The anti-Bush people can shout all they want about the issue of imminent danger, but it doesn't matter to most Americans. Most people are pleased that Saddam was taken out. The place where Bush is vulnerable is the post-Saddam Iraq. If the situation remains chaotic then that is where Bush can be hurt. So, Bush-haters, if you want to lie, you should concentrate on trying to make present day Iraq sound like it is worse than it actually is, not on what Bush said before the war. Learn from your allies in the media. They are doing a good job at it.
once again, the one 'lie' that was introduced in this thread has been entirely disproven. amazing that you guys can completely ignore that
Okay ASF. Can you please point to evidence where the media is "lying" about what is happening in present day Iraq? I guess reporting that another solidier has died today is "lying" because it actually tells the truth? How about the 500 form letters sent out from the solidiers? Isn't that a big ol lie? Do you not see that by repeating the mantra you heard from some yammering conservative talk show host (can't be Rush...Sean maybe?) you are effectively repeating a lie about the media which is simply not true? It is a technique that the conservatives mastered in the Clinton years. Don't like the message? Can't fight them on the issue? Attack the messanger, even if you have to lie to do it. That is why I am going to start engaging you guys at your level. Just continue to repeat things I believe or I have heard - the facts be dammed.
Freudian slip #2. I think I can pop open the champagne bottles and celebrate at this point. I really did think you meant "misogynist" because arguing with a misogynist about race would be pretty damn frustrating. And I thought it fit your post better.
This is pretty much the same deal as "What? We never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11" dodge that the Bushies are trying, and it's meeting with the exact same response. Sane people see right through it. Diehard Bush partisans act as if it has any bearing on reality. This relentless parsing of specific phrases is more Clintonesque than Clinton ever was. What Snow did was ridiculously unprofessional, not that I'd expect anything more from Fox News. As if the entire Iraq war hung on whether Bush used the word "imminent." Does no one remember all that discussion on the morality of pre-emptive war? (I do! - A. Sharon, Jerusalem)
It appears that the soldiers were upset because of the lies being told, so they began the letter writing campaign. These soldiers are also victims (perhaps unintended) of the anti-Bush hatred. Finnegan, If you are honest with your question, I would tell you to watch how the liberal media operates. Part of the trick is to highlight certain events, (like for example, a terrorist ambush of soldiers in which some are killed), and then try to define the whole situation in Iraq based on those events. It begins with selective reporting of the truth. Then it continues with editorial positions exagerating the problems and taking them out of context. And then the loose canon 'independent' columnists take it one step further, with name calling and putting down the efforts of the administration and of our soldiers. The whole idea is to give the impression that Iraq is in chaos. Never mind that most people in Iraq say that they are better off, and never mind that the country is on its way to becoming a democracy after many years of enduring a murderous sadistic regime. Perhaps the media should be concentrating on the importance of the work that our soldiers are now doing in Iraq. The terrorists understand what is at stake and that is why they are so desperately trying to undermine our country's efforts. Isn't it telling that the terrorists and the liberals are both trying to undermine our efforts in Iraq? And it is not just about Iraq. Attacks are being waged against Bush in all fronts, without regards for the consequences to the country. The idea is to put down Bush at all costs. Whether it is the environment or the economy or any issue that can be politiziced, the shameless and (more often than not) baseless personal attacks on Bush and on the administration go way beyond the productive debate of ideas and policies that an intelligent and legitimate opposition is expected to provide in a democratic country. There are two wars being waged in America right now. The corageous war that American soldiers are fighting against terrorism, and the cynical war that liberals are fighting against the administration.
What he said. Basically, anything that Bush tries to do is assaulted whether it be political, environmental, etc. I think this has way more harm than good. C'mon, i despise Bill Clinton but i do recognize he did some things good.
fine, bush has done some good things: requiring greater accountability in schools (though he underfunded his own program) the administration did a good job of defeating the taliban (though it has seriously slacked on securing the peace) Bush's emotional response immediately after 9/11 brought comfort to the country bush signed the Oxley-Sarbanes bill corporate reform bill (though didn't push for its passage) singed campaign finance reform (though didn't want it to pass) i'm sure there are other things as well. however on many, if not all, of the big things, i think bush has failed. and i'm more than willing to call him on it. he's not a king. he's not a deity. he's the president and when he's wrong i'm going to say it. and i think he is wrong a lot and on the big things. and i think that is much more damaging to the country than any criticism. i don't hate bush the man, i hate what bush is doing to my country.
