Where did these (http://www.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2012-07-31-World-briefs31_ST_U.htm) suddenly appear from? Guess Nono and the rest of the liberals are the ones who lied.

Where did these (http://www.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2012-07-31-World-briefs31_ST_U.htm) suddenly appear from? Guess Nono and the rest of the liberals are the ones who lied.

Say it ain't so!

But we always knew that, just like we knew that Iraq shuttled a bunch of stuff to Syria between the time Bush let them know we were coming and when we actually got there.

That's why it used to burn me up when Left started that "Bush lied" bull####, and the freaking RIGHT agreed and backed off. It's like, don't you freaking people read any newspapers or watch news on TV?? Yet it all got swept away Orwell-style like it didn't even happen.

But we always knew that, just like we knew that Iraq shuttled a bunch of stuff to Syria between the time Bush let them know we were coming and when we actually got there.

That's why it used to burn me up when Left started that "Bush lied" bull####, and the freaking RIGHT agreed and backed off. It's like, don't you freaking people read any newspapers or watch news on TV?? Yet it all got swept away Orwell-style like it didn't even happen.

Yep! We had freakin' satellite pics of lines of military trucks and equipment crossing the Iraq/Syrian border just days before our ANNOUNCED invasion date. :doh:

Yep! We had freakin' satellite pics of lines of military trucks and equipment crossing the Iraq/Syrian border just days before our ANNOUNCED invasion date. :doh:

THANK YOU!! I am not crazy and not the only person who saw that report. Yet this was ignored not only by the Left, which was predictable, but the Right as well. "Nope, no WMD in Iraq. Guess the Brits intel was bad..."

:banghead:

I have always believed there was a bigger story there than what the media was reporting. What about that UN inspector guy who first said that there were WMD and his team had actually found them, then later reversed and jumped on the "Bush lied" bandwagon? I can't remember his name but his mug was all over the news at the time.

If the Left wants to lose their minds over Bush, why not jump on how he allowed Iraq to transport their weapons to Syria before the invasion, then blacked it out in the press?

I have always believed there was a bigger story there than what the media was reporting. What about that UN inspector guy who first said that there were WMD and his team had actually found them, then later reversed and jumped on the "Bush lied" bandwagon? I can't remember his name but his mug was all over the news at the time.

If the Left wants to lose their minds over Bush, why not jump on how he allowed Iraq to transport their weapons to Syria before the invasion, then blacked it out in the press?

Wow. This is so cool. We're talking about George Bush as though what he did as president actually should be discussed. :evil:

In any event, the story was never unclear; Hans Blix did IN FACT oversee the destruction of MOST of Saddam's WMD's. Blix did also say that he didn't find everything but that, in his view, what was left wasn't enough to go to war over. However, the peace settlement Saddam agreed to did not say "Most". It said "ALL" and it also said Blix and company would have absolute access everywhere, anytime, another thing Saddam did, mostly.

Bush, wanting to go to war, then exaggerated. He didn't lie. He just never got the UN on board, never built the international support his dad did and, so, he suffered the consequences in terms of support and criticism.

On top of that, it wasn't Hans Blix or the UN's fault that Dubbya wanted, like a child, to play Warrior and land on a carrier all cod pieced up and stand before that banner.

It also wasn't Blix or the UN's fault that Bush wanted the Iraq War Resolution, which I whole heartedly supported, instead of a straight up or down constitutionally mandated vote for war. Instead, how he went about it, how he handled the PR and the "Patriot" act and the domestic politics, guaranteed he'd make few strong allies across the spectrum at home and a whole bunch of people looking to jump his ass first chance they got.

Bush could have made ALL of this whole had he done the one thing I was sure he'd do; Just get on with it and win the damn war. From there, nothing else would have mattered.

Winning tends to fix things.

:shrug:

Bush could have made ALL of this whole had he done the one thing I was sure he'd do; Just get on with it and win the damn war. From there, nothing else would have mattered.

