Somebody wake me up from this nightmare [Archive] - The Orange Mane

freak6

06-02-2006, 10:34 AM

CNN = Communist News Network......or Clinton News Network.....take your pick.

lmfao!!!

Yeah, that is why they buried Plamegate, Downing St., and never mention the lies of Bush about Iraqs nuke program and links to Al Qaeda. A REAL news network would cover it, ask questions until they are answered and not ducked every way possible, and expose the truth. That is why we have a press and news media, to bad they all suck.

Care to comment on the video, or are you gonna ignore that one just like you ignored this one YOU COWARD?
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sheyqAjPp-k"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sheyqAjPp-k" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

freak6

06-02-2006, 10:37 AM

Taco John

06-02-2006, 10:41 AM

They only brought him on because they are tired of getting their butts kicked by Fox..

What does that even mean? They "only" brought him in... You're telling me that a network brought in a guy to increase their ratings against a competitor? Well, duh...

freak6

06-02-2006, 10:52 AM

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 10:55 AM

What does that even mean? They "only" brought him in... You're telling me that a network brought in a guy to increase their ratings against a competitor? Well, duh...
I mean that they brought in someone who is a successful "conservative" (though GB can't really be pigeon-holed that easily) radio talk show host to boost ratings, because the "old way" obviously wasn't working..

In other words, you brought up the point that CNN brought in GB to be more "balanced". I'm just pointing out that they didn't put him on the main channel and they only hired him because they realize they need to be more diverse in their opinions (ie have a few more conservatives on the network) if they want to catch up to FOX.. Obviously a smart business move, but one I'm sure many at CNN had to hold their noses to do.. :)

freak6

06-02-2006, 10:56 AM

Dude, somebody better stop me, because I am dominating this fool of a Pres, and his idiot followers.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/siikYCO3Zbc"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/siikYCO3Zbc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 10:57 AM

Blueflame

06-02-2006, 11:02 AM

Those who agree with Glenn Beck's viewpoint already watch Fox instead of CNN, so that tactic probably won't have much effect on ratings.

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 11:07 AM

Those who agree with Glenn Beck's viewpoint already watch Fox instead of CNN, so that tactic probably won't have much effect on ratings.
Not necessarily.. I'm a regular FOX watcher. However, I like and listen to GB, and have been tuning in to CNN Headline News quite often to catch his show.. I can't be the only one..

Also, according to FOX's own rating's analysis, they are pulling just as many (in some cases more) Liberals & Moderates as Conservatives & Libertarians on a regular basis..

Blueflame

06-02-2006, 11:18 AM

Not necessarily.. I'm a regular FOX watcher. However, I like and listen to GB, and have been tuning in to CNN Headline News quite often to catch his show.. I can't be the only one..

Also, according to FOX's own rating's analysis, they are pulling just as many (in some cases more) Liberals & Moderates as Conservatives & Libertarians on a regular basis..

I have friends who always have Fox News on in the background... and I can assure you they wouldn't change to CNN for Glenn Beck's show.

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 11:23 AM

I have friends who always have Fox News on in the background... and I can assure you they wouldn't change to CNN for Glenn Beck's show.
I understand (my old man is the same way)..

However, my point is still valid in that as long as GB pulls some on the right (such as myself), it will help improve CNN's ratings (which are still trailing FOX quite a bit)..

Blueflame

06-02-2006, 11:27 AM

Will that make up for the more left-leaning viewers who will change the channel away from Glenn Beck, though? I'm not sure it will.

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 11:31 AM

Will that make up for the more left-leaning viewers who will change the channel away from Glenn Beck, though? I'm not sure it will.
Maybe, but I doubt it if they give him a chance.. He doesn't do just straight politics. He's into pop, culture, psychology/sociology issues, cultural observations, etc. He's very ecclectic and entertaining.. I like his sarcastic sense-of-humor.. ;)

freak6

06-02-2006, 11:33 AM

You're just a raving lunatic.. Care to make any logical or reasoned points?!

The video speaks for itself. You can comment on them but there is no arguing with facts. For example,

Bush lied about wiretaps.

Bush lied about Iraqs nukes.

Bush lied about Iraqs links to Al Qaeda.

Bush let Osama get away with his incompetence, and war planning.

Bush said he isn't concerned with Osama Bin Laden, the guy who BROUGHT DOWN THE TOWERS!!!!!

Where is the outrage, but the right wing apologist chicken hawk cowards say nothing, as they are being dominated by the TRUTH.

 Truth Hurts

Blueflame

06-02-2006, 11:34 AM

Maybe, but I doubt it if they give him a chance.. He doesn't do just straight politics. He's into pop, culture, psychology/sociology issues, cultural observations, etc. He's very ecclectic and entertaining.. I like his sarcastic sense-of-humor.. ;)

I know a lot of "lefties" and not a single one of them would willingly watch Glenn Beck's show... ;)

ESPN or the NFL Network would look much more appealing to me... :D

Mile High Shack

06-02-2006, 11:35 AM

and for his next quote

he'll go with his standard

"I wasn't on point, I wasn't prepared"

that's always a classic he puts in there to "dominate" everyone

55CrushEm

06-02-2006, 11:37 AM

You're just a raving lunatic.. Care to make any logical or reasoned points?!

LOL Come on man....tell us something we DON'T know....

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 11:39 AM

The video speaks for itself. You can comment on them but there is no arguing with facts. For example,

Bush lied about wiretaps.

Bush lied about Iraqs nukes.

Bush lied about Iraqs links to Al Qaeda.

Bush let Osama get away with his incompetence, and war planning.

Bush said he isn't concerned with Osama Bin Laden, the guy who BROUGHT DOWN THE TOWERS!!!!!

Where is the outrage, but the right wing apologist chicken hawk cowards say nothing, as they are being dominated by the TRUTH.

 Truth Hurts
Let me guess... You're a college student, aren't you?

freak6

06-02-2006, 11:44 AM

and for his next quote

he'll go with his standard

"I wasn't on point, I wasn't prepared"

that's always a classic he puts in there to "dominate" everyone

Bush said it describing himself as Commander In Chief, admitting his incompetence.

I don't understand how a President doesn't just resign, or get impeached after admitting "I wasn't on point, I didn't feel a sense of urgency", after being warned ver batim

"Al Qaeda is in our country and making preparations consistent with hijacking planes, and other attacks, as well as casing out federal buildings in New York" in the August 6th PDB.

Imperial Hubris. Our country is a joke because of this administration.

The Divided States of Embarrassment.

WE pay the cost, in lives lost, fathers losts, sisters lost, limbs lost, eyes lost, brains lost, WTF does he care so long as Mobil and Chevron are posting record profits???

He could care fkn less, that is why they sent us in there unprepared, undermanned, under armored, WTF DO YOU CARE MUTHAFKR, you dont, you dont know, your not losing friends in this fkn BS, and OSAMA IS STILL PLANNING MORE ATTACKS.

WAKE THE FK UP AMERICA!!!

Support the troops my fkn ass. Spilling blood because we have take towns, then leave, and retake them in the most dangerous fighting possible, HOUSE TO HOUSE, because morons sent us there with to few troops, why???

IMPERIAL HUBRIS!!!

freak6

06-02-2006, 11:44 AM

Let me guess... You're a college student, aren't you?

No, I'm a Sgt of Marines that has buddies over there dying.

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 11:46 AM

I know I am making a huge mistake by opening this up, but here goes..

Let me make an analogy concerning this "lied about WMD" propaganda..

I'm sure many on this site probably stated and/or thought that the Broncos would go to the Super Bowl last season. Well, we all know that they didn't. Are all the people who said that they would liers or were they just wrong?...

Also, those video clips you used as "evidence". Why don't you go find the unedited clips of those same events and see if the total answers (in context) back up your assertions..

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 11:47 AM

No, I'm a Sgt of Marines that has buddies over there dying.
I'm sure.. Anyway, you are probably of college age, no?!

2KBack

06-02-2006, 11:49 AM

Bush said it describing himself as Commander In Chief, admitting his incompetence.

I don't understand how a President doesn't just resign, or get impeached after admitting "I wasn't on point, I didn't feel a sense of urgency", after being warned ver batim

"Al Qaeda is in our country and making preparations consistent with hijacking planes, and other attacks, as well as casing out federal buildings in New York" in the August 6th PDB.

Imperial Hubris. Our country is a joke because of this administration.

The Divided States of Embarrassment.

WE pay the cost, in lives lost, fathers losts, sisters lost, limbs lost, eyes lost, brains lost, WTF does he care so long as Mobil and Chevron are posting record profits???

He could care fkn less, that is why they sent us in there unprepared, undermanned, under armored, WTF DO YOU CARE MUTHAFKR, you dont, you dont know, your not losing friends in this fkn BS, and OSAMA IS STILL PLANNING MORE ATTACKS.

WAKE THE FK UP AMERICA!!!

Support the troops my fkn ass. Spilling blood because we have take towns, then leave, and retake them in the most dangerous fighting possible, HOUSE TO HOUSE, because morons sent us there with to few troops, why???

IMPERIAL HUBRIS!!!

You know, if you stated your opinons in a less evangelical way, you may find people more accepting. As it stands now, you sound like a drunk hippie raving on the street corner.

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 11:50 AM

Bush said it describing himself as Commander In Chief, admitting his incompetence.

I don't understand how a President doesn't just resign, or get impeached after admitting "I wasn't on point, I didn't feel a sense of urgency", after being warned ver batim

"Al Qaeda is in our country and making preparations consistent with hijacking planes, and other attacks, as well as casing out federal buildings in New York" in the August 6th PDB.

Imperial Hubris. Our country is a joke because of this administration.

The Divided States of Embarrassment.

WE pay the cost, in lives lost, fathers losts, sisters lost, limbs lost, eyes lost, brains lost, WTF does he care so long as Mobil and Chevron are posting record profits???

He could care fkn less, that is why they sent us in there unprepared, undermanned, under armored, WTF DO YOU CARE MUTHAFKR, you dont, you dont know, your not losing friends in this fkn BS, and OSAMA IS STILL PLANNING MORE ATTACKS.

WAKE THE FK UP AMERICA!!!

Support the troops my fkn ass. Spilling blood because we have take towns, then leave, and retake them in the most dangerous fighting possible, HOUSE TO HOUSE, because morons sent us there with to few troops, why???

IMPERIAL HUBRIS!!! You don't sound like ANY US Marine I have EVER met.. I live in VA, so I know a lot.. So do you as a Marine, not know that we have troops in Afghanistan hunting Osama and the boys? Every heard of Operation Mountain Lion? What kind of Marine are you? If you don't know that your comrades in arms are already doing what you say Bush is not, then maybe you are incompetent and need to resign...

freak6

06-02-2006, 11:50 AM

I'm sure.. Anyway, you are probably of college age, no?!

Who the fk are you, and what difference does it make. Watch the video.

It's real fkn funny seeing my buddies come back dead, broken, or fkd up in the head for ever. I'm not apologizing for Haditha, that was wrong, but after being over there for the 3rd time, and seeing another BROTHER get killed by these cowards, even Marines can snap. It sucks, but it is going to happen given the circumstances.

But its funny to some...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/siikYCO3Zbc"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/siikYCO3Zbc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

freak6

06-02-2006, 11:51 AM

You know, if you stated your opinons in a less evangelical way, you may find people more accepting. As it stands now, you sound like a drunk hippie raving on the street corner.

I'm so sick of this sht, maybe I'm pissed because I have much more invested in this than you.

freak6

06-02-2006, 11:55 AM

Every heard of Operation Mountain Lion?

Why are you turning this into me vs you? Why not comment on the videos? That is what this thread is about. Osama escaped Afghanistan because of Bush and Co. and thier idiotic plan to invade Iraq, that is well documented and factual.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sheyqAjPp-k"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sheyqAjPp-k" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 11:56 AM

Who the fk are you, and what difference does it make. Watch the video.

Can't answer a simple question? As I suspected.. Your attitude, exhuberance, and ignorance tells all about your age..

