Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Liars Round-Up

  1. #1

    Liars Round-Up

    [url]http://www.nypost.com/seven/06282008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/liars_round_up_117549.htm?page=0[/url]

    Ralph Peters
    Last updated: 5:00 am
    June 28, 2008


    [QUOTE]THE facts about your security are being torn to shreds by activist liars. And they think that you're too stupid to know the difference.

    Let's lay out the worst current examples of media make-believe and election-year truth-trashing:

    [b]Whopper No. 1: America is less safe today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001.[/b] Oh, really? Where's the evidence? The Clinton years saw New York City attacked and Americans slaughtered by terrorists around the globe. Nothing was done to protect us.

    And the true end of the Clinton era came on 9/11.

    A record to be proud of.

    Countless aspects of the Bush-Cheney administration deserve merciless criticism. But fair is fair: Since 9/11, we haven't suffered a single successful terrorist attack on our homeland. Not one.

    Explain to me, please, how this shows we're less safe. What factual measurement applies, other than the absence of attacks?

    God knows, the terrorists desperately wanted to strike our homeland. And they couldn't. Are we supposed to believe that was an accident?

    [b]Whopper No. 2: Al Qaeda is stronger than ever.[/b] Al Qaeda just suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq that may prove decisive. It can't launch attacks beyond its regional lairs. The cowardly Osama bin Laden can't show his face (remember his Clinton-era pep rallies?).

    Yes, terrorists can still murder innocents on their home court. I personally prefer that to them killing Americans in Manhattan and Washington. Even in Iraq, al Qaeda's been beaten down to violent-fugitive status.

    By what objective measurement is al Qaeda stronger today than it was when it had an entire country for its base and its tentacles reached all the way to Florida and the Midwest?

    [b]Whopper No. 3: Success in Iraq is an illusion - the surge failed.[/b] Folks, this is something only a New York Times columnist could believe.

    Every single significant indicator, from Iraqi government progress through the performance of Iraqi security forces to the plummeting level of violence, has changed for the better - remarkably so.

    If current trend-lines continue, it may not be long before Baghdad is safer for Iraqi citizens than the Washington-Baltimore metroplex is for US citizens. Iraq's government is working, its economy is booming - and its military has driven the concentrations of terrorists and militia from every one of Iraq's major cities.

    And our troops are coming home. Where's the failure?

    [b]Whopper No. 4: Iran is stronger than ever.[/b] Tell that to the Iraqis, who've rejected Iranian meddling in their affairs, who've smashed the Iran-backed Shia militias and who didn't take long to figure out that Tehran's foreign policy was imperialist and anti-Arab.

    The people of Iraq don't intend to trade Saddam for Ahmadinejad. Iran has lost in Iraq. At this point, all the Iranians can do is to kill a handful of innocent Iraqis now and then. Think that wins them friends and influence?

    [b]Whopper No. 5: The US-European relationship is a disaster.[/b] In fact, Washington and the major European capitals have built new, sturdier bridges to replace old ones that badly needed burning.

    The Europeans grudgingly figured out that they need us - as we need them. The big break in 2003 cleared a lot of bad air (there was no break with Europe's young democracies). Relations today are sounder than they were in the fiddle-while-Rome-burns Clinton era.

    Oh, and NATO has become a serious military alliance - fighting in Afghanistan, patrolling the high seas and conducting special operations against terrorists. The Germans announced this week that they're sending another thousand troops to Afghanistan. France is re-engaging with NATO's military side. Where's the disaster, mon ami?

    [b]Whopper No. 6: As president, Barack Obama would bring positive change to our foreign policy - and John McCain's too old to get it.[/b]

    Hmm: Take a gander at Obama's senior foreign-policy advisers: Madeleine Albright (71), Warren Christopher (82), Anthony Lake (69), Lee Hamilton (77), Richard Clarke (57) . . .

    If you added up their ages and fed the number into a time-machine, you'd land in Europe in the middle of the Black Death.

    More important: These are the people whose watch saw the first attack on the World Trade Center, Mogadishu, Rwanda, the Srebrenica massacre, a pass for the Russians on Chechnya, the Khobar Towers bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa, the near-sinking of the USS Cole - oh, and the US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.

    Their legacy climaxed on 9/11.

    You couldn't assemble a team in Washington with more strategic failures to its credit.

