On Friday's NBC Nightly News, former anchor Tom Brokaw ridiculously implied that conservatives who have cited former CIA director George Tenet's "slam dunk" comment about WMD in Iraq had in fact claimed that the comment was a prediction that the war itself against Iraq would be a "slam dunk." The former NBC anchor filed a report detailing Tenet's criticisms of the Bush administration from Tenet's newly released book At the Center of the Storm.
After the pre-recorded report had covered some of Tenet's criticisms of Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Richard Perle, Brokaw turned to Tenet's claim that his "slam dunk" comment was taken out of context by Bush defenders. After a a clip of Cheney claiming that Tenet said "the case against Saddam on weapons of mass destruction" was a "slam dunk," Brokaw appeared live to conclude his report, and delivered his own distortion of how conservatives have used the quote. Brokaw: "Former director Tenet ... insists that he was talking about assembling a stronger case to take to the public so it would have a better understanding of what the CIA believed to be true. He was not, he says, saying that a war against Iraq was a slam dunk." (Transcript follows)
Below is a transcript of relevant portions from the Friday April 27 NBC Nightly News:
Tom Brokaw: "Tenet is especially angry about the quote that he'll live with for the rest of his life: 'slam dunk.' Rice and Cheney in effect blaming him for the decision to go to war."
Dick Cheney: "George Tenet sat in the Oval Office, and the President of the United States asked him directly, he said, 'George, how good is the case against Saddam on weapons of mass destruction?' And the director of the CIA said, 'It's a slam dunk, Mr. President, it's a slam dunk.'"
Brokaw: "Former director Tenet, who will give us his first live interview Monday morning on Today, insists that he was talking about assembling a stronger case to take to the public so it would have a better understanding of what the CIA believed to be true. He was not, he says, saying that a war against Iraq was a slam dunk."
Comments Policy
The war against Saddam's Iraq
April 27, 2007 - 21:10 ET by MidAmericaThe war against Saddam's Iraq was a slam dunk.
The current war with Iran and Syria is taking longer.
that's because they are all m
April 27, 2007 - 21:18 ET by Conservative in the Artsthat's because they are all moms and dads, not terrori......um...freedom fighters against the evil IMPERIALISTIC PIG-DOG THAT IS AMERICA!!!
OO, sorry about that. I've been around Liberals all day and I guess it rubs off on you.
You are kidding right??? The
April 28, 2007 - 00:16 ET by realistic_viewYou are kidding right??? The war against Saddam may be over but the people that were loyal to him and the other crazies over there rages on... Our men and women are getting killed in groups of 2, 3, sometime by the half dozen almost daily. This war is not close to over and it sure as hell is not a slam dunk. that country is in the middle of a civil war and we are the go between. I am not a liberal or a conservitive I am a realist and the reality is that we will NEVER win the war in Iraq. bottom line and we should do as we did in Vietnam and get out only a lot sooner before we lose any more people. Let the chip falls were they may and tell them to have a nice life. And don't give me the BS on the terrorists will follow us home to the US cause I do not buy itno that scare tactic at all.
No....
April 28, 2007 - 00:30 ET by Mr. BishopTo begin with, his comment was directed toward the "insurgency", which is actually an incorrect word to be used here, and here is why. What he was saying, was that the war against Iran and Syria is taking longer, as that is who we are fighting in Iraq now: primarily outside influence from Iran and Syria. The terrorists that we are fighting in Iraq, are not Iraqis. Oh, sure there is the one or two Iraqi nutjob over there that is fighting also, but most of the terrorists causing the damage, are shipped in from Iran and Syria.
