• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Right Wing Lie of The Day

Former presidential candidate Pat Robertson is always good for promoting Christian values.:roll: In response to the voters ousting the School Board members that were trying to turn Dover into Kansas, Robertson said the following:

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/religion.robertson.reut/
 
re-writing history 1984 style

There is a brewing controversy about what exactly was said at the White House press conference on October 31. Everyone agrees NBC’s Dick Gregory said this:

Q Whether there’s a question of legality, we know for a fact that there was involvement. We know that Karl Rove, based on what he and his lawyer have said, did have a conversation about somebody who Patrick Fitzgerald said was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. We know that Scooter Libby also had conversations.

Congressional Quarterly and FNS both transcribed Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s answer as “That’s accurate.” The White House transcript lists McClellan’s answer as “I don’t think that’s accurate.”

We’ve isolated the clip so you can judge for yourself:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/thumb-scott.JPG

If you listened to the clip, it’s clear McClellan says “that’s accurate.” Nevertheless, the White House is trying to get CQ and FNS to change their transcripts. They’ve refused.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/09/wh-alters-transcript/
 
Administration had access to intel that wasn’t shared with Congress

Yesterday President Bush continued to lie about the fact that Congress had access to the same intel as the President. That is not true:

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

On Verterans Day Bush said:
"more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." Giving a preview of Bush's speech, Hadley had said that "we all looked at the same intelligence."

But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country.

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10009710/
 
hipsterdufus,

Do you think that the left wing is more honest than the left wing? If you do, then you really are a dufus. If not, then what's the point of this thread?
 
One more thing, what does any of this have to do with media bias?
 
Hipster,
those were some good finds on conservative and republican hypocrisy.

Deegan,
Likewise to you.

However, when it comes to the "Swift Vote Veterans" IIRC, O' Reilly was the only pundit out there who was actually condemning them for what they were doing to Kerry.

So is O' Reilly feigning objectivity, or is he being genuine?
I don't consider him a far right winger like I do with Coulter, Rush and Hannity.
 
Fox has been running with the story that Joeseph Wilson had introduced his wife on numerous occasions as "my CIA Operative Wife" They are making the charge without any evidence to back it up. Now, two years after the fact, one of their anylsts, Ret. General Paul Valley is coming forward to say the Wilson introduced his wife as a CIA Operative two years ago.

It was amazing how the Fox newscasters all repeated the same rumor and innuendo without any sources first, then put Valley up as the source.

Wilson has threatened to sue:

Nearly two years after the start of special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation into the alleged leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, ret. Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely has recently claimed publicly that Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, disclosed her CIA employment in 2002 -- long before syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak outed Plame in his July 14, 2003, column. But Vallely, a Fox News military analyst and chairman of the Military Committee at the Center for Security Policy, has made contradictory statements regarding when and how many times Wilson supposedly mentioned Plame's employment. Vallely initially claimed that Wilson revealed his wife's CIA employment over the course of at least three conversations beginning in spring 2002, but Vallely changed this story days later, saying that Wilson told him about Plame's work only once in the summer or fall of that year.
 
SixStringHero said:
Hipster,
those were some good finds on conservative and republican hypocrisy.

Deegan,
Likewise to you.

However, when it comes to the "Swift Vote Veterans" IIRC, O' Reilly was the only pundit out there who was actually condemning them for what they were doing to Kerry.

So is O' Reilly feigning objectivity, or is he being genuine?
I don't consider him a far right winger like I do with Coulter, Rush and Hannity.

O'Reilly is only parroting what millions of Americans believe, that the left in this country is out of control, and they are trying desperately to change the entire face of this nation. He attacks the ACLU, and other leftists like billionaire George Soros, and the many actors and actresses that like to pretend they live in the real world. His numbers say all there is to this fact, many Americans agree with O'Reilly, and he is their voice, and our message is getting out there. Now the left is going to do all they can to attack, smear, destroy O'Reilly, just some the members here, with all their anti-O'Reilly avatars, signatures, and photoshopped pictures prove this. They hate this man, and it's that hate that is why the left has become so irresponsible, and dangerous. You can disagree with someone, but when you become obsessed, and totally filled with hatred, you had better get yourself to a professional, and get some help.:shock:
 
Deegan said:
You can disagree with someone, but when you become obsessed, and totally filled with hatred, you had better get yourself to a professional, and get some help.:shock:

Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.

