Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 121 to 135 of 135

Thread: Bush Lied? Not really..

  1. #121
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    698
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetsFanatic;2583319]The above quote tells me all I need to know about you.:eek:

    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y[/url][/QUOTE]yeah that I can take care of life on my own and have my own morals. I don't need a leader to take me through life by the hand. Grow up

  2. #122
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetsFanatic;2582844]Simple minds like yourself, reason that it's "just sex". It isn't, it's a symptom of the the man's character, or lack of it.
    [/QUOTE]

    Prude.

  3. #123
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Middlesex County, NJ
    Posts
    3,360
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2579369]You can post 10,000 separate articles written by 10,000 separate journalists saying going into Iraq was the right move, [B]and I'll post 10,000 morons[/B].[/QUOTE]

    You mean 9,999 + you? :D

  4. #124
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,123
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetsFanatic;2582844]Hey idiot, a liar is a liar. If I got a blow job in my office from an intern I would be fired.

    Simple minds like yourself, reason that it's "just sex". It isn't, it's a symptom of the the man's character, or lack of it.

    As far as Iraq, things are stabilizing there since the surge.

    Of course someone with your mentality can't comprehend the new developments in that country and would support Obama's irresponsible call for a an immediate or timed phase withdrawal of troops.[/QUOTE]

    again, what symptom was there of Bush's character when he said "I don't know the man" regarding Jack Abramoff? Or how about when he denied having any more than a surface relationship with Ken Lay?

  5. #125
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    698
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2583906]Prude.[/QUOTE]
    lol, you crack me up!

  6. #126
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,909
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=gscott;2583975]lol, you crack me up![/QUOTE]

    Obviously, it doesn't take much.

  7. #127
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    698
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetsFanatic;2583979]Obviously, it doesn't take much.[/QUOTE]now now junior, don't get your panties all in a bunch. Have a little fun once in a while. It helps relieve the sexual frutsation

  8. #128
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,909
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=gscott;2583989]now now junior, don't get your panties all in a bunch. Have a little fun once in a while. It helps relieve the sexual frutsation[/QUOTE]

    Your writing is so sophomoric, and you call me junior. This gets better by the minute.:yes:

    BTW, what does "frutstation" mean? I guess the blisters on your hands disrupts your typing.

  9. #129
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    698
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetsFanatic;2583993]Your writing is so sophomoric, and you call me junior. This gets better by the minute.:yes:

    BTW, what does "frutstation" mean? I guess the blisters on your hands disrupts your typing.[/QUOTE]it means I can't type for sh!t. frustration. there is that pleasing to you? sophomoric. oh you're so evolved. why aren't you over in iraq anyway, instead of wasting time here?

  10. #130
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetsFanatic;2583993]BTW, what does "frutstation" mean? [/QUOTE]

    Even my spelling is gooder...

    [IMG]http://img115.exs.cx/img115/1141/grammar-nazi.jpg[/IMG]

  11. #131
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    698
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2584041]Even my spelling is gooder...

    [IMG]http://img115.exs.cx/img115/1141/grammar-nazi.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]my spelling really is gooder. I just can't type for sh!t. don't even use caps most of the time. they call me e.e

  12. #132
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE][B]Bush never lied to us about Iraq
    The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.
    By James Kirchick
    June 16, 2008 [/B]

    Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American involvement there "morally right and necessary." Two years later, however, Romney -- then seeking the Republican presidential nomination -- not only recanted his support for the war but claimed that he had been hoodwinked.

    "When I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get," Romney told a Detroit TV reporter who asked the candidate how he reconciled his shifting views.

    Romney (father of Mitt) had visited Vietnam with nine other governors, all of whom denied that they had been duped by their government. With this one remark, his presidential hopes were dashed.

    The memory of this gaffe reverberates in the contemporary rhetoric of many Democrats, who, when attacking the Bush administration's case for war against Saddam Hussein, employ essentially the same argument. In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate's 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: "We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true." On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that "the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress."

    Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

    Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

    In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

    Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

    Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

    Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

    In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

    This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.

    "I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop communist aggression in Southeast Asia," Romney elaborated in that infamous 1967 interview. That was an intellectually justifiable view then, just as it is intellectually justifiable for erstwhile Iraq war supporters to say -- given the way it's turned out -- that they don't think the effort has been worth it. But predicating such a reversal on the unsubstantiated allegation that one was lied to is cowardly and dishonest.

    A journalist who accompanied Romney on his 1965 foray to Vietnam remarked that if the governor had indeed been brainwashed, it was not because of American propaganda but because he had "brought so light a load to the laundromat." Given the similarity between Romney's explanation and the protestations of Democrats 40 years later, one wonders why the news media aren't saying the same thing today.

    James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic.
    [/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story[/url]

    I'm sure the nancy pelosi 18%ers will crucify the assistant editor of a hard left media source for stating the obvious....

  13. #133
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2585404][url]http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story[/url]

    [B]I'm sure the nancy pelosi 18%ers will crucify the assistant editor of a hard left media source for stating the obvious[/B]....[/QUOTE]

    Laugh!
    Are you saying Kirchick is Liberal??? I suggest you find out who he is first. You can start by reading his scathing attacks on anti-war professors while he was at Yale. Or maybe one of his pieces attacking liberal feministsproponents of campus diversity, or the Yale Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Society(though Kirchick is openly gay. Yeah Kirchick is a real Liberal:rolleyes:

    And as for the New Republic being a "Hard Left" media source... that is really funny. You do realize that Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol (the father of the Neo-cons), Fred Barnes, Robert Kagan, and Jean Kirkpatrick were all contributers to this "liberal" magazine.

    As to his article.. funny how he doesnt mention how the BushCo addressed the doubts that were presented to it re the intelligence's validity. I wonder why?

  14. #134
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2585454]Laugh!
    Are you saying Kirchick is Liberal??? I suggest you find out who he is first. You can start by reading his scathing attacks on anti-war professors while he was at Yale. Or maybe one of his pieces attacking liberal feministsproponents of campus diversity, or the Yale Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Society(though Kirchick is openly gay. Yeah Kirchick is a real Liberal:rolleyes:

    And as for the New Republic being a "Hard Left" media source... that is really funny. You do realize that Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol (the father of the Neo-cons), Fred Barnes, Robert Kagan, and Jean Kirkpatrick were all contributers to this "liberal" magazine.

    As to his article.. funny how he doesnt mention how the BushCo addressed the doubts that were presented to it re the intelligence's validity. I wonder why?[/QUOTE]

    I'm well aware of who he is and the political positions he has taken....

    do you deny TNR is a leftist source??? please- deny it so I can laugh like hell at you once again...

  15. #135
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2585477]I'm well aware of who he is and the political positions he has taken....

    do you deny TNR is a leftist source??? please- deny it so I can laugh like hell at you once again...[/QUOTE]

    Center-Left. Hardly far left. Are you saying Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol ,Fred Barnes, Robert Kagan, and Jean Kirkpatrick are leftists

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us