Blind Partisanship (1 Viewer)

[KCConservative]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/williams113005.htm


At DNC directives, the press actively promotes the false idea that the Bush administration used faulty "manipulated" intelligence to secure congressional authorization for action in Iraq. But the press has not told the American people that Democrats demanded an updated intelligence briefing of their own during the debate to authorizing action in 2002.

They have not told the American people that the Clinton appointed Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, delivered that updated report, known as the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concerning Iraq in October of 2002, which indicated that the intelligence against the Hussein regime was as Tenet put it, a "slam dunk".

They have not told the American people that literally none of the Democrats currently critical of pre-war intelligence bothered to even read that report before casting their vote to send American troops into harm’s way.

When asked in a recent press briefing if he had read the NIE before casting his pro-war vote in October 2002, Senate Democrat Harry Reid said "The answer is - if you ask me, I didn’t read it."

When Senator John Kerry was asked the same question, he answered "I got briefings." (Which means no, I didn’t read it.)

When prospective Presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton was asked, she responded "I’m not going to say anything about that. Just let the intelligence committee do their work, okay?" (Which translates to, my answer won’t help the Democrat agenda to regain political power, so I have nothing to say about that.)

 

[Simon W. Moon]

A Big Load of Bullshit

But the press has not told the American people that Democrats demanded an updated intelligence briefing of their own during the debate to authorizing action in 2002.

Hogwash item #1. The fact that the customary NIE had not been done and had to requested by Congress is widely available in "the press."
It was a rush job. Usually NIE take months to prepare. Yet, coming into the congressional invasion debate, the executive branch had not directed that one be prepared.

They have not told the American people that the Clinton appointed Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, delivered that updated report, known as the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concerning Iraq in October of 2002,

Hogwash item #2 This is also widely available in "the press."

which indicated that the intelligence against the Hussein regime was as Tenet put it, a "slam dunk".

Hogwash Item #3. The NIE does not present the evidence this way.

They have not told the American people that literally none of the Democrats currently critical of pre-war intelligence bothered to even read that report before casting their vote to send American troops into harm’s way.

Hogwash Item #4. [Two sets of bullshit in one.] This fact is also available in "the press." There were a number of them who actually read the entire thing that was locked in the Senate Building. However, most congresscritters merely read the summary that the WH provided.

J.B. Williams is either a liar or a misinformed moron.

 

[KCConservative]

Are you a moderator here, Simon?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Are you a moderator here, Simon?

I'm going to assume that there's some point to your rhetorical question. I guess that I'm supposed to tease it out of you now?

Tell you what, whenever you feel like expressing youself and relaying whatever your point is in a forthright manner, please feel free to do so. You may contact me via pm or email. You may also contact any of the other members of the Mod Team via pm, email or by using the 'Report Bad Post' button if you have some issue w/ me and my conduct.

 

[KCConservative]

I'm going to assume that there's some point to your rhetorical question. I guess that I'm supposed to tease it out of you now?

Tell you what, whenever you feel like expressing youself and relaying whatever your point is in a forthright manner, please feel free to do so. You may contact me via pm or email. You may also contact any of the other members of the Mod Team via pm, email or by using the 'Report Bad Post' button if you have some issue w/ me and my conduct.

No, I was just wondering why you choose such profane language for your posts. As a mod, I thought you'd set a different example.

 

[cnredd]

No, I was just wondering why you choose such profane language for your posts. As a mod, I thought you'd set a different example.

Bullshit?...Hogwash?...Moron?....

Sorry KC,

Many arguments to pick and choose from...This isn't one of them...The high & mighty show ain't cuttin' it...

 

[FinnMacCool]

No, I was just wondering why you choose such profane language for your posts. As a mod, I thought you'd set a different example

Are you kidding me KC? How can you possibly be offended by someone saying bullshit? I thought you conservatives were made of tougher stuff then that!

If it wasn't for cnredd I'd call you all ******s!

 

[KCConservative]

redd, mcfinn....hey, sue me. I just thought we could bhave like adults. Guess not.

 

[Kandahar]

redd, mcfinn....hey, sue me. I just thought we could bhave like adults. Guess not.

Is it behaving like an adult to create a thread called "Blind Partisanship" (possibly one of the most unintentionally ironic titles ever to grace this board), then post a link to an article that is nothing but blind partisanship, and have a signature that is nothing but blind partisanship?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Let's steer this back to the OP. Meta discussions can take place elsewhere.

 

[KCConservative]

Is it behaving like an adult to create a thread called "Blind Partisanship"

Of course it is. In fact, I borrowed the title from the article itself. Kandahar, maybe you ought to read the article first.

