Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, left, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Ore.BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 20 — The American military said today that it had found the remains of what appears to be the two American soldiers captured by insurgents last week in an ambush south of the capital, and a senior Iraqi military official said the two men had been "brutally tortured." General Jassim said, "It was a brutal torture. The torture was something unnatural."
GOD BLESS the families of these precious boys and our troops everywhere. Their GRISLY EXECUTION should be condemed and the terrorists held accountable. But we must realize this could be "payback," partly as a result of our BREAKING THE GENEVA CONVENTION. BUSH declared the Geneva Convention inoperative. "There are no rules in this war," he said, and he has committed war crimes by turning a blind eye to torture. BUSH, RUMSFIELD AND CHENEY HAVE PUT OUR TROOPS IN HARM'S WAY, IN A NO-WIN SITUATION WHERE THEY WILL LIKELY BE TORTURED. I pray this does not continue, but it seems that those who practice "eye-for-an-eye" keep increasing the violence and torture. May our troops rest in peace.
Under Bush, America has lost her moral compass. Bush broke the Monroe Doctrine too. We are not a nation that chooses war. We do not go into countries and invade. Such a shameful time in our history. May love encompass these war-torn families and lift them up so they are comforted through their grief.
How can we have such a primitive president? BUSH IS PLAYING THIS WAR LIKE A VIDEO GAME. He has no heart for people's suffering. If Bush had not been so cavalier about breaking the Geneva Convention, and the war crimes at Haditha and Abu-Grahib, we would probably not be experiencing torture of our own troops.
RUSH LIMBAUGH IS POISONING THE AIRWAVES: He should be ashamed of saying Democrats and Liberals are "enjoying and celebrating our troops being tortured!"
volt the hippocrite said "This would ALL be terribly amusing if the lives of Americans were not a stake...
ReplyDeleteInstead, it's just simply pathetic.
If this is the best the liberal intelligensia can do, no wonder you're losing..."
seems its pretty amusing to you you pathetic hippocrite since your making jokes about the soldiers dying and saying liberals are glad about it.
See whats pathetic is you can talk out of one side of your mouth how much you care about the soldiers that doied then make jokes an spew ann coulter BS that liberals are glad about it out of the other side.
There is a big difference between hating your own fellow Americans by constantly shouting "Liberals are enjoying the torture of our troops" AND TELLING THE TRUTH. IF NOT FOR BUSH, CHENEY AND RUMSFIELD ALLOWING TORTURE, WE WOULD NOT BE GETTING PAY BACK.
ReplyDeleteLydia Cornell wrote: "RUSH LIMBAUGH is obviously a very sick man and has NO RIGHT to be on the airwaves lying and saying that Democrats are enjoying and celebrating the torture of our troops! THIS IS LIKE SHOUTING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER. This man should have his license revoked and go to rehab. I am ashamed of our country. The MSM (mainstream media) is truly in trouble."
ReplyDeleteLydia, that's a Nazi tactic. That's thought police. In case you forgot, this is America. By your logic, I could call for you to be banned from the Internet because I disagree with your opinions.
While we're at it, let's appoint a committee to decide what opinions are acceptable. Maybe we should pull the plug on Air America as well. Muzzle al-Franken. Yeah, Lyd, that's the American Way alright.
You don't need my help to show how intellectually bankrupt your ideas are.
Sorry, but that's the most boneheaded thing I've seen on this blog
Voltaire and Freedom Fan thank you for that. I always knew you were each other's alter-ego.
ReplyDeleteWe must continue to shine a light on hatred as the Christians under Hitler should have done. If only they had protested, spoken out and gathered together to dissent, even in their churches. Once they knew Hitler's un-Christian agenda of bigotry and brainwashing, that all Jews, "swarthy types," gays and handicapped people were to be treated as less than human - THEY SHOULD HAVE SPOKEN OUT, GATHERED TO REBEL. ONE VOICE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
ReplyDeleteHere, "liberals" are treated exactly the same when you listen to right-wing radio or read Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and O'Reilly. WE MUST SPEAK OUT
Ms. Cornell, what big boobies you have!!!Those are eye-poppers for damn sure
ReplyDeleteWhat is pathetic was his making a joke of the soldiers that died and trying to infer that liberals were glad they were dead, something his girl Ann Coulter would stoop to.
ReplyDeletealthough he claims to care about our soldiers so passionately, that one statement shows he is a hippocrite and doesnt give a rats ass about our soldiers, its all about politics and what benefits him and his kind, they would do and say anything if it was to their political advantage, how can some make a joke about someone they really care about being murdered.
if you notice the Right claims the left has no sense of humor but in truth the left doesnt find jokes about murdered soldiers, talk about poisoning judges or killing liberals funny thats if they really are jokes.
Well, I guess people that go to Vegas, and listen to filthy and blasphemous comedy material are "enablers to ruining the moral fiber that Jesus stands for...
ReplyDeleteScriptures tell us not to spew that language from our mouths!!
Mike is a fatass who will suck up to anyone, and can't even defend his girlfriend
Mike will not defend anyone cause he's cowardly and defends the killing in Iraq, but won't say anything, cause it will piss off Lydia his biggest ass-kisser next to Worf.
Mike, I highly doubt that Rush made the marines who were slain the butt of any joke. Please back your comment up with a transcript that has some context.
ReplyDeleteTroll Tex, are you stupid or do you just have a reading comprehension problem, she said he shouldnt be allowed to be on the air spreading lies, claiming liberals are glad soldiers are dead is unsubstantiated facts, that is not credible behavior for a journalist or media personality whatsoever, it is akin to unsubstantiated slander, kinda like me getting on the air and saying Rush is a child molestor and supports kiddie porn with no proof to back it up other than your favorite psychic friends network Troll Tex.
ReplyDeleteI dont think the media would support me getting on the air spreading lies that Rush is for kiddie porn and child molestation, why should he be able to spew lies with no facts to support them. theres a big difference between censorship and credible journalism, Howard stern had his show canceled why is rush allowed to spew his crap.....the answer is because the deep pocketed Right Wingnut trash is backing Rush and Coulter.....thats why.
sorry TT, I was refering to Voltaire in my prior post not rush.
ReplyDeleteoh lookie lookie johnny troll boy is posting anonymously now.
ReplyDeleteEven if Rush does speak stupid, he does have the right to say whatever he likes, whether you agree or not.... if you don't like it change the channel
ReplyDeleteHis show would not be on the air if nobody was watching, and earning him boku $$$$$$$
Do you really think Rush cares what you "pee"ons think, he's laughing at you clowns all the way to the bank
I believe in the Book of Revelation, that teaches the end times, and believe me they are here.
ReplyDeleteWe all are in for a rough ride in the next few years. When the Battle of Armageddon occurs, it will be the last and worse war ever, following that Jesus Christ will return back to Earth
thats crap, howard stern had plenty of watches and was making plenty of money, the difference was he didnt have the Reich Wing powers that be backing him, in fact they were against howard, thats why he went to satelite because the "powers that Be" used the FCC as their attack dog to silence him, how come you defenders of free speech dont have a problem with that???
ReplyDeleteI mean if Howard is imorral and doesnt deserve to be on TV neither does Rush, and howard at least tells the truth, thats part of what got him in trouble with the right wingnut mafia.
Times are bad, you haven't seen anything yet. Get those howdy doody seat belts ready....we all in for a hoo-daddy of a rough ride
ReplyDeleteI agree Howard Stern has the same right as Rush to speak whatever he likes...The Bible teaches don't associate with negative people...again turn the channel
ReplyDeleteHoward Stern should speak his mind to whatever he believes, but I do believe that certain words, such as the F-word and sexual banter are not deemed appropriate for the airwaves
ReplyDeleteThere is always the chance that children might tune into these infernal nefarious programs.
ReplyDeleteThe internet should also be censored for porn and profanity and blasphemy of any religon!
ReplyDeleteIts seems we both agree on freedom of speech for everyone,, where we differ is on which we feel are worse, I feel lies and hatespeak is much worse for impressionable children than sexual banter or swearwords.
