq until December 06, simply because they hadn't read it in the paper or seen it on the news until then
I also get upset over libtards who probably can't plan a kid's birthday party or balance their checkbook, yet somehow feel they are qualified and able to run a war, AND, with none of the info that is available to the President of the U.S. at that, lol.
Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid.
Berating?
January 14, 2007 - 15:11 ET by UnsaneWe don't berate you because you aren't in lockstep. It is because you are doing exactly what you are accusing Noel Sheppard of doing (being selective). Also because you are representing your ideology so poorly.
I'd stop preaching about substance if I were you. You are showing yourself to be every bit the hack that you whine the rest of us are.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Where have I been selective.
January 14, 2007 - 15:26 ET by crsheddWhere have I been selective. I will try to correct that.
So, okay, I'm being selective JUST LIKE NOEL. Yet, you don't slam him. So, if I'm selective in a way you agree with, you won't slam me. Sounds like lockstep to me.
I point to an error, as I percieve it, provide citations and you all come after me. Noel, on the other hand, is also providing citations and debating this topic.
The only substance I get from others is 'potty break', 'Whaaaaaaaa!' etc.
Do you need some cheese to go with that whine?
January 14, 2007 - 15:34 ET by UnsaneI forgot. Your trillions of degrees, you being an educator, and above all, being a registered Republican make you infinitely better than the rest of us. (Being a registered Republican gives you an extra lift, as the Leftists and the media would no doubt call you a "maverick".) Therefore nothing we can type will ever hold a candle to your amazing depth and substance. I will bow my head in shame now...
I seem to recall you began this selectiveness before Noel countered you. And let's not forget your persistent whining as to why we on the Right aren't proverbially throwing Laura Bush to the wolves for her statement concerning Dr. Rice, which just might be (gasp!) dead-on accurate, from Dr. Rice's own words!
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???" - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
First, I WAS a registered Rep
January 14, 2007 - 15:40 ET by crsheddFirst, I WAS a registered Republican until 1996 when I moved to a state that allows one to register as an Independent. I got sick of both parties.
You again point to my 'selectiveness' yet you aren't specific. I said if you were, I would try to correct it.
I would like you to provide a link showing, in 'Dr. Rice's own words!' that LBush's comment was 'dead-on accurate...'
This is at least a second day, that I know of, where you stated that Dr. Rice and LBush had discussed Rice's unwillingness to run for president because she had no family. Both times, you have neglected to give a citation.
Don't blame me for you lack of critical thinking skills, crshedd
January 14, 2007 - 15:53 ET by UnsaneYour critical thinking skills are so far gone, it seems, that you need Internet links to validate everything, to include common sense. If I tell you that in earth's atmosphere that the sky is blue, will you demand an Internet link from me to prove that point?
It is very simple, crshedd. This may cause blinding, extreme pain to accept, so please sit down. For one thing, I used the word "MIGHT", as in a possibility. Neither you or I know the internal dynamics of the White House. Therefore neither you or I know if Laura Bush and Dr. Rice have had a conversation where this possibility was discussed. But with my understanding of human nature, I don't see that as some unimaginable reach. Why should it be? Both of these women travel together and do run into each other on many occasions, stretching back to the days when Dr. Rice was the National Security Advisor.
Therefore, it isn't exactly a mind-bending quantum leap to imagine that Mrs. Bush and Dr. Rice at some point discussed a possible presidential run, and that Dr. Rice explained why she wouldn't. At which point, Mrs. Bush brought this up later.
You can demand a citation for this all you want, but unfortunately I am not privy to the activities of the White House on such intimate detail. I do not have the White House and Foggy Bottom bugged, nor do I have connections to either building. But unlike you I understand some basic fundamentals of human nature. I am guessing you do too, but are too consumed in your hatred of all things on the Right to not see how I came to this conclusion.
My apologies for not providing you a citation on demand for my thinking outside of the box. I'll try to scrape off some neurons off of the top of my head and smear them on the board in the hopes you can see them sometime. You see, unlike you I don't allow the Internet to do all my thinking for me. I tend to perform some analysis on my own.
