All about life, liberty and the pursuit of hopeiness.
| CBS News | 0 | |
| WaPo | 0 | |
| Zogby | North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan Trails in Potential 2010 Senate Match-up |
0 |
| SF Chron | 0 | |
| KDVR | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Big Government- Hot Air
- Michelle Malkin
- Wheeling & dealing: Snowe pow-wows with Obama; Landrieu, Schumer, Daschle behind the scenes
- Saturday in the Senate: Cash for Cloture; Reid gets 60; Update: 8:15pm Eastern cloture vote – 60-39; Voinovich absent; Dems invoke Teddy Kennedy; Reid: “Ted would be happy.”
- Another day, another Berkeley tantrum
- Jake Tapper
- Lynn Sweet
Stuck on stupid – NYC Nov. 2, 2005
Don’t know whether to laugh or cry when viewing these anti-war protest photos.
Hat tip: Little Green Footballs, who has more.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
53 Responses to “Stuck on stupid – NYC Nov. 2, 2005”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Baklava,
Do you even bother reading what I write or do you just put words in my mouth? If you go to my post from 11/10/2005 – 12:41 am and look at the second to last paragraph, I specifically said, ” My position is that it is not known whether or not President Bush or anyone in his administration intentionally misrepresented intelligence in order to justify going to war.”. I never said intelligence was definitely misrespresented. You continue to insist that nobody in the administration misrepresented any intelligence. How could you possibly know this? Many claims made by the administration to support their case, such as the aluminum rods mentioned earlier, were disputed. The administration said on many occasions there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. According to the article I presented, the CIA reviewed more than 70,000 documents and did not find any ties between them. Also according to the article, the CIA concluded that Iraq was not even close to developing nuclear weapons. And, long before the war, the CIA told the White House that if the United States invaded Iraq and carried out a prolonged occupation, it would spark an insurgency like the one now tearing Iraq apart. “We did predict this in papers that we wrote” says a former CIA official.
If President Bush or others in his administration disregarded intelligence that did not support their position, or they based their decision to go to war on intelligence that was very questionable, I would consider this to be a very serious matter. Whether this is the case or not, I don’t know. Since the President was wrong about so many things, there should be an investigation to determine what went wrong. If intelligence was disregarded or misrepresented, those who were responsible for this should be held accountable.
Just quoting different people doesn’t prove anything. The issue is not whether or not Iraq was considered a threat. The issue is whether or not there was intelligence misrepresented in justifying the case for war.
I keep mentioning Rush, because your views and the views of others are based on what he says. I even see the exact same things he says repeated in this blog. Much of his commentary is based on lies and inaccuracies. The following site documents just a few of his lies and inaccuracies in his book and from listening to him over a few weeks period:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
Please take a look and read it if you haven’t done so before. This is a “must read” for anyone who is strongly influenced by what Rush says.
Brian wrote, “My position is that it is not known whether or not President Bush or anyone in his administration intentionally misrepresented intelligence in order to justify going to war.”.
It is known. He didn’t.
Brian asked, “How could you possibly know this? Reading Comprehension. The intelligence was given to him. He didn’t manufacture it. The intelligence was consistent with before Bush, after Bush, and other country’s intelligence.
Brian wrote, “Many claims made by the administration to support their case, such as the aluminum rods mentioned earlier, were disputed. Some people disagreed with others. The preponderance of evidence and opinion sided with what Bush stated and Colin Powell stated. Your obsessiveness can’t yield to that information.
Brian wrote, “The administration said on many occasions there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Yep. There were and many reports and articles written by plenty of institutions and people agree with that. You simply disagree. You can end it at that or call the person you disagree with a liar.
Brian wrote, “The issue is whether or not there was intelligence misrepresented
Nope. None. There was no intelligence misrepresented. Please look up misrepresented and tell us what it means.
Brian wrote, “I keep mentioning Rush, because your views and the views of others are based on what he says.
Cool! I haven’t listened to him for more than 10 minutes in over 2 years. That must mean we think alike!
And, I’ll pass on the site you linked. All I need to know is that a) he talks for 3 hours every day for over 2 decades and b) he was one who said 7% increase for 7 years (over 49% compounded) while the mainstream press called it a 270 Billion dollar cut for over 5 months (when talking about Medicare reform). Yes. Accuracy is good. Brian is dead on WRONG when he called it a cut himself. If I add 7 gallons to my gas tank that is an increase no matter if I was going to add 10 or not. You either report truthfully or not. I don’t care how you feel about issues if you can’t report truthfully on the facts.
Brian,
You don’t listen to anyone but your Anti-American hatemongers. You have been refuted so many times here that you are a virtual verbal punching bag.
As to what I said about the MSM, subconsciously you understand if the law I talked about came to pass, lies like you spread would be retracted just a forcefully as they were published by the MSM, and you can’t have people see the truth, can you?