ReplyDeleteSex is a normal part of life, trying to surpress it only causes problems, look at all the pedophile priests for example. as for swearing, any 6 grader can hear the same type of language Stern uses in gym class or on the playground, you live a pretty isolated life if you feel differently.
if we censored the Internet for blasphemy of religion the repugs/Religious Reich would have been censored a LONNNNGGG time ago, because they have twisted it beyond recognition.
ReplyDeletebut its kinda funny anon, you say you are not for censorship.........as long as its not something you disagree with.
ReplyDeleteSo I guess when I repug says "I am against censorship and believe in freedom of speech"......They really mean Free speech is fine if it agrees with my views otherwise the person should be censored.
HMMMMMMMM?????so I guess only you guys are wise enough to decide whats moral and acceptable to say or view and what isnt, my fascist friend.
Agreed, but to have complete freedom of speech, that would have to mean, that on network TV anything and everything can be shown or heard.
ReplyDeleteRemember porn is of Satan not God
Sex is between a HUSBAND and WIFE.
Of course is sex is natural and should be freely expressed in the marriage. Porn will do nothing more than having men rape women
Mike writes: "but its kinda funny anon, you say you are not for censorship... ......as long as its not something you disagree with."
ReplyDeleteIsnt that what Lydia said it her opening comment? Do you take issue with her as well?
Scripture teaches, that fornication adultery sodomites the effeminate and all liars that none will possess the Kingdom of God
ReplyDeleteMike , these are not my rules for you to follow, they are of the Man Upstairs
ReplyDeletePriests are bastards that molest children, they should be strung up by the balls.Pope John Paul looked the other way at what should have been excommunication, and then imprisionment
ReplyDeleteLydia is fine, but she is a "Vegasite"...she has a hot body, and knows how to show it off.
ReplyDeleteI would love to see her naked on the Vegas stage
Troll Tex said "Mike writes: "but its kinda funny anon, you say you are not for censorship... ......as long as its not something you disagree with."
ReplyDeleteIsnt that what Lydia said it her opening comment? Do you take issue with her as well? "
transparent as ever Tex, how did I know you were trying to bait a trap for me regarding that. Now heres my answer, Lydia never said she wanted to censor Rush's freedom of speech or to express his opinion, I believe she was saying that journalists and/or members of the media should not be able to use their position to spread lies and unsubstantiated facts, see because of their ability to reach a large audience they should not be able to spread lies to influence and deceive the masses, after all isnt that what you had a problem with Lyd doing with Rummy when you made the Psychic Friends Network analogy. see if he took a portion of his show and said this is my opinion on this topic, that would be different, but he trys to pass of what he says as credible news and journalism when they atr lies and he doesnt have one shred of evidence to back it up, and he shouldnt have a bully pulpit to spread lies and BS.
Worf I dont think Lydia was saying to censor Rush, I think the point she was trying to make is that like Coulter he shouldnt be able to use his position as a supposed credible media person who can get his message across to a wide audience to spread lies and unsubstantianted facts, if he wanted to devote a portion of his show to his opinion and made that clear to his views that would be ok, but he is hiding behind credibility to deceice people and spread lies with out a shred of evidence.
ReplyDeleteVolt said "Maybe we think you enjoy it when our troops die because your buddy worf is always posting negative stories about our troops and calling them "fucking Nazi's". And you always post "me too"."
ReplyDeleteNo fool, he's calling you and your kind Nazi's and your damn right i'm saying me too because you guys are nazis.
See genius, until your kind came to power, we were considered better than that, just as humans evolved and became civilized and are better than mere animals, but you want to bring us back to being barbarians and animals and want us to roll around in the dirt, muck and slime with the very people you despise, you have no solutions just perpetual war and death.
ReplyDeleteyour kind has no ideas or solutions thats why you choose to avoid debate at all costs with your insults, namecalling and subterfuge instead of debating us or putting forth your own ideas or solutions, you attempt to twist our words and arguments into the absurd by implying things WE NEVER SAID, which just shows how weak and hollow your arguments really are, you and your kind are a disgrace Voltaire.
I see your point Worf and I am strongly against censorship, but didnt Dan Rather get in trouble for spewing unsubstantiated facts about Bush, if he is a media person and didnt get away with it why should Rush, if Rush said in my opinion the widows of 9/11 were glad their husbands were dead, or that certain liberals were glad that soldiers were dead, that would be ok, dispicable but because of his freedom of speech ok, but if he tries to pass it off as fact and not opinion to me that is different.
ReplyDeleteWorf said "and I can tell you that a lot of the people making the decisions, are motivated by a group Nazi mentality.
ReplyDeleteThese people, when the cameras are not rolling, when we're "alone" so to speak, talk of murder, rape, mass extermination, and every unspeakable act you can imagine, that they'd like to impart to the Arab nations.
They talk about "rounding them all up and shooting them", they talk about torture, they talk about bashing the kids heads in with rifle buts to "save the bullets" and keep them from growing up to be terrorists.
And they talk about it with glee."
Unfortunately that doesnt surprise me much at all.
Amen, Lydia.
ReplyDeleteThe right wing is more outraged over liberal blaming Bush for this, when they thoroughly ignore the fact that chickens come home to roost.
Voltaire said...
ReplyDeleteTell me again how the terrorists on 9/11 were all abiding by the Geneva convention?
I rest my case.
Voltasshole....do two wrongs make a right, or are you that stupid?
Voltaire said...
ReplyDeleteWas that by the Geneva convention when they bombed our marines in lebanon?
What? You mean the one Reagan cut-and-ran from?
Mike writes: "Lydia never said she wanted to censor Rush's freedom of speech or to express his opinion."
ReplyDeleteShe did advocate revoking his license to broadcast.
Evil is exactly what I see, Hitler exterminated tens of millions, voltaire is more ambitious, he wants to exterminate close to 2 billion, there's not much difference both Bush and Hitler are after world domination and are willing to do almost anything to achieve that ultimate power.
ReplyDeletesee the hardest thing for people to do is to objectively look inward at their country, their body, a loved one etc.. and see a cancerous tumor growing, no one wants to face that, thats why the defense mechanisms kick in and people refuse to see the truth. No one wants to look in the mirror and see a monster looking back so instead we delude ourselves and we tell ourselves sure we circumvented the Geneva Convention, but we did it for own own good to protect us, and sure we are massacreing and torturing civilians but thats just collateral damage for the greater good because muslims are evil.....course I bet Hitler said the same things about the jews years before and during the Holocaust.
Tall Texan said...
ReplyDeleteMike writes: "Lydia never said she wanted to censor Rush's freedom of speech or to express his opinion."
"She did advocate revoking his license to broadcast."
from me:
Yes, and that's my opinion. Rush provokes hatred and is an absolute liar. He is inciting people to hate each other within our own country, on the national airwaves.
And he's lying. He inflames passions and people take him seriously.
she condemned his ability to spread lies and poison TT just like she did Coulter's like I said before if Dan Rather cant spread unsubstantiated facts without evidence to support it why should Rush or Coulter. See if they said this is my opinion that would be different but they use their position as a credible media people and sources of information that the masses believe and take as a credible source of information to deceive people and spread lies thats what Lydia as condemning........after all TT you condemed Lydia for saying something with out facts to support it, howcome your not condeming Rush or Coulter, howcome its only free speech when you clowns do it hippocriteical Texan?????
ReplyDelete"Lydia Cornell said...
ReplyDeleteTall Texan said...
Mike writes: "Lydia never said she wanted to censor Rush's freedom of speech or to express his opinion."
"She did advocate revoking his license to broadcast."
from me:
Yes, and that's my opinion. Rush provokes hatred and is an absolute liar. He is inciting people to hate each other within our own country, on the national airwaves.
And he's lying. He inflames passions and people take him seriously.
12:24 PM"
Revoking his license to broadcast would be akin to censorship, right Lydia? That is, in fact, what you are calling for, no?
Lydia, I agree with you 100% that he spreads poison and lies, but I dont think censorship is ever the answer, I think they need make it clear that what is said on the show is rush's opinion and it is not a credible source of information or truth, I also thinl that if it is merely opinion and not fact then it should not be on during the day or during prime time when impressionable children can hear the lies and be taken in and deceived.
ReplyDeleteMike, I haven't heard anyone in a long, long time suggest that the government silence someone (by revoking their broadcast license) based solely on their opinions...until what Lydia wrote today.
