[quote]John S. wrote:
I am fairly certain that showing video of 9-12 was appropriate when talking about what happened at the white house.
If that is Stewart’s way of discrediting the number then he is retarded(Liberal).[/quote]
But he actually stated whilst the 9-12 footage was running, look how many people have turned up, this is amazing considering it is a week day. I don’t care if it is an opinion piece a news piece or whatever, that is bullshit.
[quote]sam_sneed wrote:
molnes wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m not sure which is worse, fox, or you gathering information from a comedy show.
It doesn’t matter if he is a comedian. That’s completely irrelevant. This is still good critical journalism, and a good catch. In most countries faking news like that would cause a scandal.
For me the worst thing is that so many people doesn’t even care that one of the biggest television networks in the world is blatantly faking and making up “news”. I don’t understand why this doesn’t disturb people.
It’s just shows the sad state of people in this country. There’s no integrity in our politicians or our news media. If people didn’t care when we didn’t find WMD in Iraq and basically invaded that country for no good reason, why would they care that a major media network is faking their news reports? [/quote]
Sad but true.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I watch Hannity and agree with most of his politics. That said, he is a terrible representative of conservatism. I’ve stated this in the past. He is not terribly persuasive with issues which facts themselves should provide unassailable material. He is dismissive of opponents, interrupts and changes the subject when stumped, which leaves me wishing I could stand in and finish the argument for him, and possibly worst of all he overstates his case to the point where a bit of checking would erode the credibility of his statements as stated. Everybody makes mistakes and nobody’s right all the time, but it is a pattern with him.
Also has already been observed by others, Hannity is not the news in FOX news.[/quote]
I agree with this 100%. Some of his stuff is a bit cringe-worthy. Conservatives need to stick to debating issues substantively and truthfully. Leave the BS for the left, and let them expose their own weakness.
The WMD issue in Iraq is dangerous. Saddam was walking a fine line, in that he wanted to convince countries in the region that he did, in fact, have WMD’s, while trying to convince us that he didn’t. We absolutely came to the correct conclusion there.
People like you who denounce our country because we didn’t find WMD’s are missing the point completely. I’d much rather be wrong about somebody like Saddam having WMD’s, than be wrong about him not having them. In the meantime, we’re letting Iran devolop nukes because, hey, it isn’t like we have “proof” that he is trying to get them, or already has them.
Conservative: Hmm, we just invaded a country because we thought they had WMD’s, when in fact they did not. Oh well. I guess I was wrong.
Liberal: Hmm, Iran just nuked Israel and killed millions of people in the second holocaust because we didn’t have proof that Iran had nukes and therefore did nothing. Oh well. I guess I was…er, I mean Bush was wrong.
Once again, the conservative wins, hands down. Logic rules.
[quote]molnes wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
molnes wrote:
The link really says it all. Fox has to be one of the worst pure propaganda networks of all time.
Will you be directing similar outrage at CNN and MSNBC for their failure to find a religious motivation for Hasan’s shooting, or will you just be one of those brainless HuffPo boobs who continues to rant on about McVeigh when Hasan is brought up?
If CNN and MSNBC fabricated news like this, then I would be just as outraged obviously.
[/quote]
Glen Beck is an opinion show, not news…
The best thing the Right can do is learn from all of these mistakes Obama is making. I am not referring to policy so much as I am extremism. The Right cannot go too far right.
[quote]gerby wrote:
The WMD issue in Iraq is dangerous. Saddam was walking a fine line, in that he wanted to convince countries in the region that he did, in fact, have WMD’s, while trying to convince us that he didn’t. We absolutely came to the correct conclusion there.
People like you who denounce our country because we didn’t find WMD’s are missing the point completely. I’d much rather be wrong about somebody like Saddam having WMD’s, than be wrong about him not having them. In the meantime, we’re letting Iran devolop nukes because, hey, it isn’t like we have “proof” that he is trying to get them, or already has them.
Conservative: Hmm, we just invaded a country because we thought they had WMD’s, when in fact they did not. Oh well. I guess I was wrong.
Liberal: Hmm, Iran just nuked Israel and killed millions of people in the second holocaust because we didn’t have proof that Iran had nukes and therefore did nothing. Oh well. I guess I was…er, I mean Bush was wrong.
Once again, the conservative wins, hands down. Logic rules.[/quote]
Actually, during the pre- and post-invasion timeframe I was in the AF and had daily intel briefings on Iraq among other things. Saddam had items that had no practical use together other than as part of a uranium weaponizing enrichment program. I know this because I saw photos of these “items”. He had everything in place to quickly generate a large-scale WMD program. We also DID find chem and bio weapons, just not in the large quantities we expected. So, the real consensus in the intel community was that either:
A- Saddam retained the ability to quickly created WMD, but decided against stockpiling in the hopes that he could be made to look “not guilty”. It would be relatively quick and easy to manufacture, then use chem and bio agents. It would also be easy to dismantle and spread the components used in the manufacturing process.
or
B- Saddam relocated the majority of his stockpiles before the invasion happened, probably to Syria, hoping he could survive the invasion and get them back later.