By the way, Chicago and Seattle are tied, 24 all, currently. But I'm guessing you will demand I immediately provide a citation to prove that fact?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Now I get it. Let's see if th
January 14, 2007 - 16:05 ET by crsheddNow I get it. Let's see if this works.
GWBush sees LBush everyday. He must have told her he really screwed up in Iraq. But, he doesn't say it publically so we can ASSUME he said it and feel that it must be true. Here, I am assuming that you don't think the war in Iraq is going well, I may be mistaken.
That is so much easier than finding FACTS to back up an argument.
Thanks for the advice.
I so hope none of your tril
January 14, 2007 - 16:17 ET by UnsaneI so hope none of your trillions of degrees are in history. A conversation like this may have well taken place and no one will know until our grandchildren and great-grandchildren do the research on it to find out. In that sense, I apologize I don't own a time machine and cannot find out for certain if this conversation took place (again, get a dictionary and please look up the word might, which I used, but you fail again and again to acknowledge).
Indeed, we don't know most of what is going on behind closed doors in the White House. Many of us will never know because we will wind up in the grave before we find out everything.
Your assumption would be wrong in my case. The war is going as well as can be expected, and would go even better, if not for an army of spoiled, whining, crybaby ingrates like yourself.
It is funny to hear Leftists cry FACTS, FACTS, FACTS, but when offered them, or offered a possible plausible explanation, they SCREAM like two year olds who just had their toys taken from them. Just as you are now
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
You say you have offered fact
January 14, 2007 - 16:28 ET by crsheddYou say you have offered facts, but all you offer is supposition.
You SUPPOSE that Rice and LBush had that conversation. Well, lots of people can suppose all sorts of things. That does NOT make it reasonable, plausible, or even accurate.
So you are of the GWBush school of 'we aren't winning the war, but we're not losing the war' school of thought. It is not going as well as expected. It was expected to go very well:
* Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm
Laura Bush's comments were c
January 14, 2007 - 16:30 ET by tracheostomyLaura Bush's comments were cherry picked from a People magazine interview and twisted for the benefit of Keith Olbermann and the Huffingtonpost.
That's what so brilliant about libs. They're geniuses at covering their tracks because their so good at jumping them. >;)
-PJ
Draft Condi for '08!
That's what is so brilliant a
January 14, 2007 - 21:25 ET by crsheddThat's what is so brilliant about conservatives. Don't like something, either ignore it or make up an excuse.
Ya know, CR, you've been avoiding me all day.
January 14, 2007 - 21:30 ET by acaiguanaYa know, CR, you've been avoiding me all day.
Want to go toe to toe with me on the Democrat strategy to 'win' in Iraq?
Want to go toe to toe with me on whether the Democrats are in bed with our enemy and hurt our morale?
Want to go toe to toe with me on military strategy and tactics?
Want to go toe to toe with me on the following:
Economy.
Taxes.
Media Bias.
Middle East.
Or, nothing.
You are a Troll.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
Well, crshedd,You've finally
January 14, 2007 - 21:32 ET by BlondeWell, crshedd,
You've finally shown your true colors.
You are such a fake and a troll.
"That's what is so bri
January 15, 2007 - 00:46 ET by ckc1227"That's what is so brilliant about conservatives. Don't like something, either ignore it or make up an excuse."
Thing is, no one is really ignoring or making excuses for what Laura Bush may have said, because she didn't say anything negative. And no matter how hard you try to display what she may have said in a negative light, you will fail, except with your fellow libtards, of course. Hell, you may as well spin as negative Laura saying Condi is a nice person, or intelligent, for that would be only a little more absurd than what you are trying to spin now.
And if you are a mutiple-degreed teacher of our youth, God help our education system.
Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid.
That's what is so brilliant a
January 15, 2007 - 00:47 ET by UnsaneThat's what is so brilliant about crshedd and his fellow Leftists. Don't like something, either ignore it, have the media ignore it, or make up an excuse, or become a full-time apologist.
crshedd, are you medically restricted from critical thinking on grounds it could give you a heart attack, a stroke, an aneurysm, or worse?
