Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

blatham wrote:

A day or two ago, okie surmised that "leftist underlings" were functioning within Fox news staff.

I had a similar experience, I think with Foxfyre. I cited a Wall Street article which documented that inequality was a serious and growing problem in America; she dismissed the article because she found the author leftwing. (Her evidence, as I remember it, was that said author didn't buy the gospel of supply side economics. Never mind that even Greg Mankiw, Bush's former economic advisor, used to call supply siders "charlatans and cranks" in his textbook.)

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

blatham wrote:
A day or two ago, okie surmised that "leftist underlings" were functioning within Fox news staff.

I had a similar experience, I think with Foxfyre. I cited a Wall Street article which documented that inequality was a serious and growing problem in America; she dismissed the article because she found the author leftwing. (Her evidence, as I remember it, was that said author didn't buy the gospel of supply side economics. Never mind that even Greg Mankiw, Bush's former economic advisor, used to call supply siders "charlatans and cranks" in his textbook.)

I neither dismissed the article as 'left wing' nor do I recall ever discussing supply sided economics with you, Thomas. I very well have commented that a writer held a left wing view and I disagreed with it. I fully admit that I am prejudiced regarding some commentators such as Paul Krugman who I cannot consider credible because he is never positive about anything. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so when you have somebody who can never admit that anything is right, then yes, to me, they are suspect.

Similarly, I would be skeptical of a conservative commentator who never saw anything as wrong. I don't generally look to them as authorities either.

I consider Salon an unreliable source because I have never seen anything in that publication that has a) ever taken a conservative view about anything and b) has ever admitted that a conservative did anything right unless they can add everything they can remember or make up that s/he did wrong. Thus they no doubt present the liberal view accurately, but are not a reliable source of objective news.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I neither dismissed the article as 'left wing' nor do I recall ever discussing supply sided economics with you, Thomas.

Fair enough. I wasn't entirely sure you had been the correspondent on the other side of the experience. So thanks for clarifying.

0 Replies

You are forgiven, Sir. I fully admit being a conservative and biased toward that point of view. And I am fully aware that I need to be aware of how I need to critique my perception of the truths that even the Leftwing is capable of telling, however rarely Smile

0 Replies

I went hunting for this article after it was mentioned in the OPINION JOURNAL today. I think we probably shouldn't try to hold our breath until the NY Times and other leftwing media sources report this stuff though.

50 percent of U.S. says Iraq had WMDs
By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 25, 2006

Half of Americans now say Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded the country in 2003 -- up from 36 percent last year, a Harris poll finds. Pollsters deemed the increase both "substantial" and "surprising" in light of persistent press reports to the contrary in recent years.

The survey did not speculate on what caused the shift in opinion, which supports President Bush's original rationale for going to war. Respondents were questioned in early July after the release of a Defense Department intelligence report that revealed coalition forces recovered 500 aging chemical weapons containing mustard or sarin gas nerve agents in Iraq.

"Filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist," said Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, during a June 21 press conference detailing the newly declassified information.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, who shared the podium, said, "Iraq was not a WMD-free zone."

In recent weeks, the Michigan Republican has recommended that more material confiscated since the invasion be declassified and made public, including a 1998 standing order to Iraqi officials to hide or destroy weapons and thus evade inspectors from the United Nations.

Meanwhile, the Harris poll offered some positive feedback on Iraq. Seventy-two percent of respondents said the Iraqi people are better off now than under Saddam Hussein's regime -- a figure similar to that of 2004, when it stood at 76 percent. In addition, 64 percent say Saddam had "strong links" with al Qaeda, up from 62 percent in October 2004. Fifty-five percent said that "history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq."

And although the response is tepid, American confidence in the Iraqis has improved: 37 percent said Iraq would succeed in creating a stable democracy, up five points since November.

Americans remain in touch with the realities of Iraq: 61 percent said the conflict has motivated more Islamic terrorists to attack the U.S. -- a number that has remained virtually unchanged since 2004.

An additional 41 percent say the war has reduced the threat of another major terrorist attack in the United States, a sentiment also unchanged in the past two years.

