John Kerry - what a dork

Well since we have learned recently that the President never said "stay the course", and he doesn't believe in nation building, welcome to 1984.

You two partisans play so fast and loose with the truth that all this must be taken with numerous grains of salt.

Compare Timber's encapsulation of the "truth" on this issue with his [and yours George] numerous encapsulations of the truth on all the draft dodgers in the GOP; encapsulations that I must admit I've enjoyed reading over and over.

Care to drag up any of those "encapsulations", JTT, and demonstrate they be other than factual by the available evidence?

How churlish and petty does six years of "Bush lied" look?

Stay the Course.


Stay the Course.

BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]

BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]

BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We're just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]

BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We'll stay the course. [4/13/04]

BUSH: And that's why we're going to stay the course in Iraq. And that's why when we say something in Iraq, we're going to do it. [4/16/04]

BUSH: And so we've got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]

GLOBAL WARMING

LIE: President Bush claimed there is insufficient scientific evidence of global warming as part of his justification for withdrawing from the Kyoto Treaty.



FACT: The National Academy of Science's 2001 report stated that there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years" and that most of the warming "observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." Similarly, an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that global temperatures were rising dramatically and this was due in part to human-induced emissions.



Most recently, a Pentagon study stated the threat posed by global warming "vastly eclipses that of terrorism." The study said that climate change should be considered immediately as a top political and military issue and warned catastrophic results between 2007 and 2020. (Revkin - New York Times 01.12.03, Corn - The Nation 10.13.03; Al Jazeera 02.22.04 )

John Kerry - staying the course - still a dork.

Bush Straw Man Arguments - Part 1

Mr. Bush claimed, quote, "177 of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists.'"

Tuesday, at another fundraiser in California, he had said, "Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we're attacked again before we respond."

"If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party," the president said at another fundraiser Monday in Nevada, "it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is -- wait until we're attacked again."

Bush Straw Man Arguments

"One hundred and seventy-seven of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists,' " Bush said at a fundraiser for Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) before heading to Colorado for gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez.

Asked about the president's statement, White House aides could not name any Democrat who has said that the government should not listen in on terrorists. Democrats who voted against the legislation had complained that it would hand too much power to the president and had said that they wanted more checks in the bill to protect civil liberties. (Washington Post)

Bush's language, though, characterizes Democratic positions through his own prism. Critics of the surveillance program have not argued against listening to terrorist phone calls but say the government should get warrants from a secret intelligence court. Likewise, many critics of the tribunal measure did not oppose interrogating prisoners generally, as Bush said, but specific provisions of the bill, such as denying the right of habeas corpus or giving the president freedom to authorize what they consider torture. (Washington Post)

State Of the Union Analysis From Address was full of lies, contradictions by Andrew Meyer
Sickening. Watching George W. Bush take the podium Wednesday night can be described as nothing else. Nevertheless, I stomached the entire State of the Union address and observed something I already knew: W can't go five seconds without contradicting himself or just plain lying. Here are a few excerpts from his speech:
"We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing."

Reality: England, France and Germany are negotiating with Iran over these issues. Yet, despite the European Union's urgings, the administration is steering clear of these discussions altogether. If the United States does not step in as Bush claims we have, Iran will become a nuclear power.

State Of the Union Analysis
From The Dangers of Overconfidence by Ivo Daalder
In sharp contrast to his previous post-9/11 appearances before Congress, Bush talked [in his State Of the Union address] about the war on terror as if victory was close at hand. He spoke of the defensive efforts undertaken at home, and the success of his policies in countering terrorism abroad. A new department had been created, and many al Qaeda leaders had been killed and rounded up. In Iraq, which Bush once again depicted as the central front in the war, America and its allies were fighting terrorists and winning, "so we do not have to face them here at home."

But while there have been successes in the war on terror, much remains to be done. Spending on homeland security remains dangerously inadequate - leaving our ports, chemical facilities, transportation systems, and critical infrastructure needlessly vulnerable to attack. Reform of the intelligence community remains a fact only on paper - more than two months have gone by without the president appointing the new intelligence czar everyone knows will be critical to that task. The Department of Homeland Security is such a dysfunctional agency that the entire top layer of management has resigned, giving a sense of all the smart people abandoning a sinking ship. As for confronting terrorists in Iraq, that effort is failing: despite killing or capturing 15,000 insurgents in 2004, the number of fighters increased from 5,000 to 20,000 over the same period.

