Karl Rove is 100% correct
Joe Lunchpail
"liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare
indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
Rove's words are completely and absolutely, 100% true.
The liberal organization MoveOn.org pushed for a 'can't we just get
along?' approach.
Liberal Dennis Kucinich pushed for a 'can't we just get along?'
approach.
Liberal pundits pushed for a 'can't we just get along?' approach.
You'll notice how some elected democrats are feigning outrage at the
remarks, and are pretending Karl Rove was applying his remarks to all
democrats. That's blatantly false. His remarks were clear, he was
referring to liberals. It's interesting to note that Rove's truth is
somehow offensive to folks like Schummer, Hillary, and Reid, and yet
Durbin's outrageous remarks slandering U.S. troops at GITMO
aren't.....
Simply put - this selective outrage by liberals is bullshit.
Joe Lunchpail
Monitor reported that Dean said he would not state his preference on a
punishment for bin Laden before the al Qaeda leader was captured and
put before a jury.
"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said
in the interview. "I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with
people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do
our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury
trials."
Joe Lunchpail
assault on American society. Michael Moore stated his view that Osama
Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was,
he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he
maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified.
Server 13
same lies different day
Server 13
It's called the law. I can see why republicans have a problem with that.
Server 13
It's called the law. I can see why republicans have a problem with that. lol
Joe Lunchpail
9/11 was an act of war. And the mentality of you and your ilk is
precisely what allowed for such an act to take place.
me
Millions dead, still a public trial. The American way. Don't like it,
then move to Yokohama.
Do you
A) Drive an American car
B) Drive a Nazi car
C) Drive a Pearl Harbor car
No need to answer, Joe Lunchpail, I can see you driving a Honda with the
Support Our Troops Yellow sticker. As if Pearl Harbor never happened.
"Joe Lunchpail" <joelunch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119564126.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
moorehead
He also said "there is NO terrorist threat!"....with a straight face.
Karl Rove is GOD. I wish more Republicans had his balls. Rove for
president.
mj
moorehead
me wrote:
> In 1945, even Nazi and Jap war criminals were given a public trial.
> Millions dead, still a public trial. The American way. Don't like it,
> then move to Yokohama.
Who said if Osama were captured, he wouldn't be put on trial? Oh,
you're just making shit up, like a typical bleeding-heart left-wing
socialist. Nevermind.
mj
Joe Lunchpail
me wrote:
> In 1945, even Nazi and Jap war criminals were given a public trial.
> Millions dead, still a public trial. The American way. Don't like it,
> then move to Yokohama.
>
> Do you
> A) Drive an American car
> B) Drive a Nazi car
> C) Drive a Pearl Harbor car
>
> No need to answer, Joe Lunchpail, I can see you driving a Honda with the
> Support Our Troops Yellow sticker. As if Pearl Harbor never happened.
>
Pick a war, any war, for the most part war criminals are tried at the
CONCLUSION of the war.... Nazi criminals, tried AFTER the war.
I don't do stickers of symbolism. I actually support the troops.
Joe Lunchpail
What lies? I note you didn't have the balls to point any out. Karl
Rove told the truth and you just don't like having it shoveled in your
face.
Go pout somewhere else.
Larry Hewitt
So upholding the constitution and believing in the rule of law is a bad
thing?/
And emotional, jingoistic, hatefilled conclusion jumping and rush to
judgement is a good thing?
I must have mossed the memo. When did we change from a country of law to a
country of lyincings?
Larry
>
Larry Hewitt
was none for the 9/11 attack.
I guess ylou really don;t like the rule of law.
Larry
Joe Lunchpail
You are an absolute and complete idiot.
Did we put Japanese pilots on trial for the attack on Pearl Harbor or
did we fight back?
Did we put German U-Boat captains on trial or did we fight back?
Sid9
Joe Lunchpail
comments.
Liberals did in fact do as Rove stated. It's undeniable.
Larry Hewitt
>
>
> Larry Hewitt wrote:
> > "Joe Lunchpail" <joelunch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1119562014....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > When Howard Dean was a presidential candidate, New Hampshire's Concord
> > > Monitor reported that Dean said he would not state his preference on a
> > > punishment for bin Laden before the al Qaeda leader was captured and
> > > put before a jury.
> > >
> > > "I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean
said
> > > in the interview. "I will have this old-fashioned notion that even
with
> > > people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do
> > > our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury
> > > trials."
> >
> > So upholding the constitution and believing in the rule of law is a bad
> > thing?/
> >
> > And emotional, jingoistic, hatefilled conclusion jumping and rush to
> > judgement is a good thing?
> >
> > I must have mossed the memo. When did we change from a country of law to
a
> > country of lyincings?
> >
> > Larry
>
>
> You are an absolute and complete idiot.
Coming from an uneducated liar and censor like you, that is a supreme
compliment.
>
> Did we put Japanese pilots on trial for the attack on Pearl Harbor or
> did we fight back?
>
Nope. They were members of a reguilar military acting under the direct
orders of a legal government . We DID put the people (at least the ones who
survived the war) who gave the orders on trial, though.
> Did we put German U-Boat captains on trial or did we fight back?
>
Nope. Again they were members of a regular military acting under the direct
orders of a legal government. We DID, however, put the people (at least
those who survived the war) who gave the orders on trial.
And thanks helping me show the world what an unediucated, illinformed,
illogical rightard you truly are.
First. the 19 hijcakers died, and putting htem on tiral would be diofficult,
at best.
Second, Buhs IS putting on trial (feebly, ineptly, but attempting) the
surviving members. Mohamed al-Kahtani is suspected of being part of the
conspiracy, and he is at Gitmo.
Zacarias Moussaoui was tried and convicted.
So Bush DID EXACTALAY what you are complaining that liberals wanted to do.
Further destryoing your feeble, illogical comparison, Bush is doing NOTHING
to capture and punish the man who gave the orders. bin Laden has gone from
top of hte most wanted list to off the radar. By your WWII analogy, we
should be trying and executing him. We ain;t. He just sits back in comfort
publishing his anti-US screeds and planning more attacks while we are bogged
down in regime change against people who had NOTHING to do with the attacks.
Larry
Sid9
Read his lying statement where he ties Iraq to 9/11.
Bush,Jr and Rove are liars.
They deceive.
They mislead.
If you are an American wake up!
You've been conned, you've been had, you've been swindled.
quibbler
says...
> Joe Lunchpail wrote:
> > Sid, I challenge you to show me where Karl Rove is inaccurate in his
> > comments.
> >
> > Liberals did in fact do as Rove stated. It's undeniable.
>
> Read his lying statement where he ties Iraq to 9/11.
Yeah, but it's even more elementary than that. Who was offering
"therapy" to Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. Clinton and the Democrats were
trying to kill or capture Bin Laden since the late 1990's. Bush was the
person who cancelled that policy and gave Bin Laden a therapeutic
respite.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
Raymond
>Bush, Jr and Rove are liars.
Did Karl Rove dodge the draft?
by Rebecca Walsh
Except for a lapse of several months, Selective Service records show
presidential adviser Karl Rove escaped the draft for nearly three years
at the height of the Vietnam War using student deferments.
His own draft record and accounts from friends reveal a young man who
didn't necessarily agree with the war and managed to avoid being
drafted.