The financial burden of the war may be less keenly felt. The poll found that 56 percent said spending "huge amounts" for ongoing military efforts in Iraq means less funds are available to protect Americans at home. The figure was 62 percent last year, but 51 percent in 2004.

Has the war earned respect for the U.S. overseas? Sixty-eight percent said "no," the same as last year. The figure stood at 62 percent in 2004.

The poll of 1,020 adults was conducted July 5 to 11 and has a margin of error of three percentage points.
SOURCE

0 Replies

Quote:

More of John Kerry's Retroactive Campaign Promises
by Ann Coulter
Posted Jul 27, 2006

On Sunday, John Kerry said of Israel's war against Hezbollah, "If I was President, this wouldn't have happened," adding, "we have to destroy Hezbollah."

But wait a minute -- Hezbollah didn't attack us on 9/11! Wouldn't fighting Hezbollah distract us from the urgent task of finding Osama bin Laden?

Democrats can't come out and admit that they refuse to fight any war in defense of America, so they utter the "Where's Osama?" incantation to pretend that they'd be doing something. To wit: dedicating the entire resources of the U.S. military to locating Osama bin Laden.

Thus, in the third presidential debate, Kerry complained about the cost of the war in Iraq, saying the war was "the result of this president taking his eye off of Osama bin Laden."

After making the capture of Osama bin Laden their sole objective in the war on terrorism, now Democrats expect us to believe they would have been fighting every other Muslim jihadist on the planet like mad -- just not one of the main sponsors of Islamic terrorism, Saddam Hussein. But they'd be merciless with every other mass-murdering, Islamic terror-sponsoring lunatic.

Israel's recent tussle with Hezbollah reminds us how absurd the Democrats' fixation on Osama is. America has been under attack from Muslim extremists for nearly 30 years. Not just al Qaeda and certainly not just Osama bin Laden.

Here's the highlights reel for anyone still voting for the Democrats:

-- November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter's masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East.

-- 1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.

-- April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.

-- October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.

-- December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80.

-- September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.

-- December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.

-- June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.

-- October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard.

-- December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans.

-- April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.

-- December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.

(Then came an amazing, historic pause in Muslim extremists' relentless war on America after Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by doing the opposite of everything recommended by Democrats, depriving Islamic terrorists of their Soviet sponsors. This confuses liberals because they don't understand the concept of terror sponsors, whether it's the Soviet Union or Iraq.)

-- February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al Qaeda) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.

-- Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters.

-- November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian "Party of God") explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

-- June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al Qaeda) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.

-- August 1998: Muslim extremists (al Qaeda) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.

-- October 2000: Muslim extremists (al Qaeda) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

-- Sept. 11, 2001: Muslim extremists (al Qaeda) hijack commercial aircraft and fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

America's war with Islamic fanaticism didn't start on 9/11, but it's going to end with 9/11 -- as long as Americans aren't foolish enough ever to put a Democrat in the White House.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:
More of John Kerry's Retroactive Campaign Promises
by Ann Coulter
Posted Jul 27, 2006

On Sunday, John Kerry said of Israel's war against Hezbollah, "If I was President, this wouldn't have happened," adding, "we have to destroy Hezbollah."

[cut out the tripe]

This is a fine example of an inane tangent, Tico. You do yourself proud. And Ann Coulter no less.

0 Replies

Quote:

We Were Right

Cenk Uygur

To my dying day, one of the things I will always be most proud of is that I did not stay with my party, right or wrong. I put the interests of my country above those of my political party. I had enough sense to see the country was headed the wrong way and I tried to make a difference.

...

Here's an apology from a conservative talk show host that was a long time coming:

By Doug McIntyre
Host, McIntyre in the Morning
Talk Radio 790 KABC

I was wrong to have voted for George W. Bush. In historic terms, I believe George W. Bush is the worst two-term President in the history of the country. Worse than Grant. I also believe a case can be made that he's the worst President, period.

[Read on at,]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/we-were-right_b_25615.html

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

This is a fine example of an inane tangent, Tico. You do yourself proud. And Ann Coulter no less.

This is a "Bush Supporters" thread, so no, it's not a tangent at all.

Now, you posting an article of somebody blathering in the Huffington Post ... that's tangental.

