Fake News
Not the Daily Show.
1. The final nail is in Debka's coffin now that Saddam is still in Iraq. That page is disinformation central, yet somehow people still pick up on the garbage coming out of there. I think it has something to do with som folks' need to be 'in on something.'
2. So Fox is interviewing someone about Saddam and they keep talking about how Saddam has 'returned to power over and over' and 'Iraqis don't need to worry about saddam regaining power as he has done so many times.' My question: When the hell did saddam lose power and then regain it? That's right: never. So how about we just deal with the facts, mkay?
I have another one coming soon.
1. The final nail is in Debka's coffin now that Saddam is still in Iraq. That page is disinformation central, yet somehow people still pick up on the garbage coming out of there. I think it has something to do with som folks' need to be 'in on something.'
2. So Fox is interviewing someone about Saddam and they keep talking about how Saddam has 'returned to power over and over' and 'Iraqis don't need to worry about saddam regaining power as he has done so many times.' My question: When the hell did saddam lose power and then regain it? That's right: never. So how about we just deal with the facts, mkay?
I have another one coming soon.
Comments
when is that guy ever NOT an asshole?
He starts off with (paraphrase) "It's great that Saddam was caught... and those out there who are unhappy that he was... should check their feelings"
Obviously meaning democrats.
WHO IS UNHAPPY? I'm not. Dean isn't. Clark isn't.
Oh and... Leiberman and Kerry can officially kiss my ass.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Oh and... Leiberman and Kerry can officially kiss my ass.
or hum a nut
fvck those two.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
O'Reilly was on the today show this morning...
when is that guy ever NOT an asshole?
He starts off with (paraphrase) "It's great that Saddam was caught... and those out there who are unhappy that he was... should check their feelings"
Obviously meaning democrats.
WHO IS UNHAPPY? I'm not. Dean isn't. Clark isn't.
Oh and... Leiberman and Kerry can officially kiss my ass.
Joe Lieberman on the news yesterday complaining about Dean...sounded like a goddamn Republican!
He's a babyhair's width away from being Zell Miller.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
O'Reilly was on the today show this morning...
when is that guy ever NOT an asshole?
He starts off with (paraphrase) "It's great that Saddam was caught... and those out there who are unhappy that he was... should check their feelings"
Obviously meaning democrats.
WHO IS UNHAPPY? I'm not. Dean isn't. Clark isn't.
Oh and... Leiberman and Kerry can officially kiss my ass.
From Best of the Web Today
America's Palestinians
Here's a sampling of comments on Saddam's capture from the Howard Dean campaign's "Blog for America (some appear on this page and this one):
- Carrie B: "I can't believe this. I'm crying here. I feel that we now don't have a chance in this election."
- Leslie in SF: "I think it is shameful that the ACLU has not commented on the obvious mistreatment Hussein has suffered at the hands of the American military."
- Muslims4Dean: "If the Death toll mounts--good. It will teach the American people not to support Nazi Republicans who invase [sic] Muslim lands."
- Johnny Smith: "Muslims4Bush [sic]-- don't think we can put it that way. We don't want Americans to die. But if Bush will not bring our boys home--then they're going to have to die so that Howard Dean can win."
The Angry Left is America's equivalent of the Palestinians: a self-destructive political movement based on nothing but a collection of grievances rooted in a falsified, self-justifying history. These grievances so distort their view of the world that they lose the capacity for ordinary moral judgment and cannot understand something as simple as that the fall of a genocidal tyrant is a good thing.Dean Comments on Capture of Saddam
So what did Dean say that you had a problem with?
``The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost,'' the former Vermont governor said. ``An administration prepared to work with others in true partnership might have been able, if it found no alternative to Saddam's ouster, to then rebuild Iraq with far less cost and risk.''
That's why I was asking.
I think some were expecting candidates to change directions because of Saddam being caught.
