Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

I must commend Professor Hobibit for showing that FAIR is definitely a right wing organization. Therefore, there can be no question of Bias in the FAIR article from the right.

0 Replies

I personally don't like the connections Clarke has to the Clintons, and wonder if he isn't just the Dem equivalent of Bush...somone who will be a "business as usual, make sure we get our cut," candidate. I also don't trust a man who, again in my opinion, represents the backstabbing carreerism of the modern military. This would also play into the aspect of Clarke as Democrat Stepford candidate.

0 Replies

Italgato wrote:

I must commend Professor Hobibit for showing that FAIR is definitely a right wing organization. Therefore, there can be no question of Bias in the FAIR article from the right.

Read their statement of purpose. FAIR is most definately not a right wing organization.

0 Replies

Italgato, Follow Butrfly's lead, and you'll enjoy A2K a great deal more.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Hi Butrfly, Will be down your way next weekend for a junior high school reunion. Haven't seen some of these guys in almost fifty years. Gawd, I'm get'n old!

Heh... my high school class had it's 31st reunion last month while I was in Boston visiting my dad.

When I have some time, I plan to take a look at the Classmates website to see if anyone posted any photos or links from the reunion.

This year they decided to combine 10 years worth of classes for the reunion since our numbers are so quickly dwindling. I'm afraid the Vietnam and hippy dippy years of our youth are taking quite a toll on our peers.

It's yet another reason to have some concerns about these conflicts the young men and women of our country keep finding themselves in. The baby boomers will be retiring in a few years and the economy will be counting on a lot of those Mid Eastern war veterans to be healthy enough to fill the void.

0 Replies

Butryfly: I understand you don't see any need to read about Clark. I, on the other hand do.

Why?

Since the initial reaction to Clark seems to be favorable, I merely wished to point out that
DOCUMENTATION
I did document carefully clearly shows that Clark, as I have said, either lied or has a bad memory.

Now, of course, as you say, BTRYF. Clark may have changed his mind., He should then say so but he cannot abjure that which is on the record.

I am of the opinion that when what is on the record becomes widely known to all; when Tim Russert asks him about the statements made a couple of months ago, his star will shine much more dimly.

Now, Btyfl.

I am glad you don't want to play gotcha. But you are the one that mentioned some alleged misquotes by me from the president's speech. As you will recall, I do not mind being called on and I do not mind if someone claims my quote is not accurate since as I said, I am confident that my research is accurate 98% of the time.

As I indicated, i do not mind if it is pointed out to me.

Now, since you, Btryfly, indicate you want to learn, may I respectfully point out my 12:40 am post on Clark's lies or forgetfulness. If you do not trust my replications, you may, if you wish, go to the link I gave. If you do not want to learn that now, be patient. I probably will be posting some of the comments Clark made to CNN in the spring about Iraq on these posts over and over as time goes on.

Cheers- Brtyfl.

0 Replies

I didn't say I wasn't interested in reading about Clark. What I said was that I have no urgent need to look for transcripts of his interviews and speeches to verify what is being reported about him. If elections were in a few weeks, the urgency would be much greater.

As for the FAIR article you excerpted from, all it does is reference other news articles that other news agencies have interpreted. That isn't reporting, that is mimicking a source who mimicked other sources.

What I will do, if they are available, is look for transcripts or the video clips of those interviews and speeches and form my own conclusions rather then rely on second and third hand excerpts.

I just won't do it on demand for you, this evening. I'm having too much fun in other threads socializing with the friendships I've made here on A2K.

As for this:

Quote:

I am glad you don't want to play gotcha. But you are the one that mentioned some alleged misquotes by me from the president's speech. As you will recall, I do not mind being called on and I do not mind if someone claims my quote is not accurate since as I said, I am confident that my research is accurate 98% of the time.

I'll borrow from Ronald Reagan and just say "Well, there you go again, Italgato." What was my mention of your inaccuracy in response to? I believe it was in response to your asking me how I would handle the correction of a factual error in a post made by Dyslexia. I responded with an example of an error I noticed and how I, in fact, did handle it. Please don't turn it around and paint me as the bad guy for responding to YOUR request for advice on how to handle calling someone on an error.

If you really want your error referenced, I'll send it in a PM to you tomorrow. I don't think it is necessary to do so on the boards. For one thing, it is pickyune to do so, and for another, in the grand scheme of things, it really makes no difference at all to the discussion, that's why I did not do so publically.

0 Replies

Just as an observation, Italgato... I have yet to use any derogatory names or bastardizations of your name in reference to you. On the other hand, I curiously note that you have yet to use Butrflynet in any of your posts when referring to me. It's always some bastardized shortcut or misspelling of the name. For someone so big on respect, how about we start with the correct use of our names and work upward from there. Eh?

0 Replies

Butrflynet

Continue as you please, but be appraised that this fellow serves no positive or useful purpose in our community. I recommend that you ignore him completely.

0 Replies

It's time for you children to be put inthe corner with a dunce cap on. With all your professed education your are acting like vindictive children.

0 Replies

If it isn't a lie, then what is it?

Quote:

Yahoo! News

Quote:

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

whitehouse.gov

(I'm betting a certain someone cannot answer the question I pose without referring to Bush's predecessor.)

0 Replies

Good morning everyone Very Happy

0 Replies

PD

Excellent research, my man.

0 Replies

Hey, didn't we already know that? What is more sad is that the majority of American People are still convinced it was a good thing to help the Iraqi People. Forget the original justification.

0 Replies

I don't see a lie. Neither would any court of law. Couts, in fact, are known for being punctillious about what actually was said or written, regardless of possible implication or inference. That's why lawyerspeak is so convoluted ... they leave no opening for misunderstanding (which makes their stuff very hard for the layman to understand Rolling Eyes

)

0 Replies

ci

You know, that's the most repugnant corner of this PR campaign to legitimize what was planned, and what has now been done. For me, one of the very very few justifications for military intervention in another country is human rights issues.

0 Replies

blatham, "Human rights issues" is a good ideal, but very unrealistic in this world. India still kills millions of its girl babies every year. Many countries in Africa are still run by dictators responsible for many human rights violations. I'm not so sure that we can be the world's policeman to cure all the human rights violations in this world. Just trying to provide food and medical care is daunting enough - IMHO.

0 Replies

And, there's still slavery in the good ole USA - not to mention the vast amounts elsewhere........ :sad:

0 Replies

timber, Is that why our country believes in jury trials? Because us laymen can't understand lawyer-speak? hmmmm...interesting concept.

0 Replies

You know, but the damndest thing happened. My brother is a lawyer, and I understand what he says.

0 Replies

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know