Winning tends to fix things.

:shrug:

Always easier to run the ball down field when you are sitting in your recliner with a beer in your hand and a bowl of Nachos on your lap.


its why I dont criticize bammy for not pulling troops out in the time frame he said he would. Once you see the whole picture, things look different.

Where did these (http://www.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2012-07-31-World-briefs31_ST_U.htm) suddenly appear from? Guess Nono and the rest of the liberals are the ones who lied.

The only lying still going on is in the pitiful, dysfunctional minds of liberals.

The WMD's were there, many weapons were undoubtedly shuttled to Syria, WMD are still there, but the scary part of your link could well be the next article below the WMD:

Six more Ugandans may have Ebola

"Six more patients suspected to have Ebola virus disease were hospitalized days after investigators confirmed an outbreak of the highly infectious disease in a remote corner of western Uganda, a health official said.

Stephen Byaruhanga, health secretary of the affected Kibaale district, said Monday that the possible cases of Ebola, at first concentrated in a single village, are now reported in more villages.

"It's no longer just one village. There are many villages affected," Byaruhanga said.

In a national address, President Yoweri Museveni advised against unnecessary contact among people, saying suspected cases of Ebola should be reported immediately to health officials.

Uganda's Ministry of Health and the World Health Organization announced Saturday that the Ebola virus had killed 14 Ugandans this month. If the six new cases are confirmed as Ebola, that would bring the number of Ugandans with the disease to 26."

Ebola is about as nasty, rapidly infecting, and deadly disease as ever dealt with.

Always easier to run the ball down field when you are sitting in your recliner with a beer in your hand and a bowl of Nachos on your lap.


its why I dont criticize bammy for not pulling troops out in the time frame he said he would. Once you see the whole picture, things look different.

That's a bull#### excuse. War hasn't changed since day one. How effing 'easy' was it for him to sit there, day after day as our people got their ####ing legs blown off by bobby traps, huh, and not turn our folks loose to do the ####ing job they volunteered and were trained for and were willing to sacrifice their lives for to defend our nation?? How ####ing easy was THAT? Bush was a terrible leader. That's ALL there is to it. That Obama is worse brings me NO comfort.

We went to god damn war. WAR. And then our CiC turned it into a freaking UN nation building mission while the whole thing was still on fire.

Leadership is HARD. Making the decisions is hard. Once it's decided, war is EASY. You go and you fight to win or you stay the ####ing hell out of it. Our people deserve NO less. Their families deserve NO less. if Bush didn't have what it took, he should have resigned or never made the decision to go.

That's a bull#### excuse. War hasn't changed since day one. How effing 'easy' was it for him to sit there, day after day as our people got their ####ing legs blown off by bobby traps, huh, and not turn our folks loose to do the ####ing job they volunteered and were trained for and were willing to sacrifice their lives for to defend our nation?? How ####ing easy was THAT? Bush was a terrible leader. That's ALL there is to it. That Obama is worse brings me NO comfort.

We went to god damn war. WAR. And then our CiC turned it into a freaking UN nation building mission while the whole thing was still on fire.

Leadership is HARD. Making the decisions is hard. Once it's decided, war is EASY. You go and you fight to win or you stay the ####ing hell out of it. Our people deserve NO less. Their families deserve NO less. if Bush didn't have what it took, he should have resigned or never made the decision to go.

You dropped a chip on the floor.

Bush, not an overall conservative by any stretch of the imagination, stood by his guns the whole eight years on the national defense side. I wish I could say he was conservative on spending and not allowing the minority party (for 6 years) in Congress to override his own party on other social issues, but I can't.

Bush was, and still is, probably, a milder form of progressive thinking.

Bush handled his 8 years in office with total class and never ending respect for the military, and professional respect for those who trashed him relentlessly, daily.

I voted for him twice, but really only just because his opposition was so pitiful and far left it was impossible, and irresponsible, to not vote for him.