It's real fkn funny seeing my buddies come back dead, broken, or fkd up in the head for ever. I'm not apologizing for Haditha, that was wrong, but after being over there for the 3rd time, and seeing another BROTHER get killed by these cowards, even Marines can snap. It sucks, but it is going to happen given the circumstances. But its funny to some...

How is that funny?! War takes a terrible toll.. Always has, always will.. That in itself is not a realistic arguement against going to war when necessary..

I have nothing but the utmost respect and reverence for those that serve(d). Many of my relatives fought in WWII. They didn't come back and whine and campaign against their country and president. They did what they had to do.. They made the ultimate sacrifices and they deserve better than your hysterical rants..

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 11:59 AM

Why are you turning this into me vs you? Why not comment on the videos? That is what this thread is about. Osama escaped Afghanistan because of Bush and Co. and thier idiotic plan to invade Iraq, that is well documented and factual.

<object height="350" width="425">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sheyqAjPp-k" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="350" width="425"></object> Where is that documented as fact? Our military is capable of fighting on several fronts.. You obviously are totally ignorant of the strategies involved in each conflict. Did we screw up by trusting the Afghans too much to close the door on the other side of Tora Bora, yes. But that had nothing to do with Bush.. Mistakes are made by the Commanders in every war. Also, all that happened a year before Iraq, so your assertion falls flat..

2KBack

06-02-2006, 12:00 PM

I'm so sick of this sht, maybe I'm pissed because I have much more invested in this than you.

Be pissed, that's fine with me. You just need to realize that you aren't making any allies by attacking every person willing to engage in these conversations with you. Insults and curse laden rants do not a good argument make. I've personally never seen much good come from a shouting match.

freak6

06-02-2006, 12:02 PM

I have nothing but the utmost respect and reverence for those that serve(d). Many of my relatives fought in WWII. They didn't come back and whine and campaign against their country and president. They did what they had to do.. They made the ultimate sacrifices and they deserve better than your hysterical rants..

lmfao @ this clown questioning me, and then comparing the war in Iraq to WWII!!!

That is funny stuff. My Grandfather, a Marine, fought at Guadacanal among other places too. Bringing up them only proves how bad you need to reach to defend this moronic administration.

For the last time, talk about the video, and the facts. Turning into me vs you is childish. I don't need to compare resumes to know what is true and what isn't.

 every official intel organization in the world has stated the Iraq War is hurting us in the Global War on Terror.

Thank you Bush, maybe he can make some more jokes about the reasons why my brother Marines are being blown to pieces by cowards in the streets of Iraq, when Osama was in Afghanistan. Ooh, its sooo fkn funny, I forgot to laugh...

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 12:05 PM

lmfao @ this clown questioning me, and then comparing the war in Iraq to WWII!!!

That is funny stuff. My Grandfather, a Marine, fought at Guadacanal among other places too. Bringing up them only proves how bad you need to reach to defend this moronic administration.

For the last time, talk about the video, and the facts. Turning into me vs you is childish. I don't need to compare resumes to know what is true and what isn't.

 every official intel organization in the world has stated the Iraq War is hurting us in the Global War on Terror.

Thank you Bush, maybe he can make some more jokes about the reasons why my brother Marines are being blown to pieces by cowards in the streets of Iraq, when Osama was in Afghanistan. Ooh, its sooo fkn funny, I forgot to laugh...
Links please?! I didn't think so..

Why can't your ridiculous and erroneous assertions be questioned?! Who are you?! Why are you making them public if you don't want to be challenged?!

I already addressed the videos in a previous post.. They "prove" nothing..

Jetmeck

06-02-2006, 12:06 PM

Actually his attitude is about right on. We should all be pissed off over the mess in IRAQ when it was avoidable. Bush was warned it would be another VIETNAM, this hard headed SOB wouldn't listen. Now we are paying a huge toll in lives and our economic future along with making this world a much more dangerous place than it was before the war. Can you say "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" ?

This is just one major F up by this man. His presidency is chocked full of screwup after screwup. He is a big business, big money puppet pure and simple and ANYONE defending this POS is simply an idiot.

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 12:07 PM

lmfao @ this clown questioning me, and then comparing the war in Iraq to WWII!!!

That is funny stuff. My Grandfather, a Marine, fought at Guadacanal among other places too. Bringing up them only proves how bad you need to reach to defend this moronic administration.

For the last time, talk about the video, and the facts. Turning into me vs you is childish. I don't need to compare resumes to know what is true and what isn't.

 every official intel organization in the world has stated the Iraq War is hurting us in the Global War on Terror.

Thank you Bush, maybe he can make some more jokes about the reasons why my brother Marines are being blown to pieces by cowards in the streets of Iraq, when Osama was in Afghanistan. Ooh, its sooo fkn funny, I forgot to laugh...
No historical parallels with WWII? Did we not invade and occupy several countries to overthrown their dictatoral regimes, beat back a rising ideologies that threatened our peace and security, and establish stable democracies that are our allies to this day?!

Are you REALLY a Marine?!

freak6

06-02-2006, 12:08 PM

Where is that documented as fact? Did we screw up by trusting the Afghans too much to close the door on the other side of Tora Bora, yes. But that had nothing to do with Bush.. Mistakes are made by the Commanders in every war. Also, all that happened a year before Iraq, so your assertion falls flat..

How does that have NOTHING to do with Bush???

He was already planning the War in Iraq, that is why he wouldn't send in the 80,000 troops we should have to get and kill every member of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The CIA was there with special forces, begging for more troops, they were denied them by the Pentagon, Gen. Myers, etc... why, because of Iraq war plans being drawn up.

But now it is the Commanders fault in your words. lmao. Bush is the Commander. Get a clue.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sheyqAjPp-k"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sheyqAjPp-k" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 12:08 PM

Blueflame

06-02-2006, 12:10 PM

Just a gentle reminder, guys, that when the debate starts getting personal, the thread can and will be moved to the politics forum.

Carry on....

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 12:12 PM

How does that have NOTHING to do with Bush???

He was already planning the War in Iraq, that is why he wouldn't send in the 80,000 troops we should have to get and kill every member of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The CIA was there with special forces, begging for more troops, they were denied them by the Pentagon, Gen. Myers, etc... why, because of Iraq war plans being drawn up.

But now it is the Commanders fault in your words. lmao. Bush is the Commander. Get a clue.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sheyqAjPp-k"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sheyqAjPp-k" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
The President does not plan military strategies. That is up to SECDEF, Joint Chiefs, and most importantly, the CiNC of the operation. Maybe you should be looking for clues..

Let me ask you something.. If we get Osama, is the War on Terror then over?! If not, then what exactly is your point?

freak6

06-02-2006, 12:12 PM

No historical parallels with WWII? Did we not invade and occupy several countries to overthrown their dictatoral regimes, beat back a rising ideologies that threatened our peace and security, and establish stable democracies that are our allies to this day?!

Are you REALLY a Marine?!

Your seriously trying to defend the War in Iraq by comparing it to WWII

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 12:13 PM

Just a gentle reminder, guys, that when the debate starts getting personal, the thread can and will be moved to the politics forum.

Carry on....
Thanks for the head's up! I think this is winding down..

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 12:13 PM

Your seriously trying to defend the War in Iraq to WWII

:rolls eyes:
No, compare.. Can you answer with any reasoned counterpoint to what I wrote above?

Blueflame

06-02-2006, 12:17 PM

Thanks for the head's up! I think this is winding down..

From my vantage point, it looked to be escalating... but hey...

freak6

06-02-2006, 12:18 PM

The President does not plan military strategies. That is up to SECDEF, Joint Chiefs, and most importantly, the CiNC of the operation. Maybe you should be looking for clues..

Let me ask you something.. If we get Osama, is the War on Terror then over?! If not, then what exactly is your point?

Policy dictates strategy. Should I bring up Fallujah, and how a Marine General resigned when Bush started playing politics with my Brothers lives, making them take the town twice, three times.

You should see the tears come down my friends face when he talks about how pissed he was about that. You have no clue about seeing your friends explode in front of you.

Anyway, the policy was to invade Iraq, the decision was made in late 2001, that is how it effected our troop levels in Afghan, and allowing him to escape by outsourcing catching him, when our CIA guys were BEGGING for more troops to catch and kill Osama.

Before 9/11

"I wasn't on point, I didn't feel a sense of urgency"

After 9/11

"I'm not that concerned about him"

When they hit us next, the blood is on Bush's hands for his incompetence, failure to focus, and lack of leadership.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sheyqAjPp-k"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sheyqAjPp-k" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 12:19 PM

Your seriously trying to defend the War in Iraq by comparing it to WWII
Let's see..

Invaded:
WWII - Italy, Germany, didn't have to in Japan thanks to Truman
War on Terror - Afghanistan & Iraq (Libya capitulated and Syria pulled out of Lebanon)

Occupied:
WWII - All the above. In Germany and Japans case, they were occupied for years before being turned over to a friendly and democratic governments.
WoT - Same

Dangerous Ideologies Deafeated:
WWII - Nazism, Imperialism, Militarism
WoT - Radical Islam of Taliban, no ideology in Iraq, but a tyrannical oppressive regime was removed

Peaceful Democracies created:
WWII - Italy, Germany, & Japan
WoT - Still working on Afghanistan & Iraq

So tell me again how there are no historic comparisons?

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 12:24 PM

Policy dictates strategy. Should I bring up Fallujah, and how a Marine General resigned when Bush started playing politics with my Brothers lives, making them take the town twice, three times.

You should see the tears come down my friends face when he talks about how pissed he was about that. You have no clue about seeing your friends explode in front of you.

Anyway, the policy was to invade Iraq, the decision was made in late 2001, that is how it effected our troop levels in Afghan, and allowing him to escape by outsourcing catching him, when our CIA guys were BEGGING for more troops to catch and kill Osama.

Before 9/11

"I wasn't on point, I didn't feel a sense of urgency"

After 9/11

"I'm not that concerned about him"

When they hit us next, the blood is on Bush's hands for his incompetence, failure to focus, and lack of leadership.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sheyqAjPp-k"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sheyqAjPp-k" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
It's okay.. I see how you keep wanting to change the subject/point instead of answering my counterpoint..

Policy is not strategy. Bush did not plan troop numbers, areas to attack, elements to use, etc.. This is just a ridiculous point.

No General involved in planning the operations have confirmed that troop were pulled away for Iraq. It's just not the case.. I challenge you to find that video..

The clips you are quoting from are partials. Go see the full clips (in context), as I stated before, and see if they still stand up..

fuzzy

06-02-2006, 01:09 PM

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 01:26 PM

hahaha.... what?

bush administration blatently lied about the WMD.

apples and oranges?
Apply the analogy.. A lie involves intent. Bush was wrong about WMD (though I still think much of it was moved prior to the invasion), but there is absolutely no proof that he lied. Every major intelligence organization (including Russians, Germans, & French) thought Iraq was hiding it's WMD production..

Blueflame

06-02-2006, 01:31 PM

Apply the analogy.. A lie involves intent. Bush was wrong about WMD (though I still think much of it was moved prior to the invasion), but there is absolutely no proof that he lied. Every major intelligence organization (including Russians, Germans, & French) thought Iraq was hiding it's WMD production..

A lie does involve intent. And there's ample evidence that Bush always intended to go to war with Iraq and was looking for an excuse from inauguration day 2001. (Does "F Saddam; we're taking him out" ring any bells?)

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 01:36 PM

A lie does involve intent. And there's ample evidence that Bush always intended to go to war with Iraq and was looking for an excuse from inauguration day 2001. (Does "F Saddam; we're taking him out" ring any bells?)
Where is this evidence? When was that said? I follow politics very closely and I don't remember that.. I heard constant speculation from mostly the left-wing press that Bush wanted to get Saddam for "daddy", but never saw anything concrete..

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 01:38 PM

Gotta run all! It's been fun and interesting mixing it up with you guys.. The reason I keep coming back to the Mane.. :)

Blueflame

06-02-2006, 01:57 PM

Where is this evidence? When was that said? I follow politics very closely and I don't remember that.. I heard constant speculation from mostly the left-wing press that Bush wanted to get Saddam for "daddy", but never saw anything concrete..