Rove's Selective Service records are sparse, but they show a seemingly
typical path for many male Utah high school seniors in 1969.
Like most, he registered with the Selective Service while he was a
senior at Olympus High School, and he was assigned identification
number 42-24-50-1691. Rove was first classified as 1S-H, ineligible to
be drafted because he was a high school student.
Mark Gustavson (Olympus High School classmate, now a Salt Lake City
attorney.) and Rove became friends over their shared distaste for the
war in Vietnam. Both high school debate team members, they once were
thrown out of a pizza parlor after a heated argument over the war.
Another time, they trekked downtown together to protest Democratic
presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey's speech at the LDS Church
Tabernacle.
Far from being a conscientious objector, Gustavson recalls, Rove's
opposition to the war was political. He considered the conflict a
"political skirmish that was not being properly administered."
"I never heard Karl say, 'I hope I don't get drafted,' " Gustavson
says. "Everyone went and registered. No matter how we felt about the
war, we understood our legal duty. I don't remember Karl saying he
would get married or get a student deferment or do anything that would
have earned one a deferment."
But Rove got one anyway. Rove graduated from high school in the spring
of 1969 and in June was reclassified 1-A, available to be drafted.
Rove enrolled that fall in the University of Utah. In December the
Selective Service System held its first lottery drawing in which
numbers were assigned to potential draftees based on their birth dates.
The lower the number, the more likely it was the young man would be
drafted.
Rove received number 84, or within the top one-fourth of the 365
numbers. It would turn out that the highest lottery number drafted from
this group was 195, according the Selective Service, putting Rove's
number deep within those that could be drafted.
On Jan. 19, 1970, less than two months after the lottery, Rove
underwent a required Armed Forces Physical Examination and was found to
be fit for military service.
About a month later, on Feb. 17, 1970, Rove was again reclassified,
this time as 2-S, a deferment from the draft because of his enrollment
at the University of Utah.
During his two years at the university, Rove studied politics. Beloved
professor emeritus J.D. Williams, a staunch Democrat, was his mentor.
Rove has said he served an internship through the Hinckley Institute of
Politics. And in 1970, he worked on former Republican Sen. Wallace F.
Bennett's successful campaign to defeat incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen.
Frank Moss.
At the time, a full-time student at the university would have had to
take 12 hours a quarter. University records show Rove went to school
full-time for four of those quarters. But in the autumn and spring
quarters of 1971, Rove was a part-time student, registered for between
six and 12 credit hours. In his book, The Draft: 1940- 1973, Texas Tech
University history professor George Flynn writes that Selective Service
regulations required a student with a draft deferment to study
"full-time, pursuing a regular degree, and in senior college. But the
definition of full time varied .
Despite the apparent lapse in his full-time status, Rove maintained his
deferment.
At the end of the school year in 1971, Rove told Gustavson he was going
to Washington to work for the Republican National Committee as
executive director of the College Republicans - a job Bennett
reportedly helped him secure.
Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt says Rove enrolled that
fall at the University of Maryland in College Park. But a letter he
prepared to notify the local draft board in Murray of his transfer
never made it to Utah.
"To this day, it is unclear to Mr. Rove what happened to the letter,"
Schmidt says. "He turned it in to the university. But whether it was
lost in the mail or arrived late, the draft board did not get it in
time and the deferment was not renewed."
University of Maryland registrar's records show Rove withdrew from
classes during the first half of the semester. He continued to work for
the party. And on Dec. 14, 1971, he was reclassified as 1-A, available
- extended priority, Schmidt says, meaning he could be drafted ahead of
everyone else. For four months, Rove was exposed to the draft, but was
not called.
However, his risk of being drafted ended on April 27, 1972, when Rove
was reclassified again as 1-H, or "not currently subject to processing
for induction."
According to Selective Service records, the names of 4.4 million men,
along with Rove, essentially were placed at the bottom of draft lists
between January and August of 1972.
"That classification was granted to a lot of people at the wind-down of
the Vietnam War," says Selective Service spokesman Pat Schuback. "Large
numbers of people were reclassified."
The last man inducted entered the Army on June 30, 1973, according to
the Selective Service.
Kerry's camp continues to make Rove's draft history the subject of
debate.
The Massachusetts senator's medals have been questioned by a group
called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Bush lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg
resigned after acknowledging he advised both the Swift Boat Veterans
and the president's campaign. And former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, a
Kerry supporter and Vietnam veteran, earlier this month said, "Karl
Rove was behind it all."
Retired Army Col. David Hackworth, a Vietnam veteran and critic,
believes Rove is behind the renewed debate about that war nearly 40
years ago. The former war correspondent and online columnist says
Rove's strategy as the president's political adviser is to distract
from the bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan by focusing the public's
attention on Vietnam.
"You're dealing with the Machiavelli of modern politics," Hackworth
says. "If you look at his track record, what he is really brilliant at
is keeping the opposition from being locked on the real message. Do we
know that Iraq is a disaster? No. But we know all about the swift
boats."
Schmidt rejects the suggestion that Rove had anything to do with the
ads or a larger strategy to question Kerry's Vietnam record. The
campaign did not respond to a request for an interview with Rove.
"There is no connection," he says. "That charge is baseless." Schmidt
notes that Bush lauded Kerry's service during the Republican National
Convention - and delegates applauded him.
And Gustavson says criticism by Democrats - "Clintonistas," he calls
them - of Rove's apparent luck is unfair.
"It paints a time in American history with too broad and dramatic a
stroke. It wasn't that black and white," Gustavson says.
"There were a lot of legitimate reasons for not going. There were a lot
of legitimate reasons for going," he adds. "Some of my friends were
just cowards. But I never heard Karl advocate violating that law. That
he didn't go makes him like hundreds of thousands of other guys my age
who didn't go."
John LaVoy
"Raymond" <Bluer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119645304.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Karl Rove, the Machiavelli of modern politics,"
> >Bush, Jr and Rove are liars.
>
> Did Karl Rove dodge the draft?
> by Rebecca Walsh
>
Bruce Olin
| >Bush, Jr and Rove are liars.
|
| Did Karl Rove dodge the draft?
| by Rebecca Walsh
|
| Except for a lapse of several months, Selective Service records show
| presidential adviser Karl Rove escaped the draft for nearly three years
| at the height of the Vietnam War using student deferments.
|
| His own draft record and accounts from friends reveal a young man who
| didn't necessarily agree with the war and managed to avoid being
| drafted.
Rove used the same technicality to avoid the draft that I used.
In Dec. of 1971, Nixon announced that there would be no draft for January
of '72 and probably would be none for the first three months. That meant
that if you went 1A for even a week in December of '71, you must be called
during the first three months of '72. I wrote my draft board, told them to
drop my 2S, and included a "Peace on Earth" Christmas card. I sweated
through the next three months, but there was no draft call.
This was a rather difficult thing to pull off, and it took some planning. I
find it hard to believe that Ol' Karl did the same thing "accidentally"
Bruce Olin
jose
jose
the 9/11 atrocity. He didn't mention Democrats once in
his entire speech. I noticed that the usual suspects
rushed to microphones demanding that Rove take it back,
whatever it was that he said, and assured everyone that
they weren't going to take it anymore. Oddly, they were
all self proclaimed Democrats like Hillary, Schumer,
and Democratic senators from Connecticut and New Jersey.