This is not a cynical war against the administration. The administration is corrupt and tells lies. They should be removed from office. We have a choice to make next year, whether lying and deceitful leadership is what we want or what we reject. Part of the reason Bush was elected was because he claimed to be a straight-talker. It turns out he isn't.
Thanks Roel. I never understood why Americans couldn't stand the "Impeach him!" Rebublicans in the late '90's.
That's not true. There's one battalion commander, a Lt. Colonel, who did this. He "asked" the men in his battalion to sign the letters and send them back home. I can provide links if necessary, but I would be hurt. Just admit you're wrong here, and move on.
First of all, the Bush administration is bad for America - so supporting them is really the most un-American thing anyone can do. Unless you're in favor of cronyism, treason, and runaway jive-turkeyism. Secondly, comparing the plight of American soldiers in a hostile country with a bunch of administration flacks taking well-earned criticism is pretty weak. Unless you think Andrew Card is in danger of having his limbs blown off by a landmine in the West Wing. Finally, I'm pretty sick of the idea that I have to be civil towards people who pretend they can't tell the difference between liberals and terrorists. In that spirit, then, why don't you suck my *#*#*#*#?
Here is a link: www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-10-12-iraq-letters-usat_x.htm Here are some highlights of the article: 'Six soldiers reached by CNX directly or through their families say they agree with the letters thrust.' 'Sgt. Christopher Shelton, who signed a letter that ran in the Snohmish, Wash. paper, said his platoon sergeant had distributed the letter and asked soldiers for the names of hometown newspapers. Soldiers were asked to sign the letter if they agreed with it, Shelton said. 'Everything it said is dead accurate. We've done a really good job' he said.' 'Bryan whitman, a spokesman for the Defense Department, said he was not aware of any coordinated campaign among troops to send letters supportive of the war back home. But Whitman said he would not be surprised, because many troops are discouraged that not enough positive news is being reported. So, I am sure the liberals and anti-Bush people here will urge the media to keep it up. They are doing a great job of discouraging our troops.
Errrr, thanks for the offer, Dan. Nothing against you or against your kind proposal. I don't necesarily frown on that sort of thing. But I hope you understand that I am not interested. I am what you might call a ladies man. Now, if you were a woman... But back to my point. I am not saying that anybody is going to put bombs in the West Wing. But it is a fact that all this garbage thrown against the Bush administration is affecting our country in a negative way. It is affecting our soldiers morale, and it is affecting how the rest of the world sees us. The irresponsibility of some of our leading newspapers is appalling. By all means, we should discuss the issues and bring alternative points of views. But all this campaign of twisting the news and making an attack on our president out of every little fly that gets in somebody's ass is going way too far. People are taking this hatred to the extreme, and it is putting us all down. This is not a good thing for our country, especially at a time when outside enemies have sworn to destroy us.
I put this in a separate post because I didn't want you to miss my challenge. Hey, a$shole, did it occur to you that we just disagree with Bush on the issues? That we know from past experience that cutting tax rates on the wealthy is a poor strategy for growing the economy? Or that pre-emptively attacking a nation against the wishes of almost the entire world based on politicized intelligence would be a bad thing? I mean really, of all the arrogant statements I've made, or anyone here as ever made, I've never seen one this breathtakingly total. You just can't conceive that we might believe Bush wrong on the issues!! Not that Bush *is* wrong on the issue; that's a whole 'nother story. Just that we might believe that.
I went back to check the article. I should have said: 'Believe the problems they now face are worth the trouble, and believe they will be better off within five years'. But you would not believe it, based on the reports of the liberal media. www.lebanonwire.com/0309/03092602TGR.asp
Put on your bulls*** detector for a second. 1. Bryan Whiteman loses his job the minute Bush fires him. 2. How do you think the troops in the field are monitoring the news here?
What you wrote: What the link YOU provided said: At this point, the humane thing is to ask if you're some kind of retard. Because if you are, then I'll have some mercy on you.
An honest argument about issues does not begin with 'hey as$hole'. It is hatred-based, as you just proved.
Hey, a$shole, I'm not arguing about the issues...I'm arguing about your stupid assumption that we don't disagree with Bush on the issues. I mean, is it really so hard to believe????? PS...it's not based on hatred, but on contempt.