Just a quick Google search yields several sources, including Time magazine. The remark was made to Condoleeza Rice in 2002. Many sources (including Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies document Bush's eagerness to find... or fabricate... a link between 9/11 and Iraq.

If you are familiar with the Project for a New American Century (or PNAC, with signees including the likes of George HW Bush, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney) the gameplan called for war with Iraq as one of the first steps. It also observes that another Pearl Harbor-type event might be needed to justify the action. Don't believe me? Google it.

sirhcyennek81

06-02-2006, 02:03 PM

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 02:05 PM

Just a quick Google search yields several sources, including Time magazine. The remark was made to Condoleeza Rice in 2002. Many sources (including Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies document Bush's eagerness to find... or fabricate... a link between 9/11 and Iraq.

If you are familiar with the Project for a New American Century (or PNAC, with signees including the likes of George HW Bush, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney) the gameplan called for war with Iraq as one of the first steps. It also observes that another Pearl Harbor-type event might be needed to justify the action. Don't believe me? Google it.
I am familiar with all of this.. However, it is not proof, only speculation.. I read speculation on just about anything and everything.. Need to dig further for truth..

Richard Clarke is a discredited source. No concrete proof of this assertion (that it was planned from the beginning) has ever been upheld or substantiated by anything close to an objective source. To accept this, you have to believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories...

It is obvious and well-known that Bush wanted to tighten the screws on Saddam, mostly because we wanted to pull back our forces from the area and stop having to dedicate ourselves to the 2 no-fly zones. However, you would have to accept that he knew about and allowed 9/11 to happen to accept that his invasion of Iraq was planned from the beginning of his administration.. Just no proof..

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 02:09 PM

Oh for the love of...

Al Qaeda members trained in Iraq. There were high level contacts between Iraq and Osama. This is not "pretend" There were ties between the two. Enough to justify a war? I dont know. Even arabs understand the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

:Broncos:
Exactly! In fact internal Iraqi documents found in the ministries after the invasion and just know being translated and released showed that Saddam ordered increased cooperation with AQ right before the invasion.. Could that be where the WMD went? Too scary to consider..

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

Blueflame

06-02-2006, 02:10 PM

I am familiar with all of this.. However, it is not proof, only speculation.. I read speculation on just about anything and everything.. Need to dig further for truth..

Richard Clarke is a discredited source. No concrete proof of this assertion (that it was planned from the beginning) has ever been upheld or substantiated by anything close to an objective source. To accept this, you have to believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories...

It is obvious and well-known that Bush wanted to tighten the screws on Saddam, mostly because we wanted to pull back our forces from the area and stop having to dedicate ourselves to the 2 no-fly zones. However, you would have to accept that he knew about and allowed 9/11 to happen to accept that his invasion of Iraq was planned from the beginning of his administration.. Just no proof..

Then dig. As I said, Google will show ample sources for the quote.

Richard Clarke is no more "discredited" than the mendacious administration that seems incapable of distinguishing the truth from a lie. Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq as is evidenced by the use of known lies (forged "yellowcake" documents, anyone?) and the ever-changing rationale for the war.

I do believe Bush was warned that the 9/11 attacks were coming and remained on vacation, doing absolutely nothing to protect America or prevent it from happening.

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 02:14 PM

Then dig. As I said, Google will show ample sources for the quote.

Richard Clarke is no more "discredited" than the mendacious administration that seems incapable of distinguishing the truth from a lie. Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq as is evidenced by the use of known lies (forged "yellowcake" documents, anyone?) and the ever-changing rationale for the war.

I do believe Bush was warned that the 9/11 attacks were coming and remained on vacation, doing absolutely nothing to protect America or prevent it from happening.
You are definitely entitled to you opinion.. I have no problem with that at all.. I googled and still have not found credible sources for your assertion.. Richard Clarke was asleep at the wheel during the Clinton admin while Osama planned and worked. He only came out after the fact to cover his a** and try and make a name for himself (and sell some books).

I just can't swallow the conspiracy theory.. Say what you want about Bush, but he would never allow 3000 Americans to be killed just so he could invade Iraq.. Ridiculous!

Blueflame

06-02-2006, 02:15 PM

Oh for the love of...

Al Qaeda members trained in Iraq. There were high level contacts between Iraq and Osama. This is not "pretend" There were ties between the two. Enough to justify a war? I dont know. Even arabs understand the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

:Broncos:

Al Qaeda members trained in America, too. Or have you forgotten the flight schools?

At any rate, Osama Bin Laden was no friend of Saddam Hussein or the secular government of Iraq. And if there were provable links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the corporate media would have trumpeted it from the rooftops and there would have been no need to justify the war via ever-changing rationales.

sirhcyennek81

06-02-2006, 02:15 PM

I do believe Bush was warned that the 9/11 attacks were coming and remained on vacation, doing absolutely nothing to protect America or prevent it from happening.

Prevent it how. This country gets over 3,000 credible threats a day. Under this tortured logic, FDR should have known Pearl Harbor was going to happen in HI.

:Broncos:

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 02:15 PM

Really have to go now! Rain has stopped..

Bye all!

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 02:16 PM

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 02:17 PM

Prevent it how. This country gets over 3,000 credible threats a day. Under this tortured logic, FDR should have known Pearl Harbor was going to happen in HI.

:Broncos:
There were plenty of people with the same "conspiracy" mindset that thought FDR did know about Pearl Harbor and let it happen to get into WII! Sound familiar anyone?... Like I said, lack of education in history..

Blueflame

06-02-2006, 02:18 PM

You are definitely entitled to you opinion.. I have no problem with that at all.. I googled and still have not found credible sources for your assertion.. Richard Clarke was asleep at the wheel during the Clinton admin while Osama planned and worked. He only came out after the fact to cover his a** and try and make a name for himself (and sell some books).

I just can't swallow the conspiracy theory.. Say what you want about Bush, but he would never allow 3000 Americans to be killed just so he could invade Iraq.. Ridiculous!

I understand. Credible, to you, equals Newsmax or Fox... or maybe Drudge.

So do you deny that Bush received the August memo that said Bin Laden was determined to attack in America? Or is it that you deny that he... and Cheney... remained on vacation despite the warning? Or do you insist that they did something... anything...to prevent it?

sirhcyennek81

06-02-2006, 02:18 PM

Al Qaeda members trained in America, too. Or have you forgotten the flight schools?

At any rate, Osama Bin Laden was no friend of Saddam Hussein or the secular government of Iraq. And if there were provable links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the corporate media would have trumpeted it from the rooftops and there would have been no need to justify the war via ever-changing rationales.

Stalin and Hitler were not friends either. Look what they did. Iraqi documentation stating high level contacts between al qaeda and iraq is not credible to you? Also, for someone who likes to google, google every single speech the president gave in the run up to the war in Iraq. The rationale never changes. 1. Remove saddam 2. find or know for certain the status of iraqi WMD 3. remove a source of money for terrorist groups. 4. Begin to introduce liberal democracy to the middle east. Every bush speech hammers these points. Every single one. No one has changed their tune but those ****ing soft democrats in the house and senate.

:Broncos:

Blueflame

06-02-2006, 02:22 PM

There were plenty of people with the same "conspiracy" mindset that thought FDR did know about Pearl Harbor and let it happen to get into WII! Sound familiar anyone?... Like I said, lack of education in history..

I've heard that claim as well and it's really not implausible. Had the US not entered that war at that moment in time, it might have been too late for the Allies...

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 02:26 PM

sirhcyennek81

06-02-2006, 02:27 PM

I've heard that claim as well and it's really not implausible. Had the US not entered that war at that moment in time, it might have been too late for the Allies...

Every American base within 1000 miles of Japan was warned of possible attack. No one thought it would be possible a Japanese strike force was capable of crossing 3500 miles of Pacific ocean undetected to strike at the seat of American Naval Power in the pacific. Was not feasible. They did it, and we know what happened next.

:Broncos:

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 02:28 PM

I've heard that claim as well and it's really not implausible. Had the US not entered that war at that moment in time, it might have been too late for the Allies...
It was thoroughly examined in a detailed History channel special recently, and absolutely NO evidence was found to support the theory.. There was much evidence to the contrary..

Blueflame

06-02-2006, 02:28 PM

Stalin and Hitler were not friends either. Look what they did. Iraqi documentation stating high level contacts between al qaeda and iraq is not credible to you? Also, for someone who likes to google, google every single speech the president gave in the run up to the war in Iraq. The rationale never changes. 1. Remove saddam 2. find or know for certain the status of iraqi WMD 3. remove a source of money for terrorist groups. 4. Begin to introduce liberal democracy to the middle east. Every bush speech hammers these points. Every single one. No one has changed their tune but those ****ing soft democrats in the house and senate.

:Broncos:

In presidential speeches justifying sending our troops into Iraq, there was no "find or know for certain the status of iraqi WMD"... Bush insisted that Saddam had them and we knew where they were. If the goal was to remove a source of money for terrorist groups, I'd suggest maybe we should look into the Saudi royal family... and there will be no "liberal democracy" in Iraq; there will be a power struggle between the Sunnis and the Shiites for control of what looks to me to be an evolving theocracy.

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 02:29 PM

I understand. Credible, to you, equals Newsmax or Fox... or maybe Drudge.

So do you deny that Bush received the August memo that said Bin Laden was determined to attack in America? Or is it that you deny that he... and Cheney... remained on vacation despite the warning? Or do you insist that they did something... anything...to prevent it?
I read news from all sources and make up my own mind.. Do I like FOX, yes. That's because at least you get both sides of the story on that network, unlike the other major outlets..

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 02:30 PM

In presidential speeches justifying sending our troops into Iraq, there was no "find or know for certain the status of iraqi WMD"... Bush insisted that Saddam had them and we knew where they were. If the goal was to remove a source of money for terrorist groups, I'd suggest maybe we should look into the Saudi royal family... and there will be no "liberal democracy" in Iraq; there will be a power struggle between the Sunnis and the Shiites for control of what looks to me to be an evolving theocracy.
Good point about the Saudis.. However, it's a little soon to be making your prediction of the future.. There is much work left to be done..

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 02:32 PM

So do you deny that Bush received the August memo that said Bin Laden was determined to attack in America? Or is it that you deny that he... and Cheney... remained on vacation despite the warning? Or do you insist that they did something... anything...to prevent it?
C'mon Blueflame! Have you read the memo? It was a GENERAL warning of intentions (the same as they had been during the final years of the Clinton Admin), not a warning of immenent attack..

Blueflame

06-02-2006, 02:38 PM

I read news from all sources and make up my own mind.. Do I like FOX, yes. That's because at least you get both sides of the story on that network, unlike the other major outlets..

It's no surprise to me that you watch Fox. There was a survey a year ago or so that showed 70% of Fox viewers believed the lie that there were links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

And no, you do not get "both sides of the story" on Fox. It is the propaganda arm of the Republican party and 100% biased.

Blueflame

06-02-2006, 02:40 PM

C'mon Blueflame! Have you read the memo? It was a GENERAL warning of intentions (the same as they had been during the final years of the Clinton Admin), not a warning of immenent attack..

Yes, I have seen the memo on the net. I believe that it should have sparked the president and vice president to return to the capitol from their vacations. If it was just a "general" warning and not a sign of an imminent attack, why did Ashcroft suddenly stop taking commercial flights? There had to be a reason....

Blueflame

06-02-2006, 02:45 PM

Good point about the Saudis.. However, it's a little soon to be making your prediction of the future.. There is much work left to be done..

Whether the Sunnis or Shiites win control of the new government, it's still looking like the government will be religious in nature (ie: controlled by Muslim fundamentalists).

Blueflame

06-02-2006, 02:51 PM

Oh... and just for sirhcyennek81...

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm

freak6

06-02-2006, 03:11 PM

There were plenty of people with the same "conspiracy" mindset that thought FDR did know about Pearl Harbor and let it happen to get into WII! Sound familiar anyone?... Like I said, lack of education in history..