Sid9
He put forward the same old
same old lie tying 9/11 to Iraq
and justification for the morass
our country finds itself in.
My statements stand:
Bush,Jr and Rove are liars.
They deceive.
They mislead.
If you are an American wake up!
You've been conned, you've been had, you've been swindled.
as...@global.net
Rove is right about the "Liberals."
We were there or don't you remember.
The damned Liberals wanted to serve arrest warrants in Afghanistan. They
wanted to bring half the population of terrorists, in the Mid East to
somebody's Court.
Move On.Org wanted us to forgive the poor misunderstood Terrorists that
had just killed 3,000 Americans.
We didn't hear you volunteer to be a process server.
Sid9
You've been had.
You are an easy mark
marc...@yahoo.com
today. They issued a statement saying how insulting his remarks were
to those who perished that day.
Eventually, these types of comments coming from people who have the
ears of Bush will come back to haunt them.
Rove, Bush, Cheney, et al should all be behind bars with the keys
thrown away.
Tempest
quibbler wrote:
> In article <BtZue.786$Zo....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, si...@bellsouth.net
> says...
>
>>Joe Lunchpail wrote:
>>
>>>Sid, I challenge you to show me where Karl Rove is inaccurate in his
>>>comments.
>>>
>>>Liberals did in fact do as Rove stated. It's undeniable.
>>
>>Read his lying statement where he ties Iraq to 9/11.
>
>
> Yeah, but it's even more elementary than that. Who was offering
> "therapy" to Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. Clinton and the Democrats were
> trying to kill or capture Bin Laden since the late 1990's. Bush was the
> person who cancelled that policy and gave Bin Laden a therapeutic
> respite.
Not only did Bush cancel the program which was keeping track of bin
Laden for a possible strike against him, but Bush also told the FBI to
back off on an investigation into bin Laden's family and how they were
financing him.
--
"Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their
dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens."
- William H. Beveridge, 1944
Sid9
> quibbler wrote:
>> In article <BtZue.786$Zo....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
>> si...@bellsouth.net says...
>>
>>> Joe Lunchpail wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sid, I challenge you to show me where Karl Rove is inaccurate in
>>>> his comments.
>>>>
>>>> Liberals did in fact do as Rove stated. It's undeniable.
>>>
>>> Read his lying statement where he ties Iraq to 9/11.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, but it's even more elementary than that. Who was offering
>> "therapy" to Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. Clinton and the Democrats were
>> trying to kill or capture Bin Laden since the late 1990's. Bush was
>> the person who cancelled that policy and gave Bin Laden a therapeutic
>> respite.
>
>
> Not only did Bush cancel the program which was keeping track of bin
> Laden for a possible strike against him, but Bush also told the FBI to
> back off on an investigation into bin Laden's family and how they were
> financing him.
Who asked him to do that, do you think?
Prince Bandar Bush?
John Starrett
Just like the neo-cons. They were so deceived by the ultra liberal wing
of which they used to be a part that they swung hard right when they
realized their philosophical errors. Now they are being fooled by the
ultra right. Gullible as can be, they can be led by the nose.
John Starrett
Joe Lunchpail
What exactly did Rove say that was inaccurate? Answer: Nothing, he
was right on with the truth and THAT's what pisses you liberals off.
You can't stand having the truth thrown back in your face. Not ONE of
you has rebutted Rove's remarks. You're all about re-direct because
you're not honorable enough to admit to the truth.
Sid9
That's the trick that Rove taught Bush,jr.
If you take it apart sentence by sentence the lie vanishes.
Put it together it's a blatent lie.
9/11 and Iraq are not related. Rove related them.
You don't seem to get it.
James E. Morrow
joelunch...@yahoo.com says...
Not only is Mr. Rove telling the truth but all of this noise has a
purpose. For the Demorats it is imperative that the public be
distracted from the disgrace of Turban Durbin.
Those of us who understand how this game is played have been here
before. It's an an old game.
--
James E. Morrow
Email to: jamese...@email.com
Chief Inspector Dreyfus
> > Liberals did in fact do as Rove stated. It's undeniable.
That is only partly true. Rove was talking about communists, nazis,
communazis, islamo-fascists, greens, feminists, and other Democrats,
not just liberals.
> Read his lying statement where he ties Iraq to 9/11.
>
> Bush,Jr and Rove are liars.
> They deceive.
> They mislead.
> If you are an American wake up!
>
It's you Sid9 that has been conned, you've been had, you've been
swindled.
Chief Inspector Claude Dreyfus, Surete
I subscribe to Jane Fonda Speaks series
for good fun and good reference, Jane Fonda Speaks series
http://tinyurl.com/9fm7v or http://shorterlink.com/?GB1D6E
marc...@yahoo.com
You've been brainwashed by the 25 year campaign of the corporate-owned
media. Starting thinking for yourself instead of what Rush told you.
marc...@yahoo.com
There were liberal Democrats among those who jumped to their deaths
from the towers. There are liberal Democrats among the families who
survive them. It is an insult for Rove to suggest that Liberal
Democrats don't want to capture the people who are responsible.
Porter Goss said the other day that we know where Osama is, but to get
him we would have to invade a sovereign nation.
INVADE A SOVEREIGN NATION????
Since when does invading a sovereign nation impede the United States
from striking militarily...Vietnam, Afgahnistan, Iraq to name a few.
I'll tell you why. Bin Laden is in Pakistan. Pakistan has a strong
army, and they have nukes. The United States, since WWII, doesn't pick
on anyone who might be able to fight us.
Tempest
Pakistan is also an ally in Bush's war on terrorism.
Bush needs Pakistan to sell weapons to in order to keep the U.S.
military/industrial complex running.
> The United States, since WWII, doesn't pick on anyone who might be able to fight us.
Hence the ignoring of Iran and North Korea, the other two axis-of-evil
countries.
Joe Lunchpail
NO, YOU DON'T SEEM TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN A SON-OF-A-BITCHING,
MANIPULTATIVE PIECE OF SHIT LIAR.
Rove did not lie, he did not parse, he did not manipulate, he did not
'take it apart, sentence by sentence...'
HE TOLD THE TRUTH.
Liberals did just as Rove said.
THAT is reality, THAT is the truth.
Denial of that reality, is why liberals CONTINUE to lose on election
day. WAKE UP AND START ACTING HONORABLY!
Sid9
Rove's speech a repetition of Bush,Jr's lies.
Period
Nothing new here except you....you seem to be falling apart defending these
liars.
You don't seem to give one crap about our boys that are dying in futile
cause.
You don't like my stuff?
Don't respond.
Do whatever your software requires to make my posts invisible.
Keep your ostrich like head in the sand as Bush,Jr wrecks our country.
Joe Lunchpail
No, I don't like your posts you piece of shit. You're a liar, nothing
but. I will NOT ignore what you post, I will continue to counter with
the truth. I most certainly support our troops and understand what it
takes to defend this country. The war against terrorism is NOT a
futile cause and members of the military side with the GOP, not you and
your ilk. They know and understand. They know and understand that you
and the bullshit you perpetuate is a poison for America.
