Antiwar Reporting Helps U.S. Enemies

[spike]

No shit.

 

[jimpeel]

No shit.

Did you catch the part about

AT

THE

TIME

 

[jimpeel]

By the by,

You want to talk about liars? How about Obama stating unequivocally that he was not in the pews at the time when the good Rev. Wright was making his inflammatory remarks against Whites and America. He then had to admit that he was there in the pews but that the good Rev. Wright's comments were not his beliefs.

He is not yet the President and he is already lying to you.

and then there is this:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/0...-she-misspoke-did-not-land-under-sniper-fire/

Clinton Campaign Says She ‘Misspoke,’ Did Not Land ‘Under Sniper Fire’
by FOXNews.com
Monday, March 24, 2008

Hillary Clinton’s campaign backed off Monday from a disputed campaign claim, saying Clinton “misspoke” when she said she landed “under sniper fire” during a 1996 trip to war-torn Yugoslavia.

There were reports of snipers in nearby hills, but no known shots were taken at the landing craft or tarmac in Tuzla, Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson told reporters on a conference call.

“The facts are clear from contemporaneous news accounts that she was entering a potentially dangerous situation, and she has written about this before, she has talked about this before and there you have it,” Wolfson said in a conference call.

“Now, it is possible in the most recent instance in which she discussed this that she misspoke with regard to, you know, the exit from the plane,” he continued.

“There were reports of snipers in the hills and they were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac. That is what she wrote in her book, that is what she has said many, many times. And on one occasion she misspoke, but it’s — the record is clear in terms what she has said before on this topic.”

Despite a growing number of disputed accounts, Clinton and her supporters have repeatedly claimed that her 1996 to Yugoslavia was evidence that she was considered a key foreign policy adviser in her husband’s administration, largely due to a high level of danger on the trip.

Clinton has said that the plane landed “corkscrew”-style, similar to the way planes land in Baghdad to avoid surface-to-air threats, and that her arrival was “under sniper fire.”

Last week, during a speech at George Washington University in Washington, she said she remembered “that trip to Bosnia. … There was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the First Lady. That’s where we went.

“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

Comedian Sinbad, who accompanied Clinton on the trip, recently said he recalled a much more relaxed trip, and a Washington Post fact-check piece on Saturday lambasted the claims.

And a CBS News report of the trip posted to YouTube shows a smiling Clinton and her daughter, Chelsea, shaking troops’ hands and touring encampments in the open.

Click here to see the video.

So I guess if we are to judge a president by his/her truths these two are already failing your high standards.

 

[catocom]

I've got a theory ....
that
"a person the lies heavily, has a good chance of becoming delusional"

I don't know what the %age it is, but I think I've seen it several times.

 

[spike]

Did you catch the part about

AT

THE

TIME

Are you going somewhere with this?

 

[spike]

You want to talk about liars? How about Obama

You sure do like the tangents and changing subjects.

 

[jimpeel]

Are you going somewhere with this?

Already went there. If you failed to follow along then that is your problem.

 

[jimpeel]

You sure do like the tangents and changing subjects.

So we may only speak of one liar at a time; and that liar is to be chosen solely by you. Liberal liars need not apply.

Got it.

 

[jimpeel]

I have shown you proof through Senate committee investigations.

I have shown you what they said and expanded on what they said fully within the scope of what they said.

I have quoted the Butler Report.

I have quoted the Report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Those sources quoted cited:

• The wall
  
• The FISA Law
• The Gorelick memo
• The sixteen words spoken by the President in the State of the Union speech
  
• The British intel upon which the sixteen words were based
  
• Whether the President lied finding that his words were "well founded"
  
• The yellowcake uranium
  
• The Niger and Congo trips by the Iraq government
  
• The weapons of mass destruction

Since you state that my efforts to present these bulleted items, within the scope of the truthfulness of the President, as my attempting to "tangent" away from the subject of whether Bush lied; are you then saying that since these official government entities also addressed these bulleted items that they were attempting to "tangent" the investigation away from the subject of whether the President lied?

In other words, are you saying that the investigation was tampered with by misdirection of those conducting that investigation? That is a very serious charge if that is what you are saying.

Is that what you are saying? Anyone who speaks to those bulleted items within the scope of any discussion on the truthfulnes of the president is trying to "tangent" the discussion?

 

[spike]

Already went there. If you failed to follow along then that is your problem.

Ok, the main reason we went there "at the time" was WMD. And there weren't any.

Brilliant.

 

[spike]

So we may only speak of one liar at a time; and that liar is to be chosen solely by you. Liberal liars need not apply.

Got it.

We were talking about the war. You can try and change the subject all you want but you're gonna get called on it.

 

[spike]

I have shown you proof through Senate committee investigations.

What do you think you've proved exactly? At this point it's been established that Bush himself disagrees with you.

 

[jimpeel]

We were talking about the war. You can try and change the subject all you want but you're gonna get called on it.

It was you who brought up the lies HERE when you stated

Back in reality it's those linp dicked couch commandos who unthinkingly support invading non threat countries and wasting massive amounts of tax payer monies in a farce based on lies that are trashing this country.

You were the one who broached that subject that the war was started by lies.

Now you demand that we stay on topic at a posting board named "Off Topic Central". You took it off topic and I merely debated your contentions. You havew been running away ever since.

 

[paul_valaru]

You guys know that iraq doesn't exist right?

It's all a farce.

 

[Cerise]

bin Laden would disagree. He thinks Iraq is the perfect place to throw a party.

The nearest field of jihad today to support our people in Palestine is the Iraqi field.

Those of our brothers in Palestine who could not join the jihad in the land of Al-Quds [Jerusalem]" should "get rid of illusions of political parties and groups which are mired in trickery of the blasphemous democracy and to take their positions among the ranks of the mujahideen in Iraq."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125643

 

[spike]

You were the one who broached that subject that the war was started by lies.

Seems we've established at this point that multiple members of the administration lied. Probably why you keep trying to change the subject.

 

[spike]

bin Laden would disagree. He thinks Iraq is the perfect place to throw a party.

See, if you support the Iraq debacle you support the terrorists.

 

[Cerise]

Coincidently, Obama and Hillary both want to pull the military from Iraq, and bin Laden wants to use the country as the staging ground for Armed Jihad.

Armed Jihad is hoping you vote "D" in November.

 

[spike]

Al Qaeda hopes we stay in Iraq so we don't focus so much on more important places like Afghanistan. So far with the increase in terrorism and the resurgence of the Taliban and al Qaeda it's working well for them.

Terrorists are hoping you vote "R" in November and continue to waste our resources in Iraq.

 

[2minkey]

Coincidently, Obama and Hillary both want to pull the military from Iraq, and bin Laden wants to use the country as the staging ground for Armed Jihad.

Armed Jihad is hoping you vote "D" in November.

short term, yes.

long term, the Rs will keep OBL in business far longer than the Ds.

Rs getting us into iraq has been fueling the urge to jihad among extremists.

Rs getting us into iraq, making it into a swirling vortex of chaos where 80,000 civilians have died, has done a lot to help less extreme folks find themselves sympathizing with and supporting jihadis.

the Rs have done an absolutely fantastic job of increasing the scope of the global enemy. but, then, without that enemy, they, like the jihadis, would seem to lose purpose. stay scared, sheepies, stay scared.