P.S. - If by some chance someone Right wing poster replies agreeing with you that Laura Bush is the locus of evil for an unfair attack on Dr. Rice (by your perception), just how intense will your orgasm be?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Again, stop blaming me for yo
January 14, 2007 - 16:39 ET by UnsaneAgain, stop blaming me for your lack of critical thinking skills, and begin cultivating them again. I offered a perfectly POSSIBLE logical explanation, and all you want to do is cry, cry, cry.
So you are of the spoiled, whiny school of thought that says if one of our soldiers, sailors, Airmen, or Marines gets a paper cut on their way to war, that the war must be way too hard, and that we have to leave.
You claim to enjoy history yet are clearly completely ignorant of it. Many in the Union thought the Civil War would be over in a matter of weeks. They all thought it would go well. Four years would go by before it was over.
World War I was the same way. Many in Europe thought that 1915 would dawn with a world safe for democracy. Yet in August 1918, the trenches were still full of troops fighting each other across no-man's land.
Task Force Smith was supposed to spook the North Koreans back across the 38th Parallel. History tells us that didn't happen.
It is folly for anyone to make predictions of how long a war will last. But unfortunately Rumsfeld was in the political position to say something like that (as any Republican or Democrat would be) because of the spoiled among us, you included, who think war is supposed to go as smoothly and hitch free as planned, and with the ease of playing a video game.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Independence is MIGHTY
January 14, 2007 - 21:33 ET by emjem24You're an independent. More like a fence sitter looking for a better butt position (just like Bill O'Reilly who I take to task for this daily, I still like him, I just don't like you). However, you really don't sound like you're that objective and us expecting you to be in lockstep? Dude, you're on a conservative website! Wake the hell up! As Republicans and conservatives there's a vast array of opinions and views (which compose a political party) but we have this thing in common. We don't believe you are that objective or that you're even making that sound an arguement. I will add to the it takes a mother/father to make a military mind and it takes a single gal/guy to be a chickenhawk routine. It takes a well-educated, military savvy, American citizen to make a sound opinion about anything that has to do with the military. My husband and his brothers and sisters in arms have that, you don't. Unless you'd like to fill me in but since you've been avoiding a confrontation with me, you're not intellectually honest (oh, I'm sorry I'm in lockstep with the others so I wouldn't understand), and I've already reported you for the snert that you are, I'll hold my breath. Independents are what are destroying this country. What side are you on, crshedd? You're sick of the two parties? I'm sick of independents thinking they can have it both ways. I'm tired of indpendents acting like they're making an informed decision when they go to the voting booth when in actuality, they use the moniker of "independent" to avoid any responsibility for the decisions they make and how, in the end, not taking any kind of stand is letting both our military and the country down. Yeah, sure you're independent on your party affiliation card but inside you're leaning one way and you know it. And I don't think it's in support for GWB or the military. Or am I wrong? Convince me that, like other faithless Americans, you haven't already made your choice and turned tail and run behind the convenient "independent" label. You want to be bipartisan and fair like you pretend you are, then start acting like it, you big fat liar. But I won't hold my breath.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
Don't be silly, emjem. crsh
January 15, 2007 - 00:55 ET by UnsaneDon't be silly, emjem. crshedd says he is an independent (and said he was a registered Republican until he changed that story too) because he can't stand to tell us what he REALLY is: a whiny, spoiled, mealy mouthed Leftist. And he is the worst sort: he is a former educator, and as such, he looks down on the rest of us rubes in utter scorn and contempt.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
The bottom line
January 14, 2007 - 16:00 ET by reelman46Great comment above: You get hammered by the libmedia-libs if you are military-connected and now you get hammered if you are not.... highly illogical until you realize liberals (secular socialists) avoid reality.
As Rush said (paraphrasing)... liberals cannot debate their principles (big govt, hi taxes and secular values, now pacifism-blame America 1st) so "they seek to disqualify". Boxer was willing to dump on herself a bit for the greater libgoal of dumping (disqualifying) Rice on TV before Congress.... to muddy the water, confuse the issue, avoid realistic solutions, pull an emotional string instead of a logical one, yada... its what they must do.