Sid9
You don't support our troops.
You are willing to see them die for a lie.
This war is a Bush,Jr LIE.
Bush,Jr is not defending our country he's on an ego trip.
Bush,Jr ignores our enemies in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia
You want to support our troops?
Bring them home from Bush,Jr's fiasco.
Support our troop by opposing the lying Bush,Jr administration.
Patriotism defends our country not a lying administration.
Sid9
Hagel sounds alarm over Iraq
BY JAKE THOMPSON
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
Published Sunday June 26, 2005
GRAND ISLAND, Neb. - More than 200 Nebraska American Legion
members, who have seen war and conflict themselves, fell
quiet here Saturday as Sen. Chuck Hagel bluntly explained
why he believes that the United States is losing the war in
Iraq.
Sen. Chuck Hagel addresses more than 200 Nebraska American
Legion members in Grand Island on Saturday.
It took 20 minutes, but it boiled down to this:
The Bush team sent in too few troops to fight the war
leading to today's chaos and rising deaths of Americans and
Iraqis. Terrorists are "pouring in" to Iraq.
Basic living standards are worse than a year ago in Iraq.
Civil war is perilously close to erupting there. Allies
aren't helping much. The American public is losing its
trust in President Bush's handling of the conflict.
And Hagel's deep fear is that it will all plunge into
another Vietnam debacle, prompting Congress to force
another abrupt pullout as it did in 1975.
"What we don't want to happen is for this to end up another
Vietnam," Hagel told the legionnaires, "because the
consequences would be catastrophic."
It would be far worse than Vietnam, says Hagel, a
twice-wounded veteran of that conflict, which killed 58,000
Americans.
| ...
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=1638&u_sid=1445550&u_rnd=4035101
marc...@yahoo.com
It's pretty amzing how when confronted with facts disproving their
beliefs, all right wingers react with rants.
Being a right-winger means never having to tell the truth
Joe Lunchpail
And you're full of shit. My rant was out of frustration due to liberal
lies and manipulations. You folks don't tell the truth about anything.
You twist, and spin, re-direct when confronted with the truth......
Liberals DID in fact do as Rove stated. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
marc...@yahoo.com
Joe Lunchpail wrote:
>> And you're full of shit. My rant was out of frustration
awwwwwwwwwww, poor baby
You idiots will never learn. Right-wingers live a life of delusion in
a Land of Denial.
The Sixties are back, my friend...the times they are a changin.
Your heroes will be doing jail time soon.
Sid9
By Joe Conason
June 24, 2005
Karl Rove is a liar and a scoundrel.
He is not a patriot but a pure partisan, as his own record proved long
before now.
The other night Rove lied about the liberal reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks
and again exploited patriotism for narrow partisan advantage in a time of
war. He seeks to divert public opinion from the failures of the Bush
administration by suppressing dissent, stigmatizing "liberals" and returning
to the same old tactics that the Republican far right has used ever since
the McCarthy era.
His unhinged rhetoric is a sign of deep worry within the White House, of
course, as polls continue to show deepening public alienation from the
president and growing skepticism about the war in Iraq. Most Americans now
understand that they have been deceived about the war from the beginning,
and most doubt the Bush administration's strategy for extricating our
troops.
Moreover, Rove must cope with Republicans as well as Democrats who are
openly dissenting from the administration line, not only regarding Iraq but
on the Bolton nomination and Social Security privatization.
Evidently Rove believes that demonizing Democrats and liberals will distract
the nation from the Bush administration's failures. That tactic has
certainly served him well in the past, when he managed to divert attention
from the failure to deal with the terrorist threat before 9/11, the failure
to speak honestly about the alleged threat from Iraq and the failure to plan
intelligently for the Iraq invasion and its aftermath. We have paid an
enormous price for those failures, yet cynical Rove still thinks he can
convince us that this is all the fault of "liberals."
As a New Yorker who stood on my street and watched the Twin Towers fall, I
take strong personal exception to Rove's ugly slander against "liberals."
According to him, liberals "saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted
to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our
attackers." That broad-brush smear is false, and Rove knows it.
The truth is that liberal New York -- and the vast majority of American
liberals and progressives -- stood with the president in his decision to
invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. On the day of the attacks, I
wrote a column that endorsed "hunting down and punishing" those responsible
because the dead deserved justice -- and noted that when the culpability of
Osama bin Laden and the Taliban was established, the United States "is fully
capable of dealing with them."
Six weeks after 9/11 and two weeks after the United States started bombing
the terrorist camps in Afghanistan, I appeared on CBS's "Early Show" to
support the Bush administration's actions. Correspondent Lisa Birnbach made
the point that liberals and Democrats who had once opposed the war in
Vietnam were standing shoulder to shoulder with a president they didn't much
like (and, although she didn't mention it, whose legitimacy they continued
to doubt).
Noting the ubiquitous presence of American flags as we walked around the
very liberal neighborhood where I live, Birnbach said, "This old lefty
[Conason] is suddenly siding with the White House."
Responding to her question about the U.S. war against al-Qaida and the
Taliban, I told Birnbach: "I'm not going to say I agree with every policy
this administration will pursue, but so far, so good." Although she sounded
surprised, the fact is that I was scarcely alone on the liberal left in
expressing those sentiments.
In the aftermath of 9/11, liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill stood proudly
with conservative Republicans to pledge their support for military action
against al-Qaida and the Taliban. The wobbly weakness of George W. Bush's
initial response to the terror strikes went unmentioned, as did anything
else that might hint at dissension at a moment of crisis. When Bush
delivered his powerful speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20,
2001, he won standing applause across the bitter divide left by the 2000
election. For the first time in memory, Democratic congressional leaders
declined free airtime to answer a Republican presidential address.
"We want America to speak with one voice tonight and we want enemies and the
whole world and all of our citizens to know that America speaks tonight with
one voice," said Rep. Richard Gephardt, then the House Democratic leader.
"We have faith in [Bush] and his colleagues in the executive branch to do
this in the right way."
Tom Daschle, then the Senate Democratic leader, stood with his Republican
counterpart, Trent Lott, to show bipartisan support for the president.
"Tonight there is no opposition party," said Lott. "We stand here united,
not as Republicans and Democrats, not as Southerners or Westerners or
Midwesterners or Easterners, but as Americans." Daschle echoed Lott: "We
want President Bush to know -- we want the world to know -- that he can
depend on us."
Even Rep. Maxine Waters, the liberal Los Angeles Democrat who at the time
was among Bush's toughest critics on the left, praised him without
reservation. "He hit a home run," she said. "We may disagree later, but now
is not the time."
Among the other liberal journalists who backed Bush was Jacob Weisberg, now
editor of Slate magazine, who has published several volumes mocking Bush's
difficulties with the English language.
Weisberg said then, "He was very shaky at first, but I resisted the urge to
write a piece saying that, because I didn't think it was appropriate ...
Bush deserves the benefit of the doubt to an enormous degree. He needs to
rally the nation. I want to contribute to that effort to the extent that I
can."
But we now know that even then, at the peak of national unity, Rove was
planning to make suckers of the Democrats and liberals who had spoken out in
support of the president. He didn't care about bipartisan cooperation, or
about the benefit of the doubt that Democrats had given Bush. He behaved as
a partisan, not a patriot.