:snacks:

Always easier to run the ball down field when you are sitting in your recliner with a beer in your hand and a bowl of Nachos on your lap.

Ain't it though?

That's a bull#### excuse. War hasn't changed since day one. How effing 'easy' was it for him to sit there, day after day as our people got their ####ing legs blown off by bobby traps, huh, and not turn our folks loose to do the ####ing job they volunteered and were trained for and were willing to sacrifice their lives for to defend our nation?? How ####ing easy was THAT? Bush was a terrible leader. That's ALL there is to it. That Obama is worse brings me NO comfort.

We went to god damn war. WAR. And then our CiC turned it into a freaking UN nation building mission while the whole thing was still on fire.

Leadership is HARD. Making the decisions is hard. Once it's decided, war is EASY. You go and you fight to win or you stay the ####ing hell out of it. Our people deserve NO less. Their families deserve NO less. if Bush didn't have what it took, he should have resigned or never made the decision to go.

Did you copy/paste that from the DU?

Where did these (http://www.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2012-07-31-World-briefs31_ST_U.htm) suddenly appear from? Guess Nono and the rest of the liberals are the ones who lied.

That's just ridiculous. The stuff in this article refers to the leftover crap from pre-1991. We all know those aren't the WMDs that the Bush administration warned us about prior to invading Iraq. Even Bush has admitted regret over not finding any of those.

That's just ridiculous. The stuff in this article refers to the leftover crap from pre-1991. We all know those aren't the WMDs that the Bush administration warned us about prior to invading Iraq. Even Bush has admitted regret over not finding any of those.

These are the same WMD that Kerry, Fore, Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, and Clinton swore were there. These are the same WMD Saddam used on his own people. These are the same WMD Bush knew without pussy-footing around were there. You libbies have tried to make this about some monster under Bush's bed. It's about the WMD mentioned in this article.

You go and you fight to win or you stay the ####ing hell out of it. Our people deserve NO less. Their families deserve NO less. if Bush didn't have what it took, he should have resigned or never made the decision to go.



:yay:

These are the same WMD that Kerry, Fore, Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, and Clinton swore were there.

That #### got swept away, too. Nobody seems to remember Operation Desert Fox or the Iraq Liberation Act that Clinton signed, either.

From Wiki:

President Clinton stated in February 1998:

Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998

It's amazing how not only can our politicians and their media accomplices change history, but the public just picks their nose, turns on some reality TV show, and promptly forgets it.

We went to god damn war. WAR. And then our CiC turned it into a freaking UN nation building mission while the whole thing was still on fire.

Leadership is HARD. Making the decisions is hard. Once it's decided, war is EASY. You go and you fight to win or you stay the ####ing hell out of it. Our people deserve NO less. Their families deserve NO less. if Bush didn't have what it took, he should have resigned or never made the decision to go.

From "The Lost Battalion of Tet" by Charles Krohn:

"Our attack of Irag in March 2003 was made with the minimal forces deemed necessary. This was a conscious decision by Secretary of Defense Donal Rumsfeld to ignore Powell's guidance.....After he left office, Powell encapsulated our failure with the observation that we never imposed our will on Iraq....He was one of the few figures then serving who had experienced the war in Vietnam and Desert Storm."

If you want to nation build, use sufficient force to demolish the existing nation first and build from the ground up. Believing that a splintered Iraq would embrace democracy without being thoroughly beaten first was a faith based fantasy.

If you want to nation build, use sufficient force to demolish the existing nation first and build from the ground up.

I'm all for that. Unfortunately Presidents have this pesky little thing called Congress to get through, and for some reason they also have to care what the UN thinks. Then there's the bawling public, manipulated by the leftwing media.

And Powell is full of #### because he, of all people, knows how this works politically.

You dropped a chip on the floor.

:lol:

Those are simply observations others far smarter and far more qualified than me have made publicly and at the time.




