Bingo. I find it incredibly interesting (not to mention stupid, unbelievable, nonsensical, asinine, etc) that liberals can do something one day, then later when things are seen as not popular and a chance for them to act like they never did what they did in the first place, they jump all over it and separate themselves completely from their own words, votes, etc. And the sad thing for America is, the media helps them squash their former actions. America is much worse off by having a media so biased toward one agenda. And until Americans do something about that, it will only get worse.

I've said it before - without the media and their massive influence and everyday free advertising for the liberal agenda, liberals would be lucky to win 30% of any vote for any office. Take away that constant advertising and suddenly their agenda isn't being spewed out of many American's mouths just because they heard it on TV and are now believers in whatever it is they have no clue they're believing in. But they "heard it on the news so it must be true."

America is worse off because of this inability of news to be objective anymore, and will only get moreso unless it begins to reverse.

Hi ding.

See you are up to your usual self.

Btw...Hillary is in the race.

Sorry, Ding-Dong School, but it was Clinton, not Bush who said there was a working relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda first. Read his Justice Dept.'s 1998 indictment of bin Laden sometime.

And it was Bubba, not Dubyah, who did the pre-emptive bombing of Iraq first, just days before his impeachment in December of 1998. He never asked Congress for approval for that one.

Of course, we all know that in the fever swamp you reside in, recorded history didn't begin until January of 2001. The very instant Bush was sworn in, Mohammed Atta illegally entered the US and started his flight training in Florida. And Halliburton started planting the explosive charges in the WTC towers.

And what straw-men do you use?  Part and parcel--the democrats lie and spin.  You have to be dumb to buy the act. 

Liberalism is a convenient lie.

what Clinton has to do with Bush's Iraq War only Hannity and "loyal Bushies" know for sure...

Hmm ... maybe the following will ring a few bells:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
(This was before he voted against it.)

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. ... [W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23, 2003

These are all your people, Ding. Were they all lying too?

~~~
If Hillary is the answer, it must've been a stupid question...

WW...

Ohhh ... Ohhh!

Wait til BOR has that so-called body language expert on and submit your big quest in life to her/him.

She will set you straight...just ask her.

Try posting something non-leftwing-dingbat  on DU and see how long your " mic" stays on.............

I always wanted to get into politics, but I was never light enough to make the team.