Your lack of education in history. Our intellingence then was run by the DOD, they were warned of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor, they did nothing however as they didn't think the Japanese would actually do it, and that it wasn't feasible for them to do it.

The Admiral in charge, Yamamoto I think, found out that we knew the attack was coming, and nearly cancelled the attack. He said fk it and did it anyway. The word, according to souces, never got up the chain to the President though.

freak6

06-02-2006, 03:13 PM

No WMDs video of Condi and Colin Powell.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

freak6

06-02-2006, 03:15 PM

Bush lied in the STATE OF THE UNION, the CIA told them not to us those 18 words, and cut them out. They stated them anyway, and continued to threaten the country about the nuclear threat from Iraq, the next hit would come "in a mushroom cloud" etc...

Downing St. memos state, "the case for war was weak, the intelligence is being fixed around the policy".

That is impeachable, and my brothers are being blown to shreds because of it.

Thank you Bush, republicans, and ignorant Americans, thank you from the bottom of my heart!!!

Kaylore

06-02-2006, 03:26 PM

freak6

06-02-2006, 03:44 PM

You're so full of crap.

Truth hurts don't it.

Do some research. The CIA told them to take it out, that is why the WH had to apologize, and say those words should NOT have been in the State of the Union. But they still spouted them consistently enough to scare the country.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

The Downing St. memos I quoted are all factual, look them up.

Fixing the intelligence around already decided policy is an abuse of powers, and totally impeachable in this case.

Don't say I am full of crap, you know I am write, and that response shows it. Get personal because the

 TRUTH HURTS

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 05:26 PM

Your lack of education in history. Our intellingence then was run by the DOD, they were warned of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor, they did nothing however as they didn't think the Japanese would actually do it, and that it wasn't feasible for them to do it.

The Admiral in charge, Yamamoto I think, found out that we knew the attack was coming, and nearly cancelled the attack. He said fk it and did it anyway. The word, according to souces, never got up the chain to the President though.
You just showed you hand there.. There was no DOD during WWII! (Look it up, I dare ya) There was a Dept. of War.. Your "facts" above are not even close.. If you have On Demand, see if you can find the History Channel episode of Conspiracies (or something similar) and see the Pearl Harbor episode.. Top Historians and gov't official (on both sides) researched the issue and found NO evidence to support it. There was lots of evidence against it...

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 05:46 PM

It's no surprise to me that you watch Fox. There was a survey a year ago or so that showed 70% of Fox viewers believed the lie that there were links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

How much do you watch FOX?

And no, you do not get "both sides of the story" on Fox. It is the propaganda arm of the Republican party and 100% biased.
So I'm a mind-numbed robot?! I watch FOX regularly and see both sides of the issues presented in every possible way. It only seems to be a "conservative" or "republican" outlet because it is the only outlet that gives fair credence and coverage of the conservative point of view. It only SEEMS biased or different to you because of the failure of the other mainstream networks to do just that...

Why don't you have some more kool-aid.. ;)

TexanBob

06-02-2006, 05:49 PM

Let's see..

Invaded:
WWII - Italy, Germany, didn't have to in Japan thanks to Truman
War on Terror - Afghanistan & Iraq (Libya capitulated and Syria pulled out of Lebanon)

Occupied:
WWII - All the above. In Germany and Japans case, they were occupied for years before being turned over to a friendly and democratic governments.
WoT - Same

Dangerous Ideologies Deafeated:
WWII - Nazism, Imperialism, Militarism
WoT - Radical Islam of Taliban, no ideology in Iraq, but a tyrannical oppressive regime was removed

Peaceful Democracies created:
WWII - Italy, Germany, & Japan
WoT - Still working on Afghanistan & Iraq

So tell me again how there are no historic comparisons?

Damn, I'm impressed! Too bad you are wasting logic on a DU clone.

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 05:50 PM

Yes, I have seen the memo on the net. I believe that it should have sparked the president and vice president to return to the capitol from their vacations. If it was just a "general" warning and not a sign of an imminent attack, why did Ashcroft suddenly stop taking commercial flights? There had to be a reason....
Where do you get this stuff?! That memo came out in Jan of 01'. Months before 9-11... It was a GENERAL warning about AQ's intentions.. The gov't had been getting the same kinds of warnings since 1998 when Osama "put a jihad on us" (Love that movie!).. (That's 2 years before took office for those of you in Rio Linda) :rofl:

TexanBob

06-02-2006, 06:02 PM

gunns

06-02-2006, 06:04 PM

I read news from all sources and make up my own mind.. Do I like FOX, yes. That's because at least you get both sides of the story on that network, unlike the other major outlets..

Both sides? :rofl: I think I'm in a fantasy land listening to Fox....makes me feel clueless.

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 06:06 PM

Both sides? :rofl: I think I'm in a fantasy land listening to Fox....makes me feel clueless.
Name another network that gives fair and equal treatment to both conservatives and liberals? (ie "both sides")

gunns

06-02-2006, 06:07 PM

How much do you watch FOX?

So I'm a mind-numbed robot?! I watch FOX regularly and see both sides of the issues presented in every possible way. It only seems to be a "conservative" or "republican" outlet because it is the only outlet that gives fair credence and coverage of the conservative point of view. It only SEEMS biased or different to you because of the failure of the other mainstream networks to do just that...

Why don't you have some more kool-aid.. ;)

Your posts prove you don't see both sides, listening to Fox you couldn't know there are two sides. You've got red on your chin.

gunns

06-02-2006, 06:15 PM

Name another network that gives fair and equal treatment to both conservatives and liberals? (ie "both sides")

I'd say that's a matter of opinion. What is fair and equal treatment? One that bashes Bush's critics, sucks up Bush's excuses and reasoning and lambasts Clinton? Or one that says the WMD debacle was a CIA mess, Bush was given bad intelligence and then has the former deputy director of the CIA on telling us that Bush was told that there was no real evidence and not to bring out the story of the yellow uranium? I'd say the last one and I didn't hear about that on FOX. Now before you come back and say it's not true, I didn't say it was. But it did present both sides.

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 06:19 PM

Your posts prove you don't see both sides, listening to Fox you couldn't know there are two sides. You've got red on your chin.
How is that? Just because I agree with one of the "sides" doesn't mean they don't present both.. I can see both sides and decide which one makes sense to me based upon the position or argument that is being made. I believe that's how we do things in our type of political system (debate, that is). I don't tie myself slavishly to the right. In fact, I am quite pissed at the admin right now, but not because of issues about the war.. If you actually watch FOX, I don't see how you can honestly say they don't present both sides. I see just as many libs and dems on FOX as the other... What exactly, is your point?!

Edskins_RVA

06-02-2006, 06:22 PM

I'd say that's a matter of opinion. What is fair and equal treatment? One that bashes Bush's critics, sucks up Bush's excuses and reasoning and lambasts Clinton? Or one that says the WMD debacle was a CIA mess, Bush was given bad intelligence and then has the former deputy director of the CIA on telling us that Bush was told that there was no real evidence and not to bring out the story of the yellow uranium? I'd say the last one and I didn't hear about that on FOX. Now before you come back and say it's not true, I didn't say it was. But it did present both sides.
I understand what you are saying.. However, I am telling you from my own experience that i saw and heard both sides of all those issues presented on FOX. There is no monolithic opinion expressed on the network. That is my entire point here! I don't see the same (in many, but not all cases) on the other networks. I see that starting to change now because of FOX's success. If fact, that point is pretty much what started this thread.. LOL

freak6

06-03-2006, 09:57 AM

The warning came on August 6th 2001, it said

"Furthermore, Al Qaeda is in the country, and making preparations consistent with hijackings and other attacks, and they are casing out federal buildings in New York"

Under oath Rice said there was no actionable information in the memo. If you are warned that terrorists are planning to hijack planes, then that is actionable information. She later confessed to warning the FAA about the impending hijackings under oath. Therefore, she perjured herself in the 9/11 hearings. She should be fired, or tortured to death if you're a neo-con I would assume.

The warning was clear, the state of alert was at its absolute highest the entire summer of 2001 even though they decided NOT to warn us about it. Then this memo, and all they did was warn the FAA, rather than secure our airports, screen for terrorists, and warn the public so that our radar could help in stopping the threat.

Then he let Osama get away with it.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sheyqAjPp-k"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sheyqAjPp-k" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Before 9/11 - "I wasn't on point, I didn't FEEL A SENSE OF URGENCY"

After 9/11 - "I'm just not that concerned with him"

freak6

06-03-2006, 10:00 AM

Blueflame

06-03-2006, 12:24 PM

How much do you watch FOX?

I don't watch "FauxNews" at all if it can possibly be avoided... and if it's on in the background when I'm visiting friends, I totally tune it out. I detest being lied to and that's all Fox does.

So I'm a mind-numbed robot?! I watch FOX regularly and see both sides of the issues presented in every possible way. It only seems to be a "conservative" or "republican" outlet because it is the only outlet that gives fair credence and coverage of the conservative point of view. It only SEEMS biased or different to you because of the failure of the other mainstream networks to do just that...

Why don't you have some more kool-aid.. ;)

Where did I call you any names? (mind-numbed robot?) ??? The fact is that studies have shown Fox viewers are consistently misinformed on things like the fictitious, totally spurious (made-up out of whole cloth) Saddam-Al Qaeda "link".

Both sides on Fox, eh? For every "liberal" voice you can name on that network, I could name five conservatives.... ::)

Hate to break it to you, but it ain't me who's addicted to the kool-aid... or blindly believing lies just because somebody on the teevee said it was so... ;)

Blueflame

06-03-2006, 12:28 PM

Where do you get this stuff?! That memo came out in Jan of 01'. Months before 9-11... It was a GENERAL warning about AQ's intentions.. The gov't had been getting the same kinds of warnings since 1998 when Osama "put a jihad on us" (Love that movie!).. (That's 2 years before took office for those of you in Rio Linda) :rofl:

I was referring to the August 6, 2001 memo... while it is entirely possible that Bush and Cheney were on vacation in 1998 (I mean, they have broken Reagan's record for "number of vacation days" since taking office), it seems pretty clear that I was referring to a specific warning that was given during Bush and Cheney's monthlong vacations in August/September 2001.

So you're saying that in response to a "GENERAL warning about AQ's intentions", Attorney General John Ashcroft suddenly decided it wasn't safe for him to fly on commercial aircraft anymore? Or he just had a spontaneous whim that he needed to use chartered planes from then on? Sorry, not buying it.

gunns

06-03-2006, 12:29 PM

You're just a raving lunatic.. Care to make any logical or reasoned points?!

Bush is the one making the illogical and unreasoned points, Bush is the one getting away with criminal activities and you are wanting freak to be the one to make logical or reasoned points. Pot meet kettle.

Blueflame

06-03-2006, 12:31 PM

So, if Bush had warnings about AQ and *let* 9-11 happen, shouldn't one also conclude that Clinton had warnings about AQ in 1993 and *let* the first WTC bombing happen? AQ didn't just come out of hiding in 2001, you know.

Seems to me that those who were responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing were arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and jailed. Where's Osama? ??? Oh, that's right. Bush "isn't terribly concerned about him" and he's free as a bird, still sending us threatening tapes...

Edskins_RVA

06-03-2006, 12:46 PM

I don't watch "FauxNews" at all if it can possibly be avoided... and if it's on in the background when I'm visiting friends, I totally tune it out. I detest being lied to and that's all Fox does.

Where did I call you any names? (mind-numbed robot?) ??? The fact is that studies have shown Fox viewers are consistently misinformed on things like the fictitious, totally spurious (made-up out of whole cloth) Saddam-Al Qaeda "link".

Both sides on Fox, eh? For every "liberal" voice you can name on that network, I could name five conservatives.... ::)

Hate to break it to you, but it ain't me who's addicted to the kool-aid... or blindly believing lies just because somebody on the teevee said it was so... ;)
One question... How would you KNOW if you DON'T WATCH?

Waiting for the tap dancing to begin...

