All about life, liberty and the pursuit of hopeiness.
| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
“Bush lied” reports in today’s newspapers were funded with the help of George Soros
In news reports today, two media-described “nonprofit journalism organizations” who claim that they’ve compiled “hundreds” of false statements that the Bush administration supposedly made as justification for the Iraq war were funded with the help of Bush-hater George Soros, something the mediots conveniently left out. I don’t have time to go into detail right now (another busy day ahead), but Gateway Pundit’s got it covered here. Read more via the Captain.
What was that the left keeps telling us about there being “no liberal bias” in the media, again?
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
13 Responses to ““Bush lied” reports in today’s newspapers were funded with the help of George Soros”
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
The center for public integrity website seems to be overwhelmed at the moment. It is unavailable and taking too long to load. Why is that? Could it be Mr. Lewis & Mr. Soros don’t want to be bothered by people who actually have integrity? Just wondering, you know.
It’s not only the left who keeps telling us there’s no liberal bias in the media, it’s the media themselves. So we may therefore stipulate that there is no liberal bias. QED. Because after all, they’d tell us if they were manipulative lying partisan hacks beholden to a corrupt socialist ideology, wouldn’t they?
Note the Soros funded “report” also includes the “16 words,” which were, and are true, and were corroborated by lying Joe Wilson before he went public with another story entirely. Of all the fabrications concerning imaginary lies, the Wilson Affair is the one that infuriates me the most. The man is a disgustingly supple fabricator, a titan even amongst the mendacious left. As bland a liar as he is, he must have been one hell of a diplomat.
Time for me to use up some band width…..how come there is no reportage on these “lies” ?
“Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.”
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
September 13, 2001
LINK 1
LINK 2
LINK 3
“My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I’m a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Resolution that’s presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he’s used them in the past, and that he’s doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.
Democracy will not spring up by itself overnight in a multi-ethnic, complicated society that’s suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis, including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, deserve to be represented. This is not just a moral imperative. It’s a security imperative. It is in America’s national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner, and such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.”
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
Speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
October 7, 2002
LINK 4
LINK 5
LINK 6
“People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”
Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live”
July 22, 2003
LINK 7
LINK 8
Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, states:
“It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
LINK 9
LINK 10
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Were we right to go to this war alone [sic], basically without the Europeans behind us [sic]? Was that something we had to do?
SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (Democrat, North Carolina): I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage. And I think Saddam Hussein being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.
MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?
EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.
MATTHEWS: You believe in that?
EDWARDS: Yes.
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on MSNBC’s “Hardball”
October 13, 2003
LINK 11
LINK 12
“There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.”
Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
In a Los Angeles Times editorial: “A ‘Big Cat’ With Nothing to Lose”
February 6, 2003; Page B17
LINK 13
LINK 14
LINK 15
I have plenty more if you guys wanna read them.
So which is more dangerous to America:
1) Islamifascism
2) George Soros
Islamosoros
Soros in an athiest.
Islamosorostheist?
How about Soros funded Islamofascists in the media being America’s greatest, most dangerous enemy?
So, why keep harping on what President Bush has said? Not sure just what is being accomplished. President Bush is not running nor is anyone really running on his platform. He is on his way out. It uses up a little bit of Soros’ money and feeds the BDS people. Beyond that, I can’t see any real benefit.
.
Becasue small people focus on small things.
Feeding the BDS people is reason enough for them. In their world, Bush is a fascist, democracy hating, racist , power hungry terrorist. So if they can “convince” themselves of this, they feel better.