The mainstream media loves war veteran members of Congress -- when they’re opposed to the Iraq War. As reported by Newsbusters, in November 2005, when Congressman and Vietnam War veteran John Murtha came out against the Iraq War, the network news broadcasts touted his opposition as well as his service.
That has never been the case for Congressman and Vietnam prisoner of war Sam Johnson. Earlier this week, Johnson spoke out in favor of the war and against the anti-surge resolution. Congressman Johnson gave an emotional press conference with his retelling of the events of that era.
Representative Sam Johnson (R-TX): “Words can't fully describe the unspeakable damage of the anti-American efforts against the war back home to the guys on the ground. When they pulled the funds for Vietnam, we were still POW's and we thought we were going to be there forever.”
Unlike Murtha, the only major television outlet that covered Congressman Johnson’s words was Fox News. Others noticed he was there, but did nothing. In the 11:00 AM hour on Thursday, CNN’s Andrea Koppel did a story on congressional debate on the surge with footage of Johnson speaking on the House floor. However, there was no audio and Congressman Johnson’s name was not mentioned.
The transcript from Wednesday’s Fox and Friends First is below.
Steve Doocy: "Well, we've been talking to you about this for a while. The House of Representatives, very shortly, is going to consider a resolution condemning the president's troop surge. And right now it looks as if it will pass. However, yesterday, up on Capitol Hill, Representative Sam Johnson, he's a Republican from Texas who was a POW, talked up on Capitol Hill about what it was like when he was a POW and back home Congress was talking about pulling the funding and stuff like that. That's Mr. Johnson right there. Behind him, John Boehner who at one point started to cry during his, his comments."
Representative Sam Johson (R-TX): "Words can't fully describe the unspeakable damage of the anti-American efforts against the war back home to the guys on the ground. When they pulled the funds for Vietnam, we were still POW's and we thought we were going to be there forever."
Doocy: "We just saw, a moment ago, that was Blunt of Missouri over his shoulder."
Gretchen Carlson: "You see John Boehner just wipe the tear there away, screen left."
Doocy: "It happened so fast."
Carlson: "He was, this is what Boehner said after the fact. He said we will embolden terrorists in every corner of the world. We will give Iran free access to the Middle East. And who doesn't believe the terrorists won't just follow our troops home?"
Judge Andrew Napolitano: "This statement that we just saw was so emotional and so powerful the Republicans are going to ask Congressman Johnson to say it again with a little bit more detail on the floor of the House of Representatives on Thursday shortly before the vote. The essence of it being, when you take support away from the guys and gals that are actually fighting the war, it's a horrific, horrific thing for them to absorb."
Carlson: "And this is all on the heels of the fact that of course they're going to be voting against this resolution to be against the surge that the president has said is important over in Iraq. 21,500 new troops there, of which that process has already begun. But as we all know, this continues to be debated on Capitol Hill and now it's becoming a very emotional debate."
—Justin McCarthy is a news analyst at Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
From another net source: "
February 15, 2007 - 14:48 ET by ghotifunFrom another net source:
"Murtha, who has been among Congress's foremost opponents of Iraq war policy, also said he is considering attaching a provision to a looming war spending bill that would bar U.S. military action against Iran without congressional approval."
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, meanwhile, the Senate will hold another test vote Saturday on the Iraq resolution."
"Earlier, Sen. Arlen Specter ,R-Pa., complained that the Senate "is about to become irrelevant," adding, 'What we have here is close to anarchy.'"
Well, that didn't take too long...
......Plus Joe Biden announce
February 15, 2007 - 15:38 ET by bigtimerI have steam coming out of the ends of my hair!
Geeee
February 17, 2007 - 21:06 ET by GregEWouldn't life be grand if we could do what these moronic liberals want to do? Revoke the 2002 war vote, in hindsight. Gee, if I could just go back to decisions in my life that didn't work out, and change my decision now that times are little big rough because of that decision long ago. If only...if only.......if....but.......if....but.. If it was over and we'd won it long ago and Iraq was already a thriving democracy functioning completely on their own, the liberal morons would be on stumps talking about how they voted for it because it was right and just and pointing out how great it turned out to be, bragging that they had a hand in it. Those who didn't vote for it would be crying that they didn't vote for it because they weren't privy to some information that would have made their vote different, and they'd be doing the opposite that those who did vote for it (but are now against it and have been since it began to look difficult) are now doing.