Wars of words are for trial attorneys, who are in cahoots with the left to destroy traditional American values.

A few years ago c.i. argued with me about HD cable television when cable didn't even offer HD signals. Wishful thinking doesn't comprise intelligence.

Who on these threads give one hoot about "CABLE TV?" NOOOONE.

Prove your worth. The BBB method doesn't suit you.

cjh trying to inflate his own low rated nemises with non-related, old, garbage. Some people never learn.

$40K worth of travel bought and paid for c.i. by the U.S. taxpayer, and he still doesn't know how to work his TV.

Sad.

The Bush Family started this Middle Eastern terrorism with Bush I getting into Iraq in Gulf War I after allowing Saddam to march into Kuwait and entrench himself for a whole week with nary a word from the Bush I Administration. Yeah, Condi Rice was working in that Administration too.

I DO!

If it weren't for Fox News I couldn't stand to watch the news.


Date: November 2, 2006

A new study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs proves a serious liberal bias in our American media. FSM Editorial Director Jessica deGraffenreid is concerned about the implications this has for our national security and the upcoming elections.

Liberal bias in media is no secret, but now it's proven
Jessica deGraffenreid

To watch the nightly network news, you might think that (a) America is everything that's wrong with the world, (b) Barack Obama's emergence on the national scene is like the Second Coming of Christ, (c) the country has turned en masse against the Republican Party in numbers not seen since Watergate, and (d) Kevin Federline may actually have a promising rap career.

For those of you who don't also read alternative forms of media, choices A through C are completely untrue. Option D is about as likely as the Temple football team winning the national championship and I just threw it in there for a little wit before I get into the serious stuff.

Our American media machine is broken. Journalists can no longer be trusted. Many conservatives have seen years of evidence that the mainstream media is shifting further and further to the left. But this week a new study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs shows an unprecedented bias in the network news coverage.

Between September 5th and October 11th of this year, 77% of coverage regarding Democrats was favorable. But only 12% of coverage about Republicans was positive. The disparity is the most significant we have seen since these studies began. The American public has been spoon-fed liberal mush for the last two months so it's no wonder the GOP is polling behind the Democrats.

But those statistics are only part of the story. News coverage is not only hugely unbalanced as far as political party, it's biased towards certain stories as well. For example, the Mark Foley scandal generated nearly as many stories as the war in Iraq and terrorism combined. Those three topics were the only issues covered more than six times.

Mark Foley's behavior was reprehensible. But it should not determine the future path of America. That story is nowhere near as important as issues of national security, or even education, energy, and the environment.

A testament to how much the mainstream media believe in their leftist agendas, this election has been covered five times more than the 2002 midterm elections. They are running scared and it makes them more relentless in their pursuit of the demise of conservatives.

The irony here is that the joke is on them. Only it's not a joke; it's deadly serious. The constant barrage of anti-Americanism and anti-war sentiments in the media is playing right into our enemies' hands. An excerpt from an article written by the American Forces Press Service today:

"America's wars have always had critics, but the difference in this war is the prevalence of the media, Rumsfeld said in his interviews. Terrorists recognize the influence the media has, so they use their own media committees to determine how best to manipulate the American public through the media, he said.

Terrorists plan their attacks to deliberately dishearten the American people and make them think the cause isn't right or America makes terrorism worse, Rumsfeld said."

Why hasn't there been another attack on American soil since 9/11? Much of the answer has to do with the outstanding efforts of our intelligence and national security communities. But perhaps the terrorists are simply content to let our own media break down the spirits of the American people.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=376809

This means if ALL you listen to CI is network news your head is full of LIES and half truths!

This means network news is responsible for the war dragging on by bombarding us with anti American propaganda...

The enemy is within.

I tend to think that when Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" the war would have been over had it not been for the network news blowing that statement into years of more war. The news is responsible for the war not Iraq. they feed the idea of civil war in Iraq to the public like caviar.

The war is not in Iraq it is here in America with the hate Bush camp.

So then we can also assume that Viet Nam would have been won also if the left had not publicized so much doom and gloom that the American people "perceived" a loss.

It is time to pull the plug on the these trashy news reporters that couldn't give a hoot if America wins. They want America to lose, plain and simple and so do you CI!

CNN, MSNBC etc... They are the REAL terrorists!

W is a dork. By removing Saddam he has strengthened Iran.