Rove would soon discard the inspiring presidential rhetoric that had joined
Americans across race, religion and ideology. The slogan of a nation at war
that blossomed on billboards, bumper stickers and storefronts -- "United We
Stand" -- was no longer operative.
Or so Rove explained to his fellow "patriots" at a closed meeting of the
Republican National Committee during their winter conference in Austin,
Texas. Less than four months after Bush's Sept. 20 address to the joint
session of Congress, he was scheming to win the midterm elections by
transforming the "war on terror" into a war on Democrats.
"We can go to the country on this issue, because they trust the Republican
Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military
might and thereby protecting America," he said. Provocative as those remarks
were, they were mild compared with the kind of slanders that ensued against
Daschle -- who was paired with Saddam and bin Laden -- and many other
Democratic candidates.
So when vicious little Ken Mehlman, the RNC chairman, claims that Rove was
referring only to Michael Moore, he's lying too. I expect no apologies from
either of them or their bullying supporters. They should expect none when
those they have insulted and betrayed tell them what they are.
marc...@yahoo.com
I also feel that Roves' statement was an insult, but unlike Mr.
Conason, I still believe that rushing into an attack against
Afghanistan was wrong. It accomplished nothing but kill a lot of
innocent people, and merely disperse the Taliban who are still there.
They never caught Osama, who like most of the 9/11 attackers were
Saudis. There was a lot of disagreement about attacking Afghanistan,
but since, as Gore Vidal puts it, we live in the United States of
Amnesia, that has been forgotten. Now, everyone is saying how great it
was to go into Afghanistan because it's been a much smaller failure
than Iraq in comparison.
I still remember an emotional right-wing radio commentator, ranting a
few days after 9/11 screaming into his microphone, "We must do
something...let's attack....someone". And that's what we did. Our
invasion of Afghanistan is equally as shameful as our invasion of Iraq.
We've tortured people there, killed innocent civilians, and women are
no better off in Afghanistan today with the war lords than they were
under the Taliban.
Instead of pursuing a rationale plan, utilizing a world ready to help
us after we were attacked, we just went in with misguided vengeness and
accomplished nothing.
Sid9
Afghanistan could have been managable if Bush,Jr didn't run off to adventure
in Iraq.
We had strong international allies.
We had almost universal world opinion on our side.
Americans were united.
Then Bush,Jr packed up and left before the job was finished.
Now it's a failure like everything this clown touches.
Tempest
Hagel's deepest fear is that Iraq will get hung around his neck during
the 2006 election and bring him down, along with many other Repugs.
> "What we don't want to happen is for this to end up another
> Vietnam," Hagel told the legionnaires, "because the
> consequences would be catastrophic."
>
> It would be far worse than Vietnam, says Hagel, a
> twice-wounded veteran of that conflict, which killed 58,000
> Americans.
> | ...
> http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=1638&u_sid=1445550&u_rnd=4035101
>
>
enialle
It seem when it comes to making charges with the progressives the
republican tards modus operandi is to jump up and down and say "rove
is right" or whoever lie the right talking head makes. But they
challenged to prove Rove's or any right wing talking head's assertions
with facts, or proof they all of a sudden become vapid drooling fools.
enialle
Not only he did that, he took money earmarked for Afghanistan to put
in the kitty for the fool's war in Iraq.
Tempest
They would have, but soon after the war in Afghanistan started, Bush
pulled 20,000 U.S. troops, and millions of dollars, out of Afghanistan
to prepare for the Iraq war.
> There was a lot of disagreement about attacking Afghanistan,
> but since, as Gore Vidal puts it, we live in the United States of
> Amnesia, that has been forgotten. Now, everyone is saying how great it
> was to go into Afghanistan because it's been a much smaller failure
> than Iraq in comparison.
>
> I still remember an emotional right-wing radio commentator, ranting a
> few days after 9/11 screaming into his microphone, "We must do
> something...let's attack....someone". And that's what we did. Our
> invasion of Afghanistan is equally as shameful as our invasion of Iraq.
> We've tortured people there, killed innocent civilians, and women are
> no better off in Afghanistan today with the war lords than they were
> under the Taliban.
>
> Instead of pursuing a rationale plan, utilizing a world ready to help
> us after we were attacked, we just went in with misguided vengeness and
> accomplished nothing.
>
Joe Lunchpail
In your dreams. America keeps rejecting liberal thought at the polls,
you liberals continue to lose elections as a result, that's the bottom
line.
marc...@yahoo.com
You are so wrong. My hope is that someday you'll wake up and see the
light.
Larry Hewitt
"Joe Lunchpail" <joelunch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119747247....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Lying self appointed internet censor serial deleter Joe Lunchpail gets his
panties in a bunch because he cannot stand the truth.
Lying rightard scoundrel falls back on false patriotism and fear to excuse
abuse, lies, and the deaths of tens of thousands.
Larry
Sid9
He needs to be screwed over a little more by Bush,Jr and his friends.
Joe L has no clue that it's happeneing to him.
number6
And if they aren't ... I'm sure you'll imitate Vietnamese Buddhist
monks of the sixties and perform self immolation in protest ...
Joe Lunchpail
Nope, I'm doing well, America is doing well, your denial is based in
ignorance.
Joe Lunchpail
I'm enjoying success, as is my family, my neighborhood, my community,
my state, my country. George Bush has been the right man, in the right
place, at the right time.
What's your problem?
Joe Lunchpail
Hmmmmm, I notice that you didn't acknowledge the recent election losses
I pointed out....... Gee, why IS that?
Joe Lunchpail
marc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I also feel that Roves' statement was an insult, but unlike Mr.
> Conason, I still believe that rushing into an attack against
> Afghanistan was wrong. It accomplished nothing but kill a lot of
> innocent people, and merely disperse the Taliban who are still there.
> They never caught Osama, who like most of the 9/11 attackers were
> Saudis. There was a lot of disagreement about attacking Afghanistan,
> but since, as Gore Vidal puts it, we live in the United States of
> Amnesia, that has been forgotten. Now, everyone is saying how great it
> was to go into Afghanistan because it's been a much smaller failure
> than Iraq in comparison.
>
1. I note that no liberal in this newsgroup has effectively
demonstrated just how Karl Rove's comments were inaccurate. You've
posted opinion pieces, but no real substance. Liberals did in fact do
as Rove stated.
2. Regarding Afghanistan, we did the right thing. The Afghan people
are working within the frame work of democracy - you would think
liberals would be excited about that - the freedom, the ability to
create and achieve.....
marc...@yahoo.com
I'm not a Democrat
marc...@yahoo.com
if you go first and show me how it's done.
Joe Lunchpail
Irrelevent response, that you did not address Rove's accuracy is noted.
marc...@yahoo.com
I'm not a Democrat, but if I were...to answer your question I'd merely
point out to you that most Democrats voted for the Patriot Act and
approved the attack and invasion of Afghanistan. So, how can Rove
criticize a group of people who agreed with his Fuhrer.
Sid9
I know the answer!
Rove is a liar and a faker.
Joe Lunchpail
The manipulation that Rove was referring to all democrats when he
specifically identified liberals such as MoveOn.org and Michael Moore
is noted.