Edskins_RVA

06-03-2006, 12:47 PM

Bush is the one making the illogical and unreasoned points, Bush is the one getting away with criminal activities and you are wanting freak to be the one to make logical or reasoned points. Pot meet kettle. Nice deflection... Any substance to offer?

Blueflame

06-03-2006, 12:52 PM

One question... How would you KNOW if you DON'T WATCH?

Waiting for the tap dancing to begin...

There's a nice little independent film called Outfoxed... would you like to borrow my copy of the DVD? It's very interesting... ;)

My point is fully made with the number of Fox viewers on this thread still claiming that there was a Saddam-Al Qaeda link. ;D

Edskins_RVA

06-03-2006, 12:53 PM

I was referring to the August 6, 2001 memo... while it is entirely possible that Bush and Cheney were on vacation in 1998 (I mean, they have broken Reagan's record for "number of vacation days" since taking office), it seems pretty clear that I was referring to a specific warning that was given during Bush and Cheney's monthlong vacations in August/September 2001.

So you're saying that in response to a "GENERAL warning about AQ's intentions", Attorney General John Ashcroft suddenly decided it wasn't safe for him to fly on commercial aircraft anymore? Or he just had a spontaneous whim that he needed to use chartered planes from then on? Sorry, not buying it.
My apologies.. I thought you were talking about the extremely credible Richard Clarke's memo..

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html

Here is the memo you are referring to.. Can you please take a look and tell us what specific information it contains about an imminent attack? As for Ashcroft, that was a change in his personal policy. Most top gov't members use private or gov't air transport..

Vacation days?! Are you serious? You mean in the middle of the summer when Congress is out of session, the most powerful man in the world can't take a month off after basically being "on-the-clock" 24/7 for the rest of the year? C'mon! What does that have to do with 9-11 anyway.. More obfuscating BS...

Edskins_RVA

06-03-2006, 12:56 PM

There's a nice little independent film called Outfoxed... would you like to borrow my copy of the DVD? It's very interesting... ;)

My point is fully made with the number of Fox viewers on this thread still claiming that there was a Saddam-Al Qaeda link. ;D So an ideological DVD is more proof than actually watching the network itself? OK, if you say so.. I'll just take my own experience, thank you..

You keep pointing to these "phantom" FOX viewers that supposedly believe something that is ..er..actually true! Who here in these debates has said anything like that? (That being that there was a link between Saddam and 9-11, of which there is no proof. There is proof of a link to AQ though.) http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

Why don't you try actually watching a little bit and then maybe you can offer some "honest" criticism..

Blueflame

06-03-2006, 01:03 PM

So an ideological DVD is more proof than actually watching the network itself? OK, if you say so.. I'll just take my own experience, thank you..

You keep pointing to these "phantom" FOX viewers that supposedly believe something that is ..er..actually true! Who here in these debates has said anything like that? (Red Herring)

Why don't you try actually watching a little bit and then maybe you can offer some "honest" criticism..

Ah... so now it's an "ideological DVD".... dismissed outright because it conflicts with your preconceived and entrenched opinion of Fox. :rofl: Okay... :giggle:

I already told you why I don't watch FauxNews... I do not enjoy being lied to and as a parent, my BS detectors are in fine working order. That channel wouldn't last five minutes before setting them off.

Apparently you must have missed a couple of posts in this thread that linked members of the Bush administration stating flatly that no Saddam-Al Qaeda link exists... Here's a hint: FauxNews lies to you!!!

If one knows beyond the shadow of any possible doubt that they're lying, why give them even a second of your valuable time? ??? I can't think of one valid reason to....

Edskins_RVA

06-03-2006, 01:18 PM

Ah... so now it's an "ideological DVD".... dismissed outright because it conflicts with your preconceived and entrenched opinion of Fox. :rofl: Okay... :giggle:

I already told you why I don't watch FauxNews... I do not enjoy being lied to and as a parent, my BS detectors are in fine working order. That channel wouldn't last five minutes before setting them off.

That is not my point.. I'm just asking you how you can believe a DVD over your own supposedly good "BS detector" mind to actually watch and find out for yourself? Maybe I'm not the one with the closed mind afterall...

Apparently you must have missed a couple of posts in this thread that linked members of the Bush administration stating flatly that no Saddam-Al Qaeda link exists... Here's a hint: FauxNews lies to you!!!
Apparently not since you didn't bother to respond to my counter-point link outlining the links between Saddam and AQ.. What is your rebuttal to that?

If one knows beyond the shadow of any possible doubt that they're lying, why give them even a second of your valuable time? ??? I can't think of one valid reason to....
How can you possibly "know" that without examining and experiencing something yourself? Maybe because you can't "tolerate" even hearing opposing ideas?

Edskins_RVA

06-03-2006, 01:23 PM

Apparently you must have missed a couple of posts in this thread that linked members of the Bush administration stating flatly that no Saddam-Al Qaeda link exists... Here's a hint: FauxNews lies to you!!!
I believe you are confusing the admin saying there are no links between Saddam and the attack on 9-11, not tht Saddam had links to AQ linked terrorists..

Blueflame

06-03-2006, 01:28 PM

That is not my point.. I'm just asking you how you can believe a DVD over your own supposedly good "BS detector" mind to actually watch and find out for yourself? Maybe I'm not the one with the closed mind afterall...

Apparently not since you didn't bother to respond to my counter-point link outlining the links between Saddam and AQ.. What is your rebuttal to that?

How can you possibly "know" that without examining and experiencing something yourself? Maybe because you can't "tolerate" even hearing opposing ideas?

The DVD used actual footage from Faux... and memos showing precisely how the "news" is slanted (which stories to "push" and which ones to bury). Why should I waste time watching a network with such a clear and overtly biased agenda? ???

Perhaps I missed your link. Repost it and I'll specifically address it.

Can't tolerate hearing opposing ideas? I'm conversing with you, right? LOL

Blueflame

06-03-2006, 01:29 PM

I believe you are confusing the admin saying there are no links between Saddam and the attack on 9-11, not tht Saddam had links to AQ linked terrorists..

So did America, or perhaps you've forgotten that the 9/11 pilots trained in flight schools right here on our own soil...

Edskins_RVA

06-03-2006, 02:09 PM

The DVD used actual footage from Faux... and memos showing precisely how the "news" is slanted (which stories to "push" and which ones to bury). Why should I waste time watching a network with such a clear and overtly biased agenda? ???
So DVD's and documentary producers can't slant and edit a movie to make a point that matches their preconceived notions? (ie Anything done by Michael Moore)

I'm just asking why you don't trust your own mind and instincts to find out for yourself? As I stated before, Fox's own internal demographic analysis shows that they have more Liberals and Moderates in their audience than Conservatives and Libertarians. How can you explain that?

Perhaps I missed your link. Repost it and I'll specifically address it. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

Can't tolerate hearing opposing ideas? I'm conversing with you, right? LOL Yes, but I have a feeling you are barely tolerating it.. ;)

No, I was just trying to find an explanation as to why you won't even give it a day or week of examination by your own eyes, ears, and brain to see if what you've been told by others is true or not... I've known people (co-workers and friends) who've had the same attitude as you about Fox and what it pretty much came down to was that they really didn't want to hear an honest and fair representation of conservative/libertarian positions. They liked their CNN and network news, who tended to cater to their world/political view. Not so much overtly, but through editorial control (ie what stories and takes will be aired) and by an arrogant assumption that the left-view was "obviously" the right and proper perspective and that conservatives are racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobes that should be derided and laughed at, rather than be taken on seriously and substantively. That has changed quite a bit since the rise of Fox News (and others) and a series of election defeats for the Dems...

Edskins_RVA

06-03-2006, 02:12 PM

So did America, or perhaps you've forgotten that the 9/11 pilots trained in flight schools right here on our own soil...
That's a little twisted, but ok.. I don't think we, as a nation, with full knowledge and agreement decided to train, or allow to be trained, the 9-11 terrorists. That is just and example of the weaknesses of a free and open country. Not to mention, none, but a small few, were aware of and understood the terrorist threat we were facing. We were asleep! And now it seems many of my countrymen & women want to go back to sleep..

Killericon

06-03-2006, 02:12 PM

Fox makes me laugh.

Edskins_RVA

06-03-2006, 02:32 PM

Fox makes me laugh.
Yes, it can be very entertaining at times.. ;)

I just want to state for the record that just because I have been on here defending Fox news, does NOT mean that is my only source for news and information. In fact this whole thread started with me talking about why CNN brought in Glenn Beck to their Headline News network.. Obviously CNN realizes the need to offer a little more to the other half of this nation if they want to compete in the ratings with Fox..

I get my information from numerous sources! Fox just happens to be my default cable new channel. The Net is actually a much better resource..

Blueflame

06-03-2006, 02:43 PM

So DVD's and documentary producers can't slant and edit a movie to make a point that matches their preconceived notions? (ie Anything done by Michael Moore)

I'm just asking why you don't trust your own mind and instincts to find out for yourself? As I stated before, Fox's own internal demographic analysis shows that they have more Liberals and Moderates in their audience than Conservatives and Libertarians. How can you explain that?

Certainly any information source can... and often does... have a bias or slant. But few are as overt and blatant as Faux. And again, Outfoxed uses actual footage that has aired on the network. Yeah, the presentation of those clips can be spun by taking them out of context, but the content is what it is.
From your post, it's clear that you see an "agenda" in Michael Moore's films... but y'know what? He never claims that his films are "fair and balanced". Faux does... while having every bit as transparent an agenda as Michael Moore has.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

I'll visit the link...

Yes, but I have a feeling you are barely tolerating it.. ;)

No, I was just trying to find an explanation as to why you won't even give it a day or week of examination by your own eyes, ears, and brain to see if what you've been told by others is true or not... I've known people (co-workers and friends) who've had the same attitude as you about Fox and what it pretty much came down to was that they really didn't want to hear an honest and fair representation of conservative/libertarian positions. They liked their CNN and network news, who tended to cater to their world/political view. Not so much overtly, but through editorial control (ie what stories and takes will be aired) and by an arrogant assumption that the left-view was "obviously" the right and proper perspective and that conservatives are racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobes that should be derided and laughed at, rather than be taken on seriously and substantively. That has changed quite a bit since the rise of Fox News (and others) and a series of election defeats for the Dems...

That's because you don't really "know" me yet. ;)

I've told you several times now that I have a low tolerance level for lies and misinformation and that... in a nutshell... is why I refuse to watch Faux.

Furthermore, I'm not at all interested in 24/7 coverage of non-news like runaway brides. I have better things to do with my time. ;D

As to a "series of election defeats"... those seem to coincidentally correspond with a series of exponentially-increasing reports of voting irregularities and exit polls that do not match the tabulated vote totals. Until we have voter-verified paper ballots, serious, valid questions of election integrity will continue to plague the country.

Blueflame

06-03-2006, 02:50 PM

That's a little twisted, but ok.. I don't think we, as a nation, with full knowledge and agreement decided to train, or allow to be trained, the 9-11 terrorists. That is just and example of the weaknesses of a free and open country. Not to mention, none, but a small few, were aware of and understood the terrorist threat we were facing. We were asleep! And now it seems many of my countrymen & women want to go back to sleep..

So now our freedom is a "weakness"? ??? Yikes!

Some of us think the terrorist threat we were facing (Osama Bin Laden) should have been captured and brought to justice while our military forces were focused solely on Afghanistan... rather than taking off on a tangent into a new war in an unrelated country and splitting up our resources into efforts on more than one front, effectively allowing Bin Laden to escape, where he is still sending new threats whenever Bush's approval ratings slip too low.

IMHO, it's our complicit media... led by FauxNews... that's singing the lullabyes that are putting our countrymen back into slumberland.

Blueflame

06-03-2006, 03:30 PM

I'm just asking why you don't trust your own mind and instincts to find out for yourself? As I stated before, Fox's own internal demographic analysis shows that they have more Liberals and Moderates in their audience than Conservatives and Libertarians. How can you explain that?