ReplyDeleteTalk about the Psychic Friends Network, Worf has now stooped to reading Lydia's mind to explan what she actually meant. Totally pathetic.
Ann Coulter, to my knowledge, hasn't ever called for the government suppression of speech of the "Jersey Girls." She took issue with the manor in which they presented their opinions, but she never called for the government to come in and censor them. Big difference.
come on Troll Texan i'm waiting, how come you jumped all over Lydia for stating her opinion without facts to back it up, but you have no problemwith Coulter or Rush doing the same thing???
ReplyDeleteIn fact for them its ten times worse because they have a large auduence following them.
Mike writes: "I also think that if it is merely opinion and not fact then it should not be on during the day or during prime."
ReplyDeleteSo, Mike, to be fair, we should also relegate Air America, al-Franken, and Randi Rhodes to overnight hours since their programs are as much about Liberal opinions as Rush's program is about Conservative opinions? Is that what you really want the government to do to free speech?
Coulter claimed they were "GLAD" their husbands were dead with no facts or evidence to support that claim whatsoever, you never seem to want to address this issue Troll Texan, so I have to ask do you have no rebuttal for this and that is why you dodge it or are you just too stupid to see this is the question i've been asking you for 2 weeks, I NEVER said she tried to silence them you implied I said that because you had no logical answer to my quesion other than to say you dont support Coulter or Rush doing the same thing you accused Lydia of.
ReplyDeleteyeah run and hide troll tex, you git busted and dont have an answer for this one so its time to leave with your tail between your legs.
ReplyDeleteMike, as you put it, I "jumped all over Lydia" for her groundless assertions of fact. I never called for the government to censor Lydia even though she advocates the government censoring Rush Lumbaugh. Big difference.
ReplyDeleteBy the same token, Ann Coulter shouldn't be making groundless assertions of facts either, and even if she is, I would not call upon the government to silence her eben though Lydia is calling on the government to silence Rush.
I'm not giving her Coulter a free pass, but I've read so many versions of what Coulter said, I really don't know what her exact words were. If she made a groundless assertion of fact, I would say she was irresponsible and call her on it just as I did with Lydia. I am being totally consistent.
Lydia is being TOTALLY inconsistent. She is calling on the government to silence Rush.
Now, I've answered your question, but you haven't answered mine: should Air America be on at only the same times as Rush Limbaugh?
Lydia, isn't it pathetic that the very force of your and other Liberals' ideas need the government to silence the opposition. And you call Republicans Nazis?
Mike, as you put it, I "jumped all over Lydia" for her groundless assertions of fact. I never called for the government to censor Lydia even though she advocates the government censoring Rush Lumbaugh. Big difference.
ReplyDeleteBy the same token, Ann Coulter shouldn't be making groundless assertions of facts either, and even if she is, I would not call upon the government to silence her eben though Lydia is calling on the government to silence Rush.
I'm not giving her Coulter a free pass, but I've read so many versions of what Coulter said, I really don't know what her exact words were. If she made a groundless assertion of fact, I would say she was irresponsible and call her on it just as I did with Lydia. I am being totally consistent.
Lydia is being TOTALLY inconsistent. She is calling on the government to silence Rush.
Now, I've answered your question, but you haven't answered mine: should Air America be on at only the same times as Rush Limbaugh?
Lydia, isn't it pathetic that the very force of your and other Liberals' ideas need the government to silence the opposition. And you call Republicans Nazis?
TALL TEXAN -- Anne Coulter called to REVOKE THE FREE SPEECH OF DEMOCRATS, specifically at a speech she gave, which is the subject of my article on her "Death is Sexier than Sex."
ReplyDeleteCoulter also called to revoke the right of women to vote, saying they are dumb.
I was using hyperbole in my statement about Rush. But in my opinion, if Rush spreads hatred he should be fined, and if he's stoned on the air, and is an unrecovered alcoholic, I wish there was a disclaimer before each show saying "this man is not of sound mind." That would help. But my cousins in Texas believe everything Fox and Rush say -- because it has the "authority of news network" and it sounds so official. They can't tell the difference, and only hear what they can tune into.
There is only one Progressive radio station in America, there are over 650 stations owned by Clear Channel, which will not allow our opinions to be aired.
ReplyDeleteI find that censorship of the worst kind, and all because monopolies were allowed to proliferate, which in itself creates unfairness and is un-American.
Lydia wrote: "if he's stoned on the air, and is an unrecovered alcoholic, I wish there was a disclaimer before each show saying 'this man is not of sound mind.'"
ReplyDeleteLydia, are you fully recovered? If not, perhaps this Blog needs a similar disclaimer.
Tt said "Now, I've answered your question, but you haven't answered mine: should Air America be on at only the same times as Rush Limbaugh?"
ReplyDeleteYes
" Mike said...
ReplyDeleteTt said "Now, I've answered your question, but you haven't answered mine: should Air America be on at only the same times as Rush Limbaugh?"
Yes
1:28 PM"
So, you Liberals are all for free speech -- except for talk radio? How pathetic is that?
Lydia said "There is only one Progressive radio station in America, there are over 650 stations owned by Clear Channel, which will not allow our opinions to be aired.
ReplyDeleteI find that censorship of the worst kind, and all because monopolies were allowed to proliferate, which in itself creates unfairness and is un-American."
Excellent post, I was going to post about the Right Wing FCC allowing allowing media monopolies to be constructed that stifle free speech and access to unbiased information but you beat me to the punch. I was also going to use Clear Channel in my example.
Newsflash to Mike and Lydia: these companies are interested in one thing: money.
ReplyDeleteLiberal talk radio isn't getting done. Wonder why.
Tall Texan: yes, I got sober on Sept. 11, 1994 and found my younger brother's body a year later. 11 years sober emotionally, spiritually and physically. The key lesson of sobriety for everyone is humility, which is a wonderful quality in a public servant.
ReplyDeleteThe most wonderful view of life opened up, once the anesthesia lifted and I was able to have compassion for others.
I've been able to get through many tragedies staying sober, by being of love and service to others. It's a God-centered way of life.
lydia said That would help. But my cousins in Texas believe everything Fox and Rush say -- because it has the "authority of news network" and it sounds so official. They can't tell the difference, and only hear what they can tune"
ReplyDeleteExactly, rush shouldnt be able to use his show as a political vehicle to deceive and sway people politically with lies and unsubstantiated facts, if he is not a credible,truthful, fair and balance source of information, then that should be clearly stated throughout the show and he should not be given the same credence and airtime as a mainstreme journalist or media personality who reports the truth with facts to back it up and no political agenda.
he has every right to speak his mind and state his opinion, but if he is trying to fool people and portray his opinion as fact, then there is a bigtime problem with that.
Lydia, I am genuinely happy that you are sober, and I trust you on that, even though I've never met you.
ReplyDeleteDo you trust Rush when he says that he's been sober for three years, even though you've never met him?
Now Lydia if your saying that rush shouldnt be able to use his show to deceive and sway people politically by masquerading his lies and unsubstantiated facts as the truth, then I agree completely with you, but Censorship is a double edged sword and is never the answer, like I told British Gary, what happens if the bad guys seize control of censoring things and they censor out every point of view but their own, that can make it easier for them to seize power.
ReplyDeletebut I agree completely with your point that the FCC and the SEC really punted the football by allowing all the consolidation in the media and the media empires that were created as a result reflects what the owner of these empires wants them to reflect. instead of fair and balanced information.
ReplyDeleteI feel we have lost or objectivity and perspective with all these mass mergers in the media and many voices have been silenced as a result.
Tt said "By the same token, Ann Coulter shouldn't be making groundless assertions of facts either, and even if she is, I would not call upon the government to silence her eben though Lydia is calling on the government to silence Rush.
ReplyDeleteanswer me this TT how come no one is allowed to come on the air and rebutt Coulter or Limbaghs lies, if you are for free speech why isnt the other side allowed to debunk their lies and unsubstantiated facts, no one was allowed to come on with coulter and respond to her rhetoric and on rush's show he hangs up on or talks over anyone he doesnt agree with.
This makes it obvious that these people are being bankrolled by the "big money" right wing "powers that be" to deceive people and sway public opinion, and that shouldnt ne allowed, the opposition should not be silence if you are advocating free speech.