The liberal mind is a diseased mind. Everyone think for a moment how many political offices liberals would win if all mainstream media was fair across the board, instead of in a perpetual campaign for liberal causes. Liberals would never win a presidency, never get anywhere near a majority in either house of Congress, etc, etc, etc. They can only get away with what they do get away with because the media is a 24 hour commerical for them and their causes.
The liberal mind is a diseased mind.
Yes ...
February 15, 2007 - 15:23 ET by Dave PierreIt's so biased that Rep. Johnson has not gotten the same kind of press that Murtha has gotten.
The first I heard about Rep. Johnson was on a radio interview with him about 6 months ago on Mark Levin's radio show. Great interview, btw.
Frankenlies.com: The truth about the lies of Al Franken; Franken debunked ...
Justin... THANK YOU! I have
February 15, 2007 - 15:34 ET by bigtimerTHANK YOU!
I have written before about Sam Johnson and had a link of a short Bio of him...
People should really be aware of what is going on and the words that have been spoken on the House Floor...
Sam Johnson has been one of my hero's for years,he is a quiet humble man, who was the longest POW during Nam in the Congress, not McCain... the media are hypocrites, as always when the situation is reversed the attention is always paid to the leftist democrat...it is despicable...
The left are planning incremently to cut funds, Sam Johnson has said so on the floor, he has a Resolution/Amendment for Victory and not to cut funds.
Same as this vote is going to be...this is a disgrace, and a lot of service members and their families are going to remember it in the future and it is going to show in votes in the future...
I am beyond disgust with the left and the media with their determination to have one agenda and that is the defeat of one good man....George W. Bush
At the cost of many lives, past and present.
Beyond contempt.
A dark day in history indeed upon us....beyond sadness, it is pitiful what this nation has bowed to.
Mr. Johnson...
February 15, 2007 - 17:40 ET by saurusbigtimer, you no doubt realize it is usually the case that REAL heroes, like Mr. Johnson are quiet and humble men. Real heroes neither enjoy talking about their acts or making them public.
Quite the opposite of phonies like Murtha or Kerry - who have continued to block access to their military records so the public who "has the right to know" (except where Dims are concerned) can make their own determination whether they are legitimate heroes or not.
Here us a link to a story det
February 15, 2007 - 16:08 ET by motherbeltHere us a link to a story detailing Murtha's "slow bleed" strategy..
http://www.politico....
Here is the excerpt run by Opinion Journal:
"'A Slow-Bleed Strategy'
"Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options," reports The Politico:
Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.
The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.
As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement--the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged."
Sure, let's have a TV ad campaign, with the Democrats arguing that we can't win. How long do you think it will take for their ads to appear on Al Jazeera, with subtitles???????
Here us a link to a story det
February 15, 2007 - 16:10 ET by motherbeltdelete double post
This clearly demonstrates the
February 15, 2007 - 16:16 ET by mattmThis clearly demonstrates the treasonous nature of the Left.
For good reason.
February 15, 2007 - 16:28 ET by The PhoenixThe real media ignores such hawks as this man for good reason. Hs attempts to link debate at home and injury to our troops is laughable and dishonest. It is unpatriotic to not debate this failure of our system of government. The case made for the invasion has been shown to be lies at worst and faith based politics at best. I don't mean religious. These guys believed that Sadam WMD. Their belief allowed them to disregard clear evidence to the contrary. In yesterday's press conference the president was finally honest about one thing he said "money trumps peace, sometimes". So that would leave the real reason for the Iraq quagmire is money pure and simple. Or permanent bases in the region to control oil would be more precise.
I would submit to you that if we were to truly recognize the causes of pain and death for our troops is the failure of our system's checks and balances. The system should have picked up on the ginned up and cherry picked intel well before the congress voted for attacking a sovereign nation. So I lay the blame directly at Sam Johnson's feet along with everyone else who voted for invading Iraq.