    [b]Whopper No. 7: Our troops are all coming home as psychos victimized by their participation in military atrocities.[/b]

    Tell it to the Marines.

    Ralph Peters' new book is "Looking For Trouble."[/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    The current FP is a disaster. We still don't have safe airports/seaports/railways, etc. And yet we have spent BB's of dollars in Iraq where the fighting has lead to terrorists now coming into Iraq to fight us.

    They were not there in '01 and now they are there and still in the other locations.

    This presidency has been the worst in American history and we will pay for the poor leadership and decision making for years. There is no way Obama or anyone can undo this damage in 4 years.

    In the last three years, this admin has printed 4 TRILLION dollars adding to inflation and high oil prices. That is a remedy for destablization at home. Just more of the 'unforscene circumstances' that the neocon idiots have brought upon the American people

    The Marines by the way, like a lot of the other military branches of the US supported Ron Paul as he lead the pack with the most money raised for him by the military.

  3. #3
    The Rupert Murdoch owned NY Post? Are you serious? Who's going to write the next article/op-ed piece you post, Jenna Bush?

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Bethel, CT
    Posts
    11,258
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;2606703]
    This presidency has been the worst in American history .[/QUOTE]

    I take it you aren't a student of american history ?

    Buchanan and Harding still top the list

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=samwise;2606710]I take it you aren't a student of american history ?

    Buchanan and Harding still top the list[/QUOTE]

    I think history will be as unkind to Mr. Bush as is has to Buchanan and Harding.

  6. #6
    You mean a guy who currently is an Advisor to McCain is anti-Obama?
    No way.

    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2606691][url]http://www.nypost.com/seven/06282008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/liars_round_up_117549.htm?page=0[/url]

    Ralph Peters
    Last updated: 5:00 am
    June 28, 2008[/QUOTE]

  7. #7
    [QUOTE]Whopper No. 3: Success in Iraq is an illusion - the surge failed. Folks, this is something only a New York Times columnist could believe.

    Every single significant indicator, from Iraqi government progress through the performance of Iraqi security forces to the plummeting level of violence, has changed for the better - remarkably so.

    If current trend-lines continue, it may not be long before Baghdad is safer for Iraqi citizens than the Washington-Baltimore metroplex is for US citizens. Iraq's government is working, its economy is booming - and its military has driven the concentrations of terrorists and militia from every one of Iraq's major cities.

    And our troops are coming home. Where's the failure?[/QUOTE]

    I couldnt help but laugh at this, Iraqi govt progress???????
    Like what? You mean like that law calling for the revising treatment of former Baathists, which Bush and McCainhailed as meeting a "benchmark" for political progress in Iraq. Oh yeah, too bad 5 months after hailing the law it has never been implemented. Maybe b/c it really wasnt a reconciliation.

    [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSYAT251579[/url]

    Or maybe hes talking about how smoothly the Status of Forces Agreement is going:rolleyes: I guess Maliki seeking Tehrans advise on how to handel this is Peters' idea of political progress.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=newjakecity;2606704]The Rupert Murdoch owned NY Post? Are you serious? Who's going to write the next article/op-ed piece you post, Jenna Bush?[/QUOTE]

    This is the garbage that he uses as "respected" sources. The New York Post, which is one small step away from being on the level of the National Enquirer. The only reason why this rag has a shred of credibility is because Murdoch bounces his hit pieces from Fox "News" to the Post. Thus this rag gets publicity from being mentioned on cable TV "news".

    Its written for morons.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=newjakecity;2606704]The Rupert Murdoch owned NY Post? Are you serious? Who's going to write the next article/op-ed piece you post, Jenna Bush?[/QUOTE]

    Ok.....other than the part Rupert wrote, what part isn't true?

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2606853]Ok.....other than the part Rupert wrote, what part isn't true?[/QUOTE]

    The whole article is George W Bush propoganda. Furthermore, it does matter where it was written. This would be the same equivalent as you doing an editorial piece on the Pats* and spygate (along with other suspictions). IT IS NOT A CREDIBLE AND UNBIASED SOURCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2606853]Ok.....other than the part Rupert wrote, what part isn't true?[/QUOTE]

    the part where he claims

    [QUOTE]Every single significant indicator, from Iraqi government progress through the performance of Iraqi security forces to the plummeting level of violence, has changed for the better - remarkably so.[/QUOTE]

    I posted why that is not true.