I remember when Lydia called in on al Rantell's show he hung up on her, do you support this one sided freedom of speech TT?????????????????????
Ann Coulter has been strongly challenged on every show she's been on.
ReplyDeleteIf you host a radio show, you have no obligation to be neutral. Franken puts out his opinion and Rush does the same, although Rush takes quite a few Liberal callers and spends more time with them than I would have expected. Not all radio shows do this, but some elect to.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSee Tt the difference is Franken is "PERCEIVED" as a political comedian, while Coulter and Rush are perceived for as intellectuals and pundits and people see them as credible sources of information, when in reality they are no more credible than Al Franken and in my opinion far less.
ReplyDeleteTT said "Ann Coulter has been strongly challenged on every show she's been on."
ReplyDeleteI disagree, the hosts asked her a few qestions to mostly softballs to keep the show somewhat fair and balanced, but no one else came out to challenge her and question her claims or facts or actually lack of facts.
TT asks:
ReplyDeleteDo you trust Rush when he says that he's been sober for three years, even though you've never met him?
Limbaugh arrested on prescription drug charges
Friday, April 28, 2006; Posted: 6:30 p.m. EDT (22:30 GMT)
Rush Limbaugh was arrested Friday on prescription drug charges, law enforcement officials said.
Limbaugh turned himself in to authorities on a warrant issued by the state attorney's office, said agency spokeswoman Teri Barbera.
The conservative radio commentator came into the jail at about 4 p.m. with his attorney Roy Black and was released an hour later on $3,000 bail, Barbera said. The warrant was for fraud to conceal information to obtain prescription, Barbera said.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
On one hand I feel bad for him, clearly he has chemical dependency issues. On the other hand, given his big, obnoxious approach, it serves him.
It's tough being perfect, hey Rush?
Rush Limbaugh tells us he is the "great truth detector". Rush also claims to be an example of patriotism who exhibits a high degree of moral behavior. Thing of it is, Rush Limbaugh evaded serving his country and has no use for truth.
Rush Limbaugh has nothing to do with truth and moralism, nor is he an example of patriotic behavior. Rush Limbaugh is self-serving demagogue who will say anything to enrich himself. If Rush's fans applied even a modicum of objective reason, they would realize Limbaugh is duping them for great personal gain.
good LYdia, am glad you left the part about Rush on the blog,I dont support censorship, but I think we need to call him out on his stupid lies that liberals are glad the troops are dead, thats something a pathetic lying shell of a man would say, and he shouldnt be allowed to get away with spewing lies and BS like that with no facts to back them up.
ReplyDeleteZebigleb - Great photos on your blog,
ReplyDeleteThank you
xo,
Lydia
June 21, 2006:
ReplyDeleteThe new death toll for US soldiers in Iraq now stands at 2506 that are being reported.
Is Bush troubled at this growing and alarming death toll?
As the death toll reached 2500 the official statement was " Its Only A Number".
It is easy to assume the 2506 death toll will be proudly pronounced by the Bush spokesman as " Its Only A Number".
Is the blog down?
ReplyDeleteWonder why on the day that 2 US soldiers were mutilated in Iraq, that Bush decides to give his little speeches on an attack on Democrats.
ReplyDeleteDoes he think the public is so in awe every time he speaks that we will ignore US soldiers mutilation?
Worf:
ReplyDeleteThe policy you just described sadly, is a byproduct of the same administration that sent them there in the first place.
Our government leaders have dehumanized everything they do from foreign policy to the economy.
You been putting in some overtime lately volt, you wanna buy a new car or is it a big summer vacation your saving for????
ReplyDeleteThe 14 characteristics of Fascism are:
ReplyDelete1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause-
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda i s neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6. Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Any of this sound familiar?
What’s coming
ReplyDeleteWhen all fascisms exhibit the same social and political agendas (the 14 points listed by Britt), then it is not hard to predict where a new fascist uprising will lead. And it is not hard. The actions of fascists and the social and political effects of fascism and fundamentalism are clear and sobering. Here is some of whats coming, what will be happening in our country in the next few years:
The theft of all social security funds, to be transferred to those who control money, and the increasing destitution of all those dependent on social security and social welfare programs.
Rising numbers of uninsured people in this country that already has the highest percentage of citizens without health insurance in the developed world.
Increased loss of funding for public education combined with increased support for vouchers, urging Americans to entrust their children’s education to Christian schools.
More restrictions on civil liberties as America is turned into the police state necessary for fascism to work
Withdrawal of virtually all funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System. At their best, these media sometimes encourage critical questioning, so they are correctly seen as enemies of the state’s official stories.
The reinstatement of a draft, from which the children of privileged parents will again be mostly exempt, leaving our poorest children to fight and die in wars of imperialism and greed that could never benefit them anyway. (That was my one-sentence Veterans’ Day sermon for this year.)
More imperialistic invasions: of Iran and others, and the construction of a huge permanent embassy in Iraq.
More restrictions on speech, under the flag of national security.
Control of the internet to remove or cripple it as an instrument of free communication that is exempt from government control. This will be presented as a necessary anti-terrorist measure.
Efforts to remove the tax-exempt status of churches like this one, and to characterize them as anti-American.
Tighter control of the editorial bias of almost all media, and demonization of the few media they are unable to control – the New York Times, for instance.
Continued outsourcing of jobs, including more white-collar jobs, to produce greater profits for those who control the money and direct the society, while simultaneously reducing America’s workers to a more desperate and powerless status.
Moves in the banking industry to make it impossible for an increasing number of Americans to own their homes. As they did in the 1930s, those who control the money know that it is to their advantage and profit to keep others renting rather than owning.
Criminalization of those who protest, as un-American, with arrests, detentions and harassment increasing. We already have a higher percentage of our citizens in prison than any other country in the world. That percentage will increase.
In the near future, it will be illegal or at least dangerous to say the things I have said here this morning. In the fascist story, these things are un-American. In the real history of a democratic America, they were seen as profoundly patriotic, as the kind of critical questions that kept the American spirit alive — the kind of questions, incidentally, that our media were supposed to be pressing.
Worf said"Meanwhile Bush is appointing his right wing supporters to run PBS, to cut down on the negative stories about him and Cheney.
ReplyDeleteHe just appointed right wing neocon Warren Bell to the PBS board of directors?
Why Bell you ask?
I imagine Goebell's wasn't available."
Worf since you and Lydia both raised this point today look at point number 5 in the effects of fascism I just posted. (also below)
5)Withdrawal of virtually all funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System. At their best, these media sometimes encourage critical questioning, so they are correctly seen as enemies of the state’s official stories.
liberalslikechrist.org
ReplyDeleteMr. Powers will not go gentle into that goodnight, rage! rage against the dying of the light.
ReplyDeletekinda scary how many of those are right on, isnt it???
ReplyDeleteof course it is, he's been posting anonymously for a long time.
ReplyDeletei've had proof but i've kept quiet.
ReplyDeletein fact I think I might even know who he really is, I told clif When I met him.
ReplyDeletesee i've thought johnny was anonymous for a LONNNNGGG time.
ReplyDeletesame stupid repetitive 6th grade insults, name calling and stupid banter, rarely saying anything intelligent.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI know what you mean, I think i'm a good judge of character as well, still i'm amazed that you knew the real reason I wanted your e-mail.
ReplyDeletethats like holy water on a Vampire to all the reich wingers, it riles them into a frenzy when they hear that comparison.
ReplyDeleteWorf said "I also can't help but notice the blog goes down whenever things don't go his way. Just an observation of course."
ReplyDeletei noticed the same thing, in fact I told Lydia that it was down almost everyday while she was in vegas, like a hacker was messing with it and she was surprised.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteexactly!
ReplyDeletewell i'm heading home, i'll be back online in 25 minutes or so.
ReplyDeleteMike:
ReplyDeleteThe points you listed on facism describes the present US government to a tee.
If they can squelch those in opposition, such as reporters receiving leaks on their crimes, destroying what few politicians will voice opposition and then messing up progressive blogs like that of Lydia's, then they will have won.
Why would someone like Ann Coulter be so consumed with ruining Lydia's blog,so consumed with trying to scare her off personally, if she wasn't afraid that opposition voices are rising.