Wasn't it libfems that said marriage and children should not define a woman's success? More baloney from the libbaloney factory.
When I am King there will be 12 year term limits for our royal Congress!
Note: I strongly suspect libs hate wars mostly due to the fact they take tens of billions away from their growth of vote-buying socialism (aka: power over your life -- their political cocaine)... think about it... plus some countries frown at us.
reelman..."when you are
January 14, 2007 - 22:28 ET by Cape Conservativereelman..."when you are king" I'll be right beside you supporting the 12-year term limits!!!! This country MUST make changes if we are ever to get rid of the likes of TK!!!!!!!
And, of course, the representative from Massachusetts WHO RAN on a "term limit" promise - Martin Meehan - well....when it was time for his "term limit" to expire, he changed his mind :-) And, the sheep who call themselves democrats in this commonwealth, went right along with him and voted to keep him in office. Go figure..........ONLY IN NEW ENGLAND!
So you are OK with restrictin
January 15, 2007 - 00:57 ET by UnsaneSo you are OK with restricting the right to vote, and of having 6 year lame ducks?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
crshedd, I didn't mean to ber
January 14, 2007 - 16:50 ET by PeskyDanecrshedd, I didn't mean to berate you... in fact I wasn't even addressing you, but its obvious that most members of the loyal opposition supported the president during Desert Fox and any other military actions that occured... citing exceptionsm, which you did and trying argue that they negated the rule is a sign of someone out of their depth.
Holy crap. Crshedd's string o
January 14, 2007 - 20:21 ET by Roger the ShrubberHoly crap. Crshedd's string of bad luck has extended all the way through the weekend. Keep trying though, little trooper!
Troll Alert and Your Just Deserts
January 14, 2007 - 20:31 ET by emjem24crshedd, here's a thought. Since when did liberals know anything? You say you feel our pain, and you say you're ra ra for the military but I want some proof. Give me some proof. How effective a president was Clinton? And please, don't backslide and tell me it's now all about Bush and not Bubba. Oh, and you naturally don't give a crap about O'Reilly, a show I can't imagine you watching if there wasn't anything on television which is the reality these days. Conservative motto - either ignore it or make up a reason for it? Here's the liberal dogma: coulda, shoulda, woulda. Terrorism, what's that? Bipartisanship isn't thy name it's just a game. My favorite: I feel your pain. Another: let's bomb an aspirin factory. Another: what is "is?" I could go on an on. Oh, and you're being reported.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
This is just Boxer's latest b
January 14, 2007 - 15:45 ET by Right Wing Attack DogThis is just Boxer's latest bone toss to the leftards to help keep them appeased. In their mind, she is "single-handedly taking on the Bush administration". I think it's great that she is putting a crystal clear face on the majority party in Washington. The democrat plan for the GWOT is to do nothing, and bring a firestorm of complaining and whining if anyone, even in their own party does. They have a covert plan to cut off the money for the war in Iraq by "funding" it from the general fund to make it look like it's going where it should when in reality it will be going to their pet projects which has been and always will be buying votes by transfering wealth from the producers, to those that stay at home, lay on the couch, watch "The View" and "Oprah".
Here's what started the whole
January 14, 2007 - 16:24 ET by tracheostomyNoel, Crshedd, here's what started the whole Laura Bush thing! You have the blogger cited and Olbermann to thank for the current liberal double standard. . .based on a People interview. The conclusions from the quote are completely made up.
Thus, Fleming opens her mouth and digs herself deeper.
-PJ
Draft Condi for '08!
This woman is nuts. How did s
January 14, 2007 - 19:59 ET by Clear thinkerThis woman is nuts. How did she get "pity" for Condi from the First Lady?
Liberals...silly people!