 

[Saboteur]

KCConservative:

Remember America, the left wants the United States to lose the war on terror so as to regain political power. Political power trumps national security in the leftist playbook. This spits on the brave men and women who serve in the military fighting for a stable middle east and a safer homeland. Slander before truth. Hate before logic.

Typical...

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19945

You guys need to stop. This is serious and pointing fingers like school yard bullies is just winning you a place with the fools.

 

[KCConservative]

You guys need to stop. This is serious and pointing fingers like school yard bullies is just winning you a place with the fools.

Stop what? I posted an article for debate. What's your beef, my siggy? Hey, it's how I view the liberal lefties. Sue me. :rofl

 

[Saboteur]

Stop what? I posted an article for debate. What's your beef, my siggy? Hey, it's how I view the liberal lefties. Sue me. :rofl

Yeah and I think the article is just a little biased. If it were a fair commentary on the U.S. political evironment it would have pointed out a few things wrong with the GOP as well. Since it doesn't, I don't see how the claims made in it can be validated.

The fact that ranking members of congress and the administration are being indicted should give you a clue about the character of the folks you support.

The fact that the majority of your party doesn't want an anti-torture bill and if one has to be passed they don't want it to include, what I feel are important, stipulations set forth by one of their own John McCain! If that isn't spitting on a brave american who was tortured as a POW during the Vietnam war, I don't know what is.

You want to talk about Blind Partisanship? Then don't ignore the fact that it's on both sides.

What I would like for you and your brood to stop is blaming liberals for YOUR hate.

 

[KCConservative]

I think the article is just a little biased. If it were a fair commentary on the U.S. political evironment it would have pointed out a few things wrong with the GOP as well.

Hello, McFly, that's why it's called an Op/Ed piece.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I posted an article for debate.

You presented (via someone else's words) and I've rebutted.
...

 

[Saboteur]

Hello, McFly, that's why it's called an Op/Ed piece.

Of the Canadian Free Press. It is just a democrat bashing article. I'm not disputing it's contents or trying to defend the Democrats as much as I am saying that it gives an incomplete picture of what is wrong with the U.S. government.... It takes two to tango.

Anyway you posted this article for debate and I'm debating but you seem to just be calling the people who don't agree with you or it (the article) stupid. That's not debating. I've given you a reason to defend your party but you just keep with the one liners.

So you don't have anything to say except that liberals and Democrats are the reason why the war is going the way it is? Do you take responsability for anything?

 

[KCConservative]

Of the Canadian Free Press. It is just a democrat bashing article. I'm not disputing it's contents or trying to defend the Democrats as much as I am saying that it gives an incomplete picture of what is wrong with the U.S. government.... It takes two to tango.

Anyway you posted this article for debate and I'm debating but you seem to just be calling the people who don't agree with you or it (the article) stupid. That's not debating. I've given you a reason to defend your party but you just keep with the one liners.

So you don't have anything to say except that liberals and Democrats are the reason why the war is going the way it is? Do you take responsability for anything?

I've looked high and low, saboteur. I can't find where I called you or anyone else stupid.

 

[KCConservative]

You presented (via someone else's words) and I've rebutted.
...

Really? You called it hogwash and the author a liar. I don't call that rebuttal.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Really? You called it hogwash and the author a liar. I don't call that rebuttal.

Actually, I said the author was EITHER a liar OR a misinformed moron.
Out of curiosity, what do you call the other 60%+ of the post?
I've reposted it minus the items that offended you sensibilities. Please explain how you would chracterize these items.

The fact that the customary NIE had not been done and had to requested by Congress is widely available in "the press."
It was a rush job. Usually NIE take months to prepare. Yet, coming into the congressional invasion debate, the executive branch had not directed that one be prepared.

This is also widely available in "the press."
The NIE does not present the evidence this way.

This fact is also available in "the press." There were a number of them who actually read the entire thing that was locked in the Senate Building. However, most congresscritters merely read the summary that the WH provided.
​

 

[Kandahar]

Of course it is. In fact, I borrowed the title from the article itself. Kandahar, maybe you ought to read the article first.

Do you ever respond to everything someone says, rather than picking out a single sentence for a "Nuh-uh" response and ignoring the rest?

 

[Saboteur]

I've looked high and low, saboteur. I can't find where I called you or anyone else stupid.

I know what McFly means.

Hello, McFly,

I am also offended by your quote.... You seem to be the one supporting hate and slander.

 

[KCConservative]

I know what McFly means.



I am also offended by your quote.... You seem to be the one supporting hate and slander.

lol....you're saying that my using the term McFly is equaly to my calling you stupd? Is that it?

Okay, now I mean it. That was stupid.

 

[KCConservative]

I am also offended by your quote.

When something like that hits so close to home, I can understand you feeling uncomfortable.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If this thread isn't going to come back around to discussing the OP, then why leave it open?

If it is going to discuss the OP, when will such discussion begin?