Larry, well said, you are exactly right coulter and her minions are doing everything in their power to silence and discredit any opposing viewpoints.
ReplyDeletesee larry that just shows your human and have a soul, because any decent human would feel a sense of dread that chills them to their marrow after reading what I just posted on fascism because that does indeed describe what is going on today to a tee.
The way I see it Democracy hangs on the edge of a knife and just like in Germany many years ago if the people with good in their hears dont find the courage to speak out and take a stand and attempt to fight the evil taking root democracy will fail and we will relive first hand the nazi's seizing power in Germany.
Although times are different, the similarities between the Bush regime and that of Hitler are remarkably similar.
ReplyDeleteBoth used the press to control and bring fear into the minds of their countries citizens, and both used war to try and take over the world.
The only difference is not in the cold-heartedness of both leaders, but how Bush has taken modern day events to justify his grasp for dominance.
Over 100 Iraqi workers were kidnapped from a factory near Baghdad today.
ReplyDeleteMore indications of how the so-called Bush plan of Iraqis standing up while the US stands down is so successful.
What an awesome Commander in Chief the US Napoleon has become.
The government will never pay for the upgrades.
ReplyDeleteLook at all the body protection the troops families had to purchase because the govt. wouldn't do it.
The new medical facility in Texas to rehabilitate wounded and disabled soldiers, had to be paid for with private donations and donations from average citizens.
Our Govt has no problem sending troops to war, but they can't find the money to properly equip or rehabilitate them.
Thanks for the link. I saw Cher on CNN talking about it, but I didn't get the 800 number they had listed.
ReplyDeleteSince they have two different prices for separate branches, hopefully people will purchase one of each.
I'll try and pop over there later tonight or tomorrow and buy one, but I have to say i'm curious if the trolls like Voltaire and FF who claim to care so much about the troops will actually put there money where their mouth is.
ReplyDeleteMike:
ReplyDeleteThey can't spend money to help protect the troops.
They are saving their money for Ann ( Cold-Hearted) Coulter's hate spewing book.
The Senate had no problem approving themselves another pay increase.
ReplyDeleteThe Senate had no problem turning down raising the minimum wage even though it had been nearly 10 years since it was increased.
The Senate had no problem ignoring the safety needs of the military, because it didn't impact them.
In those ways, their aren't much differences between the Senate and Bush.
Hillary was on Larry King and didn't mention the needs of the troops.
ReplyDeleteMary Matalin spends all her time trying to keep Cheney out of jail for shooting people to care about the troops.
I don't know how Carville can stand living around all that arrogant atmosphere.
Lydia, Is it true you and your husband filed Bankrupcy on close to a million dallars? I came across this info on the internet. From your past posting it gave us all the impression you were doing so well. Guess your projects aren't taking off like you had expected. Keep trying Dear you are bound to hit on something with all your efforts.
ReplyDeleteLydia wrote: "clearly [Rush] has chemical dependency issues."
ReplyDeleteLike your alcoholism is any better?
Lydia, I notice you have deleted your comments calling for Rush Limbaugh's broadcast llicense to be revoked.
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean you have come to your senses and changed your mind?
Mainstream journalism: Shredding the First AmendmentBy Jon Prestage
ReplyDeleteOnline Journal Contributing Writer
November 7, 2002
The national broadcast and print news media's inability to critically assess George W. Bush's foreign and domestic policies and to serve as a watchdog for the public's interest is nothing less than a threat to the country's democratic processes.
Not only has the national news media been unable to piece together a cogent and balanced review of Bush's policies, it has helped the administration to shape and spin national debate and muddy the waters to cover its actual intentions.
The Radio-Television News Director's Association (RTNDA) says broadcast journalists should serve as "public trustees who seek truth and report it fairly with integrity and independence." If news directors really think their journalists live up to these standards, they are either delusional or hucksters.
RTNDA is the world's largest organization devoted exclusively to electronic journalism. It boasts more than 3,000 members, mostly news directors. The association's ethics code is full of lofty language that sets standards for broadcast journalists. It says they should "pursue truth aggressively and present the news accurately, in context, and as completely as possible." It says they should place a "primary value on significance and relevance."
They should "vigorously resist undue influence from any outside forces, including advertisers, sources, story subjects, powerful individuals, and special interest groups." They should resist those, it says, who "seek to buy or politically influence news content" and "refuse to allow the interests of ownership or management to influence news judgment or content . . ." It is not as though the RTNDA code is a relic of an earlier era in broadcast journalism, an anachronism. The association adopted this latest version of its ethics code in September 2000. Apparently our nation's news directors are asleep at the switch.
There is plenty of evidence to show that broadcast journalists are willing co-conspirators in spinning the news. Describing how Sunday talk shows pander to the administration and "fabricate" the news, John Tierney of the New York Times blithely described the weekly ritual recently as "a cross between Sunday morning church and American football.
Coming from the pages of the New York Times, these observations are a bit disingenuous. Throughout the fall the Times published a rash of leaks from unnamed sources that were clearly part of an orchestrated administration effort to portray Saddam Hussein as a direct and immediate threat to the United States and to link him to al Qaeda. Much of the information provided by these unnamed sources turned out to be misleading or inaccurate. But the articles enabled the administration to direct the nation's news agenda toward war and away from the economy and to spin the facts to its liking.
ReplyDelete"Before any information is accepted without full attribution, reporters must make every reasonable effort to get it on the record. If that is not possible, reporters should consider seeking the information elsewhere. If that in turn is not possible, reporters should request an on-the-record reason for concealing the source's identity and should include the reason in the story," it says.
ReplyDeleteIt would not appear that Times and Post reporters followed these codes during the rash of anonymous administration and Pentagon leaks this fall. Times and Post reporters surely did not follow these codes when they repeatedly published leaks from unnamed prosecution sources close to Kenneth Starr's investigation of former President William Clinton. History has shown that the Whitewater investigations were a sham all along and the leaks were simply disinformation. We were not warned then or now that these leaks might be part of calculated strategies to shape and spin the news, and, in the case of Starr, to impeach a popularly elected president, though the Times and Post must have known this was so. They simply allowed themselves to be used.
The indiscriminate use of unnamed sources is far more dangerous now than it was in the past because most news outlets no longer independently verify information provided to competing news outlets by unnamed sources before running a story. The reason for this is the rush of news outlets, especially broadcasters, to get the story out as quickly as possible. There is no time for independent verification, and this allows spinners to run amuck.
A few weeks ago, former Vice President Al Gore called a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposal to eliminate all remaining restrictions on the ownership of news outlets " a dire threat to the survival of democracy in the United State of America." Ownership restrictions have been weakened in recent years, enabling a few powerful companies to buy up many competing news outlets. Gore warned that the media conglomerates resulting from this loosening of restrictions have already changed the way the news media and government relate and jeopardized the news media's ability to remain an independent watchdog. According to Gore, who is a former newspaper reporter, news has become a commodity, a cheap and readily available good, and, if the remaining restrictions are eliminated, the situation will become even worse.
ReplyDelete"The arrival of commodity news pushed both newspapers and broadcast news outlets out of their niche so that they had to start selling something else-a hybrid product of news plus," Gore said. This hybrid news product includes more opinion-based programming and celebrity journalism, a trend that blurs the line between objective reporting and a reporter's personal opinions.
As Gore explains it, the media conglomerates are increasingly dependent on government policies and the bottom line. This has "created a timid media that refuses to question governmental decisions," he said.
A timid news media is in fact a compromised news media and a dangerous development in a democracy. A compromised news media cannot serve its constitutional function to enlighten the public, so citizens can intelligently exercise their responsibilities in a democratic society. Instead, as we have learned, it provides the public with misinformation and spin and calls it news
Holcomb, who is president of the Newspaper Guild of Greater Philadelphia and a journalist for 40 years, said that newspapers had a "clearer mission" back when he began reporting. That mission was to "report the truth and raise hell." But corporate pressures have blurred this vision, he said.
ReplyDeleteJanine Jackson of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a news media watchdog group, told the American Free Press that 60 percent of journalists surveyed recently by FAIR admitted that advertisers "try to change stories."
"Some advertisers kill some stories and promote others," she said, asserting that there is an "overwhelming influence of corporations and advertisers" on broadcast and print news reporting.