Wouldn't one have to trust "Faux's own internal demographic analysis" to lend any credence to the claims that their audience consists of more liberals and moderates than conservatives and libertarians? I don't "explain" it because I don't buy it for a nanosecond.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

Well, first off, you might as well have linked Newsmax as the Weekly Standard... their agenda is obvious.

The use of the Summary of Evidence (the excuses given for detaining one suspect at Guantanamo) to suggest a much broader connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda seems questionable at best. The article's author elevates allegations to the status of facts and appears to be making the case that those claims should overshadow the findings of the 9/11 Commission.

Allegations against a single uncharged, untried detainee do not constitute proof of a connection.

TexanBob

06-03-2006, 04:14 PM

Certainly any information source can... and often does... have a bias or slant. But few are as overt and blatant as Faux.

You, mean, like CBS News airing obviously fake documents weeks before a presidential election to try to affect the outcome or CNN refusing to report any negative stories about Saddam Hussein because they wanted to keep their Baghdad news bureau (which they also do for Castro, btw)? That sort of overt and blatant bias?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Baby, ALL the news networks are lying to you. Better to just turn them all off.

TexanBob

06-03-2006, 04:28 PM

So now our freedom is a "weakness"? ??? Yikes!

Yes, it is. It's far easier to control things in a totalitarian state. Ask Fidel Castro. It is far easier to be evil than it is to be good. For the same reason, it is far more risky to be "free" than it is to be under dictatorship.

Some of us think the terrorist threat we were facing (Osama Bin Laden) should have been captured and brought to justice while our military forces were focused solely on Afghanistan... rather than taking off on a tangent into a new war in an unrelated country and splitting up our resources into efforts on more than one front, effectively allowing Bin Laden to escape, where he is still sending new threats whenever Bush's approval ratings slip too low.

You might be shocked to realize I agree with you here. We took our eye off the ball going into Iraq when we did. But, to believe that killing Osama would end terrorism is to not understand how extensive and networked these Islamic groups are. As you earlier pointed out, the folks who planned and executed the 1993 WTC bombing were caught, captured and convicted - yet it didn't stop 9-11 from happening, nor the U.S.S. Cole, nor Khobar Tower, etc. Why was that? Because terrorism needs a global response, not just an Afghanistani response. Cleaning up one sandbox wasn't going to stop the Islamic terrorism effort from continuing.

IMHO, it's our complicit media... led by FauxNews... that's singing the lullabyes that are putting our countrymen back into slumberland.

IMHO, it's our complicit media...led by ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, etc.... that refuses to show images of 9-11 after the first few weeks for fear that Americans might be reminded of what happened and who the real enemy is. The media wants Bush to be the enemy, not murdering Islamists so they do all they can to portray Bush as the bad guy - which then accounts for the president's low poll numbers.

Bronco_Beerslug

06-03-2006, 05:08 PM

The media wants Bush to be the enemy, not murdering Islamists so they do all they can to portray Bush as the bad guy - which then accounts for the president's low poll numbers.

LOL

That's one of the greatest accounts of Bush failing the American public I've ever heard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-03-2006, 06:33 PM

How can you possibly "know" that without examining and experiencing something yourself? Maybe because you can't "tolerate" even hearing opposing ideas?

Why tolerate an "opposing idea" like, say, "2+2=5?"

That's what you are peddling here.

Just like when your man Rumsfeld said not only that Iraq had WMD but that he knew where the alleged weapons were located.

BushCo apologists and purveyors of RNC talking points like you have been caught lying so many times you have a serious credibility problem.

Blueflame

06-03-2006, 11:55 PM

You, mean, like CBS News airing obviously fake documents weeks before a presidential election to try to affect the outcome or CNN refusing to report any negative stories about Saddam Hussein because they wanted to keep their Baghdad news bureau (which they also do for Castro, btw)? That sort of overt and blatant bias?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Baby, ALL the news networks are lying to you. Better to just turn them all off.

Was the content of those documents fake? That has never been proven. As to timing, it was two full months before the election... while Bush's opponent's honorable service was being actively "swiftboated". Yeah, that sort of "overt and blatant bias".... ::)

Yeah, I know all of the corporate news media (the best news money can buy) lie to us. And that's why I turned them all off a long time ago. It looks like maybe you didn't... ;D

Blueflame

06-04-2006, 12:09 AM

Yes, it is. It's far easier to control things in a totalitarian state. Ask Fidel Castro. It is far easier to be evil than it is to be good. For the same reason, it is far more risky to be "free" than it is to be under dictatorship.

Seems to me that someone else once said "It would be much easier in a dictatorship... as long as I'm the dictator... or is that "decider"? ???

Freedom is a positive thing, not negative... and it's also been said (not an exact quote) that any man who would willingly exchange freedom for security deserves neither.

You might be shocked to realize I agree with you here. We took our eye off the ball going into Iraq when we did. But, to believe that killing Osama would end terrorism is to not understand how extensive and networked these Islamic groups are. As you earlier pointed out, the folks who planned and executed the 1993 WTC bombing were caught, captured and convicted - yet it didn't stop 9-11 from happening, nor the U.S.S. Cole, nor Khobar Tower, etc. Why was that? Because terrorism needs a global response, not just an Afghanistani response. Cleaning up one sandbox wasn't going to stop the Islamic terrorism effort from continuing.

WE didn't take our eye off the ball by going into Iraq. Bushco did. Because war with Iraq was always going to happen from the moment he was inaugurated. He just needed an excuse. IMO.

IMHO, it's our complicit media...led by ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, etc.... that refuses to show images of 9-11 after the first few weeks for fear that Americans might be reminded of what happened and who the real enemy is. The media wants Bush to be the enemy, not murdering Islamists so they do all they can to portray Bush as the bad guy - which then accounts for the president's low poll numbers.

Led by a network other than the "ratings leader"? I don't think so. Every network is trying to be "Faux2"..... and the reason is sponsor $$.

Bush's low poll numbers are due to the fact that non-rich people (everyone who is not in the top 1%) are genuinely suffering because of his policies and real American soldiers are dying in Iraq because he lied to put them there.

Edskins_RVA

06-04-2006, 12:25 AM

Certainly any information source can... and often does... have a bias or slant. But few are as overt and blatant as Faux. And again, Outfoxed uses actual footage that has aired on the network. Yeah, the presentation of those clips can be spun by taking them out of context, but the content is what it is.
From your post, it's clear that you see an "agenda" in Michael Moore's films... but y'know what? He never claims that his films are "fair and balanced". Faux does... while having every bit as transparent an agenda as Michael Moore has.

I'll visit the link...

That's because you don't really "know" me yet. ;)

I've told you several times now that I have a low tolerance level for lies and misinformation and that... in a nutshell... is why I refuse to watch Faux.

Furthermore, I'm not at all interested in 24/7 coverage of non-news like runaway brides. I have better things to do with my time. ;D

As to a "series of election defeats"... those seem to coincidentally correspond with a series of exponentially-increasing reports of voting irregularities and exit polls that do not match the tabulated vote totals. Until we have voter-verified paper ballots, serious, valid questions of election integrity will continue to plague the country. Ok.. I get it now.. You don't need to actually investigate things for yourself to make absolute decisions about them.. Got it..

Also, EVERYTHING is a CONSPIRACY.. Gotcha..

Edskins_RVA

06-04-2006, 12:29 AM

Why tolerate an "opposing idea" like, say, "2+2=5?"

That's what you are peddling here.

Just like when your man Rumsfeld said not only that Iraq had WMD but that he knew where the alleged weapons were located.

BushCo apologists and purveyors of RNC talking points like you have been caught lying so many times you have a serious credibility problem. Is that counter-point?! LOL

I'm finally realizing that you just are not worth responding to..

Blueflame

06-04-2006, 12:31 AM

Ok.. I get it now.. You don't need to actually investigate things for yourself to make absolute decisions about them.. Got it..

Also, EVERYTHING is a CONSPIRACY.. Gotcha..

You know what they say about assumptions... LOL

Edskins_RVA

06-04-2006, 12:34 AM

You know what they say about assumptions... LOL
How does what I posted contradict what you said in the preceding post?

Blueflame

06-04-2006, 12:45 AM

How does what I posted contradict what you said in the preceding post?

Looked to me like you made a broad assumption... (ie. that I have never, in my life, watched Faux and therefore my opinions of that network can be summarily dismissed)

Edskins_RVA

06-04-2006, 12:45 AM

Looked to me like you made a broad assumption... (ie. that I have never, in my life, watched Faux and therefore my opinions of that network can be summarily dismissed)
That is pretty much what you said..

Blueflame

06-04-2006, 12:50 AM

That is pretty much what you said..

There is a difference between what I said and your interpretation of what I said.

Hey, I don't really care if you like being lied to and want to continue watching propaganda on a daily basis.... it used to be a free country. Don't question our leaders, buy duct tape and plastic sheeting, keep consuming and above all else, fear terror!!!....

Edskins_RVA

06-04-2006, 12:53 AM

There is a difference between what I said and your interpretation of what I said.

Hey, I don't really care if you like being lied to and want to continue watching propaganda on a daily basis.... it used to be a free country. Don't question our leaders, buy duct tape and plastic sheeting, keep consuming and above all else, fear terror!!!....
I don't watch "FauxNews" at all if it can possibly be avoided... and if it's on in the background when I'm visiting friends, I totally tune it out.
I already told you why I don't watch FauxNews... I do not enjoy being lied to and as a parent, my BS detectors are in fine working order. That channel wouldn't last five minutes before setting them off.
in a nutshell... is why I refuse to watch Faux.
Seems like more than an "interpretation" to me.. You can't honestly call FOX news lies, because...one again...you don't "really" watch it..

So who's lying to who?

Blueflame

06-04-2006, 01:00 AM

Seems like more than an "interpretation" to me.. You can't honestly call FOX news lies, because...one again...you don't "really" watch it..

So who's lying to who?

Yeah, keep telling me about that fabricated Saddam-Al Qaeda link...

Edskins_RVA

06-04-2006, 01:03 AM

Yeah, keep telling me about that fabricated Saddam-Al Qaeda link...
You mean the information you refused to consider because it was printed in The Weekly Standard? That's not the only place, it was just the best article.. But it probably doesn't matter as you will dismiss anything I offer if it doesn't come from "BlueFlame-approved" sources.. Just because it's a Conservative magazine doesn't mean they made up the info the article contains.. Hey wait a min! Didn't you condemn me earlier in this thread for dismissing one of your sources?! :twokisses

Edskins_RVA

06-04-2006, 01:06 AM

Blueflame

06-04-2006, 01:11 AM

You mean the information you refused to consider because it was printed in The Weekly Standard? That's not the only place, it was just the best article.. But it probably doesn't matter as you will dismiss anything I offer if it doesn't come from "BlueFlame-approved" sources.. Just because it's a Conservative magazine doesn't mean they made up the info the article contains.. Hey wait a min! Didn't you condemn me earlier in this thread for dismissing one of your sources?! :twokisses

Yeah, there's a huge difference between a heavily rightwing-biased "news" source and an "ideological DVD"... (yeah, right... LOL)

If I am to give credence to Faux or the Weekly Standard or Newsmax, then you agree to accept Buzzflash editorials, Truthout, Capitol Hill Blue, Raw Story, or Bartcop as valid sources? (yeah, right... like that's gonna happen... :giggle: )

Edskins_RVA

06-04-2006, 01:14 AM

Yeah, there's a huge difference between a heavily rightwing-biased "news" source and an "ideological DVD"... (yeah, right... LOL)

If I am to give credence to Faux or the Weekly Standard or Newsmax, then you agree to accept Buzzflash editorials, Truthout, Capitol Hill Blue, Raw Story, or Bartcop as valid sources? (yeah, right... like that's gonna happen... :giggle: )
Exactly! We're both hypocrites for dismissing each other's sources.. Then again, there does to appear to be competing information out there. Maybe it's not a bad lesson for us all to take a step back and make sure you really are considering all sides and info before you blindly believe anything..

I gotta get to bed.. (huge yawn) It's been fun mixing it up with ya.. Nite!