0 Replies

Is tangental a word? Well, if it isn't it should be.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Is tangental a word? Well, if it isn't it should be.

And if it isn't, then I certainly didn't spell it incorrectly. Laughing

Quote:

tan·gen·tial Pronunciation (tn-jnshl) also tan·gen·tal (-jntl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or moving along or in the direction of a tangent.
2. Merely touching or slightly connected.
3. Only superficially relevant; divergent: a tangential remark.

LINK

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

JTT wrote:
This is a fine example of an inane tangent, Tico. You do yourself proud. And Ann Coulter no less.

This is a "Bush Supporters" thread, so no, it's not a tangent at all.

Now, you posting an article of somebody blathering in the Huffington Post ... that's tangental.

Yes, Foxy, it's a word.

Actually, it's a shock that people still contribute to such a thread, Tico. Now a "Deluded Bush Supporters" thread, that I can see.

Quote:

Ticomaya

This is a "Bush Supporters" thread, so no, it's not a tangent at all.

Ticomaya wrote:

More of John Kerry's Retroactive Campaign Promises

As near as I can see there's no bush supporting anywhere in that posting, Tico. You certainly do have a firm grip on inane.

That man was, is a conservative. You haven't addressed, let alone read what he said. He was right, dead on accurate.

Stop your pathetic whining, Tico. Let's review one or two quote, shall we? After all, this is a thread about G Bush.

Quote:

But in the months and years since shock and awe I have been shocked repeatedly by a consistent litany of excuses, alibis, double-talk, inaccuracies, bogus predictions, and flat out lies. I have watched as the President and his administration changed the goals, redefined the reasons for going into Iraq, and fumbled the good will of the world and the focus necessary to catch the real killers of September 11th.

Quote:

And speaking of domestic embarrassments, let's talk for a minute about President Bush's domestic record. Yes, he cut taxes. But tax cuts combined with reckless spending and borrowing is criminal mismanagement of the public's money. We're drunk at the mall with our great grandchildren's credit cards. Whatever happened to the party of fiscal responsibility?

...

Katrina, Harriet Myers, The Dubai Port Deal, skyrocketing gas prices, shrinking wages for working people, staggering debt, astronomical foreign debt, outsourcing, open borders, contempt for the opinion of the American people, the war on science, media manipulation, faith based initiatives, a cavalier attitude toward fundamental freedoms-- this President has run the most arrogant and out-of-touch administration in my lifetime, perhaps, in any American's lifetime.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:
ticomaya also tico
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or moving along or in the direction of a tangent.
2. Merely touching or slightly connected.
3. Only superficially relevant; divergent: a tangential remark.

0 Replies

Quote:

Internet troll also JTT
n.
1. One who comes into an established online discussion forum and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion.

It's always good to remember that one should not feed the troll:

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/1599/150pxdonotfeedtrollsvgut3.png

Doh! I did it again.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

It's always good to remember that one should not feed the troll:

Doh! I did it again.

Agreed, Tico, you can be thick as a brick. But don't worry your smoky little head 'bout that, we can't fix everything all at once.

The main point though is crucial. And you're doing it again, still.

You find nothing wrong with avoiding the truth, misleading thread after thread, and yet you have the temerity to suggest that this article, which DIRECTLY addresses the aftermath of G Bush is not on target.

0 Replies

http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/821/150pxdonotfeedtrollsvgpo4.png

0 Replies

Here is an interesting piece on the ignorance of the American public and the eagerness of the administration to capitalize on it. It seems to me that this could lead to the downfall of our country.

^7/28/07: Reign of Error

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Amid everything else that's going wrong in the world, here's one more
piece of depressing news: a few days ago the Harris Poll reported that
50 percent of Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction when we invaded, up from 36 percent in February 2005.
Meanwhile, 64 percent still believe that Saddam had strong links with Al
Qaeda.

At one level, this shouldn't be all that surprising. The people now
running America never accept inconvenient truths. Long after facts they
don't like have been established, whether it's the absence of any
wrongdoing by the Clintons in the Whitewater affair or the absence of
W.M.D. in Iraq, the propaganda machine that supports the current
administration is still at work, seeking to flush those facts down the
memory hole.