"The trends are all bad-worse and worse," Nichols said. Newspapers and broadcast journalists are under "enormous pressures to replace civic values with commercial values."
He labeled local television news a "cesspool." Local broadcasters are under pressure from big corporations to "entertain" rather than to inform, and people are "more ignorant" after viewing television news because of the misinformation they broadcast, he said.
The scope of the national media's failure to honestly and thoroughly inform the American people on issues of the day was dramatically illustrated recently by a new polling organization that conducts national opinion surveys that capture the affects of misinformation. The organization is called Retro Poll, and its pilot poll, completed recently, looked at the war on terrorism.
According to the organization's October 17, 2002, press release, the Retro Poll "attempts to show that public opinion is molded by media misinformation and disinformation (propaganda). It addresses the question: does the public opinion reported in the usual major media polls reflect the true values and beliefs of those Americans polled . . . ?"
The terrorism poll involved people from 39 states and "showed a link between misinformation on Iraq and support for a U.S. war against that country." The poll's results suggest that by "continually highlighting Washington's viewpoint unchallenged, the news bureaus in the U.S. can change the facts in the minds of many Americans. The opinions formed from those unsubstantiated facts are then used by polling organizations to report back the values, ideas, and thinking of the public."
The poll suggests, "The values of Americans remain strongly democratic and fair. This was demonstrated by poll results on elements in the war on terrorism. 80.4% of the respondents rejected the use of outlawed techniques such as torture against detainees. 82.7% supported the idea that the U.S. should have to prove its accusations against nations before attacking them. 71% rejected indeterminate detention of arrestees (citizens and non-citizens) without charges, proofs, or trials. 89.2% supported the position that the U.S. should support international attempts to prosecute war crimes."
"Although the margin of error on individual poll questions ranged from plus or minus 6 to 8%, the relationship between advocacy of war on Iraq and misinformation of basic facts is statistically unlikely to have occurred by chance. This association reveals that what is actually being reported by most major polls is the ability of the Government and the Media to change the public perception by headlining exaggerated or erroneous government-provided information (propaganda). Retro Poll calls on the Corporate Media to carry out their democratic responsibility to bring forth and highlight the truth when government pronouncements are found to lack a firm factual basis." Readers can learn more about Retro Poll by visiting its site at http://www.retropoll.org.
This unit demonstrates the role that a free and independent press can and does play in the American politicalsystem, serving often as the people’s watchdog. But the unit also illustrates that the relationship between thepress and public officials is also one of mutual dependence. Finally, this unit explores what constitutes news andhow, out of the millions of things that happen each day, only a few are reported.The American media, sometimes referred to as the fourth estate, can and often do serve as a valuable check onthe powers of officials. As Justice Frankfurter once said,“A free press is indispensable to the workings of our dem-ocratic society.” Frankfurter is alluding to the fact that without accurate information about events, people, andgovernment policy, the public cannot make informed choices as it participates in the democratic process.
ReplyDeleteMost media organizations in the United States are privately owned. Private ownership contributes to the inde-pendence of the media from government controls. But it also means that media owners must attract a sufficientnumber of viewers and readers. Increasingly, programming decisions take into account the mass appeal of storiesand features, and the graphics that accompany them. To increase profits, media owners buy additional media out-lets. This trend has contributed to a large consolidation of media sources such as television and radio stations,magazines, and Web sites. Most small, independently owned news stations and newspapers have been bought upby larger media conglomerates such as Knight-Ridder, USA Today, Time Warner, General Electric, Fox Broadcasting,and Disney. Critics charge that consolidation of ownership contributes to a homogenization of news, where mostnews features echo each other, and often reflect the media and political elite’s interpretation of events.
Facts dispensed by Limbaugh are almost never questioned during his program. A hostile caller rarely gets through screeners, and his TV show was regularly delivered before a live, cheering studio audience. Limbaugh doesn't debate - he prefers to forge a media empire largely based on unchallenged monologues or scripted chains of thought.
ReplyDeleteOn-air discussions grew heated, and often he simply disconnected callers mid-sentence.He made personal attacks, heavy on political commentary.
So TT, Rush is using his show as a vehicle to influence and sway public opinion with lies and unsubstantiated facts, do you think this is acceptable, if he makes a comment like "liberals are glad the soldiers are dead" he should say "in my opinion liberals are glad the soldiers are dead", but 1) be doesnt have the balls to say that and 2) he is out to deceice people and misrepresent his opinion as fact to sway opinion and influence people politically.
ReplyDeleteSee if he had said ""in my opinion liberals are glad the soldiers are dead", that would fall under freedom of speech and be perfectly acceptable. But instead he tried to pass it off as fact by saying "liberals are glad the soldiers are dead" this is nothing more than slander and lies, and would be the same as me getting on the air and saying Rush is a child molestor with no facts to back up that statement.
ReplyDeleteSee TT he should be able to speak his opinion on air regardless of what it is, but if he is using his show to influence public opinion by deceiving them with slanderous unsubstantiated lies, then he should have his licence revoked and be fined by the FCC, but that will never happen because the FCC is in Bush Co's back pocket.
ballplayer said"A disclaimer should be posted before his show saying that these are his own opinions, then following it with...bullshit opinions"
ReplyDeleteEXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Liberals don't care for what happens to our troops------
ReplyDeleteso long as liberals can grab power
and then do the same as those in power now -- if not worse ..
AP Updated: 18 minutes ago
ReplyDeleteWASHINGTON - The GOP-controlled Senate on Thursday rejected Democratic calls to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by years' end, as the two parties sought to define their election-year positions on a war that has grown increasingly unpopular.
"Withdrawal is not an option. Surrender is not a solution," declared Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, who characterized Democrats as defeatists wanting to abandon Iraq before the mission is complete.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, in turn, portrayed Republican leaders as blindly following President Bush's "failed" stay-the-course strategy. "It is long past time to change course in Iraq and start to end the president's open-ended commitment," he said.
Its time for a change in the Senate and the house, or else Bush's failed policy's and corrupt agenda will become the status quo.
ReplyDeleteWhy did the liberals start Vietnam ?
ReplyDeleteif they are soooo heavenly ?
chuckle
AP Updated: 6:46 p.m. MT June 21, 2006
ReplyDeleteVIENNA, Austria - President Bush won solid European support Wednesday for his handling of escalating nuclear crises with North Korea and Iran but was challenged over the Iraq war, the U.S. prison camp in Cuba and rising anti-American sentiment.
“That’s absurd,” Bush snapped at a news conference in response to an assertion that the United States was regarded as the biggest threat to global security. “We’ll defend ourselves but at the same time we’re actively working with our partners to spread peace and democracy.”
Without prompting, Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel rose with an impassioned defense that seemed even to surprise the president.
“We can only have a victory in the fight against terror if we don’t undermine our common values,” Schuessel said. “It can never be a victory, a credible victory over terrorists if we give up our values: democracy, rule of law, individual rights.”
johnny the troll is back.
ReplyDeletewho doesnt even have the courage to use his own handle, but I forgot he only uses Johnny Moo Moo in the early morning or evening, silly me.
ReplyDeleteyou gotta be getting paid man, nobody could be that pathetic of a loser.
ReplyDeleteCNN
ReplyDeleteBush asked to explain UK war memo
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002 -- well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval.
The Times of London newspaper published the memo -- actually minutes of a high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 -- on May 1.
British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and Michael Boyce, then Britain's Chief of Defense Staff, told the paper that Britain had not then made a decision to follow the United States to war, but it would have been "irresponsible" not to prepare for the possibility.
The White House has not yet responded to queries about the congressional letter, which was released on May 6.
The letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration. ...
"While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your administration," the letter said.
But, the letter said, when the document was leaked Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman called it "nothing new."
In addition to Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove and others attended the meeting.
A British official identified as "C" said that he had returned from a meeting in Washington and that "military action was now seen as inevitable" by U.S. officials.
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
"The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
The memo further discussed the military options under consideration by the United States, along with Britain's possible role.
It quoted Hoon as saying the United States had not finalized a timeline, but that it would likely begin "30 days before the U.S. congressional elections," culminating with the actual attack in January 2003.
"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said.