That Alioto broad has got some nerve
January 14, 2007 - 19:53 ET by terrigI generally would not stoop to calling another woman a broad but this Alioto bioch is one, amongst other colorful words I could say but I won't. This broad has done nothing but repeatedly bash the US Military and those who serve. She is or was on the SF Board of Supervisors and voted to make sure the USS Iowa didn't become a museum there, voted to cut off any recruitment in their cesspool of a school system, and was influential in the disbandment of the JROTC program in said cesspool. I really would like to see that person taken down a few pegs. She has no business, no business at all being on there at all without a disclaimer "Warning: the Lunatic Fringe is here and can be harmful to your health!". Her pal Boxer would never cotten to say such a thing to any feminist leftist pig woman but since Condi does not fit that criteria, she thought it was open season. Now isn't it all these libs who tell us that they care deeply about the families and those who serve (which I say Bullsh*t) but yet don't have any other ideas besides taking a junket and getting their pictures taken with the troops who in reality don't have much of a choice about it. If they would tell us their plan instead of denigrating the Secretary of State because she doesn't have children, well that would be a start. But they have no plan, just hot air. I can almost say with 100% certainty that deep down in her gut, Ms. Broad has no feelings about any casualties or injuries or the men and women who go about doing their job everyday so this moonbat can blather on like she does. She and her fellow Bored (yes intentional misspelling) of Supervisors have nothing but contempt for the military and to have this woman on is an absolute disgrace. A bit rambling and I do aplogize.
Boxer's whole argument --- re
January 15, 2007 - 00:51 ET by GalvanicBoxer's whole argument --- reinforced by her supporters and damage-controllers --- was absurd on its face. If as she suggested, that Rice and others who have no family members in the Armed Forces, have not moral right to order troops into combat, then conversely, Boxer and others on the Hill have no moral right to cut funding of Armed Forces at any time.
Once again, Boxer was a grandstanding fool, and her words will come back to haunt her and her peers.
I love Bill so much. You k
January 15, 2007 - 02:26 ET by mmodano77I love Bill so much. You know, any time those retarded libs have anything to say, Bill gets right up in their grille, raises his voice, and lays down the law-la-la-la. I especially like it when he cuts them off & doesnt let them get a word in edgewise. It's also great when he points at them, sometimes he uses an underhand point (that's usually when he's making one of his really insightful & trenchant points) & sometimes he does an open-handed point. But my fave is when he points right at those lib-loonies, straight at them, like he is pointing straight at their wicked, heathen SOUL! Still, nobody has talked about my favorite part of the show; Bill's fab new tv icon segment where he interviewed sexy John Schnieder from the Dukes of Hazzard (one of MY personal favorite TV shows.) How does Bill do it? Gosh!
So, mmodano77, you have a point?
January 15, 2007 - 03:25 ET by acaiguanaSo, mmodano77, you have a point?
Or was this what your creative 'outcome' based English teacher praised you for as 'sarcasm'?
Or was there some other issue you wanted to address. Being a Liberal means you never have to make sense. Try this:
"I think Bill O'Reilly makes cheap shots at Liberals when he doesn't agree with them."
Of course, that would require actually coming out and saying what you mean. A trait found lacking in Liberals.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
Good One Aca
January 16, 2007 - 10:05 ET by emjem24Hey, aca, good one. Love it! LOL Hey modie, get a clue. Get a point, buy a clue, if you don't have something to say, then don't drool. Buy bye.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
Verbal diarrhea.Proud membe
January 16, 2007 - 10:29 ET by Jack BauerVerbal diarrhea.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Galvanic - Boxer's supporters
January 16, 2007 - 10:17 ET by misterbillGalvanic - Boxer's supporters- I occasionally become so incensed at some people that I talk to my TV set while they are spouting. I fear for myself--in that the defense of Boxer's comments were so ill-conceived and asinine that I lost my temper. Why the hell can't anyone say (e.g.)"the Senator apologizes for the comments she made. She realizes that, in effect they can be construed to be a personal attack on Ms Rice. That was not the Senators' purpose."
The two ignorant asses defending her could turn even Gloria Steinem into an anti-feminist.
"Education, you know.....". Sameo, sameo!