Roxxxanne wrote:okie wrote:Take a look in the mirror, Dems. You are going headlong into nominating the crook, Hillary, of famed history of corruption. No matter how much they run your party like the mafia, it apparently doesn't matter?
OMG! It's like the tide coming in, we can always count on Okie for mindlessness. What crime has Hillary Clinton been convicted of?
When was Bush convicted of a crime?
You and others have called him corrupt,so when was he convicted of a crime?
Darth War_dodger has created the sub-prime fiasco as he tried to hide the enormous cost of the war at clip of $2 billion a week.
Some people's simplistic mind refuses to acknowedge the reality world. Not all who commit crimes are convicted.
okie wrote:Take a look in the mirror, Dems. You are going headlong into nominating the crook, Hillary, of famed history of corruption. No matter how much they run your party like the mafia, it apparently doesn't matter?
Hillary won't get my vote. I really like the health care plan she proposed in the early '90s, but I see her as the ethical equivalent of a black hole.
Hillary is terrible. She:
Lied us into a war.
Ran up a massive national debt.
Introduced torture.
Politicized the Justice Dept.
Gained the hatred of the world.
Outed a CIA spy.
Allowed bin-Laden to escape.
Etc., etc.
Wait, that wasn't Hillary. It was Bush.
Advocate wrote:Hillary is terrible. She:
Lied us into a war.
Ran up a massive national debt.
Introduced torture.
Politicized the Justice Dept.
Gained the hatred of the world.
Outed a CIA spy.
Allowed bin-Laden to escape.
Etc., etc.
Wait, that wasn't Hillary. It was Bush.
Bush didn't lie any more than any other politician or president.
All presidents try to run up a debt. Newt Gingrich forced Clinton to curb his spending excesses. If you don't like the debt, take a look at him if he runs. He might be the only president who would truly be interested in balancing the budget.
Al-Qa'ida leaders need to be tortured. That's what they get for being al-Qa'ida leaders.
I recall the Clintons making some questionable firings of US attorneys when they came into power.
We don't have the hatred of the world. We have the hatred of anti-American trash, who would hate us regardless of what Bush did.
Bush didn't out a spy, and it's pretty much the Democrats' fault that Libby had to have his sentence commuted. If they hadn't given Clinton a pass for lying under oath, Bush wouldn't have seen such an injustice in letting Libby serve his time.
Bush didn't "allow" bin Ladn to escape.
Okie, you got to stop believing Hannity.
Thu, Aug 23, 2007 11:56am ET
Hannity claimed it was "not true" that "our troops are killing civilians, air raiding villages" in Afghanistan
Summary: Fox News' Sean Hannity asserted that Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) statement that "our troops are killing civilians, air raiding villages" is "not true." However, U.S. air strikes in Afghanistan -- and accounts of resulting civilian casualties -- have been widely reported in the media and have reportedly provoked criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and others.
On the August 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, during a discussion with former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele and former Clinton White House counsel Lanny Davis, co-host Sean Hannity asserted that Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) statement that "our troops are killing civilians, air raiding villages" is "not true." As co-host Alan Colmes suggested later in the program, Hannity was apparently referring to Obama's August 13 remark that "[w]e've got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." Hannity provided no evidence to support his assertion that Obama's comments are "not true." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted in response to Hannity's earlier mischaracterization of Obama's comments, U.S. air strikes in Afghanistan -- and accounts of resulting civilian casualties -- have been widely reported in the media and have reportedly provoked criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a British commander stationed there. Additionally, as the Associated Press reported in a "Fact Check" responding to conservative attacks on Obama, "Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents." Further, in a July 7 article on NATO and U.S. air strikes reported to have killed more than 100 Afghan civilians, Reuters cited the assessment of military analysts that "a shortage of ground troops means commanders often turn to air power."
Also during the segment, Hannity mischaracterized two of Obama's earlier statements on foreign policy, claiming that Obama "says he takes nukes off the table," and that Obama said he "is going bomb an ally in the war on terror, [Pakistan President] General [Pervez] Musharraf, and possibly invade them." From this, Hannity concluded that Obama is "finished" as a presidential contender. As Media Matters noted, Hannity made similar claims on the August 14 edition of Hannity & Colmes by asserting that Obama has stated his "willingness to invade an ally against their will," referring to Pakistan, and asserting that Obama has said "he would take away the nuclear deterrent that we've had in this country."
However, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, Obama never said he would "bomb an ally in the war on terror, General Musharraf," nor has he claimed that he would "invade Pakistan." Rather, Obama stated in an August 1 speech: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [in Pakistan] and President Musharraf won't act, we will." Further, Obama never stated that he would "take[] nukes off the table" entirely, nor did he claim that he would "take away the nuclear deterrent that we've had in this country." Rather, Obama said he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, specifically.
From the August 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: One of the things, I would have preferred that Barack Obama had turned out to be a stronger candidate. For some reason, [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY], when she called him naive and irresponsible when he said he would meet with Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-Il and no preconditions. Then he says he takes nukes off the table. You know, the idea that he is going bomb an ally in the war on terror, General Musharraf, or possibly invade them, you know. Now this, he said, you know, our troops are air raiding villages and killing civilians. He's finished. He's done. She's got the nomination. I wish he were a stronger candidate, because now Hillary will just be after the Republicans.
DAVIS: Well, first of all, I have a great deal of admiration for Senator Obama's theme which is the theme of my book, that gotcha politics is destroying America and that both parties have to learn to have civil debate the solve people's problem. I think Hillary has the experience to make change happen as opposed to Senator Obama, who is a future great candidate but not right now.
HANNITY: You know something, I'm listening to Lanny Davis, Michael, and I believe he's sincere. But it's kind of hard to believe the Democrats are capable of it: The president is a liar, Barack Obama saying our troops are killing civilians, air raiding villages, not true. [Sen.] John Kerry [D-MA] made some other statements, [Rep. John P.] Murtha [D-PA] has made them. The most vitriol is coming from the left and from high-ranking Democrats today.
STEELE: Well, that's always the case. And, you know, I quite frankly took Hillary Clinton's flip- flop, if you will, to heart. I think as Republicans we should be lauding her, you know, coming around to common sense and waiting to see the surge unfold and in fact acknowledging, begrudgingly, but acknowledging, that there has been progress made. So I'm less concerned about that part of it.
[...]
COLMES: Michael, you know, the Republicans -- I should say Democrats keep getting blamed for accusing the troops of doing these horrible things. Barack Obama said we have to get the job done in Afghanistan. And that requires us to have enough troops so we are not air raiding villages and killing civilians. That was what Barack Obama said. What John Kerry said was backed up by the Red Cross, that there were civilians who were being terrorized.
But, you know, Hillary Clinton was quite clear and she said that it's working in Anbar Province. She said, "But we have to make sure that the Iraqi government is involved doing the right thing or there is no point, and we have to start getting our troops out of a civil war." And that is no different than what she said in January when she said pursuing a strategy that under present circumstances cannot be successful, those circumstances being the Iraqi government. There was no flip-flopping here, Michael.
--mediamatters.org
I read the first one and I immediately recognized the spin and the lack of need I go any further with the idiocy of your supposed Bush lies.
Staying the course was used in two different contexts. One being we will finish the job, the other being the tactics used. Bush says we will stay the course in winning Iraq, but we will not stay the course in terms of each and every tactic. Not a difficult concept, and if all of the interview was recorded, that would probably be clear. Anyone can be caught lying if their words are taken out of context.
If a boxer throws a left hook instead of rights to the body as he had been doing, is that staying the course? You are no rocket scientist, imposter, but hopefully you could figure that one out.
okie: I read the first one and I immediately recognized the spin and the lack of need I go any further with the idiocy of your supposed Bush lies.
Typical conservative strawman; can't challenge the statements, only generalities about "immediately reconized the spin." Makes me wonder how they ever graduated from school.
I will look at the rest of them with more time, but the first one was a big flop, imposter. And I will rebut Advocate's Hannity lies. I agree with Hannity about 90%.
cicerone imposter wrote:okie: I read the first one and I immediately recognized the spin and the lack of need I go any further with the idiocy of your supposed Bush lies.
Typical conservative strawman; can't challenge the statements, only generalities about "immediately reconized the spin." Makes me wonder how they ever graduated from school.
I waded through the first 5, imposter, and they never got any better than the first one, which is not a lie. All of them appear to be nothing more than political spin and opinion, not any evidence of any lie. It appears to be something out of a leftist or terrorist sympathizers handbook. You are batting zero. Advocate's Hannity lie accusation is more interesting. I am going to critique it, because I like Hannity, he is a good guy.
cicerone imposter wrote:okie: I read the first one and I immediately recognized the spin and the lack of need I go any further with the idiocy of your supposed Bush lies.