That you chose to use verbiage such as 'Fuhrer', to imply unwarranted
evil is also noted.
Rove stated the truth. Period. Liberals have indeed done as Rove
stated.
Acknowledge the truth.
Slo
Joe Lunchpail wrote:
> marc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I also feel that Roves' statement was an insult, but unlike Mr.
> > Conason, I still believe that rushing into an attack against
> > Afghanistan was wrong. It accomplished nothing but kill a lot of
> > innocent people, and merely disperse the Taliban who are still there.
> > They never caught Osama, who like most of the 9/11 attackers were
> > Saudis. There was a lot of disagreement about attacking Afghanistan,
> > but since, as Gore Vidal puts it, we live in the United States of
> > Amnesia, that has been forgotten. Now, everyone is saying how great it
> > was to go into Afghanistan because it's been a much smaller failure
> > than Iraq in comparison.
> >
>
> 1. I note that no liberal in this newsgroup has effectively
> demonstrated just how Karl Rove's comments were inaccurate. You've
> posted opinion pieces, but no real substance. Liberals did in fact do
> as Rove stated.
Do you have an example of a liberal recommending "therapy"
for the terrorists responsible for 9/11?
> 2. Regarding Afghanistan, we did the right thing.
Again, Rove lied. Most liberals supported the invasion
of Afghanistan. Rove should be fired. As a taxpayer I
resent being insulted by this asshole. Rove is doing
something thoroughly despicable: he's politicizing 9/11,
possibly the worst intelligence failure in US history
and it happened on Bush's watch.
c-bee1
>
>
> marc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I also feel that Roves' statement was an insult, but unlike Mr.
> > Conason, I still believe that rushing into an attack against
> > Afghanistan was wrong. It accomplished nothing but kill a lot of
> > innocent people, and merely disperse the Taliban who are still there.
> > They never caught Osama, who like most of the 9/11 attackers were
> > Saudis. There was a lot of disagreement about attacking Afghanistan,
> > but since, as Gore Vidal puts it, we live in the United States of
> > Amnesia, that has been forgotten. Now, everyone is saying how great it
> > was to go into Afghanistan because it's been a much smaller failure
> > than Iraq in comparison.
> >
>
> 1. I note that no liberal in this newsgroup has effectively
> demonstrated just how Karl Rove's comments were inaccurate. You've
> posted opinion pieces, but no real substance. Liberals did in fact do
> as Rove stated.
Cite 'therapy' part. lol Same lies different day from sad sick serial
liar Joe Pissbucket.
> 2. Regarding Afghanistan, we did the right thing. The Afghan people
> are working within the frame work of democracy - you would think
> liberals would be excited about that - the freedom, the ability to
> create and achieve.....
The Afghan people huddle in their homes scared to death of the warlords
who own two-thirds of the country while a pitiful token American force holds
the cities. lol
c-bee1
Cite evidence of Rove's accuracy? lol
c-bee1
Your proof, sad sick serial liar?
marc...@yahoo.com
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove are the embodiment of pure evil just
like Hitler and his faithful crew.
number6
You're the one saying the sixties are back ... that was part of it ...
I thought you knew all how it's done ... and you were all set to
protest ... I just selected a reasonable method for you ...
moorehead
Tempest wrote:
> quibbler wrote:
> > In article <BtZue.786$Zo....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, si...@bellsouth.net
> > says...
> >
> >>Joe Lunchpail wrote:
> >>
> >>>Sid, I challenge you to show me where Karl Rove is inaccurate in his
> >>>comments.
> >>>
> >>>Liberals did in fact do as Rove stated. It's undeniable.
> >>
> >>Read his lying statement where he ties Iraq to 9/11.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, but it's even more elementary than that. Who was offering
> > "therapy" to Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. Clinton and the Democrats were
> > trying to kill or capture Bin Laden since the late 1990's. Bush was the
> > person who cancelled that policy and gave Bin Laden a therapeutic
> > respite.
>
>
> Not only did Bush cancel the program which was keeping track of bin
> Laden for a possible strike against him, but Bush also told the FBI to
> back off on an investigation into bin Laden's family and how they were
> financing him.
Did the people in the black helicopters hovering over you tell you
this?
I think you need to readjust your tinfoil beanie, there, bub.
mj
----------
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested,
exiled or hanged" - Abraham Lincoln
Sid9
> Tempest wrote:
>> quibbler wrote:
>>> In article <BtZue.786$Zo....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
>>> si...@bellsouth.net says...
>>>
>>>> Joe Lunchpail wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sid, I challenge you to show me where Karl Rove is inaccurate in
>>>>> his comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liberals did in fact do as Rove stated. It's undeniable.
>>>>
>>>> Read his lying statement where he ties Iraq to 9/11.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, but it's even more elementary than that. Who was offering
>>> "therapy" to Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. Clinton and the Democrats
>>> were trying to kill or capture Bin Laden since the late 1990's.
>>> Bush was the person who cancelled that policy and gave Bin Laden a
>>> therapeutic respite.
>>
>>
>> Not only did Bush cancel the program which was keeping track of bin
>> Laden for a possible strike against him, but Bush also told the FBI
>> to back off on an investigation into bin Laden's family and how they
>> were financing him.
>
> Did the people in the black helicopters hovering over you tell you
> this?
>
> I think you need to readjust your tinfoil beanie, there, bub.
>
> mj
You seem to have a problem with facts.
Bush,jr did exactly that
Lamont Cranston
>
> Tempest wrote:
>
>>quibbler wrote:
>>
>>>In article <BtZue.786$Zo....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, si...@bellsouth.net
>>>says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Joe Lunchpail wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Sid, I challenge you to show me where Karl Rove is inaccurate in his
>>>>>comments.
>>>>>
>>>>>Liberals did in fact do as Rove stated. It's undeniable.
>>>>
>>>>Read his lying statement where he ties Iraq to 9/11.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah, but it's even more elementary than that. Who was offering
>>>"therapy" to Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. Clinton and the Democrats were
>>>trying to kill or capture Bin Laden since the late 1990's. Bush was the
>>>person who cancelled that policy and gave Bin Laden a therapeutic
>>>respite.
>>
>>
>>Not only did Bush cancel the program which was keeping track of bin
>>Laden for a possible strike against him, but Bush also told the FBI to
>>back off on an investigation into bin Laden's family and how they were
>>financing him.
>
>
> Did the people in the black helicopters hovering over you tell you
> this?
>
> I think you need to readjust your tinfoil beanie, there, bub.
I think that you need to do a little reading and learn how to embrace
the truth.
moorehead
moorehead
And I think perhaps if you adjusted your tinfoil beanie, you'd be less
confused.
mj
Lamont Cranston
> Cite?
>
Learn how to quote.
I'm Right is an effing moron
Yah, you keep believing that asshole.
>
Server 13
>
> Server 13 wrote:
>
>>Joe Lunchpail wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Late 2002, Telluride Film Festival - almost a year after the al-Qaida
>>>assault on American society. Michael Moore stated his view that Osama
>>>Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was,
>>>he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he
>>>maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified.
>>>
>>
>> It's called the law. I can see why republicans have a problem with that.
>
>
> 9/11 was an act of war. And the mentality of you and your ilk is
> precisely what allowed for such an act to take place.