Now, then -- we should never follow the events of what happened in Vietnam, and say, "We need to do that again!" That is plain nonsense. We had Vietnam won... their own leadership have stated this -- when we pulled out of Saigon and left the Vietnamese to fend for themselves, we had the war almost won. To give up, and run away is a very stupid and very bad idea. It's a "great" strategy for the Democrats. If it fails, and Iraq plunges into anarchy and eventually causes a massive war in the region, they can sit back and say, "See what Bush did for leaving before the job was done??" If Iraq were to ever pull themselves out of it (and make no mistake, they would not), the Democrats would sit back and say, "See, we were right -- we lost thousands of American lives for nothing... they could do it on their own." It's absolute BS to believe the Iraqis could do it on their own.
Now, the statement that Iraq is in the middle of a Civil War is a bogus statement. While there is some Iraqi Sunni v Shia fighting, the majority of the fighting being done is by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region, whose specific goal is to cause us to leave and then plunge Iraq into Civil War.
You think, for one second, that the only reason that Al Qaeda has not attacked us since 9-11 is because they're just kicking back, relaxing? They're spending their resources, including manpower, fighting against us in Iraq. You take away their field of battle, and they will bring it to us. Apparently 9-11 didn't prove that to you, and I suppose if that did not, then nothing ever will... For being a "realist", you sure don't seem to live in reality.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
The way I read it Tenet sai
April 27, 2007 - 21:12 ET by Night WatchmanThe way I read it Tenet said the presentation was a "slam dunk," not the WMD's being there.
Brokaw does have it wrong, but what Tenet is actually saying is far
worse -- especially for the Vice President. He's flat out calling him a
liar.
Not quite
April 27, 2007 - 21:17 ET by Mr. BishopRemember, that everything that is said in the Oval Office during those meetings, are transcribed. As such, Tenet cannot take back anything he said in there. As such, if you notice, Tenet has not yet denied using those words to describe the case against Saddam.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Tenet: “I told the pres
April 27, 2007 - 21:23 ET by Night WatchmanTenet: “I told the president that strengthening the public presentation was a ‘slam dunk,’ a phrase that was later taken completely out of context,”
http://www.nytimes.c...
hmmm......so now it's "s
April 27, 2007 - 21:35 ET by Conservative in the Artshmmm......so now it's "strengthening" was a slam dunk. So now the case is: we have a case, but it's weak. we should get better facts, that would be good. Yea, getting more facts is a "slam dunk"
naw.....he can't be that stupid
Not quite
April 27, 2007 - 21:51 ET by Mr. BishopDirect quote from the article in which you provided, "Mr. Tenet admits that he made his famous “slam dunk” remark about the evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But he argues that the quote was taken out of context and that it had little impact on President Bush’s decision to go to war. He also makes clear his bitter view that the administration made him a scapegoat for the Iraq war."
That is the text of page 1, paragraph 4. I have added the emphasis. It is not until you get to page 2, paragraph 2, that you even see the sentence that you quote. Now, I have to ask -- each of the two sentences that Tenet says he made, have two seperate meanings -- which are we to believe now?
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Mr. BIt is confusing, I gue
April 27, 2007 - 22:44 ET by Night WatchmanMr. B
It is confusing, I guess they want you to buy the book. The NYT piece
is a teaser. I can't believe they would write it both ways, unless
Tenet uses "slam dunk" for everything.
"lunch at Bob's is a slam dunk."
Perhaps so
April 27, 2007 - 22:55 ET by Mr. BishopPerhaps you are right. Perhaps they are doing it as a way to make you buy the book. However, I have the feeling there is little in the book to elaborate on the two seperate instances in which he says he used the phrase, "slam dunk." My guess, is that while Tenet complains at the way in which the White House used his words, he cannot take back what is most likely on public record as saying. As such, he then tries to elaborate further into what he meant, instead of what he said.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Why is thi sso hard to unders
April 28, 2007 - 00:23 ET by realistic_viewWhy is thi sso hard to understand???? it is in black and white.....
PRESIDENT : 'George, how good is the case against Saddam on weapons of mass destruction?'
And the director of the CIA said, 'It's a slam dunk, Mr. President, it's a slam dunk.'"
