NEW York Times made case for Iraqi war in 98'! (1 Viewer)

[Stu Ghatze]

....And Judith Miller was only one of MANY journalists from the New York Times who felt that America was justified to go to war.

But of course that is when "Willie" was the president sitting in the white house; & there were NO shortages of stories from the New York Times in finding good reasons to go to war w/Iraq.

This IS the utter hypocrisy of the New York Times w/regard to their covering stories of the Valeri Plame CIA story too, in their reporting of "possible" indictments coming to Karl Rove, LIbby, & even Dick Cheney because of what the Times" refers to "lying about justifying" the reasons for going to war in Iraq!

Yea, sure....Karl Rove, & Cheney "OUTED" Valeri Plame as payback because her political hack husband's fact finding mission failed to juastify the war in Iraq because JOe Wilson said that Sadaam never recieved any uranium from Niger! huh huh, even British Intel stated that SAdaam DID in fact attempt to purchase uranium, & even Niger officials told the BUsh whitehouse it WAS true, but they refused to sell!

Joe Wilson had lied about many things in his attempt to discredit Bush,.. found in a piece in the washinton post.

Bush was not the first who made a case for war in Iraq, & the NEW YORK TIMES was a MAJOR contributor itself as far back as 1998.

Going after Cheney,& Rove..by proxy in their curent Times reporting is a f-ing joke in attempting to make America think that Bush, Cheney..& company lied about the whole Iraqi war, in a lame as.s attempt to destroy Bush's presidency by the Pat Fitzgerald prosecutorial witch hunt!

The New York Times must have a very selective memory, ..but the mainstream majority does not.

Indeed Mr. Bush's current approval poll numbers are not very glowing, ..but what is even more glaring is the fact that the majority of Americans believe that the mainstream media's performance is even much more disapproving, ..as is the democrats disingenuine accomplices in trying to "get Bush" by way of Karl Rove, & even The Times News new suspect,.. Dick Cheney!

How could Bush have lied about justifying the war in Iraq, ...IF THe New York Times, among MANY newspapers & several democrats also gave reasons for the justifying for war in Iraq??

THe CIA/ Patrick Fitzgerald investigation of WHO outed Valeri Plame has taken on a new twist, & has damn LITTLE to do with its original intent in securing justice for Plame, ..it is NOW about making the case that Bush lied about the war in Iraq, & not a g-damn thing more!

No..there was no Cheney/ Rumsfeld caball to go to war with Iraq, as Bush spent 14 months making his case; & even the disingenuine liars at the New York Times cannot even hide THEIR own journalists who also made the very same case for going to war in 1998!

So WHAT if Scooter Libby told Dick Cheney of Valeri Plames identity, or IF it was the other way around. Cheney is the g-damn vice president & THEY have a right to know WHO might be disingenuinly working against the best interests of the United States.

Joe Wilson's so called looking for the truth in Niger was incomplete, & filled with innaccurate information that even the CIA thought as "worthless", especially when it was known that Valeri PLame, & Wilson both were ardent Kerry supporters tring to discredit president Bush from the onset.

President Bush's only sin was in TRUSTING the lying partisan political shytes of Plame & Wilson who were supposed to be looking out for the best security interests of America, ..not the g-damn democratic party!

Bottom line, ..IF the New York Times does not agree with WAR when it does NOT fit their timetable, or THEIR elected hopeful president they will report any damn lie.

The New York Times, & other newspapers better get over their amnesia real quick, ..as well as their lust to see members of the Bush administration prosecuted over "bullshyte" because the democratic party simply cannot win elections anymore, & NEEDS to criminalize successful politics.

Before it is all over, ..all will come out, & even the New York Times hypocrisy concerning the justification for the Iraqi war, which THEY ALSO had a hand in helping to support when Clinton was president.:smile:

Bill Clinton lied repeatidly WHEN he himself was the target of investigation & suborned PERJURY by FALSE affadavifts, ..& yet Clinton was NOT indicted during his pattern of sexual misconduct.

Of course not, & the New York Times was more concerned about reasons to go to war with Iraq, than by reporting on Clinton's sordid sexual behavior!

Many of you all know it too!:smile:

 

[aps]

....And Judith Miller was only one of MANY journalists from the New York Times who felt that America was justified to go to war.

But of course that is when "Willie" was the president sitting in the white house; & there were NO shortages of stories from the New York Times in finding good reasons to go to war w/Iraq.

This IS the utter hypocrisy of the New York Times w/regard to their covering stories of the Valeri Plame CIA story too, in their reporting of "possible" indictments coming to Karl Rove, LIbby, & even Dick Cheney because of what the Times" refers to "lying about justifying" the reasons for going to war in Iraq!

Yea, sure....Karl Rove, & Cheney "OUTED" Valeri Plame as payback because her political hack husband's fact finding mission failed to juastify the war in Iraq because JOe Wilson said that Sadaam never recieved any uranium from Niger! huh huh, even British Intel stated that SAdaam DID in fact attempt to purchase uranium, & even Niger officials told the BUsh whitehouse it WAS true, but they refused to sell!