>
translation - you've got nothing.
moorehead
Sid9 wrote:
> Joe Lunchpail wrote:
> > Sid, I challenge you to show me where Karl Rove is inaccurate in his
> > comments.
> >
> > Liberals did in fact do as Rove stated. It's undeniable.
>
> Read his lying statement where he ties Iraq to 9/11.
This lie aside, we couldn't help but notice you didn't answer the
question - can you point out what part of Karl Rove's statements were
false?
mj
Server 13
>
> Server 13 wrote:
>
>>Joe Lunchpail wrote:
>>
>>>Bush's chief political adviser, Rove said in a speech Wednesday that
>>>"liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare
>>>indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
>>>
>>>Rove's words are completely and absolutely, 100% true.
>>>
>>>The liberal organization MoveOn.org pushed for a 'can't we just get
>>>along?' approach.
>>>
>>>Liberal Dennis Kucinich pushed for a 'can't we just get along?'
>>>approach.
>>>
>>>Liberal pundits pushed for a 'can't we just get along?' approach.
>>>
>>>You'll notice how some elected democrats are feigning outrage at the
>>>remarks, and are pretending Karl Rove was applying his remarks to all
>>>democrats. That's blatantly false. His remarks were clear, he was
>>>referring to liberals. It's interesting to note that Rove's truth is
>>>somehow offensive to folks like Schummer, Hillary, and Reid, and yet
>>>Durbin's outrageous remarks slandering U.S. troops at GITMO
>>>aren't.....
>>>
>>>Simply put - this selective outrage by liberals is bullshit.
>>>
>>
>>same lies different day
>
>
> What lies? I note you didn't have the balls to point any out. Karl
> Rove told the truth
Cite, liar?
Eyeball Kid
<si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Tempest wrote:
> > quibbler wrote:
> >> In article <BtZue.786$Zo....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
> >> si...@bellsouth.net says...
> >>
> >>> Joe Lunchpail wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Sid, I challenge you to show me where Karl Rove is inaccurate in
> >>>> his comments.
> >>>>
> >>>> Liberals did in fact do as Rove stated. It's undeniable.
> >>>
> >>> Read his lying statement where he ties Iraq to 9/11.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yeah, but it's even more elementary than that. Who was offering
> >> "therapy" to Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. Clinton and the Democrats were
> >> trying to kill or capture Bin Laden since the late 1990's. Bush was
> >> the person who cancelled that policy and gave Bin Laden a therapeutic
> >> respite.
> >
> >
> > Not only did Bush cancel the program which was keeping track of bin
> > Laden for a possible strike against him, but Bush also told the FBI to
> > back off on an investigation into bin Laden's family and how they were
> > financing him.
>
> Who asked him to do that, do you think?
> Prince Bandar Bush?
Whoever it was who needed butthole therapy.
E. K.
>
>
--
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he
makes and we should just support that."-Britney Spears, 9/2003
"The American Way of Life is not negotiable." Dick Cheney, 2001
"I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and
ought to be encouraged." Antonin Scalia, September 28, 2004
Free humor. Whenever you want. http://www.psmueller.com
Eyeball Kid
effing moron <conservativ...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure that Lunchpail should be criticized by his remarks. Let
him have his "happiness". Let him think that Bush is Mr. Right. It's
okay by me. I certainly see things that he doesn't see, but I'm not
sure that he should be seen in a bad light because of it. Besides,
you're not going to be able to convince everyone, or perhaps anyone,
that Bush is the destructive wretch that you might perceive him to be.
Lunchpail's bubble will burst. Something will happen in his world that
he won't be able to easily explain away. He'll have a relative who will
lose medical benefits, or perhaps his job will be exported. Or his
kids' school will cut back on curricula. Or, if Bush overstays his
welcome, one of Lunchpail's nephews might "disappear" for speaking out
against the government. (I don't wish any of these on anyone. It
doesn't take a wish. It takes fascism.) He'll eventually feel it like
everyone else. His time hasn't come yet. We all come around in our own
time. So he may as well be enjoying his life while he can.
fred
united everybody, even democrats and republicans, and even if only for
a brief while. Yes, at the time of 9/11 the democrats were looking for
ways to destroy GW Bush for "stealing" the election from Al Gore. But
it wasn't until after getting over the initial shock of 9/11 that the
democracts decided that 9/11 issues could be included in their kitchen
sink inventory of garbage for trying to destroy GW Bush.
Again, in my opinion it was wrong for Rove to imply that democrats
weren't initially concerned about 9/11 problems just like everybody
else was.
Lamont Cranston
It was all false. All liberals in the Senate and all but one liberal in
the house voted for the use of force in Afghanistan to attempt to
capture or kill those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Every liberal
in the country supported said use of force.
>
> mj
>
moorehead
"We, The Undersigned, Citizens And Residents Of The United States Of
America ... Appeal To The President Of The United States, George W.
Bush ... And To All Leaders Internationally To Use Moderation And
Restraint In Responding To The Recent Terrorist Attacks Against The
United States." (MoveOn.Org Website, "MoveOn Peace,"
http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3,
Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)
So much for your theory.
mj
moorehead
You need me to quote a one line post that sits directly above?
Attention deficit problem, eh?
Sid9
Here's nice one that goes well with the subject line of this thread::
Posted on Thu, Jun. 30, 2005
No need for "straw liberals", thank you
By Molly Ivins
AUSTIN - Setting up a straw man, calling it liberal and then knocking it
down has become a favorite form of "argument" for those on the right. Make
some ridiculous claim about what "liberals" think, and then demonstrate how
silly it is.
The latest and most idiotic statement yet comes from Karl Rove.
Last week, Rove, in an address to the Conservative Party of New York, made
the following claim: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 and the attacks
and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and
wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our
attackers."
On Sept. 14, 2001, Congress approved a resolution authorizing the president
to take military action. The vote in the Senate was 98-0; the vote in the
House was 420-1. The lone dissenter was Democrat Barbara Lee of California,
who expressed qualms about an open-ended war without a clear target.
Find me the offer for therapy and understanding in that vote.
Anyone remember what actually happened after 9-11? Unprecedented unity,
support across the board, joint statements by Democratic and Republican
political leaders. The whole world was with us. The most important newspaper
in France headlined, "We Are All Americans Now," and all our allies sent
troops and money to help. That is what Bush has thrown away with his war in
Iraq.
Just 13 months later, in October 2002, the vote on invading Iraq was 77-23
in the Senate and 296-133 in the House.
By that time, some liberals did question the wisdom of invasion because (a.)
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and (b.) it looked increasingly unlikely
that Iraq actually had great stores of weapons of mass destruction, given
that the U.N. inspectors, who were on the ground, couldn't find any sign of
them -- even though Donald Rumsfeld claimed that we knew exactly where they
were.
I'll tell you exactly why I opposed invading Iraq: I thought it would be bad
for this country. Our country. My country.
I opposed the invasion out of patriotism, and that is the reason I continue
to oppose it today -- I think it is bad for us. I think it has done nothing
but harm to the United States of America. I think we have created more
terrorists than we faced to start with and that our good name has been
sullied all over the world. I think we have alienated our allies.
I did not oppose the war because I like Saddam Hussein. I have been active
in human rights work for 30 years, and I told you he was a miserable SOB
back in the 1980s, when our government was sending him arms.