Only can be read one way..... Either the President is more of a fool than I thought or the Director of the CIA is a compulsive liar. either one I would believe. The man said the case was a slam dunk and then tried to back peddl;e his way out of the statement. obvious as leaves on a tree.
Why is thi sso hard to unders
April 28, 2007 - 00:23 ET by realistic_viewWhy is thi sso hard to understand???? it is in black and white.....
PRESIDENT : 'George, how good is the case against Saddam on weapons of mass destruction?'
And the director of the CIA said, 'It's a slam dunk, Mr. President, it's a slam dunk.'"
Only can be read one way..... Either the President is more of a fool than I thought or the Director of the CIA is a compulsive liar. either one I would believe. The man said the case was a slam dunk and then tried to back peddl;e his way out of the statement. obvious as leaves on a tree.
Why is thi sso hard to unders
April 28, 2007 - 00:23 ET by realistic_viewWhy is thi sso hard to understand???? it is in black and white.....
PRESIDENT : 'George, how good is the case against Saddam on weapons of mass destruction?'
And the director of the CIA said, 'It's a slam dunk, Mr. President, it's a slam dunk.'"
Only can be read one way..... Either the President is more of a fool than I thought or the Director of the CIA is a compulsive liar. either one I would believe. The man said the case was a slam dunk and then tried to back peddl;e his way out of the statement. obvious as leaves on a tree.
Uh, did you actually read the
April 27, 2007 - 21:37 ET by Del DolemonteUh, did you actually read the NY Times article you cite below?
Quotes:
"Mr. Tenet admits that he made his famous “slam dunk” remark about the evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. "
"Mr. Tenet takes blame for the flawed 2002 National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq’s weapons programs, calling the episode “one of the lowest moments of my seven-year tenure.” He expresses regret that the document was not more nuanced, but says there was no doubt in his mind at the time that Saddam Hussein possessed unconventional weapons"
Remember, Tenet was a Clinton appointee.
nuancenouna subtle difference
April 27, 2007 - 21:43 ET by Conservative in the Artsnuance
nouna subtle difference in meaning or opinion or attitude
Yea, If I were president, I'd hate getting just the facts from my CIA
You had to read the whole t
April 27, 2007 - 21:50 ET by Night WatchmanYou had to read the whole thing.
"Mr. Tenet admits that he made his famous “slam dunk” remark about the evidence
that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But he argues that the quote was
taken out of context and that it had little impact on President Bush’s decision
to go to war."
LOL! I DID read the whole thi
April 27, 2007 - 22:31 ET by Del DolemonteLOL! I DID read the whole thing. The two quotes I cited came from two widely separated parts of the article.
Try again.
'George, how good is the case
April 27, 2007 - 21:15 ET by Conservative in the Arts'George, how good is the case against Saddam?
A: 'It's a slam dunk, Mr. President
and yet: insists that he was talking about assembling a stronger case
I didn't see "war" in that question, did you? anyone? anybody see "war" in there......nope? Um, Tom.....are you reading from the same script as everyone else, or are you "Just Joking" like Cheryl Crow?
Look, Tenet wants to sell
April 27, 2007 - 21:25 ET by JerryLook, Tenet wants to sell books. He knows if he bashes the president, he will get all the free publicity he could ever ask for, and be deluged with requests for interviews. If he were to support the administration, he would quickly become the invisible man and the networks would treat him as if he had the plague.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
There's no doubt about that.A
April 28, 2007 - 10:38 ET by pbanks7There's no doubt about that.
A gossip columnist publishes a book full of innuendo gets on every talk show if she's trashing a President.
A President tries to censor an FBI agent insider whose book trashes said President appears on the talk show in question, has to defend every unsubstantiated allegation, then has all future appearances canceled.
Kitty Kelly trashes the Republican, Gary Aldrich trashes the Democrat. Easy as pie.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
BJ & Hitlary couldn't m
April 28, 2007 - 10:41 ET by Free StinkerBJ & Hitlary couldn't make Aldrich into a non-person, but they sure tried!