Joe Wilson had lied about many things in his attempt to discredit Bush,.. found in a piece in the washinton post.

Bush was not the first who made a case for war in Iraq, & the NEW YORK TIMES was a MAJOR contributor itself as far back as 1998.

Going after Cheney,& Rove..by proxy in their curent Times reporting is a f-ing joke in attempting to make America think that Bush, Cheney..& company lied about the whole Iraqi war, in a lame as.s attempt to destroy Bush's presidency by the Pat Fitzgerald prosecutorial witch hunt!

The New York Times must have a very selective memory, ..but the mainstream majority does not.

Indeed Mr. Bush's current approval poll numbers are not very glowing, ..but what is even more glaring is the fact that the majority of Americans believe that the mainstream media's performance is even much more disapproving, ..as is the democrats disingenuine accomplices in trying to "get Bush" by way of Karl Rove, & even The Times News new suspect,.. Dick Cheney!

How could Bush have lied about justifying the war in Iraq, ...IF THe New York Times, among MANY newspapers & several democrats also gave reasons for the justifying for war in Iraq??

THe CIA/ Patrick Fitzgerald investigation of WHO outed Valeri Plame has taken on a new twist, & has damn LITTLE to do with its original intent in securing justice for Plame, ..it is NOW about making the case that Bush lied about the war in Iraq, & not a g-damn thing more!

No..there was no Cheney/ Rumsfeld caball to go to war with Iraq, as Bush spent 14 months making his case; & even the disingenuine liars at the New York Times cannot even hide THEIR own journalists who also made the very same case for going to war in 1998!

So WHAT if Scooter Libby told Dick Cheney of Valeri Plames identity, or IF it was the other way around. Cheney is the g-damn vice president & THEY have a right to know WHO might be disingenuinly working against the best interests of the United States.

Joe Wilson's so called looking for the truth in Niger was incomplete, & filled with innaccurate information that even the CIA thought as "worthless", especially when it was known that Valeri PLame, & Wilson both were ardent Kerry supporters tring to discredit president Bush from the onset.

President Bush's only sin was in TRUSTING the lying partisan political shytes of Plame & Wilson who were supposed to be looking out for the best security interests of America, ..not the g-damn democratic party!

Bottom line, ..IF the New York Times does not agree with WAR when it does NOT fit their timetable, or THEIR elected hopeful president they will report any damn lie.

The New York Times, & other newspapers better get over their amnesia real quick, ..as well as their lust to see members of the Bush administration prosecuted over "bullshyte" because the democratic party simply cannot win elections anymore, & NEEDS to criminalize successful politics.

Before it is all over, ..all will come out, & even the New York Times hypocrisy concerning the justification for the Iraqi war, which THEY ALSO had a hand in helping to support when Clinton was president.:smile:

Bill Clinton lied repeatidly WHEN he himself was the target of investigation & suborned PERJURY by FALSE affadavifts, ..& yet Clinton was NOT indicted during his pattern of sexual misconduct.

Of course not, & the New York Times was more concerned about reasons to go to war with Iraq, than by reporting on Clinton's sordid sexual behavior!

Many of you all know it too!:smile:

When you're this defensive on how your party did not exaggerate the intelligence, this tells me that you are worried. Those who are confident in the facts wouldn't post this diatribe. :lol: :lol:

 

[Stu Ghatze]

When you're this defensive on how your party did not exaggerate the intelligence, this tells me that you are worried. Those who are confident in the facts wouldn't post this diatribe. :lol: :lol:

Not at all, I find it hilarious that the democrats love villifying republicans over the war in Iraq, ..& let me tell you something; Many DEMOCRATS also helped launch the support for war with Iraq, as did the leftist media when it served their purpose of not exposing the facts of Clinton lying under oath to a federal judge, & his unsuccessful attempt to use the presidency to quash the investigations of his own behavior!

Of course the new york times did not make it look as though Clinton was guilty because the liberal press has an ongoing love affair with democrats, & their media journalists.

Clinton COULD have been held in criminal contempt by the judge that he KNOWINGLY lied to with his FALSE affadavits in order to quash an investiation of his abhorent sexual behavior.

It took a semen stained blue dress to have convicted him because of his DNA he left on the scene.

What the New York times did was play Clinton a "victim", & trivialized his lying, & perjury to a federal judge because afteral, ..it was just about sex!

Joe Wilson is nothing but a media publicity whore, & loves all the attention he is getting from the left wing kooks & nuts, & god knows he loves the "Vanity Fair"& photo shots attention as well for he & his wife who love the elitism, & are the cocktail party darlings of the media.

I merely LOVE pointing out the real facts, & JOe Wilson's trip, & factfinding mission to Niger has ALREADY been discredited as Bullcrap by the CIA itself.

