Why Are Dems Scared Of Fox News?

[Superlative]

So to libs, if people do not believe what they say - they are stupid

This is one of the basic foundations of liberalism - people are to dimb to think on their own

They need libs to tell them what to thinkl and do

I find it absolutely fascinating that everything that people say and prove about republicans, you say about liberals.

It wasnt the liberals who lied to get us into the war, it was neoconservatives.

It was Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz. and its been proven.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...pentagon/view/


But you being a conservative, would never be able to comprehend that your gods lied to you.

You instantly spin it and say it was Liberals, or spout some baloney talking points from 'FOX White House News' to defend the conservatives.

Republicans are like big tobbacco, only Republicans will never admit they were wrong.

As long as they deny everything, its all conspiracy theories and the liberals are crazy nuts.

You cant be reasoned with, you are as far left as it gets, its baffling.

Even with proof, you cling to your faulty beliefs.

You argue with everything. and never admit it when youre wrong.

its ignorant.

 

[red states rule]

IF Pres Bush lied about WMD's - so did Dems

Going back to Bill

 

[Superlative]

Dear RSR,

Are you aware that you never actually win a debate, you just frustrate people into giving up, cause you cant see anything other than your own point of view, witch is ignorant.

Whenever someone makes an valid point, you frame the issue, and muddy the arguement.

you seem to think as long as no one else wins, its considered a victory.

You stall any kind of forward intellectual progression in any debate, it wears people down and they give up cause you are unreasonable, and relentless.

all you do is repeat your point backwards and forwards at nauseum and paste a HUGE article you think makes you a winner.

and every other post is peppered with "Libs" and "Dims" its irritating to say the least.

Thats how the Conservative win, theyre rude and ignorant and any one with a modicum of intellect walks away from you cause its like talking to a deaf monkey that yells all the time.

pretty soon everyone here is going to put you on ignore, and the only people left that talk to you are like minded, which will make you think Republicans rule the world and you will always be right.

I bet you cant wait.

its a drag. and you are a bummer.

good day to you sir.

 

[red states rule]

As I said in the last post IF Bush lied so did Dems

Are you saying that is NOT true?

 

[Superlative]

As I said in the last post IF Bush lied so did Dems

Are you saying that is NOT true?

Cheney, Rumefeld, and Wolfowitz Data mined and created false intel and fed it to the President, they gave Bush information that only led him in one possible direction, the one they wanted.

Those Hawks manufactured consent from the president to Invade Iraq.

You can say whatever you want, Ive seen more than enough factual evidence that states there were no WMD's and that there were no links between Iraq and Al qaeda, it was all manufactured.

all you have to say about it is blahblahblah.

Now there is this amazing thing going on that you will latch right onto like a leech with no brain.

In britain they are saying "We do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone... this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives,"


And you will never even comprehend what this means.


but i will tell you.

They changed "Propaganda Slogans" in order to get out of Iraq, because once there is no "War On Terror" to lose, its easier to leave the mess American made.

Because once you are no longer fighting something, why should the US even be involved at all?

Within one year the "War On Terror" will be a thing of the past and the US will be pulling out of Iraq and leaving the mess, only to dump in money to rebuild it for the next 50 years.

 

[red states rule]

So if Bush lied, did the Dems?

“[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.”—From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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.”—From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities”—From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.”—Madeline Albright, 1998

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983”—National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.”—Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.”—Robert Byrd, October 2002

“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.”—Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”—Bill Clinton in 1998

“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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”—Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.”—Tom Daschle in 1998

“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.”—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.”—Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”—Al Gore, 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.”—Bob Graham, December 2002

“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”—Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”—Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.”—Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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.”—John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.”—John Kerry, October 9, 2002

“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.”—John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

“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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”—Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.”—Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, United Nations inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons. Inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.”—Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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.”—Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.”—Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

“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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources—something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.”—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.”—Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002.

And from our favorite Frenchman, this:

“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.”—Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

As the record clearly shows, if George W. Bush lied about WMD, he was joined by a lot of lying Democrats!

John W. Lillpop
San Jose, California

John W. Lillpop is a recovering liberal, "clean and sober" since 1992 when last he voted for a Democrat. Pray for John: He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where people like Nancy Pelosi are actually considered normal
http://basilsblog.net/2006/12/08/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-so-did-these-democrats/

 

[red states rule]

Well, the US has won the global war on terror and it took libs only a few months to do it

Congrats!!!!!!!!!!!


No more GWOT, House committee decrees

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Apr 4, 2007 1656 EDT

The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”

The “global war on terror,” a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the “long war,” which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.

Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration’s catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as “the war in Iraq,” the “war in Afghanistan, “operations in the Horn of Africa” or “ongoing military operations throughout the world.”

“There was no political intent in doing this,” said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. “We were just trying to avoid catch phrases.”

Josh Holly, a spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the committee’s former chairman and now its senior Republican, said Republicans “were not consulted” about the change.

Committee aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said dropping or reducing references to the global war on terror could have many purposes, including an effort to be more precise about military operations, but also has a political element involving a disagreement over whether the war in Iraq is part of the effort to combat terrorism or is actually a distraction from fighting terrorists.

