It seems Dick is changing his tune;
“I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true,” Cheney conceded.
You had the reporting, because you made up the reporting.
I was against the war in Iraq from the beginning. The evidence on the UN Weapons inspectors own website said that Saddam was not a nuclear threat. It was very, very clear that the Bush administration was fabricating intelligence. I suppose we could point fingers at a lot of people in the administration, but I really blame the media for cheerleading this war. And they wonder why no one reads newspapers anymore.
I believe the original story came from either the London Times or another European media outlet. It was about the meeting in Belguim between Iraqi officials and top Al Queda. That’s the reporting he’s saying they had that turned out to be false.
This thing’s been probed more times than Freddie Mercury & with folks with the power to Supoena. If it was so cut & dried that Cheney or Rummy or someone “made it up” they would’ve been indicted about 4-5 years ago.
l3wis,
I told ya a week or two ago that Cheney’s lost his mind. Didn’t I tellya? You keep watching… he’s coming apart.
“If it was so cut & dried that Cheney or Rummy or someone “made it up†they would’ve been indicted about 4-5 years ago.”
Whose to say that still ain’t gonna happen. You can believe what you want, I choose not to believe pathological liars.
Cheney was still trying to make that link long after everyone else knew it was bogus. He is trying to cover his rear now but I’m not buying it.
Between this and his sudden reversal about gay marriage it really makes me wonder if he is planning to run for office or something. The guy should be off the radar but all of the sudden he is one half of the face of the Republican party (the other half being Rush Limbaugh).
He has always been ok with gay marriage. I think he just chose to be silent on the issue while in office. I recollect him being asked about it and he ‘hinted’ he was okay with it by mentioning his daughter.
I agree, Dick is worried about his butt.
The media was leading the cheers for war because their’s serious money to be made. I believe a famous quote from W.R. Hurst from before the Spanish American War goes: “You give me the pictures, I’ll give you the war.”
“Whose to say that still ain’t gonna happen. You can believe what you want, I choose not to believe pathological liars.”
Because if they had anything they would’ve played it by now. The frothing Left wanted to nail anyone, anyhow during Bush’s term in hoping it would’ve lead to Impeachment. It didn’t then and the its only purpose now would be to distract.
So I assume your list of pathogical liars extends to the likes of Pelosi, Biden, Murtha etc.?
Costner:
“Between this and his sudden reversal about gay marriage it really makes me wonder if he is planning to run for office or something. The guy should be off the radar but all of the sudden he is one half of the face of the Republican party (the other half being Rush Limbaugh).”
He and Limbaugh are the only two publically taking the fight directly to the Obama Admin. precisely because they aren’t running for anything, therefore their retaliation they receive (remember where Obama’s from) is limited & ineffective. Neither one needs to run for office to satify their egos and line their pockets. So they can actually say what they think.
Wonder if Rachel Maddow will finally have something civil to say about Cheney.
Sy: “Because if they had anything they would’ve played it by now. The frothing Left wanted to nail anyone, anyhow during Bush’s term in hoping it would’ve lead to Impeachment.”
I don’t buy that for a second. In fact I believe if the left wanted to make an issue out of it there is more than enough to bring charges against Bush and Cheney or several of their underlings, but that isn’t in the best interests of the nation and it was said many times that since they are out of office (or were on their way out) it wouldn’t be pursued.
The right on the other hand – well they are very interested in impeaching Democrats for minor points and could care less about the damage to the nation provided it earns them political points and could possibly lead to them regaining their deathgrip over Congress and the Oval Office.
Hell, we even witnessed calls from the right for Obama’s impeachment BEFORE HE WAS EVEN SWORN IN. It seems clear who is willing to move on versus who wants to play politics.
Some on the right still haven’t gotten over that whole birth certificate thing.
Costner- Don’t forget, Obama is a fake Muslim born in Kenya, more then enough to impeach him. Ahem.
“So I assume your list of pathogical liars extends to the likes of Pelosi, Biden, Murtha etc.?”
Sy – Sure. If they lied they should be brought up on charges to. I don’t like politicians who lie and weaken our country, which is all the Iraq war has done. It has weakened the strength of our military to protect the homeland, it has helped in destroying our economy, it has weakened our relationships with our allies and dreadfully it has taken the innocent lives of brave American soldiers and Iraqis. If we can serve a warrant on those grounds, I’m not sure where we can.