Mr. Bush also acknowleged what I deem a hard learned lesson by our less than bright "leader". He was asked:
Q Mr. President, on the North Korea deal, the former U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton, yesterday said, "It's a bad, disappointing deal, and the best thing you can say about it is that it will probably fall apart." This is from a man you repeatedly praised for his judgment and leadership at the United Nations. His main criticism is that the financial pressure led North Korea back to the table, and now it's being released. How do you respond to that?
THE PRESIDENT: I strongly disagree -- strongly disagree with his assessment. I have told the American people, like the Iranian issue, I wanted to solve the North Korean issue peacefully, and that the President has an obligation to try all diplomatic means necessary to do so. I changed the dynamic on the North Korean issue by convincing other people to be at the table with us, on the theory that the best diplomacy is diplomacy in which there is more than one voice -- that has got an equity in the issue -- speaking...
He learned that military solutions trying to force people to be as we are don’t work. The escalation is just a show of stubbornness and he is ignoring his own advice.
Here at Newsbusters debate is what is desired (I hope). To not debate is unpatriotic.
Most governments believed Sad
February 15, 2007 - 16:34 ET by florida_chadCan you please supply some of the "clear evidence they ignored" that Sadam didn't have WMD?
I await you responce. Educate me.
Tell me, font of wisdom, what
February 15, 2007 - 16:42 ET by NL207Tell me, font of wisdom, what was the cause of the mass pain and death our civilians here at home suffered on 9-11?
Phoenix? You mean 'Clay Pigeon' don't you?
lol
February 15, 2007 - 17:07 ET by The PhoenixThe reason that Osama bin Laden had guys fly our own airplanes into the World Trade Centers was because we had bases in Saudi Arabia. He believes that the freedoms that we grant to our people will pollute his people.
lol!
February 15, 2007 - 17:17 ET by mastersofdeceitlol!
Then perhaps you can explain
February 15, 2007 - 17:35 ET by NL207Then perhaps you can explain the significance of this remark:
"They later reported to Congress the ambassador told them Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.""
and this remark:
"call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.
"
No explanations, Phoenix? The
February 16, 2007 - 09:55 ET by NL207No explanations, Phoenix?
Then let me help you. The second quote is a part of the text of Osama Bin Laden's Fatwa of 1998 declaring war on the West.
The first quotation, which contains the exact same semantic content is even more interesting. It comes from a statement made by Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Ambassador to Great Britain from the Dey of Tripoli in 1786 to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, then Ambassadors of the Confederation of States to Great Britain and France, respectively.
According to your leftist logic, Phoenix, this means the United States, which did not yet exist in 1786, must have had troops and bases in Saudi Arabia.
I will offer another view more consistent with these facts: The Islamic Fundamentalists hate us because we are not Muslims and their religion teaches them to do this, they have hated us for this reason since before we were a country, and they will continue to hate us for this reason until either we are destroyed, made muslim, or they are dead.
OMG ... what an utter moron.
February 15, 2007 - 17:44 ET by saurusOMG ... what an utter moron.
(referring of course to phoenix)
Man, you are almost as cute a
February 15, 2007 - 19:53 ET by Roger the ShrubberMan, you are almost as cute as Randy Hayes.
How is your smarter half these days?
Thanks for the laugh, Jean Grey.
So, naturally now that we no
February 16, 2007 - 09:59 ET by BDSo, naturally now that we no longer have bases in Saudi AQ will stop hostilities?
You forget the second point Osama et al were interested in taking on the west. The desire to resume the Caliphate.
YOU LOSE!!!!!
Looser?
February 17, 2007 - 04:19 ET by The PhoenixSo your beloved President has just given OBL just what he wanted. The US out of SA. Restricted travel freedom. Easy access to our troops. A politics of fear in the US. And for icing on the cake a reduced presence in Afganistan and not to forget this administration has not even found him yet. Let's remember that right wingers were courting the theocratic Christians who wanted to put their thumbprint on our democracy. That is no different than a Caliphate. And you guys want that.
