What's new

NIE report contradicts Bush on Iran nuclear program...

  • Thread starter Thread starter delta777
  • Start date Start date
It was bad enough to watch the EDITORS/Owners of newspapers..(Conservatives for SURE) to stifle their own aggresive reporters, at papers like the NY Times/Washington Post/LA Times/Boston Globe, to essentially join with the likes of Fox News to "tub thump" for this FRAUDULENT war.

Bear..last time I checked NY Times and Washington Post were anything but conservative.

Liberal top five rated by Insight magazine:

NY Times,LA Times,Washington Post,Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune.

Conservative top five by the same source:

WSJ,Washington Times,NY Post,Manchester (NH) Union Leader and Daily Oklahoman

Conservative delicatessen

As to Bill "leftie" Moyers.....

This dude kills me....Mr Fairness Doctrine all in one bundle:

When he retired in December 2004, the AP News Service quoted Moyers, "I'm going out telling the story that I think is the biggest story of our time: how the right-wing media has become a partisan propaganda arm of the Republican National Committee. We have an ideological press that's interested in the election of Republicans, and a mainstream press that's interested in the bottom line. Moyers said: Therefore, we don't have a vigilant, independent press whose interest is the American people."

Guess he never heard of CBS-NBC-ABC-CNN being the mouth of the Democratic Party?

Get an opposing view or opinion to the left and they go screaming,kicking and crying all the

way.
 
Guess he never heard of CBS-NBC-ABC-CNN being the mouth of the Democratic Party?

Get an opposing view or opinion to the left and they go screaming,kicking and crying all the

way.
Hmmmm...think think think....how come CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN had pretty much become the "all Lewinsky all the time" channel. While they might be "the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party", it sure seemed like they didn't turn a blind eye to this "scandal". And they were awfully "patriotic" when Bush was pressing the war with Iraq. Maybe - just maybe - when they realized they had been misled into one war, it might be good to really scrutinize what came out of the administrations mouth as the pressed on for a SECOND (actually third) war. Unlike the "fair and balanced" Fox news who reported that Bush had a chili dinner and farted and the room smelled like roses.
 
Hmmmm...think think think....how come CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN had pretty much become the "all Lewinsky all the time" channel.While they might be "the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party", it sure seemed like they didn't turn a blind eye to this "scandal".

Quite obvious....you watch...you look at their sponsors ads....One network comes out with

CSI:Las Vegas...the other comes along with CSI:Buggtussel,Utah.....same goes with news

...its not really about news its about sensationalism and you watching their channel.

And they were awfully "patriotic" when Bush was pressing the war with Iraq.

I believe the whole frigging country got all washed up with emotion when they watched

people leaping to their deaths on CNN that fateful morning.Kind of hard not get swept up.

Ask John Kerry and Hillary,they voted for it before they realized it wasn't politically expedient

a year later.... 😱

You got swept up with emotion that day didn't you?

Unlike the "fair and balanced" Fox news who reported that Bush had a chili dinner and farted and the room smelled like roses.

Actually,Sean Hannity told me the room smelled like old roses...

We've heard the same from others. In fact, the President's fondness for spicy Mexican food leads to farts that can clear a room.

Bush is not the first crude President nor will he likely be the last.

Harry Truman belched and farted in front of people, much to the consternation of wife Bess. Dwight Eisenhower may have been in the Army but he cussed like a sailor. John F. Kennedy would leer at young women and make comments about their attributes. He was, according to historians, a breast man.(My favorite Democrat)

Lyndon Johnson scratched his crotch at Cabinet meetings and in front of female White House staff members. Richard Nixon, as the Oval Office tapes showed, cussed a blue streak.

Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, may have been the last President too tight-assed to do anything untoward while in office but Ronald Reagan loved dirty jokes and said "goddamn" a lot. George H.W. Bush also liked raunchy jokes and told staffers he knew whether or not New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd was or was not a natural redhead because of the short skirts she wore while sitting in the front row at Presidential press conferences.

The whole world knows what Bill Clinton did in the Oval Office with White House intern Monica Lewinsky and White House staffers told frequent stories of his lewd and suggestive comments to other women.

And Bush likes to fart. Now we know why things stink in his administration.

Latest from the Rose smelling garden
 
Quite obvious....you watch...you look at their sponsors ads....One network comes out with

CSI:Las Vegas...the other comes along with CSI:Buggtussel,Utah.....same goes with news

...its not really about news its about sensationalism and you watching their channel.
So...the "liberal media" is just out for ratings when they go after a democrat involved with a blowjob, but they are mean and nasty when they question a republican president about starting a war with Iran. Oh, if only Ahmadeniwhatshisface gave Bush a blowjob


I believe the whole frigging country got all washed up with emotion when they watched

people leaping to their deaths on CNN that fateful morning.Kind of hard not get swept up.

Ask John Kerry and Hillary,they voted for it before they realized it wasn't politically expedient

a year later.... 😱

You got swept up with emotion that day didn't you?
You bet I did. You BET I was 100% behind Bush when he went after the Taliban and bin laden. So was 95% of the rest of the world.

But...when watching people jump to their deaths, Saddam Hussein didn't cross my mind. Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with those folks jumping from the building. And I questioned Bush long before March 2003 on his Iraq intentions. In fact, that was the reason I didn't vote for him in 2000...I had a "gut feeling" he'd have us back in Iraq. As far as Kerry and Hillary - if you read the resolution they voted on, it was pretty clear that they authorized force in Iraq after all efforts at negotiation had been exhausted. Little Bush may be able to ride a mountain bike for 50 miles...he may be able to jog 5 miles...he may be able to clear brush from the ranch all afternoon..all without exhaustion. But when it comes to negotiation, just starting to talk, those first few words seem to exhaust him. In other words...the KEY phrase in what Kerry and Hillary voted FOR was never attempted.
 