"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

William Tecumseh Sherman
Armchair General

Did you copy/paste that from the DU?

:lol:


Yeah. The DU has changed. They actually were for the IWR and for Bush to get on with the killing and win and don't much like the UN. Real America first-ers over there.

Who knew?

Bush was, and still is, probably, a milder form of progressive thinking.

Bush handled his 8 years in office with total class and never ending respect for the military, and professional respect for those who trashed him relentlessly, daily. .

Milder? If he had a "D" after his name he would be lauded as the greatest progressive president of our time. As it is, his supporters argue he simply had to do what he did because the media is in charge and times were tough.

What's Mitt gonna face? Easy times and a friendly media?

If we're going to start judging our leaders on effort and not results, Bush certainly deserves appreciation for being, symbolically, a great president.

:buddies:

"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

William Tecumseh Sherman
Armchair General

Sherman didn't have to face a media onslaught of criticism, nor did Lincoln. Yes, they had their critics (to say the least) but it wasn't nearly like it is today.

Also, our political landscape has changed dramatically. While Congressmen no longer assault their opponents with canes on the Senate floor, they go one better and assault them in the media so they lose their job. And if you can't get (and stay) elected, you can't effect your agenda.

That's the reality of it. The media and the Left (not to be redundant) painted Bush as a blood-thirsty ghoul and dictator with his half-assed war effort. Had he gone whole hog and laid waste like he should have, he'd have never had a second term and might even have been impeached.

Sherman didn't have to face a media onslaught of criticism, nor did Lincoln.

FAIL!!! Epic fail!!! Ha! Now, I have you! En garde! :lmao:

I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are.

If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast.

The press, biased, hostile, is NOT new. Sherman HATED the press. Hate, hate, hate. I keep telling you 'It's the media's fault" types that this is NOTHING new. At all. If anything, far more scandalous things used to be common in the press including outright lies and personal attacks that would make even Olberman blush.

I didn't read all them Civil War books, over and over and over, for nothing, you know. :diva:

:dye:

That's the reality of it. The media and the Left (not to be redundant) painted Bush as a blood-thirsty ghoul and dictator with his half-assed war effort. Had he gone whole hog and laid waste like he should have, he'd have never had a second term and might even have been impeached.

Yeah? Guess who was an ape LONG before we had Bush the Chimp? The press just excoriated Lincoln. He was an ape. He was evil incarnate. The stuff that was said about him was in the msm of the day, stuff NO ONE could get away with today on the msm level.

It was FAR worse then.

Wirelessly posted



That's the reality of it. The media and the Left (not to be redundant) painted Bush as a blood-thirsty ghoul and dictator with his half-assed war effort. Had he gone whole hog and laid waste like he should have, he'd have never had a second term and might even have been impeached.

Yeah? Guess who was an ape LONG before we had Bush the Chimp? The press just excoriated Lincoln. He was an ape. He was evil incarnate. The stuff that was said about him was in the msm of the day, stuff NO ONE could get away with today on the msm level.

It was FAR worse then.

And you didn't have the instant acess to the news of the world to verify this stuff yourself. If your local paper said something, that might be the only version the public heard, second or third hand many times.

Wirelessly posted



And you didn't have the instant acess to the news of the world to verify this stuff yourself. If your local paper said something, that might be the only version the public heard, second or third hand many times.

Yup. Media slander and attacks and spin and out and out lies, character assassination, all of that was FAR worse back in the day. There simply is no comparison.

Yeah? Guess who was an ape LONG before we had Bush the Chimp? The press just excoriated Lincoln. He was an ape. He was evil incarnate. The stuff that was said about him was in the msm of the day, stuff NO ONE could get away with today on the msm level.

It was FAR worse then.

Larry, you cannot possibly compare the handful of dirt papers in that time to the 24/7 relentless barrage of news today. Politics invades every aspect of our culture now, from our entertainment to our freaking chicken sandwiches. If Sherman hated those piddling reporters in 1863, he'd have a heart attack if he had to deal with fictional network TV shows, stand-up comics, and the internet.