But it's dismaying to realize that the machine remains so effective.

Here's how the process works.

First, if the facts fail to support the administration position on an
issue -- stem cells, global warming, tax cuts, income inequality, Iraq --
officials refuse to acknowledge the facts.

Sometimes the officials simply lie. "The tax cuts have made the tax code
more progressive and reduced income inequality," Edward Lazear, the
chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, declared a couple of
months ago. More often, however, they bob and weave.

Consider, for example, Condoleezza Rice's response a few months ago,
when pressed to explain why the administration always links the Iraq war
to 9/11. She admitted that Saddam, "as far as we know, did not order
Sept. 11, may not have even known of Sept. 11." (Notice how her
statement, while literally true, nonetheless seems to imply both that
it's still possible that Saddam ordered 9/11, and that he probably did
know about it.) "But," she went on, "that's a very narrow definition of
what caused Sept. 11."

Meanwhile, apparatchiks in the media spread disinformation. It's hard to
imagine what the world looks like to the large number of Americans who
get their news by watching Fox and listening to Rush Limbaugh, but I get
a pretty good sense from my mailbag.

Many of my correspondents are living in a world in which the economy is
better than it ever was under Bill Clinton, newly released documents
show that Saddam really was in cahoots with Osama, and the discovery of
some decayed 1980's-vintage chemical munitions vindicates everything the
administration said about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. (Hyping of
the munitions find may partly explain why public belief that Saddam had
W.M.D. has made a comeback.)

Some of my correspondents have even picked up on claims, mostly
disseminated on right-wing blogs, that the Bush administration actually
did a heck of a job after Katrina.

And what about the perceptions of those who get their news from sources
that aren't de facto branches of the Republican National Committee?

The climate of media intimidation that prevailed for several years after
9/11, which made news organizations very cautious about reporting facts
that put the administration in a bad light, has abated. But it's not
entirely gone. Just a few months ago major news organizations were under
fierce attack from the right over their supposed failure to report the
"good news" from Iraq -- and my sense is that this attack did lead to a
temporary softening of news coverage, until the extent of the carnage
became undeniable. And the conventions of he-said-she-said reporting,
under which lies and truth get equal billing, continue to work in the
administration's favor.

Whatever the reason, the fact is that the Bush administration continues
to be remarkably successful at rewriting history. For example, Mr. Bush
has repeatedly suggested that the United States had to invade Iraq
because Saddam wouldn't let U.N. inspectors in. His most recent
statement to that effect was only a few weeks ago. And he gets away with
it. If there have been reports by major news organizations pointing out
that that's not at all what happened, I've missed them.

It's all very Orwellian, of course. But when Orwell wrote of "a
nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not
only the future but the past," he was thinking of totalitarian states.
Who would have imagined that history would prove so easy to rewrite in a
democratic nation with a free press?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

0 Replies

This is not the most profitable thread to quote Krugman. Paul Krugman I think must have emerged from the womb sucking a sour lemon. I have never known him to take an unqualified positive or optimistic view about anything. He is mostly consistently pessimistic, anti-American, anti-conservative, anti-military, anti-Bush and more often not mostly wrong in his assessment of the US economy and what makes America the great country that it is.

At any rate, I prefer to take counsel from people who can see existing sunshine along with doom and gloom prophecies. Krugman, from what I've observed, cannot.

0 Replies

Fox, I share his gloomy outlook. We seem to be going downhill very quickly on almost everything.

BTW, I defy you to show any error in his statements. He is a brilliant economist who knows what he is talking about.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Fox, I share his gloomy outlook. ....

You're a liberal ... it's part of the job description.

Quote:

BTW, I defy you to show any error in his statements. He is a brilliant economist who knows what he is talking about.

He may be a "brilliant" economist in your estimation, but he's not speaking about economics in the opinion piece you cited. And as far as finding errors in his statements, I don't see that he's stated very many facts in his article, other than citing the results of the Harris Poll, which he seems to take issue with. I have no reason to doubt the figures he quoted are accurate. The rest seems to be just another anti-Bush screed that one has come to expect from Mssr. Krugman.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know