"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
The British officials determined to push for an ultimatum for Saddam to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq to "help with the legal justification for the use of force ... despite U.S. resistance."
Britain's attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, advised the group that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action" and two of three possible legal bases -- self-defense and humanitarian intervention -- could not be used.
The third was a U.N. Security Council resolution, which Goldsmith said "would be difficult."
Blair thought that "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors."
"If the political context were right, people would support regime change," the memo said.
Later, the memo said, Blair would work to convince Bush that they should pursue the ultimatum with Saddam even though "many in the U.S. did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route."
Click here to read the full article!
# posted by politicalstuff : 5/12/2005 01:17:00 AM
The Pentagon secretly keeps track of many grim statistics in Iraq. The numbers are not encouraging.
MSNBC.com
Anonymus said, Why did the liberals start Vietnam ?
ReplyDeleteSeeing that the initial involvement in vietnam occured during the Eisenhower Administration. This involved Logistical support for the French Army. After the Viet Ming's defeat of the french at Dien ben Phu the American government through the CIA prevented a election in 1956 because they knew Ho Chi Ming would win with almost 90% of the popular vote...instead the split the country and attempted to stand up President Diem even though he had little popular support. He never had any real connection with the civilian populace.
So the Vietnam war was actually started by Eisenhower Administration...and passed to Kennedy the Johnson
Do try to get those pesky facts straigh Analmouse...this isn't Rush's show ya know
CBS News interviewed Wayne Smith, a Sioux tribal member, who says representatives of Jack Abramhoff obtained favors from the Bush administration for various Indian gaming ventures.
ReplyDeleteSmith said lobbyist regularly told him they worked hard to get Bush elected and now it was time to be rewarded for it.
nice DODGE volt but it doesn't change the inconvient truth that the viuetnam war was hatched in thev 50's while Eisenhower was president...thus analmouse lied just like Rush and coulter routinely do
ReplyDeleteEisenhower: Minimal number of U.S. military advisers; intervention on a large scale only if by multinational coalition.
ReplyDeleteThank you for proving my initial point...but Eisenhower allowed the CIA to operate in Vietnam..specifically one Col Edward Landsdale...who sabatogued the North through out the late 50's and used the SEATO
(SEATO), alliance organized (1954) under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty by representatives of Australia, France, Great Britain, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and the United States. Established under Western auspices after the French withdrawal from Indochina, SEATO was created to oppose further Communist gains in Southeast Asia. The treaty was supplemented by a Pacific Charter, affirming the rights of Asian and Pacific peoples to equality and self-determination and setting forth goals of economic, social, and cultural cooperation between the member countries. The civil and military organizations established under the treaty had their headquarters in Bangkok, Thailand. SEATO relied on the military forces of member nations and joint maneuvers were held annually. SEATO’s principal role was to sanction the U.S. presence in Vietnam, although France and Pakistan withheld support. Unable to intervene in Laos or Vietnam due to its rule of unanimity, the future of the organization was in doubt by 1973, and SEATO was ultimately disbanded in 1979
The treaty to fund ther rise of the government in the south after 1956 and was diusbanded after the fall of the south...seems that the whole mess was caused by the US and western powers who refused to allow the Vietnamese the choice they wanted in 1956, the time frame when Eisenhower was president...
Worf they made fun of little ricky about his "find" saying the white house is suspeciously silent and the pentagon was not backing ricky up
ReplyDeleteSee voltaire the entire Vietnam expierence was shrouded in the defense of a SEATO ally...but we made SEATO up to create the problem just like we made south vietnam up in the 50's
ReplyDeleteBut toi actually blame Eisenhower is not totally accuratre because John Foster Dulles Secretary of state and Allen Welsh Dulles as CIUA directoir...yes they were brothers. They were the primary archetics of the US foriegn policy of MAD and containment of Communism and their moves in Indochina was to this effect
ReplyDeleteSee the Kennedy Administration inherited a policy that existed for about six years and a treaty obligation which they felt they must observe...wonder if georgie and dead eye are thinking of creating the same "obligations" to saddle the next president with
ReplyDeleteRemember Bush said it was up to the NEXT president to solve the troop siutuation in Iraq
ReplyDeleteBut that is disengenoius because the military troops were already in vietnam before Kennedy or Johnson became president and the treaty obligations had already been created...voltair cherry picking the facts is not honest...yes Johnson sent in the troops because the vietcong had become too strong for the fledging south vietnamese Army could not handle the civil war at that time...and after he committed the troops thew north sent in the NVA to support the viet cong which created the fiasco we call the vietnam war...but the policy was started by the republicans thus they set in motion the policy course that resulted in that war...unless you are suggesting thatr Johnson .."cut and run" from SEATO treaty obligations.
ReplyDeleteSee Voltair the repugs didn't think they would lose in 1960 thus they had the treaty to use after they thought Nixon would take power...but history did not play along with the repug machine then
ReplyDeleteWorf said "Its gonna be up to the next President to clean up EVERY one of his MESSES."
ReplyDeleteIf they are able to be cleaned up, mark my words Bush will go down in history as the Worst most incompetent president EVER in USA history bar done, he will destroy our military, our economy, our democracy and our way of life in a mere 8 years.
Just like the repugs can't think about losing even though they stand a good chance of losing the house this year...thus the idiotic anti gay bill...ban flag burning...and trot out the loony bin hags like coulter to rally the base to turn the tide this year...but the americans are getting fed up with infantile plans which would not pass the laugh test if they plans were actually placed before the Americans openly..
ReplyDeleteplans like
invade a country and honestly expect they will welcome you with open arms..
or plans like borrow money for 26 years with NO plan to repay but not worry about it
You know if you ask americans to borrow money for 26 years and never have any idea how they will get their money back or Americans would accept invaders with open arms here.....
this was georgies plan for foiriegn policy and fiscal policy....and you think there si nothing wrong?
Plan???? clif I dont think that fool would know what a plan was if it walked up and bashed him on his noggin, he just does what he feels like doing, what ever is best for him or his people, or what ever pops into that empty head of his.
ReplyDeletePlan ..Mike is bnot left to Bush alone...the military plans are the responsibvility of rumsfeld the dumb...man who believes we will be welcomed with open arms when we invade a country...and dead eye dick the lawyer shooter agreed.
ReplyDeletePlands like borrow and spend the plan that the repug house has used since 1994 to base the budget they create to send to the president each year...and only Clinton has called them on it...Bush is yet to veto one borrowed dollar
Now i've heard Cheney and the Neo Cons have had plans to invade a oil rich country in the mid east since the 1970's to break opec and gain a foothold in the middle east.
ReplyDeleteCarter hadn't ignored it in Iran...
ReplyDeleteThe same Iran that; Allen Dulles went on to be successful with the CIA's first attempts at removing foreign leaders by covert means. Notably, the elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran was deposed in 1953 (via Operation Ajax), 1953 when Eisenhower was president...so not only did the vietnam fiasco begin then but the Iranian mess as well...see people have a problem when we go in overthrow their elected leadership and install our own...kind of comes back to haunt us...something we still have problems with today over 50 years later
Clinton And Rubin were all about fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget, Newt and your boys just tried to take some of the credit.
ReplyDeleteRepugs are all for spending like drunken sailors with out the cash to pay for it, just like a 16 year old with a bunch of credit cards and no job.
In 1996, the GOP passed a budget with significant spending cuts thinking that Clinton could either sign the bill (a major political defeat) or veto it (resulting in a shutdown of most government services). GOP leaders believed that their recently energized supporters would stand with them, while the shutdown would be blamed on Clinton's veto of the spending bills. Clinton instead vetoed the bills and staged a media blitz, rallying his constituencies to blame the shutdown on the Republicans. The public largely agreed with Clinton's interpretation of the situation, and the Republicans suffered a major political defeat. The perception that the congressional Republicans were dangerous radicals stayed with them for the remainder of the Clinton presidency, and Clinton repeatedly made skillful use of this perception to pass his initiatives while blocking theirs.
ReplyDeleteFrom wikipedia...thus Clinton called them on it and WON
Clif said "Carter hadn't ignored it in Iran...