House Democratic leaders who have been pushing for an Iraq withdrawal timetable have talked about the need to get combat troops out of Iraq so they can be deployed against terrorists in other parts of the world, while Republicans have said that Iraq is part of the front line in the war on terror. Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the armed services committee chairman, has been among those who have complained that having the military tied up with Iraq operations has reduced its capacity to respond to more pressing problems, like tracking down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

“This is a philosophical and political question,” said a Republican aide. “Republicans generally believe that by fighting the war on terror in Iraq, we are preventing terrorists from spreading elsewhere and are keeping them engaged so they are not attacking us at home.”

However, U.S. intelligence officials have been telling Congress that most of the violence in Iraq is the result of sectarian strife and not directly linked to terrorists, although some foreign insurgents with ties to terrorist groups have been helping to fuel the fighting.

“You have to wonder if this means that we have to rename the GWOT,” said a Republican aide, referring to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medals established in 2003 for service members involved, directly and indirectly, in military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.

“If you are a reader of the Harry Potter books, you might describe this as the war that must not be named,” said another Republican aide. That is a reference to the fact that the villain in the Harry Potter series, Lord Voldemort, is often referred to as “he who must not be named” because of fears of his dark wizardry.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/0...crats_070403w/

 

[Superlative]

“This is a philosophical and political question,” said a Republican aide. “Republicans generally believe that by fighting the war on terror in Iraq, we are preventing terrorists from spreading elsewhere and are keeping them engaged so they are not attacking us at home.”

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/0...crats_070403w/

This is a perfect republican statement, because its exactly what conservatives believe, and its bullshit. The US has created MORE terrorists with the invasion and occupation then there ever were before.

So we just have to wait until Republicans embrace the 'Slogan' change, then we win?

 

[Gunny]

Fox News rules the cable news networks - people choose not to get their news in a slanted and shaped way

Did you get paid for posting that?

 

[Shogun]

RSR..
Im sorry.. but you are about as interesting as a 10 hour Valtrex commercial marathon.. Please forgive me for ignoring you until you raise your standard of input.


GunnyL...
I know that you and I did not get off on the right foot on this board and for that I apologize. When confronted with the input of the likes of RSR, I must say, even if we do not agree at all on anything I have to admit that I appriciate your tact and delivery.

 

[Gunny]

RSR..
Im sorry.. but you are about as interesting as a 10 hour Valtrex commercial marathon.. Please forgive me for ignoring you until you raise your standard of input.


GunnyL...
I know that you and I did not get off on the right foot on this board and for that I apologize. When confronted with the input of the likes of RSR, I must say, even if we do not agree at all on anything I have to admit that I appriciate your tact and delivery.

LOL ... I didn't know we didn't get along. I don't take this stuff away from here.

 

[Shogun]

Well, perhaps there is no feud but I remember extending the claws your direction shortly after starting to post here and wanted to apologize....


especially when it is apparent that opposing posts could always be, lets just say, of a lower quality than how you do post.

 

[Gunny]

Well, perhaps there is no feud but I remember extending the claws your direction shortly after starting to post here and wanted to apologize....


especially when it is apparent that opposing posts could always be, lets just say, of a lower quality than how you do post.

No problem. We may very-well have argued about something. I try to not carry it fron thread to thread (pretty hard sometimes), and I don't carry this board away from the PC.

I'll see if I can't whip a few cut-n-pastes for you though ...

BTW ... Shogun by James Clavell is probably one of my most favorite novels.

 

[Shogun]

"Shogun by James Clavell is probably one of my most favorite novels."



someone else said as much on another board I visit.. I'll have to put that on my list. Good day, sir.

 

[red states rule]

This is a perfect republican statement, because its exactly what conservatives believe, and its bullshit. The US has created MORE terrorists with the invasion and occupation then there ever were before.

So we just have to wait until Republicans embrace the 'Slogan' change, then we win?

Good talking point - even though it is crap

Libs are trying not to offend the terrorists - pure appeasement

 

[red states rule]

Did you get paid for posting that?

Nope

I see Fox as fair and balanced

At least they opposing voices on their network

You really have to look for conservatives on MSNBC and CNN

 

[Superlative]

Nope

I see Fox as fair and balanced

You see what Fox tells you to see, and the WhiteHouse tells Fox what to see.

 

[red states rule]

You see what Fox tells you to see, and the WhiteHouse tells Fox what to see.

Is that why many liberals are on Fox and so few conservatives on CNN and MSNBC?

 

[Shogun]

yes... BIG H, little c Alan colmes sure is a proverbial city of gold of liberalism at fox...


as opposed to Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson who both don't have to share their shows with some right wing neanderthal...


yes...


has it ever occured to you that specifically selling fox as "fair and balanced" is a little like a used car salesman selling a lemon by insisting that it was previously owned by a little old lady who only drove to church once a week?

 

[Superlative]

has it ever occured to you that specifically selling fox as "fair and balanced"

Fox is fair and balanced because they tell you they are fair and balanced.

That is all the proof available, and thats all the proof RSR needs.