There is no comparing the media of the Civil War era to today. And that is where you FAIL because you continue to discount the mass media and its ability to shape opinion.

Larry, you cannot possibly compare the handful of dirt papers in that time to the 24/7 relentless barrage of news today. Politics invades every aspect of our culture now, from our entertainment to our freaking chicken sandwiches. If Sherman hated those piddling reporters in 1863, he'd have a heart attack if he had to deal with fictional network TV shows, stand-up comics, and the internet.

There is no comparing the media of the Civil War era to today. And that is where you FAIL because you continue to discount the mass media and its ability to shape opinion.

Amen!

That media, just sitting over there innocently and honestly reporting the news. No agenda. Just interested in informing on world events.

And you didn't have the instant acess to the news of the world to verify this stuff yourself. If your local paper said something, that might be the only version the public heard, second or third hand many times.

And we know from posts right here on these forums that we have seen personally, people do not factcheck and verify even when they have the tool to do so right at their fingertips. They are completely happy to let someone else do their thinking for them, then just parrot back what they heard that someone say.

But what do I know. It's only a field I've worked in my whole adult life, over 30 years. You all certainly know much more about it than I do, so carry on with your bad selves. :yay:

Larry, you cannot possibly compare the handful of dirt papers in that time to the 24/7 relentless barrage of news today. Politics invades every aspect of our culture now, from our entertainment to our freaking chicken sandwiches. If Sherman hated those piddling reporters in 1863, he'd have a heart attack if he had to deal with fictional network TV shows, stand-up comics, and the internet.

There is no comparing the media of the Civil War era to today. And that is where you FAIL because you continue to discount the mass media and its ability to shape opinion.

Yes, there is. It was FAR worse then.

Sherman would like it far better today BECAUSE there is so much more media, so much more opportunity for someone to get it right, to correct it, for you or me to go and find facts, to be able to have numerous sources instead of just ONE paper in town.

I concede the ability for the media to shape opinion. However, when Billy Joe had ONE source, maybe two, that's not much to go by. He had NO choice. Now, if Billy believes what MSNBC says and refuses to watch FOX or read the truth on SOMD.com, that's on him. There is no comparison now and then with the ability to fact check, verify, get alternate opinions.

I am not arguing whether or not someone is being influenced. I am simply arguing that then, that's all there was. Now, he, you, me, we at the very least are getting MUCH more rounded views and opinions whether we choose to pay attention or not.

Yes, there is. It was FAR worse then.

I concede to your expertise.

And we know from posts right here on these forums that we have seen personally, people do not factcheck and verify even when they have the tool to do so right at their fingertips. They are completely happy to let someone else do their thinking for them, then just parrot back what they heard that someone say.

But what do I know. It's only a field I've worked in my whole adult life, over 30 years. You all certainly know much more about it than I do, so carry on with your bad selves. :yay:

Your making the argument that it is worse to have other sources of information and not use them than it is to not have very many sources at all. That's all well and good. It's what you think. That said, in one of those scenarios, there is far greater power to misinform and manipulate and control opinion than the other.

:shrug:

I concede to your expertise on the Civil War and what the press was like back then.

As you should. :diva:

:lmao:

Amen!

:neener:

Milder? If he had a "D" after his name he would be lauded as the greatest progressive president of our time. As it is, his supporters argue he simply had to do what he did because the media is in charge and times were tough.

What's Mitt gonna face? Easy times and a friendly media?

If we're going to start judging our leaders on effort and not results, Bush certainly deserves appreciation for being, symbolically, a great president.

:buddies:

That's the thing - he does not have a "D" describing his party affiliation.

The current occupant is a raging progressive on every issue, while W was very conservative on a number of issues - abortion, stem cell research, defense, DOMA, etc. - while being liberal on spending and conceding to the minority party on other liberal agendas like Kennedy's education projects, prescription drugs, etc., instead of holding the line.