Even worse is the fact that he(Dean) is now exhibiting symptoms of a related illness, Murdoch Derangement Syndrome (MDS), in which otherwise normal people believe that their minds are being controlled by a single, very clever Australian.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2003/12/05/160406.html
 
Sorry I have only been out of bed for about a half an hour. Have I missed something?

Bush, Cheney, Rice, Delay, O'Reilly, Rove, any NeoConservative. what is the big lie that they have told. They must have lied, they have spoken haven't they.

Since the NeoCons always lie, I know that the news with be filled with plenty of good examples of lies, straight from a Conservative mouth.

Conservative: means kill, means lie, deceive, and screw over America.
 
dragonslayer said:
Sorry I have only been out of bed for about a half an hour. Have I missed something?

Bush, Cheney, Rice, Delay, O'Reilly, Rove, any NeoConservative. what is the big lie that they have told. They must have lied, they have spoken haven't they.

Since the NeoCons always lie, I know that the news with be filled with plenty of good examples of lies, straight from a Conservative mouth.

Conservative: means kill, means lie, deceive, and screw over America.
Would any on the left like to address this?...
 
cnredd said:
Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.

Even worse is the fact that he(Dean) is now exhibiting symptoms of a related illness, Murdoch Derangement Syndrome (MDS), in which otherwise normal people believe that their minds are being controlled by a single, very clever Australian.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2003/12/05/160406.html

I never knew Charles had such a great sense of humor, this was great.....

"Chris Matthews: ``Would you break up Fox?''

Howard Dean: ``On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but ... I don't want to answer whether I would break up Fox or not. ... What I'm going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one.''

Some clinicians consider this delusion -- that Americans can only get their news from one part of the political spectrum -- the gravest of all. They report that no matter how many times sufferers in padded cells are presented with flash cards with the symbols ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times -- they remain unresponsive, some in a terrifying near-catatonic torpor.":rofl
 
It's funny to me how NOT ONE of the posts I've put up here has ever been attempted to be discredited. The tactic seems to be to change the subject, i.e. liberals are deranged or other baseless crap.

Very telling...
 
Lieng about the Lie

Following President Bush's Veterans Day speech at Pennsylvania's Tobyhanna Army Depot, the Associated Press as well as Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer uncritically repeated Bush's misleading claim that the Senate Intelligence Committee disproved Democratic allegations that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Neither the AP nor Hemmer noted that the Senate Intelligence Committee has yet to report on its investigation into the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence and, therefore, has not addressed the Democrats' allegations. Indeed, "phase two" of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report would be the first such investigation into the alleged misuse of intelligence by proponents of the war.

Here's what Bush said in his Veteran's Day speech on Friday:

Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511110010 (with video)
 
hipsterdufus said:
It's funny to me how NOT ONE of the posts I've put up here has ever been attempted to be discredited. The tactic seems to be to change the subject, i.e. liberals are deranged or other baseless crap.

Very telling...

People debate based on their personal interests and motivations...

There are members here who haven't strayed from the abortion forum, and there are those that never delve into it in the first place...

When someone reads a thread, they decide if responding to it in a meaningful manner is worth the time and effort to whats being posted...

In this case, its obvious its not, because no one is actually doing it...Its not an admission of not being able to debate anything...it's an admission that the ones YOU want to debate are disinterested...:yawn:
 
hipsterdufus said:
It's funny to me how NOT ONE of the posts I've put up here has ever been attempted to be discredited. The tactic seems to be to change the subject, i.e. liberals are deranged or other baseless crap.

Very telling...

It has been a tit for tat, and neither have been challenged, probably because it's all true, and quite obvious, especially for those of us who pay close attention. If your purpose here was to prove that some folks on the right, lie, well you have done that, and I have done the same, for those on the left. This is fun, so please don't loose interest, just because you have not split the atom or anything here, it's just that it will not change anything, for either of us.;)
 
hipsterdufus said:
It's funny to me how NOT ONE of the posts I've put up here has ever been attempted to be discredited. The tactic seems to be to change the subject, i.e. liberals are deranged or other baseless crap.