Typical conservative strawman; can't challenge the statements, only generalities about "immediately reconized the spin." Makes me wonder how they ever graduated from school.
okie, You seem really dense; you definitely missed what I wrote.
Again,
"...can't challenge the statements, only generalities about "immediately reconized the spin.."
Advocate wrote:Okie, you got to stop believing Hannity.
I like Hannity. He is bombastic and maybe gets a little carried away at times, but he is essentially correct in the following conversation.
Quote:Thu, Aug 23, 2007 11:56am ET
Hannity claimed it was "not true" that "our troops are killing civilians, air raiding villages" in Afghanistan
Summary: Fox News' Sean Hannity asserted that Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) statement that "our troops are killing civilians, air raiding villages" is "not true." However, U.S. air strikes in Afghanistan -- and accounts of resulting civilian casualties -- have been widely reported in the media and have reportedly provoked criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and others.
I heard Hannity when he said this, and my thought was that Obama made it sound like we are intentionally air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is not true, so Hannity is entirely correct. In any war, there is collateral damage and even our own troops are often killed, but would it make sense for somebody to say we are killing our own troops and air raiding our own units? Obviously not. Obama misrepresented what has happened and Hannity pointed it out. You need to understand the context of what was said. Hannity should have pointed out that sometimes civilians are accidentally killed and a bomb can sometimes drop in the wrong place, but these incidents are pretty few and far between and totally by accident. This is far different than what Obama casually implied.
Quote:On the August 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, during a discussion with former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele and former Clinton White House counsel Lanny Davis, co-host Sean Hannity asserted that Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) statement that "our troops are killing civilians, air raiding villages" is "not true." As co-host Alan Colmes suggested later in the program, Hannity was apparently referring to Obama's August 13 remark that "[w]e've got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." Hannity provided no evidence to support his assertion that Obama's comments are "not true." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted in response to Hannity's earlier mischaracterization of Obama's comments, U.S. air strikes in Afghanistan -- and accounts of resulting civilian casualties -- have been widely reported in the media and have reportedly provoked criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a British commander stationed there. Additionally, as the Associated Press reported in a "Fact Check" responding to conservative attacks on Obama, "Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents." Further, in a July 7 article on NATO and U.S. air strikes reported to have killed more than 100 Afghan civilians, Reuters cited the assessment of military analysts that "a shortage of ground troops means commanders often turn to air power."
Again, the same points apply. Hannity should have put things into context a little better, but Obama was way off the mark and deserved to be criticized for it. I also suspicion that terrorist sympathizers like to report civilian deaths when it is in reality a terrorist camp. That is not always the case, but I would venture to say that some claimed civilian deaths and bombed villages were in fact terrorist camps or sympathizers. I don't know the percentage, but know that ploy would be in their playbook of waging war of public opinion.
Quote:Also during the segment, Hannity mischaracterized two of Obama's earlier statements on foreign policy, claiming that Obama "says he takes nukes off the table," and that Obama said he "is going bomb an ally in the war on terror, [Pakistan President] General [Pervez] Musharraf, and possibly invade them." From this, Hannity concluded that Obama is "finished" as a presidential contender. As Media Matters noted, Hannity made similar claims on the August 14 edition of Hannity & Colmes by asserting that Obama has stated his "willingness to invade an ally against their will," referring to Pakistan, and asserting that Obama has said "he would take away the nuclear deterrent that we've had in this country."
However, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, Obama never said he would "bomb an ally in the war on terror, General Musharraf," nor has he claimed that he would "invade Pakistan." Rather, Obama stated in an August 1 speech: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [in Pakistan] and President Musharraf won't act, we will." Further, Obama never stated that he would "take[] nukes off the table" entirely, nor did he claim that he would "take away the nuclear deterrent that we've had in this country." Rather, Obama said he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, specifically.
From the August 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: One of the things, I would have preferred that Barack Obama had turned out to be a stronger candidate. For some reason, [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY], when she called him naive and irresponsible when he said he would meet with Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-Il and no preconditions. Then he says he takes nukes off the table. You know, the idea that he is going bomb an ally in the war on terror, General Musharraf, or possibly invade them, you know. Now this, he said, you know, our troops are air raiding villages and killing civilians. He's finished. He's done. She's got the nomination. I wish he were a stronger candidate, because now Hillary will just be after the Republicans.