Tenet
April 27, 2007 - 21:49 ET by pocomocoOnce again, a former member of the administration must justify his existence, ie. Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson, by writing a book about how stupid the administration was because they wouldn’t listen to him.
It’s a classic case of: you won’t play with me, then I’ll just take my marbles and go home.
He uses the same method of dissing everyone in the administration in order to make himself look good when, in reality, it makes him look like a whiner and crybaby, and points to the obvious fact that while he was in the administration, his loyalty was elsewhere. He was, after all, a Clinton appointee.
He was, after all, a Clinton
April 27, 2007 - 22:21 ET by botgHe was, after all, a Clinton appointee.
Who? Tenet, Clarke, or Wilson?
(the answer is "D")
Except...
April 27, 2007 - 22:23 ET by Mr. BishopYes, the answer is D... but even Clinton had the sense to fire Clarke -- why the media still loves to quote and use him, when he made Clinton look like an ass, is beyond me. For loving and worshipping Clinton, they do a bad job of showing it when they turn to Clarke.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
The article is about Tenet, i
April 28, 2007 - 00:32 ET by pocomocoThe article is about Tenet, is it not?
It was a joke?
April 28, 2007 - 00:34 ET by Mr. BishopHe was making a joke... <sigh> shouldn't take life so seriously...
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
poco
April 28, 2007 - 00:42 ET by botgactually i was congratulating poco on hittin the trifecta!
As I recall, the original Ten
April 27, 2007 - 21:56 ET by Dave HighAs I recall, the original Tenet "slam dunk" quote was heralded by the Bushies as proof of Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction. The Bush propagandists said that Tenet told Bush that it was a "slam dunk" that we would find weapons of mass destruction once we invaded Iraq. Apparently, the Bush propagandists lied. What Tenet said is that it was a slam dunk that the evidence presented so far would convince the American people that the war was justified. He was right! It was a slam dunk! He apparently never said that it was a slam dunk that we would actually find the weapons, as Darth Dick claimed at the time as is still claiming now. Back then, everyone bought the BS hook, line and sinker and some still are!
Regards, Dave High
Dave High,You've been gone fo
April 27, 2007 - 21:58 ET by BlondeDave High,
You've been gone for a very nice period of time.
Yet you show back up, and on your fourteenth word....manage to make me stop reading.
Congrats.
If you care for "civil discourse", why don't you try again?
Blonde, George and Laura c
April 27, 2007 - 22:05 ET by Night WatchmanBlonde,
George and Laura call each other that.
Night Watchman,That was kind
April 27, 2007 - 22:08 ET by BlondeNight Watchman,
That was kind of a stupid post....
Care to try again?
Blonde: 2Tag Team Trolls: 0.T
April 27, 2007 - 22:13 ET by Free StinkerBlonde: 2
Tag Team Trolls: 0
.
Two of you, and you still lose to a Girl! ha! :-p
BlondBlonde:"Bushies&quo
April 27, 2007 - 22:09 ET by Dave HighBlond
Blonde:
"Bushies" is common vernacular, much the way "Clintonites" has been popularized and sustained by the right. If you insist that I don’t use the expression “Bushies,” then I insist that the right drops “partial birth abortion” and sticks with “intact dilation and extraction,” the correct and un-politicized term for a medical procedure.
Regards, Dave High
e:
"Bushies" is common vernacular, much the way "Clintonites" has been popularised and sustained by the right.
Not so, Dave High. You made
April 27, 2007 - 22:16 ET by BlondeNot so, Dave High. You made that up about the "common vernacular". Too bad, you've been busted.
Just as you try to make the feeble attempt to equate anything to partial birth abortion...as a lovely, every day happy episode.
You have no standing here to insist upon anything, Dave High. You have no credibility, whatsoever. Insist all you like. It makes me laugh.
You are trolling. As usual.
Try again.
