Subject:
|
Re: A few things...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 May 2005 17:35:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2306 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
>
> > And then we have my personal favourite rendition of 'reinventive history'--
>
>
> What the doddering old idiot Helen Thomas didn't get was that we are there at
> the request of the [newly] established governments of Afganistan and Iraq.
> McClellan wasn't talking about our initial invasions. Did I mention that
> Helen Thomas is an idiot? Oh, I see I did. Good.
By the looks of it, Helen is one of the few who are still asking the tough
questions. The rest apear to be 'bauble heads', spreading the propaganda of
Dubya.
I also think you missed the point where she asked if the 'newly established
gov'ts' asked the US to leave, would they?
You've got nothing. Dubya and his administration are the tru idiots here, and
the really funny thing is that people got up in arms about a stain on a dress
and spent multi-millions digging up obscure things on Bubba--things completely
unrelated to his term in office as prez. Now we have a taking chimp in office
who is causing much consternation, both inside and outside the US and, well, not
so much on the investigations.
I think this guy is made of teflon--nothing sticks. CBS memos, even though they
stated exactly what happened, were forged so that's the story--not that they
stated the truth--that Dubya skipped out.
He brought you guys into a war with trumped up evidence, but that's not the
story--the 'liberation' is the story--and don't go looking at the revenue for
Haliburton, the oil production, the deaths of thousands, the 'We can't find the
guy who started this mess by flying planes into buildings'...
Nothing sticks. It's always someone else who takes the fall. Newsweek, even
thoguh the Oentagon signed off on the article, takes the fall. Dan Rather takes
the fall. CIA takes the fall for the 'bad' intelligence. A few 'bad' soldiers
take the fall for the abuse. I seem to recall the Right calling for
accountability from one guy, no matter what the issues were--one guy had to take
responsibility--the guy in charge. Now that Dubya's in there, I haven't seen
him take responsibility for anything. Sure he takes the credit 'We brought
democracy and stability...' (if that's what you want to call it--for there's
neither--the latest says that terr'st attacks are on the rise, but the
Whitehouse has discontinued those reports--for what reason beyond not wanting
people to hear that terrorism's on the rise)...
Oh but I go on.
What we need is for people to make this administration accountable. Helen spoke
up. Instead of calling her an idiot, perhaps those that believe in the
constitution should start thinking about hte first ammendment and have more
'power to the press' and get back to investigating the issues and reporting the
news, instead of spreading the propaganda of Dubya.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/05/25/BL2005052501250.html
"
And as polls show that his Social Security proposals are bombing with the
public, Bush insisted again yesterday that politicians who don't join him in
talking about Social Security are the ones who will be punished by the voters.
Can the strategy of denial work? Perhaps. Bush has done well in the past by
defining his own reality and setting his own agenda, rather than letting others
do so.
Or, as he put it in a revealing ad-lib yesterday while talking about Social
Security: "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and
over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the
propaganda."
"
I again like the bit about 'denial of reality'. Dubya hasn't had to account for
his actins, seemingly ever. He obfuscates, hides from, and, since he now has
the power, eliminates reports the doesn't want to see. Everything this man has
done since he's got into office has been one giant avoidance of responsibility.
Someone (besides Helen) should hold these guys to task.
>
> > Yippy says that now is not the time to talk about the differences of
> > opinion.
>
> So, what is your point? That they didn't see eye to eye on {every} issue?
> Who does?
>
> > Well, Mr Talking Head, you were just gushing about how JP and GW were the
> > same--when exactly is the time to point out that you're full of it?
>
>
> There aren't 2 people on earth that see {everything} the same. Your point is
> ridiculous.
Not really--if a person is going to natter about how person A is so like person
B that they're virtually synonymous, and someone comes along and points out
that, well, not so much on the 'big ticket issues', such as an unjustifyable
war, et al., I don't think that's ridiculous at all. Let's look at the
similarities between he-who-shall-not-be-mentioned and Dubya. Well, they're
both short, and they both wear shirts. More importantly they both think they've
made the right decisions for their respective countries and they both took their
countries into wars that the countries could ill afford. I guess, according to
the way you think anyway, we really shouldn't look at the differences.
>
> > Anyway, that's about it from these cheap seats.
>
>
> It appears yours are "obstructed view";-)
It appears that your rose coloured glasses are obscuring the truth.
>
> [JOHN]
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A few things...
|
| (...) What the doddering old idiot Helen Thomas didn't get was that we are there at the request of the newly established governments of Afganistan and Iraq. McClellan wasn't talking about our initial invasions. Did I mention that Helen Thomas is an (...) (19 years ago, 26-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
82 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