  12. #12
    Heres another Peters Lie.

    [QUOTE]Whopper No. 4: Iran is stronger than ever. Tell that to the Iraqis, who've rejected Iranian meddling in their affairs, who've smashed the Iran-backed Shia militias and who didn't take long to figure out that Tehran's foreign policy was imperialist and anti-Arab.

    The people of Iraq don't intend to trade Saddam for Ahmadinejad. Iran has lost in Iraq. At this point, all the Iranians can do is to kill a handful of innocent Iraqis now and then. Think that wins them friends and influence?[/QUOTE]

    Tell it to the leaders of Iraq who embraced Ahemdinejaad with open arms and a red carpet welcome. Why does Irans leader get to visit announced and with such a welcome but our President does not. Tell it to Maliki who called Iran a great friend and allie who looks forward to a close future relationship. When the Iraqis are faced with a great problem like what to do with Status of Forces Agreement where do they go for advise???? Oh yeah Iran. When Maliki was being threatened by an uprising in Sadr's Madhi Army, where he did he initially go to tell them to cut it out??? Iran.

    That Peters thinks Iraq is not close to Iran is laughably stupid. What is worse though, are the morons who believe this crap that Peters wrote.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE]Whopper No. 7: Our troops are all coming home as psychos victimized by their participation in military atrocities.

    Tell it to the Marines[/QUOTE]

    Tell it to the thousands-tens of thousands of soldiers in their teens and early 20s returning home with severe PTSD, anxiety, depression, adjustment disorder and other mental health problems that will keep them up at night and interfere with their daily function. Tell it to the VA which recently asked physicians not to use the PTSD diagnosis. Jeez why would they do that if no one is returning with this illness??

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Bethel, CT
    Posts
    11,258
    [QUOTE=Klecko73isGod;2606721]I think history will be as unkind to Mr. Bush as is has to Buchanan and Harding.[/QUOTE]

    he'll be top 10, but that only puts him a handful of spots ahead of Carter

  15. #15
    [quote=DeanPatsFan;2606691][URL]http://www.nypost.com/seven/06282008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/liars_round_up_117549.htm?page=0[/URL]

    Ralph Peters
    Last updated: 5:00 am
    June 28, 2008[/quote]

    Always nice to have shifting targets based on which side of the equation you are evaluating:

    [QUOTE]
    [B]Whopper No. 1: America is less safe today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001.[/B] Oh, really? Where's the evidence? The Clinton years saw New York City attacked [B]and Americans slaughtered by terrorists around the globe.[/B] Nothing was done to protect us.

    And the true end of the Clinton era came on 9/11.

    A record to be proud of.

    Countless aspects of the Bush-Cheney administration deserve merciless criticism. But fair is fair: Since 9/11,[B] we haven't suffered a single successful terrorist attack on our homeland.[/B] Not one.[/quote]

    So for the Clintons, the measuring stick is attacks on american soldiers abroad.

    But for Bush, the measuring stick is only attacks on america itself.

    Guess what, Dean? The Clintons and Bushes suffered exactly the same number of foreign terror attacks on our homeland during their 8 years in office. 1.

    From the first WTC bombing until Bush took over in 2000, the US hadn't "suffered a single successful terrorist attack on our homeland. Not one."

    But that only matters when evaluating bush, no? :rolleyes:

    [quote]God knows, the terrorists desperately wanted to strike our homeland. And they couldn't. Are we supposed to believe that was an accident?[/QUOTE]

    No, of course not. But apparently, we are supposed to believe either that the terrorists did not "desperately want to strike at our homeland" during the Clinton years or that the fact that they couldn't during the rest of Clinton's term [I][B]was [/B][/I]an accident. :rolleyes:

    Different measuring sticks based on who you support isn't a particularly valid argument

  16. #16
    [quote=newjakecity;2606984]The whole article is George W Bush propoganda. Furthermore, it does matter where it was written. This would be the same equivalent as you doing an editorial piece on the Pats* and spygate (along with other suspictions). IT IS NOT A CREDIBLE AND UNBIASED SOURCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]


    Multiple exclamation points are a sign of a diseased mind.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;2607312]Multiple exclamation points are a sign of a diseased mind.[/QUOTE]

    No argument here ;)

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