But...when watching people jump to their deaths, Saddam Hussein didn't cross my mind. Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with those folks jumping from the building.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

As far as Kerry and Hillary - if you read the resolution they voted on, it was pretty clear that they authorized force in Iraq after all efforts at negotiation had been exhausted.

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, 😱 and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

But when it comes to negotiation, just starting to talk, those first few words seem to exhaust him. In other words...the KEY phrase in what Kerry and Hillary voted FOR was never attempted.

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

They knew then what they were voting on and what had transpired.

Resolution in its entirety
 
But the Ultimate political TRAGEDY was Colin Powells Address to the U.N.
Powell UNKNOWINGLY gave that FALSE speech, that will FOREVER ruin his credibility.
A sad ending to a man, with an Illustrious career !


Sorry but I am not sure I can swallow this. Gen. Powell, the former head of the JCS was duped? Look, I really liked him. He seemed to be the one person in that entire cluster phuck of an administration who had a hair on his ass. This was the man who was in charge of the military armed forces. I have a hard time believing that he did not know what was going on. If he really did not know, he damn well should have found out because if that is right, due to his negligence, he placed the lives of his soldiers who he swore to serve, in jeopardy. I think what is more like is that as a soldier, he is used to following orders and for him, loyalty (a good trait in most situations) is first and foremost. He was asked/ordered to do something (speak at the UN) and he did. Why he did this we will never know. He is still a loyal soldier and he will not throw his boss under the bus.

As for the 'liberal media'. Sorry but I also believe that is a load of crap. They chase the dollars. They will broadcast what ever people watch. They are generally nice to all the POTUS because they want scoops and leaks. They will be nice to them till they wear out their welcome and then they will turn on their handlers. Hell, even FOX is running bad stories about Bush. The liberal media was all over Clinton and his blue dress.
 
We no know that this was a lie. Sadam hated Al-Queda.


Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

News to me.

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Nope

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Congress had no choice but to vote for the bill to authorize Bush to go to war. There was blood in the water and Bush put it there. He manipulated the people in a feeding frenzy by putting out information that was known to be false. And member of Congress who would have voted against it probably figured they would be out of a job. Very few were willing to put their career behind their conscience. Cheney and his minions choreographed the entire dance to come up with the desired results. Unfortunately, they had idiots running the show (Rumsfeld) who ended up being bumbling fools.

The lies started in 2001 and have kept coming to this day. They are telling lies to cover up their lies and more lies to cover up the lies they told to cover the lies. They are pathological. They cannot stop. And we the people and up paying the price.
 
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Hence the "issues" surrounding Iran. This was from the WHITE HOUSE that said al queda was "known to be in Iraq", yet somehow Big Dick and Little Bush claimed that they never said that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Odd that SO many people somehow felt that this verbage meant that he WAS. And so we have Bush telling us how Iran is going to nuke American day care centers and send nukes in Cessna's flying over Omaha at 1300 feet...only we have this intelligence that says "that may not be the case". Just like Bush was given intelligence about Iraq that said "this may not be the case", he just ignored it. Unfortunately for big Dick and little Bush, someone made this information on Iran available. So...other than Bush saying that al qaeda (who must have become fast friends with Saddam, because they hated him as much as they hated us) was in Iraq - did it make it so? Sure...they're there NOW..after we got rid of Saddam, because Saddam would have done to al qaeda what we haven't been able to do - crush them.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(B) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions
Hmmm...looks like little Bush said "you haven't identified any decisive action, certainly not promptly enough for me" and stuck his middle finger in the air, and despite the 23 mentions of the "security council" in this document full of whereases, told them that he was going ahead, DESPITE the desires of the Security Council. Ah...Cowboy diplomacy at it's finest. It's so easy to see how Bush has taken almost a century of respect for America in the world and dashed it in 8 short years.
 
Nonetheless.....your heroes voted on it.
Who said they were my heros? Big Dick and Little Bush pretty much had even the "liberal media" convinced that any senator or congressman who didn't vote for it was an America hating non-patriot.
 
Who said they were my heros? Big Dick and Little Bush pretty much had even the "liberal media" convinced that any senator or congressman who didn't vote for it was an America hating non-patriot.

No they didn't.....your heroes in the interest of their own political careers saw it politically

prudent to stand with the president and Dick.Then when the tides changed...they

scrambled and tripped all over themselves in denial.
 
No they didn't.....your heroes in the interest of their own political careers saw it politically

prudent to stand with the president and Dick.Then when the tides changed...they

scrambled and tripped all over themselves in denial.
My heros are the ones who decided in 2002 to vote NO. You hear little about them these days. And what you do hear, especially coming from the right, isn't anything good. Political prudency... is that limited to the dems? Seems like a LOT of republicans were and are trying to distance themselves from little Bush.
 
Bear..last time I checked NY Times and Washington Post were anything but conservative.

Liberal top five rated by Insight magazine:

NY Times,LA Times,Washington Post,Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune.


Strange... I have never heard anyone call the Chicgao Tribune liberal.

In all of Chicago people consider the Tribune the conservative paper and the Chicago Sun times is the liberal paper. I think the Tribune endorsed Bush in both elections too.

Dell, perhaps they have been gradually changing under my eyes and I have not even noticed.
 
Strange... I have never heard anyone call the Chicgao Tribune liberal.

In all of Chicago people consider the Tribune the conservative paper and the Chicago Sun times is the liberal paper. I think the Tribune endorsed Bush in both elections too.

Dell, perhaps they have been gradually changing under my eyes and I have not even noticed.

Like I showed...Insight claims it....I see they do support the Republican party.
 
Back
Top