ReplyDeleteThe same Iran that; Allen Dulles went on to be successful with the CIA's first attempts at removing foreign leaders by covert means. Notably, the elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran was deposed in 1953 (via Operation Ajax), 1953 when Eisenhower was president...so not only did the vietnam fiasco begin then but the Iranian mess as well...see people have a problem when we go in overthrow their elected leadership and install our own...kind of comes back to haunt us...something we still have problems with today over 50 years later"
yep clif the repugs are too dunb to learn from their mistakes or from history, they just keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over like its groundhog day or something.
Buckwheat said "Like he didn't veto it twice and only signed it because their polls showed that Americans WANTED it... "
ReplyDeleteif thats the case at least he listens to what AMERICANS WANT onstead of just doing what him and his cabal of Nazi's want.
Volt it has been 6 years since Bill Clinton a sucessful president left office for the most incompetent president ever and you still haven't gotten over it?
ReplyDeleteJohn Boehner just admitted on hardball we have spent 500 billion dollars in Iraq.......and he says if we don't stay and spend more we are cutting and running...thought they were supposed to be the fiscally responsibilie party...but they spend money like oxycodone junkies
ReplyDeleteRewriting history again volt through your deluded eyes.
ReplyDeleteA balanced budget and fiscal responsibility was important to Clinton and Rubin, they must have stated that at least 100 times, just like a repug to always declare victory, sorry my friend, but the American people won because sound policiy was being pursued unlike now with the huge deficits that will cause interest rates to rise and destroy economic growth.
oh I forgot buckwheat, its only you that can agree with your cronnies, hacks and trolls, so sorry.
ReplyDeleteThey did not MAKE Clinton sign anything...but continue to spiun the facts like a good repug shrill till they lose everything AGAIN
ReplyDeleteNothing lasts forever even this group of incompetent repugs
they will be replaced some this year some next presidential election...when Bush and dead eye leave for ever.....
and more repug neo-cons will lose...they have lost credibility and will lose more and more power each election
when you agree with your "people" its independent thought, but when we agree we are brainwashed or kissing up, I love how you try to paint people into a box to silence them......does it ever work genius......as a matter of fact, do any of your policies or ideas ever work????????
ReplyDeleteVoltair said
ReplyDeleteI don't think it'll be particularly glowing...and I don't think Dubya is going to look quite as bad as you guys paint him.
Your right he'll be remnembered as worse he has tweo and a half more years to screw up even more
well volt, it goes both ways and Clinton unlike DUMBya used the veto to stop a good deal of the repug congress's pork from going through, see at least Clinton knew what a veto was.
ReplyDeleteTRhey started to balance the budget in 1993...with not one repug vote...remember you NEED dollars in revenue if you are not going to borrow them ...I know they do not teach you proper budget anaylisys in trolll school but you need either to have the dollars in revenue if you are not going to borrow them, unless you are for cutting off the military industrial complex from the additicted to tax dollars and sent all those repiug voters looking for jobs that do not involve planning on killing millions of people
ReplyDeleteYou see Voltair every repug wants to cut the budget except for their favorite provisions like the bridge to nowhere...or Hasterts road that gave him millions in real estate profits...and the landlords who collect section 8 rents...or the mega farms who collect5 billions in farm subsidies...or the pentagon contrasctors and defense builders who make all their funds from tax dollars those we collect today and those we will have to collect in the future to pay off the loans of today
ReplyDeleteRight voltair the DEMOCRATS began to ballance the budget because they knew we had to collect revenues if we wanted to stop borrowing so muich money
ReplyDeleteLookie Volt tried to make a joke...good try voltie
ReplyDeleteVoltaire said...
ReplyDeleteBut I don't want Al Bundy for president...
Why not it would be a big step UP from this idiot crowd
Volt said"But I don't want Al Bundy for president... "
ReplyDeletenewsflash, we got al bundy for president right now.
Mike we do not have Al Bundy right now...al held a job and made it with out daddy's money and friends....georgie can't say that
ReplyDeleteThey passed the bill in 93 and the repugs ran on the check scandal back in 1994....a scandal that pales in comparison with Abrarmoff...Cunningham...Fletcher...coingate
ReplyDelete...scanlan...delay.... frist... hastert et al....makes one wonder why the liberal press is not screaming from the mountain tops...could it be because they are corporate owned and pay over rated blowhards to spin the facts
Volt changes the facts to fit his history like Bill the O'Lier saying US troops murdered Nazi's not the other way around (what actually happened the Nazi's murdered the US soldiers)
ReplyDeleteReagan didn't lay the ground work for anything...he broke the budget...and had th raise taxes in 86...and GHWB had to raise them again...and Clinton raised the top rate to get the budget closer to balance...get your facts straight or go to a red state site where lies rule the spin
ReplyDeleteVolt your slipping got to go after the messanger again I see
ReplyDeleteI was NOT talking about the balance budget but the ground work for balancing it....collecting enough revenue to pay as you go...something repugs claimed they believed in until the gactually got both houses and then the borrow and spend like junkies on a good high
ReplyDeleteBut what happened to calling for a balance budget admendment...must not be a big a danger as a burning flag or two gays who want to spend their lives together
ReplyDeleteSO voltair what has been the excuse since 1994...and especially since 2000?
ReplyDeletethe house has been repug since 1994
National debt 1994 4.692 trillion
National debt 2006 8.349 trillion
your repugs seem to be FAILING
So they lost their fiscal responsibility some time right after they got the house where budget bills always start...and since they controlled it they have almost doubled the debt that reagan and bush 41 ran up
ReplyDeleteSee voltair Ronnie ray-gun or george the dolts Dad never submitted a balanced budget either and they always signed the budget bills stating they accepted the debts for future generations to pay off...just as the dolt does today
ReplyDeleteVolt the deficet does not include the funds spent in Iraq or Afghanistan...and other off budget items...it has been a Bush tactic to overstate the decicit and when it is slightly less claim victory obver the deficiet...but thr TOTAL bdebt is still INCREASING thus the burden bush is willing to pass off to future generations is staggering...another reason he is no Truman or FDR
ReplyDeleteNewt did not propose a true balanced budget but political gimicks to help his propoganda machine....he failed at actuially gettiong much done...and was thrown away like the repugs do to those they have no use for
ReplyDeleteRevenue trippled based on what got a link that is not a repug spin site?
ReplyDeleteRemember collecting SS and using it to pay the bills is dishonest it does not count as revenues...but is supposed to be held for the future
Not unfair if it is not right neither is right for doing it.
ReplyDeleteVolt said "clif, read the damn treasury records. After Reagan's tax cuts the revenue coming into the treasury ALMOST TRIPLED. That's simply a FACT."
ReplyDeleteI believe that revenue coming into the treasury probably did triple under Reagan's tax cuts, I believe the top rate back then was like 70%, that is ornerous and unfair and people probably were hiding their money back then, particularly when the stock market was in a long term bear market till late 82, tax deferred investments probably looked good at the time, but its a different world today, tax rates are probably the lowest they've been since some time after WW2, interest rates are still relatively low, and their are oportunities to make money in the stock market even if we are in long term bear market like the 1970's, the economy boomed under Clinton with slightly higher tax rates for the top bracket and I dont think undoing GWB's tax cuts for the wealthy to Clinton era rates would damage the revenue to the treasury or the economy, in fact I think it would help both by reducing the deficit which in turn would keep interest rates low and keep the economy strong.
Look at the poor trolls
ReplyDeleteDesperatly trying to be funny. Desperatly trying to talk about anything but the mess they are in.
And now, with their grand pooba showing true signs of remorse for following the lead of evil men like Rove and Cheney, they don't know what to do.
It sucks to be them.
Volt said "No nation has EVER taxed itself into prosperity. When you raise taxes on the rich, they take their money overseas or put it in tax shelters or tax deferred investments."
ReplyDeleteNo country has ever spent ittself to prosperity by going into dent either Voltaire, I agree with you that spending is a problem and has been a problem for both partys, however You say responsibilty lies with Congress, and the repugs have controlled congress since 1994, the responsibilty for the deficit lies squarly with the repugs, maybe they were the fiscally responsible party 30 years ago, but thats not the case anymore.
another thing, I think its a problem when one party controls all branches of government, with a repug congress and a repug president, the checks and balances are moot incumbants are never going to cut spending or pork because come voting time the people will remember that.
New post up guys...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
ReplyDeleteShaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983