To Whom Who Defines Herself B
April 27, 2007 - 22:27 ET by Dave HighTo Whom Who Defines Herself By Her Hair Color:
I was simply making a point about the politicization of language. The right has mastered it. I think it started with the term "FemiNatzis," a partial birth abortion of a word if I ever heard it.
Regards, Dave High
PS - Sorry I can't continue the dialogue. My red-eye boards in 2 minutes.
I think it started with the t
April 27, 2007 - 22:32 ET by botgI think it started with the term "FemiNatzis,"
no, it started with using fetus for baby
Blonde, i'll leave his friday night activities for you to comment on
botg,Done with that...see bel
April 27, 2007 - 22:34 ET by Blondebotg,
Done with that...see below.
;) Happy Friday to you, though!
and a happy fritas-day to you
April 27, 2007 - 22:38 ET by botgand a happy fritas-day to you
i knew you had it that's why i left it
Well then
April 27, 2007 - 22:33 ET by Mr. BishopWell, enjoy your flight, safe trip and all that stuff...
However, Feminazis was a term coined to describe the tactics of the militant feminist movement. Again, however, nothing that can be compared to partial-birth abortion since, again, that is what occurs: the baby is partially born, then aborted. You can argue this until your face turns blue, but is a very accurate description of the abortion that occurs. How that becomes politicized in your eyes, or the eyes of any rational sane person, is beyond me.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
the terms that provide an acc
April 27, 2007 - 22:36 ET by botgthe terms that provide an accurate description are 'spin' and 'politicized'
the terms that obsfucate are accurate!
Nice try on the grammar there
April 27, 2007 - 22:33 ET by BlondeNice try on the grammar there, Dave. But wrong again (no big surprise, that!)
It's a screen name, fool.
Nice try....politicization of language.
No points, though.
Ta Ta.
LOL! "Red-eye", you
April 27, 2007 - 22:38 ET by Del DolemonteLOL! "Red-eye", you say? Headed to Vegas again?
Hi Blonde,My term for "
April 28, 2007 - 19:33 ET by jmad627Hi Blonde,
My term for "partial birth abortion," is murder.
Yes love those political jopy joy lib phrases
April 28, 2007 - 19:48 ET by SportPoliticsYes love those political joy joy lib phrases.I note the "intact" part of "intact dilation and extraction" (hand picked medical terminology not common phrasing) was chosen by the lib crew because the "intact" word opposes the ideation of the nature of skull puncturing and brain suctioning, and was used as a modifier to the other method of dicing off the arms and legs and pulling the murdered child out in pieces.
Man, "intact" is wonderful, at least it isn't chopped "limb from limb from torso" and nicely covers up the base of the skull puncturing and brain vaccuuming, by vacuously referring to a horrendously barbaric counterprocedure.
Yeah, libs and their PC medical terminology...
Mr. Rogers:
" It's a beautiful day in the abortion clinic, a beautiful day to get rid of a baby, wouldn't you be fine, could you be fine, if you were aborted."
SPyou make a great point that
April 28, 2007 - 19:55 ET by botgSP
you make a great point that an "intact" dilation and extraction would in fact be a living newborn baby.
Or, as I like to remind the d
April 28, 2007 - 20:00 ET by RJOr, as I like to remind the deniers, the "procedure" is not much different than the butchery of the Mayan Priests, who ripped a beating heart from their terrified victims.
jmad,"Murder" works
April 29, 2007 - 01:01 ET by Blondejmad,
"Murder" works for me, too.
Indeed
April 27, 2007 - 22:19 ET by Mr. BishopBushies I could care less about. It says more about the person who uses the term, then the person that they are calling it. In other words... use the term -- it says an awful lot about your [lack of] intelligence, every time you throw it around. I welcome it.
However, you cannot compare "Bushies" to "partial-birth abortion". Compare it to "Clintonites" or even "Clintonistas" -- that is fine.