The “no WMDs” argument is in fact quite fallacious, but has been parroted so often by the MSM, it is now widely believed.
I agree with you here, but my point was that it really doesn’t matter if he actually had WMD’s. We need to respond to threats, and it would have been much more of a failure of our intelligence community if we came to the conclusion that there were no WMD’s. Again, which would you rather we were wrong about, a nut like Saddam or the mullahs in Iran having WMD’s or not having WMD’s?
We forget history. Before WWII, the “intellectuals” said we should be an example to the rest of the world and disarm. The Nazis stood vulnerable on the border of France, and the allies did nothing because “the military should only be used for self-defense.” The Nazis sat there until the had the strength to beat the French, then they attacked, crushing them. Had France attacked first while the Nazis sat there, the war would have been over much sooner.
Liberal: But Saddam wasn’t Hitler, he wasn’t that dangerous.
Conservative: See “League of Nations” post WWI. “Hitler is breaking the rules, but he isn’t a real threat, so let’s not doing anything.” “Oh shit, Hitler is a real threat, we should have done something, but now he’s too strong.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Bingo.
That ^^^^ and the repeated acts of war along with treaty violations are why we went into Iraq. The next time someone needs to show how ignorant they are about recent history just start spouting off about the U.S. invading Iraq because of non-existent WMDs.[/quote]
Push,
How about resource procurement and regional stability? Do you think that either of these (or one) were motivating factors?
Edit: I’m asking this as an actual question. When I looked back at what I wrote after it was posted, it probably comes off wrong…like a declaration.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
However, some bozos say “resource procurement” was that the US wanted to “steal” Iraqi oil. [/quote]
I’ve heard it put that way too, usually without anything to concretely back it up. However, I can see how inserting a government supportive of the U.S. would increase the likelihood that there is continued access to said oil.
Not sure if this is ‘stealing’ by definition…
Don’t really know how I feel about this subject anymore though. I’ve teeter-tottered back and forth on this one trying to prove it to myself either way. No luck though.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Bingo.
That ^^^^ and the repeated acts of war along with treaty violations are why we went into Iraq. The next time someone needs to show how ignorant they are about recent history just start spouting off about the U.S. invading Iraq because of non-existent WMDs.[/quote]
Yeah, Saddam used WMD on his own people in the past. Not really a stellar track record where they are concerned. Also, interestingly enough, the WMD issue was only a small part of the very lengthy speech by GWB giving reasons for the invasion.
There were MANY other reasons given, including violating numerous U.N. Sanctions, shooting at Coalition aircraft, violating the no-fly zone, refusing to allow weapons inspectors in, paying a $25,000 reward to the families of suicide bombers who attacked Jews or coalition forces, etc.
The left grabbed onto it as soon as they saw they could beat him into the ground with it, accurately or not.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Bingo.
That ^^^^ and the repeated acts of war along with treaty violations are why we went into Iraq. The next time someone needs to show how ignorant they are about recent history just start spouting off about the U.S. invading Iraq because of non-existent WMDs.[/quote]
Ridiculous. Are you pretending that Colin Powell did not sell war to the UN security council based on WMDs? CNN.com - Transcript of Powell's U.N. presentation - Feb. 6, 2003
We are, rather unfortunately, bound to the decision of the security council on whether our war plans are legal or not.
Your revisionist recollection is a little soft. We all know Saddam was a monster, but that wasn’t the bill we were sold and you know it.
[quote]borrek wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Bingo.
That ^^^^ and the repeated acts of war along with treaty violations are why we went into Iraq. The next time someone needs to show how ignorant they are about recent history just start spouting off about the U.S. invading Iraq because of non-existent WMDs.
Ridiculous. Are you pretending that Colin Powell did not sell war to the UN security council based on WMDs? CNN.com - Transcript of Powell's U.N. presentation - Feb. 6, 2003
We are, rather unfortunately, bound to the decision of the security council on whether our war plans are legal or not.
Your revisionist recollection is a little soft. We all know Saddam was a monster, but that wasn’t the bill we were sold and you know it.[/quote]
By your recollection saying bush lied or that we were lied to is revisionist.
So now we have to check with Russia and China as to what we can and cannot do with respect to our national security? You go do that Mr. Liberal. Morons like you are why Hitler obtained the power he did. Conservatives of the day were clamoring for us to take his ass down before he built an army that could nearly take over the world.
Saddam didn’t have weapons and I’m glad. That made it easier for us to kick his ass. Going after Hitler before he invaded France or Poland would have been “pre-emptive” and “against world opinion” which is why we didn’t do it. Tell me again, how did that work out?