All the truth will come out, we'll see how The New York Times likes the scrutiny upon themselves & their damn "disingenuine" reporting!

Joe Wilson was proven to be a liar about many things about his so called trip to Niger.

KNow this, IF Cheney, or Rove ever actually do get indicted for outing Plame first....LOOK OUT, any good defense attorney will tear apart Joe Wilson in a court of law, & will EXPOSE his lies for all to see, & also expose the real reason behind his so called fact finding trip to Niger.

So...do not sell Rove or Cheney short, & damn sure do not ever trust the reporting of the politically biased, & very democratic party New York Times!

Because it ain't over till ITS ALL over! I'm anxious, & am waiting to see whos court the ball is going to be dropped in now, ..sooner or later Joe Wilson & wife are going to be cross examined by their INTENT. Wilson has already been caught in lies, & the New York Times conveniently has left it out of their editorializing, ..gee I wonder why?:smile:

 

[python416]

When you're this defensive on how your party did not exaggerate the intelligence, this tells me that you are worried. Those who are confident in the facts wouldn't post this diatribe. :lol: :lol:

Yeah I know. Stu's posts are so full of it, I hope he is getting a cheque from the RNC. Maybe the posts are so long cause he is getting payed by the word!

The previously rockhard, ask-no-questions, blank cheque, political environment that has allowed this adminstration to run unchequed is now coming to an end.

 

[aps]

KNow this, IF Cheney, or Rove ever actually do get indicted for outing Plame first....LOOK OUT, any good defense attorney will tear apart Joe Wilson in a court of law, & will EXPOSE his lies for all to see, & also expose the real reason behind his so called fact finding trip to Niger.

Hmmmm, what does Joe Wilson have to do with Cheney or Rove outing Plame? Joe Wilson would not be on trial. Even if Joe Wilson was completely discredited and found to be a total fabricator, it would not matter, as that is not a factor in considering whether the statute was violated.

 

[aps]

Yeah I know. Stu's posts are so full of it, I hope he is getting a cheque from the RNC. Maybe the posts are so long cause he is getting payed by the word!

The previously rockhard, ask-no-questions, blank cheque, political environment that has allowed this adminstration to run unchequed is now coming to an end.

You're funny, python. I like you. :2wave:

 

[DeeJayH]

When you're this defensive on how your party did not exaggerate the intelligence, this tells me that you are worried. Those who are confident in the facts wouldn't post this diatribe. :lol: :lol:

and yet it is true, isn't it
or are you currently working on your rebuttal to all his points?

 

[aps]

and yet it is true, isn't it
or are you currently working on your rebuttal to all his points?

Nope. I am not interested in rebutting his points because, in another thread, I saw how uninformed he is on this topic and have accorded his assertions essentially no probative value.

 

[Stu Ghatze]

Nope. I am not interested in rebutting his points because, in another thread, I saw how uninformed he is on this topic and have accorded his assertions essentially no probative value.

Of course, ...there is never any value in anything unless a liberal, or modern democrat believes in it!

Us conservatives know,.. we know it already!

 

[aps]

Of course, ...there is never any value in anything unless a liberal, or modern democrat believes in it!

Us conservatives know,.. we know it already!

That's not true, Stu. There are many rational conservatives/republicans with whom I agree....ask Navy Pride. My problem with you is that you go on these long-winded tirades, and I just don't have the patience to read through everything you say, particularly when you are as insulting to any non-conservative/republican as you are. It's a turn-off. Additonally, you make assertions without providing evidence to substantiate them. Now, you don't do this all the time. I saw some well-written, well-thought-out posts from you in other threads, although I cannot remember which threads. So you're not totally hopeless.

 

[Stu Ghatze]

That's not true, Stu. There are many rational conservatives/republicans with whom I agree....ask Navy Pride. My problem with you is that you go on these long-winded tirades, and I just don't have the patience to read through everything you say, particularly when you are as insulting to any non-conservative/republican as you are. It's a turn-off. Additonally, you make assertions without providing evidence to substantiate them. Now, you don't do this all the time. I saw some well-written, well-thought-out posts from you in other threads, although I cannot remember which threads. So you're not totally hopeless.

Dear APS, ...is this a compliment?:smile: Hey, I like to sound like a blathering fool liberal too ya know, once in awhile, but with conservative overtones.

Yes...I know, I can be very colorful at times, & I do pique peoples interest, as does the Chris Mathew types from the LEFT.

Please, let me BE ME; & besides I do it for a reason! I DO NOT SINGLE ANYBODY OUT for personal attack, its mostly a simple generic dislike for liberalism, & the modern democratic party LEADERSHIP!

Ya know, ...you could just do what most liberals do: Maybe feel sorry for me, & think that I cannot help myself, & help make me a "VICTIM",.. huh huh.:smile:

BTW, ...since when is it "being rational " when liberals, & leading democrats call Bush a nazi, a terrorists himself, a racist, & a murder, & a liar??

If THAT is an example of being rational, ..then I'm in pretty good company.