However, partial-birth abortion is a very accurate description of the procedure involving delivering a baby almost completely out of the womb (stopping at the end), then snipping his skull, and sucking his brains out. Amazingly, liberals want terms changed, the moment those terms describe their actions to a letter.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Ooops....Dave High ran away.H
April 27, 2007 - 22:30 ET by BlondeOoops....Dave High ran away.
He overloaded his posts with too many descriptive words....bushies...partial birth abortion....inisist.....
In the same spirit of disclos
April 27, 2007 - 22:53 ET by Roger the ShrubberIn the same spirit of disclosure, I must insist that High Dave be called by the correct term, Haemophilus ducreyi.
You Lefties amuse us, changing the terminology of something bad to something more palatable, so your fragile little brains can cope with it.
Ri was told that only you cou
April 27, 2007 - 22:58 ET by botgR
i was told that only you could accurately describe rhayes? with pictures?
Took me a few moments to find
April 27, 2007 - 23:03 ET by Roger the ShrubberTook me a few moments to find it.
thank-you
April 27, 2007 - 23:10 ET by botgthank-you
Roger,I was the one who advis
April 27, 2007 - 23:00 ET by BlondeRoger,
I was the one who advised botg to ask you about haysie.
Would you kindly post a couple of descriptive pics for my new friend?
You know...the one with the blue circles, and such.
Thanks in advance, Rog.
I just hate it when the Bush
April 28, 2007 - 11:10 ET by pbanks7I just hate it when the Bush propagandists say the exact same words as those truthmongering Demorats said two years earlier.
I'm sure he truly believes that the President made the case for WMD's and made it the official policy of the US to have regime change in Iraq. He'd be right. Clinton did it.
But once again:
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Ignorance is bliss. It's ea
April 28, 2007 - 11:14 ET by Free StinkerIgnorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research. (but mostly if your a Demoncrat or a RINO)
Thank you for acknowledging that people at Newsbusters do research:
As mentioned above
April 27, 2007 - 22:07 ET by Mr. BishopAs was provided in the article above, Tenet has, in the same article, admitted to saying two very different things, using the words, "slam dunk". Now... which do we believe in that article? The first meaning, or the second?
Second, WMD's have been found in Iraq, as has been shown fairly well detailed, here. However, even that list is not complete.
Third, WMD's were reportedly mass moved from Iraq prior to invasion, with the assistance of the Russian Spetsnaz, to Syria and Lebanon. That makes it a little bit more difficult to find them.
Glad to see that you are so "enlightened", but you can't even get your facts straight, let alone quote from Tenet who says he said two things, using the same phrase.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Tenet was a Clinton appointee
April 27, 2007 - 23:20 ET by Del DolemonteTenet was a Clinton appointee who was carried over to the following Administration. Big mistake.
He's also trying to sell a book. 'nuff said.
I am completely mystified tha
April 27, 2007 - 22:18 ET by dahliatraversI am completely mystified that this is still a question. Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. He used them on the Kurds and Iranians and then played cat and mouse with the UN weapons inspectors.
Were we supposed to take his (Saddam Hussein's) word that they had all been disposed of or neutralized? Anyone who says yes, please provide me your address so I can mail you a brochure on some lovely land I have for sale in Blonde's state. (Possibly you will need to run a dehumidifier before building on it.)
Oh, me, me, me Dahlia!Of cour
April 27, 2007 - 22:26 ET by BlondeOh, me, me, me Dahlia!
Of course we were supposed to take Saddam's word for it. Didn't you get the memo...it was sweetness and light and the rivers flowed with chocolate in Iraq while Saddam ruled?
The ostrich syndrome in this country has me shaking my head.
And I am absolutley furious that the dems conflate their narrow margin of victory (.05%) to a mandate....to "end the war in Iraq".
I didn't vote for that....did you?