Blueflame

06-04-2006, 01:17 AM

One last shot about Fox.. You rejected my ealier point that Fox has more libs & moderates watching than cons. I got that from the network itself (talked about during broadcasts). If it wasn't true, I'm pretty sure it would take about a nanosecond before certain individuals and organizations would be asking for investigations and/or suing for false representation..

That whole claim smacks of BS to me. Sorry but I'm not buying it. Faux is the propaganda arm of the Republican party... and why would anyone pay good money to attorneys to dispute a meaningless FauxNews "internal demographic analysis"? Most lefties know Faux lies so another one is nothing more than par for the course.

Edskins_RVA

06-04-2006, 01:20 AM

That whole claim smacks of BS to me. Sorry but I'm not buying it. Faux is the propaganda arm of the Republican party... and why would anyone pay good money to attorneys to dispute a meaningless FauxNews "internal demographic analysis"? Most lefties know Faux lies so another one is nothing more than par for the course.
Well... I appreciate your "thoroughly informed" opinion on that, despite totally disagreeing with you.. ;)

I'm surprised you haven't seen it written up on one of your lefty propaganda sites as "another example of how FOX lies.."

Blueflame

06-04-2006, 01:26 AM

Exactly! We're both hypocrites for dismissing each other's sources.. Then again, there does to appear to be competing information out there. Maybe it's not a bad lesson for us all to take a step back and make sure you really are considering all sides and info before you blindly believe anything..

I gotta get to bed.. (huge yawn) It's been fun mixing it up with ya.. Nite!

I don't call it hypocrisy... when a "source" has an obviously discernible agenda, then that source should be considered "tainted" or "biased"... and taken with that proverbial grain of salt and not just accepted at face value.

When there is "competing information", then sometimes one has to personally evaluate which source to believe. With this mendacious administration (read: Karl Rove), the lies have been so overwhelming that if they said the sky was blue at noon on a 90-degree day in July, I think I'd have to go outside and look for myself to confirm an extremely rare occurrence of truthtelling (most likely accidental... :P)

Catch you later... ;D

Blueflame

06-04-2006, 01:30 AM

Well... I appreciate your "thoroughly informed" opinion on that, despite totally disagreeing with you.. ;)

I'm surprised you haven't seen it written up on one of your lefty propaganda sites as "another example of how FOX lies.."

Thank you for your "open minded" analysis. :P Back atcha... Ha!

Oh, btw... nice try on omitting the issue of the integrity of your linked article (author elevated allegations against a single Gitmo detainee into fact). The attempted deflection was unsuccessful.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-04-2006, 07:22 AM

I'm finally realizing that you just are not worth responding to..

I came to the same conclusion about you when it became immediately evident that you were just another purveyor of already-discredited RNC talking points and BushCo spin.

Edskins_RVA

06-04-2006, 12:14 PM

I came to the same conclusion about you when it became immediately evident that you were just another purveyor of already-discredited RNC talking points and BushCo spin.
How easy and convenient for you..

freak6

06-04-2006, 07:39 PM

Edskins_RVA

06-04-2006, 10:29 PM

Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the 1st Infantry Division in northern Iraq in 2004-2005, also called for "a secretary of defense whose instinct and judgment we all trust."

Batiste was one of several retired generals to publicly call for Rumsfeld's resignation in recent months.

Batiste told CNN's "Late Edition" he sees "a direct link between Haditha, the national embarrassment of Abu Ghraib, going on four years now of uncontrollable chaos in Iraq, with the bad judgment, poor decisions of our secretary of defense back in late 2003 and 2004."

"We went in under-resourced, overcommitted. And the strain on the force is unbelievable," Batiste said.
Are you familiar with Rumsfelds's "Transformation of the Military" plan he has been implementing over the last several years? Do you realize that it is ruffling A LOT of feathers at the Pentagon and DOD? Do you have any idea how this is playing out behind the scenes?

You need to look deeper into things to get the full story..

Blueflame

06-05-2006, 12:23 AM

Are you familiar with Rumsfelds's "Transformation of the Military" plan he has been implementing over the last several years? Do you realize that it is ruffling A LOT of feathers at the Pentagon and DOD? Do you have any idea how this is playing out behind the scenes?

You need to look deeper into things to get the full story..

Rumsfailed has a plan? Wow... could've fooled me.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-05-2006, 12:32 AM

Do you realize that it is ruffling A LOT of feathers at the Pentagon and DOD?

Gross incompetence and mismanagement tend to do that.

freak6

06-06-2006, 10:53 AM

this edskins tool isn't worth arguing with since he refuses to comment on the numerous videos showing without a doubt the lies of this administration.

The Divided States of Embarrassment indeed.

55CrushEm

06-06-2006, 11:00 AM

the national embarrassment of Abu Ghraib

That's pretty funny....that libs like you have their panties in a twist about this ridiculous incident....it was prison porn.....but I forgot that you are still more concerned with the welfare of terrorists than the safety of the nation.

Besides, the worst thing that happened to these terrorists in prison.....you and others would pay top dollar to have done to you at the Bunny Ranch in Las Vegas.....

TheDave

06-06-2006, 11:12 AM

That's pretty funny....that libs like you have their panties in a twist about this ridiculous incident....it was prison porn.....but I forgot that you are still more concerned with the welfare of terrorists than the safety of the nation.

Besides, the worst thing that happened to these terrorists in prison.....you and others would pay top dollar to have done to you at the Bunny Ranch in Las Vegas.....

Crush, you need to stop listening to Rush ... there was alot more to Abu Ghraib than "prison porn"

not to mention the vast majority of people there were not terrorists

defenseman

06-06-2006, 11:14 AM

That's pretty funny....that libs like you have their panties in a twist about this ridiculous incident....it was prison porn.....but I forgot that you are still more concerned with the welfare of terrorists than the safety of the nation.

Besides, the worst thing that happened to these terrorists in prison.....you and others would pay top dollar to have done to you at the Bunny Ranch in Las Vegas.....

Well, if I had my way, nobody would be worried about the terrorists in the prisons, they'd all be shot dead. the only one worried about their welfare would be Allah...dman

Bronco_Beerslug

06-06-2006, 11:15 AM

Crush, you need to stop listening to Rush ... there was alot more to Abu Ghraib than "prison porn"

not to mention the vast majority of people there were not terrorists

Why argue facts with a guy who thinks Iraq attacked us?

TheDave

06-06-2006, 11:17 AM

Why argue facts with a guy who thinks Iraq attacked us?

my bad...

55CrushEm

06-06-2006, 11:43 AM

Why argue facts with a guy who thinks Iraq attacked us?

Yeah.....why argue with the likes of people like you who think that Bush is more evil than Bin Laden....

55CrushEm

06-06-2006, 11:44 AM

Crush, you need to stop listening to Rush ... there was alot more to Abu Ghraib than "prison porn"

not to mention the vast majority of people there were not terrorists

Ummmm....I don't listen to Rush.

55CrushEm

06-06-2006, 11:45 AM

... there was alot more to Abu Ghraib than "prison porn"

Enlighten me......please.

bendog

06-06-2006, 11:52 AM

Well, if I had my way, nobody would be worried about the terrorists in the prisons, they'd all be shot dead. the only one worried about their welfare would be Allah...dman
I don't know, dman. I know a retired Brig Gen who was in a mil police brigade, and he's pretty disgusted with the lack of discipline in abdul grab. I doubt he's very happy with the pentagon's attempt to eliminate the requirement we treat detainees with respect and in a non-humiliating manner. Of course that prolly means we've been violating our own standards by chaining people to floors in freezing prisons in their own waste. But hey, be all that you can be, isn't that the motto.

TheDave

06-06-2006, 11:56 AM

Enlighten me......please.

-Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet.

-Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees.

-Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing.

-Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time.

-Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear.

-Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped.

-Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them.

-Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture.

-A detainee forced to stand on boxesWriting "I am a Rapeist" [sic] on the leg of a detainee alleged to have raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then
photographing him naked.

-Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture.

-A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee

-Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees and MPs posing with cheerful looks.

-Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees.

-Threatening detainees with a loaded 9mm pistol.

-Pouring cold water on naked detainees.

-Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair.

-Threatening male detainees with rape.

-Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell.

-Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

-Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting and severely injuring a detainee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse#Reports_of_abuse_and_tor ture

defenseman

06-06-2006, 12:01 PM

I don't know, dman. I know a retired Brig Gen who was in a mil police brigade, and he's pretty disgusted with the lack of discipline in abdul grab. I doubt he's very happy with the pentagon's attempt to eliminate the requirement we treat detainees with respect and in a non-humiliating manner. Of course that prolly means we've been violating our own standards by chaining people to floors in freezing prisons in their own waste. But hey, be all that you can be, isn't that the motto.

Good point. My point is if they are terrorists and we KNOW they are terrorists, get ever bit of information out of them we can, and relieve them of their right to breath, send them to allah, call it whatever you want. Terrorists are terrorists. They aren't going to stop if allowed to survive. Ensure they don't survive. The rest? Well there is where the argument begins and ends as far as I'm concerned. But the terrorist need to die, simple as that. If you are going to finish the war, then finish it...dman

55CrushEm

06-06-2006, 12:01 PM

-Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear.

-Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped.

-Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them.

-Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture.

Like I said.....prison porn (with a little S&M).

-Threatening detainees with a loaded 9mm pistol.

-Pouring cold water on naked detainees.

OMG.....we are such horrible people....I had no idea.

So according to you our soldiers are worse than the terrorists, is my guess.

My God, I still can't get over the fact that one of our soldiers (gasp) actually slammed a prisoner against the wall......how terrible.

defenseman

06-06-2006, 12:02 PM

What are servicemen and women did at that prison was wrong. Agreed. The fact that we allow living and breathing terrorists to continue to live, is worse from where I sit..dman

TheDave

06-06-2006, 12:04 PM

Like I said.....prison porn (with a little S&M).

OMG.....we are such horrible people....I had no idea.

So according to you our soldiers are worse than the terrorists, is my guess.

My God, I still can't get over the fact that one of our soldiers (gasp) actually slammed a prisoner against the wall......how terrible.

AGAIN... the vast majority of them were civilians. So yes i consider it bad to rape a civilian.

I should of taken slugs advice

defenseman

06-06-2006, 12:11 PM

AGAIN... the vast majority of them were civilians. So yes i consider it bad to rape a civilian.

I should of taken slugs advice

Again, what they did in that prison was wrong. I think we can all agree on that. Vast majority were civilians? In any case, the terrorists (cited, investigated and confirmed) don't need to be there. Put them in the ground where they belong. Rights? They don't have any. They gave them up once they became terrorists and took up arms...dman

24champ

06-06-2006, 12:13 PM

-Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet.

-Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees.

-Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing.

-Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time.

-Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear.

-Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped.

-Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them.

-Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture.

-A detainee forced to stand on boxesWriting "I am a Rapeist" [sic] on the leg of a detainee alleged to have raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then
photographing him naked.

-Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture.

-A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee

-Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees and MPs posing with cheerful looks.

-Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees.

-Threatening detainees with a loaded 9mm pistol.

-Pouring cold water on naked detainees.

-Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair.

-Threatening male detainees with rape.

-Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell.

-Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

-Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting and severely injuring a detainee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse#Reports_of_abuse_and_tor ture
Im going to go with LABF or Spider and say that Wikipedia is not a credible source.

defenseman

06-06-2006, 12:20 PM

Im going to go with LABF or Spider and say that Wikipedia is not a credible source.

Limited uses for sure...dman

bendog

06-06-2006, 12:22 PM

Again, what they did in that prison was wrong. I think we can all agree on that. Vast majority were civilians? In any case, the terrorists (cited, investigated and confirmed) don't need to be there. Put them in the ground where they belong. Rights? They don't have any. They gave them up once they became terrorists and took up arms...dman
I don't agree that "they gave up their rights." I'm not sure we can agree on who is a terrorist. Is bin laden the same as a Palestinian bushwacking a settler who is stealing his land? The contras were no less terrorists than that.