I did not oppose the war because I am soft on terrorists or didn't want to
get Osama bin Laden. To the contrary, I thought it would be much more useful
to get bin Laden than to invade Iraq -- which, once again, had nothing to do
with 9-11. I believe the case now stands proved that this administration
used 9-11 as a handy excuse to invade Iraq, which it already wanted to do
for other reasons.
It is one thing for a political knife-fighter like Rove to impugn the
patriotism of people who disagree with him; we have seen this same tactic
before, just as we have seen administration officials use 9-11 for political
purposes again and again. But how many times are the media going to let them
get away with it?
Batten down the hatches -- this is the beginning of an administration push
to jack up public support for the war in Iraq by attacking anyone with
enough sense to raise questions about how it's going.
--
<===========================================================================>
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment
insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of
that party again in our political history.
There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do
these things.
Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician
or businessman from other areas.
Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
--President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952
<==================================================================>
moorehead
Sid9 wrote:
> moorehead wrote:
> > Lamont Cranston wrote:
> >> moorehead wrote:
> >>
> >>> Cite?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Learn how to quote.
> >
> > You need me to quote a one line post that sits directly above?
> > Attention deficit problem, eh?
>
>
> Here's nice one that goes well with the subject line of this thread::
>
> Posted on Thu, Jun. 30, 2005
>
> No need for "straw liberals", thank you
>
> By Molly Ivins
>
LMAO - Molly Ivins is a smelly old socialist bat who never met a
conservative she didn't think was Hitler and never me a liberal she
didn't think was Jeebus Christ. By the way, did you PURPOSELY edit her
article, thinking no one would notice, or are you copying the article
from a site that edited it?
For the record, here's the part Sid either edited out or never saw:
"I think we have created more terrorists than we faced to start with
and that our good name has been sullied all over the world. I think we
have alienated our allies and have killed more Iraqis than Saddam
Hussein ever did."
Yeah, Molly and Sid...suuuuuuuure. Even the most rabid, anti-Bush,
America hating so-called "human rights" organizations put Saddam's
genocide at somewhere close to 300,000 dead. Molly, Sid - not even the
MOST exaggerated studies, i.e., the Lancet estimate of 100K deaths by
the US military, comes even CLOSE to the numbers Saddam murdered.
Molly does what liberals do best....she lies.
mj
fred
I have been politely informed that democratic organizations, such as
moveon.org, petitioned Bush to deal with the 9/11 attackers in a
peaceful and reasonable way (my words) almost immediately after the
9/11 attack. So Rove's remarks about democratic response to 9/11 was
factual, at least with respect to certain democratic factions.
Joe Lunchpail
enialle wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 10:14:18 -0400, "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Joe Lunchpail wrote:
> >> marc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> Joe Lunchpail wrote:
> >>>> Sid9 wrote:
> >>>>> Joe Lunchpail wrote:
> >>>>>> marc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> Karl Rove was publicly rebuked by the non-partisan "Familes of
> >>>>>>> 9/11" today. They issued a statement saying how insulting his
> >>>>>>> remarks were to those who perished that day.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Eventually, these types of comments coming from people who have
> >>>>>>> the ears of Bush will come back to haunt them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Rove, Bush, Cheney, et al should all be behind bars with the keys
> >>>>>>> thrown away.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What exactly did Rove say that was inaccurate? Answer: Nothing,
> >>>>>> he was right on with the truth and THAT's what pisses you
> >>>>>> liberals off. You can't stand having the truth thrown back in
> >>>>>> your face. Not ONE of you has rebutted Rove's remarks. You're
> >>>>>> all about re-direct because you're not honorable enough to admit
> >>>>>> to the truth.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's the trick that Rove taught Bush,jr.
> >>>>> If you take it apart sentence by sentence the lie vanishes.
> >>>>> Put it together it's a blatent lie.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 9/11 and Iraq are not related. Rove related them.
> >>>>> You don't seem to get it.
> >>>>
> >>>> NO, YOU DON'T SEEM TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN A SON-OF-A-BITCHING,
> >>>> MANIPULTATIVE PIECE OF SHIT LIAR.
> >>>>
> >>>> Rove did not lie, he did not parse, he did not manipulate, he did
> >>>> not 'take it apart, sentence by sentence...'
> >>>>
> >>>> HE TOLD THE TRUTH.
> >>>>
> >>>> Liberals did just as Rove said.
> >>>>
> >>>> THAT is reality, THAT is the truth.
> >>>>
> >>>> Denial of that reality, is why liberals CONTINUE to lose on election
> >>>> day. WAKE UP AND START ACTING HONORABLY!
> >>>
> >>> It's pretty amzing how when confronted with facts disproving their
> >>> beliefs, all right wingers react with rants.
> >>>
> >>> Being a right-winger means never having to tell the truth
> >>
> >>
> >> And you're full of shit. My rant was out of frustration due to
> >> liberal lies and manipulations. You folks don't tell the truth about
> >> anything. You twist, and spin, re-direct when confronted with the
> >> truth......
> >>
> >> Liberals DID in fact do as Rove stated. No ifs, ands, or buts about
> >> it.
> It seem when it comes to making charges with the progressives the
> republican tards modus operandi is to jump up and down and say "rove
> is right" or whoever lie the right talking head makes. But they
> challenged to prove Rove's or any right wing talking head's assertions
> with facts, or proof they all of a sudden become vapid drooling fools.
>
And you're full of shit. Rove stated the truth. Liberals have indeed
done as Rove stated. You have failed to refute that. The onus after
all is on you to disprove.
Joe Lunchpail
fred wrote:
>
> Again, in my opinion it was wrong for Rove to imply that democrats
> weren't initially concerned about 9/11 problems just like everybody
> else was.
He didn't Mr. 'Retention Problem Asshole', he specifically highlighted
liberals.
Liberals did in fact do as Rove stated. It's undeniable truth.
Sid9
"No need for straw liberals, thank you
By Molly Ivins
AUSTIN - Setting up a straw man, calling it liberal and then knocking it
but harm to the United States of America. I think we have created more
terrorists than we faced to start with and that our good name has been
Sid9
Try reading it this time.
"No need for straw liberals, thank you
By Molly Ivins
AUSTIN - Setting up a straw man, calling it liberal and then knocking it
but harm to the United States of America. I think we have created more
terrorists than we faced to start with and that our good name has been
Joe Lunchpail
Sid9 wrote:
>
> "No need for straw liberals, thank you
>
> By Molly Ivins
>
Irrelevent bullshit from liberal Molly snipped....
Her article totally ignores the fact that what Rove said of liberals
did in fact take place, is reality, did happen.
Molly sidesteps reality, so do you Sid. Liberals did in fact do as
Rove stated. It was NOT strawman material. He simply, purely, told
the truth. Why can't you deal with that?
MoveOn.org did as Rove stated.
Howard Dean did as Rove stated.
Kucinich did as Rove stated.
Michael Moore did as Rove stated.
Acknowledge reality Sid, I dare you......
Sven Svorvenvenver
had 3 eyebrows, would you believe that too?
--
Sven
"Joe Lunchpail" <joelunch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> MoveOn.org did as Rove stated.