No, Blonde. And I wonder ho
April 27, 2007 - 22:44 ET by dahliatraversNo, Blonde. And I wonder how much of that vote was to end the war and how much of it was to conduct it differently. I apologize for criticizing the President during a time of war but I have been exasperated for some time that they did not listen to the generals and send a lot more troops over early on.
dahlia,I am frustrated beyond
April 27, 2007 - 22:54 ET by Blondedahlia,
I am frustrated beyond belief! That Pelosi and scary Harry are actively advocating for defeat....when victory is within our grasp.
I don't believe the "vote" was a mandate either way. What I think is that there are no end to the stupid people in this country who listen to the news, listen to commercials, listen to Hillary Clinton. In short....the rest of the nation who are sheeple.
It's not the "War in Iraq". It's the war for our very continued existence.
But our fellow citizens are too invested in stealing from each other, to have all of their needs, wants, and desires fulfilled on someone else's hard work, to even notice. Okay, I'm about done. I'm getting annoyed, and I had a pretty good week.
Of course not
April 27, 2007 - 23:03 ET by Mr. BishopFor a vote to be a mandate, that vote must be won through politics, not political stunts. In addition to this, a mandate vote must be a vote which is not expected, and overwhelming in your favor. The Democrats won both houses, yes this is true. However, for it to be a mandate, they would have had to win in states where it was overwhelming going to be in favor of the Republican, except in areas of dirty politics, or political mis-steps. Foley, for example -- was not a political mandate. Nor was George Allen, or Rick Santorum. In truth, the only political mandate that was received this last election, is that the pople will not stand for liberals who want to surrender, as is evidenced by the overwhelming win of Lieberman on an Independent ticket.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Precisely.And you can spare m
April 27, 2007 - 23:12 ET by BlondePrecisely.
And you can spare me the Foley lecture, thank you kindly. He's from just up the road...land of the butterfly ballot...and the political jockeying to keep his so-called successor off the ballot was totally disgusting.
The thing that has my knickers in a twist is Pelosi (San Fran Nan) acting like the leader of the free world and the chief diplomat of MY country. She can take her scarf and put it where....well, you get it.
These demo libs ought to put up or shut up...."We support the troops...but shall bleed the military by a thousand cuts until we get our way".
I wish George Bush would veto this idiocy and pin it to the door of Congress with a really sharp knife. To put a point on it, so to speak.
These pols don't speak for me. I've yet to find one who even comes close. But I'm sick of hearing about the "American public" having weighed in on changing the direction in Iraq...when every single tight race in the House and Senate was won by a razor thin margin.
Meh
April 27, 2007 - 23:15 ET by Mr. BishopIf it wasn't for the fact that I know Bush is above such things, I'd hope he would not only veto it, but after it was done... would use it to wipe his @$$ with, then toss it on the desk of Pelosi, and say, "This is what I think of your crap..."
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Agreed, Mr. Bishop.It would b
April 27, 2007 - 23:26 ET by BlondeAgreed, Mr. Bishop.
It would be lovely if he'd make some kind of salient point with the veto, however.
Why haven't we heard a word about Popeye refusing to meet with General Petraeus? And the fact that Harry Reid said he didn't believe him? Didn't Dingy Harry just approve him as the Supreme Commander five months ago? What's up with that....other than politics as usual?
I'd love to hear your take on Gen. Petraeus. But I suspect that's a conversation for another day.
did you hear Duncan Hunter th
April 27, 2007 - 23:04 ET by botgdid you hear Duncan Hunter the other day? He called for Reed to step down for his treasonous remarks. It's sure to be front-page NYT stuff, at least in a equal time world.
High, Dave! Where's Cheech? D
April 27, 2007 - 22:37 ET by Del DolemonteHigh, Dave! Where's Cheech? Dave's not here.
Now, tell us about why all of Clinton's people claimed Saddam had those WMDs in 1998, and people like Al Gore and Jean-Claude Kerry agreed with him.
While you're at it, 'splain to us why Clinton's own Justice Department indicted bin Laden in 1998, and while doing so claimed that he had a working relationship with Iraq.