The problem with al queda is that the first WTC trials showed that if we deal with these people via our criminal justice system, they will use it not to defend themselves but to ferret out info to make attacks by their organizations easier. So I'd agree in a sense they gave up their rights, but to me it's more of a question of we just can't afford to give them their rights. For them, I'd go for a military tribunal with a panel of civil and military judges having access to the records of the trial, and the public not being told what went on.

Most of the people we rounded up at abdul grab and even gitmo were taxi drivers and goat herders. The problem with gitmo now is, yeah, we'd like to let all the Taliban grunts out, but we don't have anywhere to send them. It's a practical, not a moral, issue.

alkemical

06-06-2006, 12:24 PM

No but they do give you some sources to get started on your own research.

defenseman

06-06-2006, 12:29 PM

I don't agree that "they gave up their rights." I'm not sure we can agree on who is a terrorist. Is bin laden the same as a Palestinian bushwacking a settler who is stealing his land? The contras were no less terrorists than that.

The problem with al queda is that the first WTC trials showed that if we deal with these people via our criminal justice system, they will use it not to defend themselves but to ferret out info to make attacks by their organizations easier. So I'd agree in a sense they gave up their rights, but to me it's more of a question of we just can't afford to give them their rights. For them, I'd go for a military tribunal with a panel of civil and military judges having access to the records of the trial, and the public not being told what went on.

Most of the people we rounded up at abdul grab and even gitmo were taxi drivers and goat herders. The problem with gitmo now is, yeah, we'd like to let all the Taliban grunts out, but we don't have anywhere to send them. It's a practical, not a moral, issue.

Tribunal is fine with me. Civil judges? Better think twice on that one. If your in a war on terrorism, then it's a war on terrorism and the press is out. Public information on the trials is out of the question. Once convicted, hang them. Simple as that. Then the word gets out, there will be a share that won't be taken alive, then there will be share that desire to continue to live, they'll cooperate. We'll get the info we need quicker and with greater accuracy most likely.....end result...get out of Iraq quicker...dman

bendog

06-06-2006, 12:42 PM

Tribunal is fine with me. Civil judges? Better think twice on that one. If your in a war on terrorism, then it's a war on terrorism and the press is out. Public information on the trials is out of the question. Once convicted, hang them. Simple as that. Then the word gets out, there will be a share that won't be taken alive, then there will be share that desire to continue to live, they'll cooperate. We'll get the info we need quicker and with greater accuracy most likely.....end result...get out of Iraq quicker...dman
I was thinking more along the lines of Nuremburb. Justice Jackson left the Supreme Court to do the prosecuting. I'd be OK with knowing that a small group of civil judges - like Souter, O'Connor or Stevens - was watching. A small list. Political bent isn't an issue, but just people that are more or less mainstream and less on an ideological fringe. I tend to go for lethal injection over hanging. Less messy.

defenseman

06-06-2006, 01:02 PM

I was thinking more along the lines of Nuremburb. Justice Jackson left the Supreme Court to do the prosecuting. I'd be OK with knowing that a small group of civil judges - like Souter, O'Connor or Stevens - was watching. A small list. Political bent isn't an issue, but just people that are more or less mainstream and less on an ideological fringe. I tend to go for lethal injection over hanging. Less messy.

Which cost more, hanging or lethal injection. Then again, i think their religion calls for beheading. They have proved themselves adept at that form of the death penalty, just found 9 heads in baghdad conveniently detatched from the shoulders of their former bodies. If it's good enough for their own means of enforcing the death penalty, maybe they should be subject to the same fate. Messy yes, but effective nonetheless....dman

bendog

06-06-2006, 01:27 PM

Well that's really the issue. Our values. And that's what makes Abdul Grab and not allowing basic dignity and non-torture to detainees so harmful to our cause. Post 9-11 we had great sympathy from many arabs. The people who were killed were innocents, even if you assume that the US/West policy towards muslim countries is somehow unfair.

We really had no choice in afghan, and we really have no practical way to let the Taliban grunts go home. They would most likely attack the soldiers there.

We cannot give al queda suspects criminal trials without endangering the US.

But we can attempt to treat people in accordance with our, not thier, notions of the value of human life and individual rights. Bin laden doesn't believe in either. We won the cold war because communist economies could not compete, but for all political purposes it was over the minute Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachav tear down this wall."

DBruleU

06-06-2006, 01:54 PM

this edskins tool isn't worth arguing with since he refuses to comment on the numerous videos showing without a doubt the lies of this administration.

The Divided States of Embarrassment indeed.

You know you lose all credibility when you talk that way in a civil debate, right?

You do more damage to yourself when you talk that way during a debate.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

06-06-2006, 03:05 PM

Im going to go with LABF or Spider and say that Wikipedia is not a credible source.

I never said Wikipedia was not a credible source, but trifles like truth and the facts have never stood in the way of your false claims, erroneous assumptions, and all-around willfull ignorance.

The images, Rumsfeld told Congress, depict "acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhuman." After Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) viewed some of them in a classified briefing, he testified that his "stomach gave out." NBC News reported that they show "American soldiers beating one prisoner almost to death, apparently raping a female prisoner, acting inappropriately with a dead body, and taping Iraqi guards raping young boys." Everyone who saw the photographs and videos seemed to shudder openly when contemplating what the reaction would be when they eventually were made public.

Officials have given two legal reasons for suppressing images of prisoner abuse: "unwarranted invasion of privacy" and the potential impact on law enforcement..

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/040105Z.shtml

But we all know the real reason - if people see what Bush's bloody invasion has caused, even the right-wing, "Bush 'til the Rapture" super-Christians might agree that murder and raping young boys is wrong.

Can't have that.

New Photos BushCo Doesn't Want You to See From Abu Ghraib:

Some of the 60 previously unpublished photographs that BushCo has been fighting to keep secret in a court case with the American Civil Liberties Union.

http://smh.com.au/ftimages/2006/02/1...890768716.html

Once you've seen those, you're prepped for this BBC documentary:

Torture: The Dirty Business:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8580.htm

This is beyond shocking.

bcbronc

06-06-2006, 03:29 PM

Well... I appreciate your "thoroughly informed" opinion on that, despite totally disagreeing with you.. ;)

I'm surprised you haven't seen it written up on one of your lefty propaganda sites as "another example of how FOX lies.."

i don't think it counts as 'lefty propaganda', and it's not related to politics, but what about whole fox news vs monsanto situation? it's pretty conclusive evidence that fox news cares less about 'truth' and more about keeping revenue at it's maximum. they probably didn't cover the story on fox though, so here is a link:

http://media.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q4/story.html

of course, i would say this is the problem with all maintstream american media. some slant to the left, some to the right, but all only offer fluff and catch-phrases in place of actual in-depth coverage of current events.

Edskins_RVA

06-06-2006, 05:11 PM

i don't think it counts as 'lefty propaganda', and it's not related to politics, but what about whole fox news vs monsanto situation? it's pretty conclusive evidence that fox news cares less about 'truth' and more about keeping revenue at it's maximum. they probably didn't cover the story on fox though, so here is a link:

http://media.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q4/story.html
Actually I am quite familiar with this. My Aunt, how do I say this, could almost be considered an activist when it comes to natural foods, medicines, railing against big Food, cosmetic companies and the like, so I've been informed about this and others in the same category, whether I wanted to or not.. :)
I can't really buy this as a conspiracy or some sort of sinister motivation or bias, but I can honestly say that I have not seen this story covered on Fox (yet)..

of course, i would say this is the problem with all maintstream american media. some slant to the left, some to the right, but all only offer fluff and catch-phrases in place of actual in-depth coverage of current events. I couldn't agree more! That is why I keep having to remind people that I get my information from many sources (mostly books, net, and educational tv). Though I do defend FOX (cause somebody has to around here!:)), I have never claimed they produce perfection or stated that I treat anything that comes from it as divine truth. Like someone said in one of the other threads, it count's for about 10%.. Though I still maintain that FOX does a better job of being balanced than anyone else in the MsM.. Their ratings dominance may back that up..

24champ

06-06-2006, 06:18 PM

I never said Wikipedia was not a credible source, but trifles like truth and the facts have never stood in the way of your false claims, erroneous assumptions, and all-around willfull ignorance.
So are you saying Wikipedia is a credible source? I know Spider ruled it out as not credible.

bcbronc

06-06-2006, 09:10 PM

Actually I am quite familiar with this. My Aunt, how do I say this, could almost be considered an activist when it comes to natural foods, medicines, railing against big Food, cosmetic companies and the like, so I've been informed about this and others in the same category, whether I wanted to or not.. :)
I can't really buy this as a conspiracy or some sort of sinister motivation or bias, but I can honestly say that I have not seen this story covered on Fox (yet)..

it may not show 'sinister motivation', but it clearly shows that fox news doesn't hold reporting the truth as their number 1 goal. some quotes from the article:

Never mind that I carried a milk crate full of documentation to support every word of our proposed broadcast. Our story was pulled again, and if not dead, it was clearly on life support as Fox's own attorneys and top-level managers, fearful of a legal challenge or losing advertiser support, looked for some way to discreetly pull the plug.

The station where we worked had recently been purchased by Fox, and we soon discovered that the new management had a radically different definition of media responsibility than anything we had previously encountered in our journalistic careers. As Fox took control, it fired the station manager who had originally hired us and replaced him with Dave Boylan, a career salesman devoid of any roots in journalism and seemingly lacking in the devotion to serving the public interest which motivates all good investigative reporting.

In other words, would we leak details of the pressure from Monsanto that led to a coverup of what the station had already ballyhooed as important health information every customer should know?

It was suddenly and unmistakably clear that Boylan's biggest concern was the concern of every salesman, no matter what product he peddles: image. He understood that it could not be good for the station's image if word leaked out that powerful advertisers backed by threatening attorneys could actually determine what gets on the six o'clock news--and what gets swept under the rug.

Three months after we were fired and six weeks after we filed our lawsuit, the station finally got around to airing an rBGH story, filled with many of the same lies and distortions that Steve and I refused to broadcast. The reports, aired by a young and inexperienced reporter, looked to us like nothing more than damage control instigated by Fox attorneys.

obviously this is just one situation, but it certainly does enough to cause me to have some serious doubts about fox news' credibility.

Edskins_RVA

06-06-2006, 09:17 PM

-Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet.

-Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees.

-Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing.

-Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time.

-Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear.

-Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped.

-Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them.

-Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture.

-A detainee forced to stand on boxesWriting "I am a Rapeist" [sic] on the leg of a detainee alleged to have raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then
photographing him naked.

-Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture.

-A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee

-Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees and MPs posing with cheerful looks.

-Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees.

-Threatening detainees with a loaded 9mm pistol.

-Pouring cold water on naked detainees.

-Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair.

-Threatening male detainees with rape.

-Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell.

-Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

-Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting and severely injuring a detainee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse#Reports_of_abuse_and_tor ture Dude! This is no different than 2 weeks in Amsterdam!!
Ok, so what's the BAD stuff?! ;)

Edskins_RVA

06-06-2006, 09:19 PM

AGAIN... the vast majority of them were civilians. So yes i consider it bad to rape a civilian.

I should of taken slugs advice
Most terrorist are technically "civillian". They usually aren't part of any organized military organization.. So what's your point about civilians?

Spider

06-06-2006, 09:21 PM

So are you saying Wikipedia is a credible source? I know Spider ruled it out as not credible.
yeah I am funny that way , a source gets caught putting out false info , and I dont trust em .. truthout i dont trust either after that Rove story ........ but no one has any problem with that , just Wikipedia ...... pretty funny how that works huh

Edskins_RVA

06-06-2006, 09:25 PM

it may not show 'sinister motivation', but it clearly shows that fox news doesn't hold reporting the truth as their number 1 goal. some quotes from the article:

obviously this is just one situation, but it certainly does enough to cause me to have some serious doubts about fox news' credibility. If this guy was as intense and creepy when talking about this subject as my aunt, I can almost see why they might write him off.. ;D

Also, I think FOX's motto is "Fair and Balanced", not "truth as their number 1 goal". I'm sure truth is their and all other media outlets' goal. How effective they are is subjective, depending on your perspective (as this board clearly demonstrates)..