Who is the looser? Go look in the mirror.
Sure, it's all America's fa
February 17, 2007 - 04:48 ET by Jack BauerSure, it's all America's fault. The cry of lib***l wankers every where.
So, Phoenix, I must comment on your post.
February 15, 2007 - 16:51 ET by acaiguanaSo, Phoenix, I must comment on your post.
"The real media ignores such hawks as this man for good reason."
So, in the interests of discussion - you call the MSM the 'real media' as if they had some judgemental right to cherrypick their sources?
Wanting to understand your point here.
I'm trying to figure out how the massive attack on Bush about being 'truthful' has basis in fact? This Canard has been repeated so many times that while Bush is one of the most truthful President's since the year 2000, (before you get crazy on me, that was sarcasm) he's painted as a pathelogical liar?
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Phoenix... Most here would
February 15, 2007 - 16:56 ET by Clear thinkerPhoenix...
Most here would love to debate you on this subject, but clear thinking folks like to debate facts not fantasy. If you want anyone to take you seriously you could start by quoting exactly the words our president used that proves he is a liar.
Truthful?
February 15, 2007 - 17:23 ET by The PhoenixTechnically true statements designed to mislead in my opinion are really lies. Let's just take wiretapping for example.I'll just take the top three.
As compiled by Brendan Nyhan:
President Bush -- April 19, 2004:
pheonix... Your sentence "
February 15, 2007 - 17:36 ET by Clear thinkerpheonix...
Your sentence "Technically true statements designed to mislead in my opinion are really lies" is the most absurd thing I have read so far this year. Thanks for the laugh.
As to the three examples... what's your point? As far as I can tell there's nothing out of sorts with what he said.
Well, Phoenix, I'll just deal with your actual silliness here.
February 15, 2007 - 18:09 ET by acaiguanaWell, Phoenix, I'll just deal with your actual silliness here.
You might re-read my post to you. I did not say that Bush ws the most 'honest' President this country has seen.
But you don't care what I actually said, just like you ignore the context of the Patriot Act. Also, just like you choose how to present Bush's quotes.
I'm used to people like yourself who do exactly what you accuse the President of doing. You use technically accurate statements to mislead in contexts that have nothing to do with the discussion.
For example, here you attempt to totally change the subject. The subject was asking you to clearify your statement, "The real media ignores such hawks as this man for good reason. Hs attempts to link debate at home and injury to our troops is laughable and dishonest."
Now, we have that sort of straightened out, since you cannot read and comprehend my post, I'll explain. All the junk about Bush's honesty was sarcasm directed at a President that was impeached for lying.
Get it?
The MSM is trying to link a silly TV show - 24, for example, to behavior of our professional military troops in Iraq, accusing them by innuendo of continuing and practicing 'torture'. How can you possibly justify this when the House, for example, is currently trying to figure out how to pass a non-binding resolution (blather) that criticises our Troops' mission, but not the troops and then turn around and claim, their behavior is not affecting the troops. But in the same breath a fictional BS TV show is affecting our troops?
Now, that would be enough evidence to say, for example, Weasels are part and parcel of how these Democrat Pukes do buisness.
Would it not?
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
ACA - who is this ..
February 15, 2007 - 18:59 ET by misterbillACA - who is this ..penis guy?? Did he just join? Is it that Marcotte slut that got canned from Eddraws campaign????
An ugly American is one who does not support his country.
I understand what you are g
February 17, 2007 - 04:22 ET by The PhoenixI understand what you are getting at perfectly well. If you can't see that the subject change is just an illustration that is not my problem.
Got it
February 15, 2007 - 18:56 ET by acumenOK - We get it. You hate Bush...what's to debate? What I don't understand is why you love terrorists? Sadism or simple infatuation? Moving on to something even less debatable - Is it true that flying close to the sun burns up the brain? Not trying to distract you from your hate Bush/love terrorist rant but after reading your comments, that was my first thought.
1.) Current program does no
February 16, 2007 - 10:02 ET by BD1.) Current program does not require wiretaps. YOU LOSE!
