Here's one.
Quote:President Bush, delivering the latest in a series of speeches on the war on terrorism, admitted to setbacks in Afghanistan on Friday, particularly in the training of police. But he predicted ultimate victory over resurgent Taliban forces there and against terrorists everywhere.
He lashed out anew at critics "who make a case that, by fighting the terrorists, we're making our people less secure here at home. This argument buys into the enemy's propaganda that the terrorists attack us because we're provoking them," he said.
His critics never said that fighting the terrorists makes people less secure at home. What they said was, the war in Iraq has made us less safe from terrorism.
Lying f*ck.
Woodward's new book, "State of Denial," points to a continuation of lies on Iraq by Bush and his administration. Tom Raum, AP, reports on the books as follows.
"As for the war, Woodward writes that White House and Pentagon officials voiced concern about the conduct of the fighting in reports and internal memos and that a secret intelligence report circulated last May predicted violence would continue for the rest of 2006 and increase in 2007.
At the same time, Bush, Rumsfeld and other senior officials insisted publicly the situation was going well, Woodward writes, according to the Post."
Foxfyre did not tell that the allies made up some of the stories about atrocities. The victors are the ones who write the histories.
MarionT wrote:Foxfyre did not tell that the allies made up some of the stories about atrocities. The victors are the ones who write the histories.
Absolutely correct Possum, Foxfyre is our most well educated and knowledgable poster on a2k and would never err in that direction.
Foxfyre did not tell that the allies made up some of the stories about atrocities. The victors are the ones who write the histories.
MarionT wrote:Foxfyre did not tell that the allies made up some of the stories about atrocities. The victors are the ones who write the histories.
Possum you are becoming redundant, what in the world would Posner say about that?
Foxfyre did not tell that the allies made up some of the stories about atrocities. The victors are the ones who write the histories.
MarionT wrote:Foxfyre did not tell that the allies made up some of the stories about atrocities. The victors are the ones who write the histories.
Possum, just how often do you have to replace those urinal odor cakes in your sink?
Foxfyre did not tell that the allies made up some of the stories about atrocities. The victors are the ones who write the histories.
Foxfyre did not tell that the allies made up some of the stories about atrocities. The victors are the ones who write the histories. It is clear that when we read Woodward, we are getting the truth about Bushie and his cronies. We must remember that Woodward also exposed the arch criminal Nixon many years ago. Woodward does not lie.
Used my daughter's computer. She read over my shoulder. Lots of laughs.
You can guess which posters she found stupid, which inspired the question, "What is wrong with that person," and which she admired.
plainoldme wrote:Used my daughter's computer. She read over my shoulder. Lots of laughs.
You can guess which posters she found stupid, which inspired the question, "What is wrong with that person," and which she admired.
No need to guess. I imagine the fruit fell near the tree in this case.
I'm surprised you guys could even note the sound of that falling fruit, what with the deafening 'thud' out of Florida.
We note that the White House website is not presently recommending nor linking Bob Woodward's new book. We note that foxfyre hasn't dared me to read the new book. We note that Woodward now (like absolutely any individual, no matter his/her experience, expertise, previous position in the administration or in intelligence of in the military who speaks words which reflect poorly on the administration) is to be rejected.
The strangest thing is happening now. The serious end of the Christian Right is coming unglued.
For me, this is a very happy circumstance as this distinct portion of the modern conservative movement alliance has been utterly essential to republican dominance. Philosophically, it ought to be its own party. Viguerie is now loudly voicing a simmering discontent...that the WH has paid lip service to the RR's values/desires/demands but is actually serving corporate interests. That's not completely accurate, but it is certainly more true than it is false. My companion, who REALLY hates the RR, after hearing Viguerie calling for Hastert's resignation last evening, said "Well, I have more respect for Viguerie than I've had before." Her point was that the fellow seemed to have principles. We aren't much accustomed to seeing principles as determinative in you Republicans these days.
Okay, I dare you to read his new book.
I love the anecdote George Will relates from Woodward's book.
Cheney and Libby Lewis tell David Kay they have information on where the WMD are in Iraq. Kay asks them for the geocoordinates and they give them to him. They turn out to be in central Lebanon.
Ticomaya wrote:Okay, I dare you to read his new book.
Do you suppose Blatham ever read a Viguerie book?
Foxfyre wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Okay, I dare you to read his new book.
Do you suppose Blatham ever read a Viguerie book?
Actually, that's not a bad idea...
Quote:Editorial Reviews
America's Right Turn: How Conservatives Used New and Alternative Media to Take Power
Liberal media activists beware! Richard A. Viguerie, venture capitalist of the conservative movement (described as funding father of the right) and David Franke, a founder of the conservative movement, detail how conservatives-shut out by the liberal mass media of the 1950s and '60s-came to power by utilizing new and alternative media, and then created their own mass media.
link