Jean-Claude KerryThat's very
April 27, 2007 - 22:46 ET by dahliatraversJean-Claude Kerry
That's very good.
Hey Blonde, botg, Roger the
April 27, 2007 - 23:01 ET by MrShyHey Blonde, botg, Roger the Shrubber, et el... I feel like I know all of you, but I FINALLY registered and commenting for the first time on nb.com after months of being a quiet bystander...
here's an article I've had bookmarked forever, and was waiting for the right thread to share it w/ everyone:
http://www.cnn.com/A...
:)
oops, ok, sorry... it's loo
April 27, 2007 - 23:10 ET by MrShyoops, ok, sorry... it's loooong... a SOTU speech... but it's this paragraph (some 2/3rds down) that caught my eye:
"For nearly a decade, Iraq has defied its obligations to destroy its
weapons of terror and the missiles to deliver them. America will
continue to contain Saddam, and we will work for the day when Iraq has
a government worthy of its people."
Saddam was a serious threat to the Clintonites :p ... and had been for 10 years already !! of course, they were towing the "containment" line (something the dems want to return to, as we all know.)
see it's easy you answered be
April 27, 2007 - 23:15 ET by botgsee it's easy you answered before i asked
Welcome, ShyGuy.I was wonderi
April 27, 2007 - 23:17 ET by BlondeWelcome, ShyGuy.
I was wondering where you were going with that speech, thank you for pointing out the important point. Even the Clintons recognized the fact, although Hillary's current spinning is rather humorous.
Saddam deserved exactly what he got.
Welcome, guy.
Enjoy, and just get into posting your point of view, here...it's easy once you start.
Hillary's current spinning is
April 27, 2007 - 23:34 ET by dahliatraversHillary's current spinning is rather humorous
Last week, I heard Jackie Mason say something like, we must have twenty eight wars going on. That's the only way to explain Hillary's twenty eight positions on the Iraq war.
thanks for the warm welcome
April 28, 2007 - 00:42 ET by MrShythanks for the warm welcome, Blonde Girl !! :) (well, my assumption being that you're of that gender :p)
I'm excited to finally be throwing myself into the fray here... I live in a little elitist town, er city, that's so nice it's named twice... NYC... so not a whole lot of people to lean (right) on in these parts. My own family are brainwashed, knee jerk moonbats (love that one) so I'm sort of on my own here :(
but then... "it's lonely at the top" :p
1999 state of the union? It
April 27, 2007 - 23:13 ET by botg1999 state of the union? It's a tad long, what part were you refering to?
BTW i'm rather new here not even in the same league as Blonde, BT, Roger, Mr Bill, RJ etc.
Hey botg, yeah, my second p
April 28, 2007 - 00:32 ET by MrShyHey botg, yeah, my second post (below the first one) specifies the paragraph, sorry... it was Clinton going on about the danger of Saddam's weapons, and how they've succussfully contained him...
and hmm, I must be confusing u with another b-er (maybe BigTimer, or someone... forgetting the username :p)
Mr Sif you click on a user na
April 28, 2007 - 00:39 ET by botgMr S
if you click on a user name you get info on them, welcome to the talks
LOL! Notice how Clinton spent
April 27, 2007 - 23:13 ET by Del DolemonteLOL! Notice how Clinton spent almost as much time in this "speech" talking about the "war on terror" and Iraq as he did telling us how important it was to preserve Thomas Edison's birthplace. He certainly was the most brilliant pResident in history...
notice how Bill also talked a
April 27, 2007 - 23:29 ET by botgnotice how Bill also talked about SSI reform and accountability for school teachers?
When Bush did SSI reform it was shot down and 'No Child Left Behind' is constantly under attack.
why.... I think we'd call tha
April 28, 2007 - 00:35 ET by MrShywhy.... I think we'd call that..... total hipocracy! :p
it really is mindboggling how the MSM circles Bush like sharks, spinning every thing he does, any stand he takes, any legislation he passes, as no good at all...