HAHAHAHAAHHAA!
Come back and play after you have served in MI for about twenty years, then the odds will be fair...
Which is correct, 1 or 2?
February 15, 2007 - 17:06 ET by BuffNBoneWhich is correct, 1 or 2?
1. WMD = Nukes Only
2. WMD = Nukes, Biological, and Chemical weapons
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
Hi dorko... er, I mean hate
February 16, 2007 - 23:02 ET by liberal_bug_zapperHi dorko... er, I mean hater... a.k.a. Pheonix
Saddam did have WMD. And he used them. He used them on his own people and against Iran. And no, we did not sell him the WMD. Nor did we sell him the Chemicals to make the WMD.
The companies selling chemicals to Saddam Hussien were German subsidiaries in Singapore. The records are out there at the SIPRI. Find them there. If I can, you can.
Saddam's use of WMD against his enemies;
WMD attacks
Location WMD used Date Casualties
Haij Umran Mustard August 1983 fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish
Panjwin Mustard October-November 1983 3,000 Iranian/Kurdish
Majnoon Island Mustard February-March 1984 2,500 Iranians
al-Basrah Tabun March 1984 50-100 Iranians
Hawizah Marsh Mustard & Tabun March 1985 3,000 Iranians
al-Faw Mustard & Tabun February 1986 8,000 to 10,000 Iranians
Um ar-Rasas Mustard December 1986 1,000s Iranians
al-Basrah Mustard & Tabun April 1987 5,000 Iranians
Sumar/Mehran Mustard & nerve agent October 1987 3,000 Iranians
Halabjah Mustard & nerve agent March 1988 7,000s Kurdish/Iranian
al-Faw Mustard & nerve agent April 1988 1,000s Iranians
Fish Lake Mustard & nerve agent May 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
Majnoon Islands Mustard & nerve agent June 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
South-central border Mustard & nerve agent July 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
an-Najaf -Karbala area Nerve agent & CS March 1991 Shi’a casualties not known
Where Saddam got his weapons;
http://www.iraqwatch...
Please check out all the countries supplying Iraq the chemicals it needed for weponization... US IS NOT THERE.... All of this information is out there and documented. This information you are seeing in the link is proven.
Where Saddam got his chemicals;
The UN report provides only negative evidence of the origin of the mustard gas sample. The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out, even though substantial stocks were once held at British depots in the Middle East.
This is information you can find at SIPRI... and if you can get their reports from the 1980's they even have claims of German, French and Czech arms dealers and chemical company involvement.
Where those weapons went;
Former Iraqi general Georges Sada has revealed that in late summer 2002, Saddam had ordered all of his stockpiles to be moved to Syria. The former number two in the Iraqi Air Force stated that with the arrival of inspectors on November 1st, he took the occasion of Syria’s broken dam and made an “air bridge”, bringing by air and by ground, moved them into cargo aircraft and moved
them into Syria.
So your BS claims that there were none are either stupid, or enemy propaganda... so what are you? Stupid or our Enemy?
____________________________________________________
"These are the times that try men's souls." ~ Thomas Paine
Go back
February 17, 2007 - 21:25 ET by GregEYou say "These guys believed that Sadam has WMD. Their belief allowed them to disregard clear evidence to the contrary."
Go back to the late 1990's and on up thru 2002/2003 and find out the people and organizations which were saying that Saddam had WMD and was a threat to the world. The list is as long as both your arms put together. It includes politicians on all sides, as high as the President of the United States, both current and he who preceeded GW Bush, government intelligence agencies of many countries, etc etc etc.
During those times, Saddam being a threat to the world was stated by so many people our heads were swimming. Yea, Clinton said it, but didn't start a war because of it. That's a line liberals love to use. In other words, Clinton felt he knew it, but wasn't going to do anything to thwart it. Lucky him huh? His passiveness paid off. Had he acted on the information that he had, which at the time he felt was true, he would have been attempting to protect America. Heaven forbid he should do that, and so he didn't, and he's probably saying a big "whew" today. "Whew" because he didn't and it turned out he had wrong info himself, and/or "whew" because he dodged a bullet of Saddam actually having something and attacking America with it. The strategy of "hoping" isn't a strategy at all, but Clinton "hoped" Saddam wouldn't use anything on us.