I agree with Hannity. He did not go into detail, but he is correct that Obama apparently takes nukes off the table for certain things, which is not a wise thing for a commander in chief. Not a lie, but he could have provided more explanation. Also, bombing a terrorist camp in Pakistan, apparently unilaterally without consulting Pakistan first, is a very stupid proposal in my opinion and Hannity was correct in criticizing it. Some people have said he was wrong because bombing is not invading, which is a decent point, but if some other country bombed us, we might consider it the same as invading. Invasion can come by ground or it can come by air, and they are both invasions. I think Hannity is very correct in his overall criticism.
Quote:DAVIS: Well, first of all, I have a great deal of admiration for Senator Obama's theme which is the theme of my book, that gotcha politics is destroying America and that both parties have to learn to have civil debate the solve people's problem. I think Hillary has the experience to make change happen as opposed to Senator Obama, who is a future great candidate but not right now.
HANNITY: You know something, I'm listening to Lanny Davis, Michael, and I believe he's sincere. But it's kind of hard to believe the Democrats are capable of it: The president is a liar, Barack Obama saying our troops are killing civilians, air raiding villages, not true. [Sen.] John Kerry [D-MA] made some other statements, [Rep. John P.] Murtha [D-PA] has made them. The most vitriol is coming from the left and from high-ranking Democrats today.
STEELE: Well, that's always the case. And, you know, I quite frankly took Hillary Clinton's flip- flop, if you will, to heart. I think as Republicans we should be lauding her, you know, coming around to common sense and waiting to see the surge unfold and in fact acknowledging, begrudgingly, but acknowledging, that there has been progress made. So I'm less concerned about that part of it.
[...]
COLMES: Michael, you know, the Republicans -- I should say Democrats keep getting blamed for accusing the troops of doing these horrible things. Barack Obama said we have to get the job done in Afghanistan. And that requires us to have enough troops so we are not air raiding villages and killing civilians. That was what Barack Obama said. What John Kerry said was backed up by the Red Cross, that there were civilians who were being terrorized.
But, you know, Hillary Clinton was quite clear and she said that it's working in Anbar Province. She said, "But we have to make sure that the Iraqi government is involved doing the right thing or there is no point, and we have to start getting our troops out of a civil war." And that is no different than what she said in January when she said pursuing a strategy that under present circumstances cannot be successful, those circumstances being the Iraqi government. There was no flip-flopping here, Michael.
--mediamatters.org
Hannity and Michael Steele are right on the money. No lies. You are still batting zero, advocate. Is this the best you can find on Hannity?
By the way, Michael Steele is a much more credible guy to run for office than Obama. Why isn't the press fawning over him instead? Obama is a total fabrication of the media. Without the media, probably nobody, absolutely hardly anyone outside of Illinois would have even heard of the man.
Main Entry: apol·o·gist
Function: noun
Pronunciation: &-'pä-l&-jist
: one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something
Okie, I am afraid that you are the ultimate apologist when it comes to those on the right. It must be quite a strain when it comes to Bush and Hannity.
okie: By the way, Michael Steele is a much more credible guy to run for office than Obama. Why isn't the press fawning over him instead? Obama is a total fabrication of the media. Without the media, probably nobody, absolutely hardly anyone outside of Illinois would have even heard of the man.
Where did these people get their education? They're about as ignorant as one can be as an adult. They probably don't know the history of American politics. Otherwise, they wouldn't make such stupid statements!
I know such a statement might surprise you, but yes, I don't think there is any question that Obama has been trumpeted in the media. Without the mainstream media, he would be nowhere in sight.
Advocate wrote:Main Entry: apol·o·gist
Function: noun
Pronunciation: &-'pä-l&-jist
: one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something
Okie, I am afraid that you are the ultimate apologist when it comes to those on the right. It must be quite a strain when it comes to Bush and Hannity.
I admit Hannity is a bit bombastic, but not a liar. I agree with most of what he says, not all, and I agree with the point of everything he said in the quotes wherein he criticized Obama, etc. He could have provided more detail, but he was essentially correct. I like Hannity, and I think he is a decent guy. Same with Bush. I think he is a decent guy, far better than what we had before. He is fulfilling his duties honorably, which is all we can ask. We have a media that has spent 100% of their time ever since the man was elected to spin and build a case against the man, but still his popularity rating is alot better than Congress that has also spent most of their time attacking Bush instead of doing anything constructive.