Anyway, this could play out well or poorly for Bush. If attacks continue and things keep getting worse despite our capture of Saddam, it could really hurt him. People will be expecting major combat to actually end now. On the other hand, if Saddam leads us to WMDs and the situation in Iraq calms down a bit, it could really help Bush a lot. There'd still be plenty of bitterness among Democrats but they wouldn't really have a leg to stand on.
What I think would virtually guarantee the election for Bush would be if we captured Osama Bin Laden sometime before the election.
Originally posted by giant
1. The final nail is in Debka's coffin now that Saddam is still in Iraq. That page is disinformation central, yet somehow people still pick up on the garbage coming out of there. I think it has something to do with som folks' need to be 'in on something.'
.
.
???
Did they ever say they have proof he wasn't in Iraq? Where did you get this from?
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Scott: Those are pretty awful things to say. I don't give a shit about politics, I'm glad we caught Saddam Hussein. I just hope you don't try to make it look like all liberals/Democrats are just like that, because most aren't. ...
I don't think I'm doing that but there is a measurable quantity of Democrats that are unhappy with the success of finding Saddam and see every dead US service man as another opportunity to score some political points.
?in 1956 he took part in an abortive coup attempt.
After the overthrow of the monarchy two years later Saddam connived in a plot to kill the prime minister, Abdel-Karim Qassem. But the conspiracy was discovered, and Saddam fled the country.
In 1963, with the Baath party in control in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein returned home and began jostling for a position of influence?
But within months, the Baath party had been overthrown and Saddam was jailed, remaining there until the party returned to power in a coup in July 1968. ?Saddam gained a position on the ruling Revolutionary Command Council.
In 1979, Saddam achieved his ambition of becoming head of state.
Not neat and tidy, it's arguable whether some of his attempts actually gained him real power or whether he really lost his power at times either. There was of course some degree of anarchy, where he lost some authority right at the end of the Gulf War, but he obviously gained back that authority with extreme prejudice.
It's like me saying there's a measurable amount of Republican's that see the ongoing deaths of soldiers as vindication and proof that Iraq is a hotbed of terrorists. And they're unhappy to see Saddam caught because their favorite boogieman isn't so dangerous after all.
Both theories are fallacies.
Originally posted by giant
My question: When the hell did saddam lose power and then regain it?
actually put "saddam, rise, fall, power" into Google.
it'll be the second link. (now the first link as well. go figure)
edit: just in case it changes.
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/20...2003135957.asp
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Scott: Those are pretty awful things to say. I don't give a shit about politics, I'm glad we caught Saddam Hussein. I just hope you don't try to make it look like all liberals/Democrats are just like that, because most aren't. I want Saddam to fry just as much as anyone else in this country, liberal or conservative.
I think Scott was quoting a recent newspaper article. It was a good read. (click on the link)
But beyond that, I've noticed this kind of trend from the left and right, but perhaps more from the "new left." The republicans got ancy when they found out that Clinton had been getting blow jobs by a fat girl in the oval office. Democrats get ancy when Bush says simple things. understood.
But the faction of the democratic party that looks at the capture of Saddam and cries is the focus here, as capturing a madman responsible for millions of deaths (in his own population) has no political bearing, left or right, unless your party likes dictators who kill people. I know that the dems don't sponsor this, but to damn an great event in Iraqui history because the commander-in-chief is a Republican is just plain dumb.
We've got one of these folks on our board. . . You know . . . what it's like . . . dealing with . . . [him/her]. . . . . . . . . (just plain dumb)
Originally posted by alcimedes
actually put "saddam, rise, fall, power" into Google.
it'll be the second link. (now the first link as well. go figure)
edit: just in case it changes.
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/20...2003135957.asp
Did you even read it? You're weird.
Maybe you should check it out, since you apparently still don't know his history.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
But the faction of the democratic party that looks at the capture of Saddam and cries is the focus here
Why should it be the focus anywhere? If it even exists, then focusing on it would make 10000 times less sense than focusing on the kkk every time white people are discussed.