If all that everyone said about Saddam back at those times was true, and Saddam DID have WMD, and DID use them during the Clinton years, would everyone in America, including yourself, have ripped him for not protecting America better? With the media we have, somehow I doubt it. I know I would have. Would YOU? You'll say yes, it's easy to say yes now because you can't go back and change it....oh, like the liberal politicians want to do. Hindsight is 20/20, and they want to act like the whole world, including they, were not saying all the same things about Saddam and his threat to the world.
The liberal mind is a diseased mind.
Colin Powell- " Let me poin
February 15, 2007 - 16:56 ET by mastersofdeceitColin Powell-
" Let me point out that the same intelligence I provided that's subject to so much controversy—that's the same intelligence that the Senate and House used four months earlier to vote for a resolution. It's the same information the President thought was accurate after his director of intelligence told him it was a slam dunk. And it was the same kind of intelligence that President Clinton used to bomb Iraq in 1998. But nevertheless there was no spotlight on this issue like the spotlight I had on me at the UN. I wasn't alone in believing those stockpiles were there—our commanders believed they were there, and they were prepared to fight through chemical attacks to get to Baghdad—and our President believed it and Congress believed it. So when it turned out that part of that information was wrong, the spotlight was on me. And I'm disappointed.."
" So the only part that kind of annoys me is "Well, did you lie? Or were you misleading?" No, I didn't lie, and I wasn't misleading. If I was lying and knew what the truth was, which has to be the basis of a lie—you know the truth—we wouldn't have sent 1,400 people wandering around Iraq looking for the stuff. They didn't find it. So the intelligence was wrong. And that's all you can really say about it. Yeah, it comes up almost every day "
Vietnam War veteran John Mu
February 16, 2007 - 00:01 ET by JDWVietnam War veteran John Murtha came out against the Iraq War, the
network news broadcasts touted his opposition as well as his service
The same guy who was caught on tape trying to negotiate deals with terrorists. How can news media bias be more blatant?
JDW
Wounded skier. Corrections have been causing time-outs so mistakes will be made.
New pro-adoption dems, what about replacing abortions?
How will the AP spin this?
February 16, 2007 - 08:57 ET by reelman46AL-QAEDA
LEADER CAPTURED IN (pause for shock) IRAQ?
The Washington Post, by Ernesto Londoño Posted By:Dreadnought,
2/15/2007 Lucianne.com
BAGHDAD — The leader of the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq,
who is known by the alias Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was injured in a clash
with Iraqi police Thursday night, a spokesman for the Iraqi Interior
Ministry said. One of Masri’s deputies, Abu Abdullah al-Mujamie, was
killed in the gunfight, which occurred at approximately 11 p.m. near
Samarra, ministry spokesman Abdul Kareem al-Kinany said.
Comments:
–Other articles imply al-Masri himself may be in the custody of Allied
forces
–But
the Democrats promised us that such a thing couldn’t happen. They’ve
been saying for four years that Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda
and Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq. Al-Masri can’t be
injured b/c he isn’t there b/c Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda and
Al-Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq. This must be a figment of our
imagination. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”
CRAWFISH NOTE: Liberals are seldom right about thugs, they excuse
and embrace them… this should be interesting IF BUSH hammers this home.
(which he won’t while the pacifist ostrich demos bray daily). ==theconservativecrawfish blog==
They voted and we have 17 t
February 16, 2007 - 21:52 ET by liberal_bug_zapperThey voted and we have 17 traitors in our ranks... time to drum them out of the corps.
Republican Hall of Shame
____________________________________________________
"These are the times that try men's souls." ~ Thomas Paine
Thanks, LBZ,Now, for those of
February 16, 2007 - 21:56 ET by BlondeThanks, LBZ,
Now, for those of us who were working today (you know, so they can TAX us)....do you have states to go with the traitors?