That's why I called him the milder version of progressivism, and not the progressive on steroids like the obama and his minions.

I disagree with progressivism in any way, shape, or form, and all it will do is bring us down to or below much of the world.

Sherman didn't have to face a media onslaught of criticism, nor did Lincoln. Yes, they had their critics (to say the least) but it wasn't nearly like it is today.



Remember, the Democrats left the Congress when the Confederacy left the union. Lincoln's Congressional critics mostly went south and weren't in D.C. to raise hell. That's not to say Lincoln didn't have critics still in the union, still in D.C. and still in his own cabinet.

Your making the argument that it is worse to have other sources of information and not use them than it is to not have very many sources at all. That's all well and good. It's what you think.

Okay, now that you have set up the strawman, put words in my mouth, and tried to turn the argument into something else entirely, this will be my last comment on the topic:

Media reaches a LOT more people today than it did 100 years ago. Political opinion invades every single aspect of our lives, which it did not 100 years ago. Public opinion is shaped by the media in a way that didn't even exist 100 years ago.

It is not what I think - it is what I *know*.

What has not changed is that people will believe what they want to believe, regardless of any facts to the contrary, and they will argue their faulty points to the death rather than admit they might be wrong or even consider a different aspect. You are living proof of that right this minute.

Okay, now that you have set up the strawman, put words in my mouth, No I didn't. You're saying it worse now, I am saying it was worse then BECAUSE of what you're saying; there was less information then which, to me, means greater opportunity to manipulate because there is less challenge from other sources and tried to turn the argument into something else entirely, this will be my last comment on the topic: No, it won't be.

Media reaches a LOT more people today than it did 100 years ago. Agreed. Totally. Political opinion invades every single aspect of our lives, which it did not 100 years ago. Not true. People used to go hear politicians talk, for hours. Everyone went. It was always a big event because of what you are correctly saying; there was less supply back then. People went to lectures just to hear commentary and opinion. They treated newspapers the same way; people devoured them because there was so little. Public opinion is shaped by the media in a way that didn't even exist 100 years ago. Agreed. Now, media bias and spin is countered by counter bias and counter spin AND both are countered by third parties or even fourth parties and all of them are countered by easy and quick access to facts and figures and data. The press, regardless of bias, can not get away with their view and theirs alone as readily or for as long as they used to be able to and that is because of MORE information today. Lincoln could have said " 4 score and 6 years ago and if it was reported that way, that would be the FACTS for anyone who ever read the account of it for the rest of their lives. Today, you could go to video of it, 100 different on scene reports, private citizens cell phone vids, and even if your favorite source said it was '6' the fact that is was, in fact, '7'' that the said is corrected. And, from there, it would be up to you to accept it or not. You could only hold that he said '6' if you chose to. In 1863, you had one, maybe two sources and that's it so, that would apply to any issue, any reporter or editors opinion or bias. Media manipulation is what we're talking about, yes? And it was worse then because of what you're saying; there is MORE now.

It is not what I think - it is what I *know*.

What has not changed is that people will believe what they want to believe, regardless of any facts to the contrary, and they will argue their faulty points to the death rather than admit they might be wrong or even consider a different aspect. You are living proof of that right this minute.

The argument hasn't changed. We just have a different opinion on it; Sherman, Lincoln, they faced far more scandalous attacks with far less balance than anyone of today does. That is just fact.

I do agree that people did and will believe what they want to believe regardless of any facts to the contrary. The big difference is that now, people are choosing to ignore readily accessible facts to the contrary. Back then, they didn't have much in the way of facts, no where near what we have today. Now, it's not the media's fault. Back then, when they had so much more control and so much less competition, it was far more their fault; they simply had more concentrated power.

On that basis, I argue it was worse then. You argue it is worse now. We just disagree.