Very telling...

NEWSFLASH: Politicians lie. If you think that journalists are better than you're being naive, and it also explains why you're a liberal.
 
Melmann on MTP

Ken Melman on MTP Sunday continued to put out some falacies that the Bush has been pushing:

1. Congress had the same intel as the president.
2. The Senate has concluded that the president did not misrepresent this intelligence.
3. Saddam = BinLaden (Melman made the 9/11 Iraq connection no less than three times on Saturday.

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday, countered "the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."

But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101832.html
An interesting point was that Melman agreed that the pre-war intelligence was flawed.
 
Last edited:
Fox trying to exonerate Libby

The news that Bob Woodward learned of Valarie Plame's identity before Libby told it to Bob Nofacts is hardly a cause to exonerate Libby. Libby is charged with lying under oath and obstruction of justice. Fitzgerald, in his press conference, stated that Libby was the first person in the White House KNOWN to out Valerie Plame. He didn't say that he WAS the first one.
This issue is not why he was indicted.

Fox Partakes in Using False Information to Exonerate Lewis Libby
Yesterday (11/16) on Dayside, hosts Mike Jerrick and Juliet Huddy issued a Fox News Alert buried at the end of the show, using false information in an attempt to exonerate Lewis Libby in the CIA leak case.

The transcript follows:

MJ: "Ted Wells, who is one of Lewis Libby's lawyers, tells Fox News that the Woodward disclosure, we'll explain that in just a second, is a bombshell for Mr. Fitzgerald's case. First, let's talk about the disclosure."

JH: "Here it is basically. There was a Washington Post story this morning that said that Bob Woodward, the famous journalist, learned about Valerie Plame, you remember her, she is the former CIA worker, she uh, he learned about her the month before Bob Novak's column was published. So, this obviously takes a little bit of umph out of Patrick Fitzgerald’s case, the Special Prosecutors case.
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/11/17...information_to_exonerate_lewis_libby.php#more
 
cnredd said:
Would any on the left like to address this?...

Yes, I would like to address this by saying this is the most depressing thread I have read yet on this forum.

Does anyone else ever get the sneaking suspicion that we are all suckers?

This feeling has been brewing in me for some time now. It reminds me of that scene in As Good As It Gets when Jack Nicholson is in his shrink's waiting room and he tells all the people there something like "Do you ever wonder if maybe this is as good as it gets?" And you hear that person in the room make a little gasping whiny noise. This thread makes me feel like that person.
 
Fred Barnes thinks US troops aren't targests in IRAQ

On on Fox:

Fred Barnes doesn't think that the American soldiers in Iraq are targets for the insurgents. I guess no one has told him about the casualty numbers huh?

On the November 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes said the war in Iraq is "not intensifying." He added later: "[Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)] says U.S. troops are the targets now. They aren't the targets. It's Iraqi citizens, mainly Shiites, who are the targets."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511210001
With video clip
 
Re: Fred Barnes thinks US troops aren't targests in IRAQ

hipsterdufus said:
On on Fox:

Fred Barnes doesn't think that the American soldiers in Iraq are targets for the insurgents. I guess no one has told him about the casualty numbers huh?



http://mediamatters.org/items/200511210001
With video clip

He is entitled to his opinion, and I would have to agree with him. It would appear that they have targeted Iraqi's more and more, because they believe that they can start a civil war, or just keep people frozen in fear. It really serves no purpose to target Americans, but to attack the new police, military, and the average Shiite, that can work to their advantage.

So I don't know why you really have such a big problem with this statement, it certainly is not a "lie", but an opinion with much pointing to wards it's validity.
 
Dem's Prewar Intel

Former Senator Bob Graham has an article in the Post today. Part of it talks about the intel he got before the war . The classified NIE was not available to all members of congress - just to those in the intelligence committees. An overwhelming majority of senators and congressmen did not see the report.

At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.

Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE

There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.

Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary.

/snip

The president has undermined trust. No longer will the members of Congress be entitled to accept his veracity. Caveat emptor has become the word. Every member of Congress is on his or her own to determine the truth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

The mistake the Dems made was in taking the president at his word.
 
Back
Top Bottom