I don’t care what party they are from. I think Murtha has his tit in a wringer anyway, something is going to happen there with his pay-to-play shananigans. I do believe that Pelosi was ‘partially’ lied to and she flubbed on explaining the situation. But hey, she’s old, maybe she can pull a Reagan like he did during the Iran Contra affair. Not remembering.
I say anybody involved in covering up the lies about Iraq should be prosecuted and jailed.
Costner:
“Hell, we even witnessed calls from the right for Obama’s impeachment BEFORE HE WAS EVEN SWORN IN. It seems clear who is willing to move on versus who wants to play politics.”
Here’s the critical difference, those calling for impeachment of Obama were the actual fringe. Not Rush, Not Cheney, not any Republican MOC or major player, not any Right leaning media organizations.
The Extreme Left on the other hand, has risen to leadership in it’s party. You can find quotes all over the place of backward looking Dems in actual positions of power who keep the Bush Admin prosecution question open PRECISELY to keep their base whipped up and to distract from their efforts to dismantle Capitalism. Why do you think Obama has flipped & flopped on this issue?
“Not Rush, Not Cheney, not any Republican MOC or major player, not any Right leaning media organizations.”
Yet Palin said during the campaign that ‘Obama pals around with terrorists.’ Fringe is right, and that is why the Repubs lost, the fringe was running for VP.
As for the ‘Etreme Left’ in power now – LMAO. You obviously have not met an actual extreme liberal. Obama is not even close, remember he is a registered Democrat, that disqualifies him right there.
He has failed on several campaign promises already, not because of the right stopping them, but the ‘extreme liberals’ in his party have stopped him.
If Obama is a ‘liberal’ I’m a secret muslim from Kenya.
The Extreme Left on the other hand, has risen to leadership in it’s party.
What planet are you referring to and is the sky really green like they claim?
Wow. Looks like we found one of those people who have bought into this whole “most liberal / most socialist” rant being perpetuated by Fox News and talk radio.
I believe that line was in reference to Ayers, who would easily fit the definition of an un-repentant terrorist and/or yours of an “extreme Liberal”. Palin isn’t fringe. She was effective and that’s why the Left had to destroy her personally.
Liberals learned a long time ago that campaigning as a Liberal gets you beaten. Ask George McGovern. Obama has/had the most liberal voting record in the Senate, so to pretend he’s not an extreme Liberal is to simply perpetuate the myth he and his machine have created. To argue the opposite would be to say Jesse Helms wasn’t an extreme Conservative, it just don’t add up.
‘She was effective’ -BAHAHAHAHAAH!
‘that’s why the Left had to destroy her personally.’
She did a fine enough job all by her lonesome. “What magazines do you read, Sarah?” “All of them.”
‘Obama has/had the most liberal voting record in the Senate’
Still doesn’t make him an extreme liberal. He may have some liberal views and stances, but like I said above, he has a long ways to go to win me over as a ‘liberal’.
Costner:
“Wow. Looks like we found one of those people who have bought into this whole “most liberal / most socialist†rant being perpetuated by Fox News and talk radio.”
Are you suggesting that the current leadership of the Democrats are “moderate” or “centrist”? Perhaps you’d cite some evidence of that?
L3wis:
“She did a fine enough job all by her lonesome. “What magazines do you read, Sarah?†“All of them.—
So why doesn’t/didn’t Joe Biden get any criticism for his multitude of gaffes, as he was supposed to be the most experienced & seasoned Pol to add some balance to the ticket.
And you also can’t deny the only time McCain was able to get within the margin of error in the polls is when he announced his Veep pick and the buzz shifted momentarily from Obama to his ticket.
Everyone wanted to dismiss Obama’s past and his alliances as trivial, but had no issue carving up Palin’s family, her church, etc.
Just take a look at this thread, it’s about Cheney and his criticisms of Obama. How the eff did we get back to Palin?
Palin isn’t fringe. She was effective and that’s why the Left had to destroy her personally.
Her biggest fans at her rallies scared the shit out of me. They seem to represent the far right, xenophobic, backwoods, “real ‘murrican” hicks that the democrats on the coasts love to trot out to scare their base.
McCain, to his credit, is about as middle-of-the-road as republicans get. Picking Palin was a good move for him because the right wing would have stayed home if they didn’t have a social conservative on the ticket.
The democrats, as a party, are center-left at most. The biggest gains in 2006 were moderate democrats who beat moderate republicans in moderate states.
I think in Congress they are more centrist and moderate then in the Senate but as a whole I would say it is pretty moderate with them leaning left on a couple of issues. If they truly were ‘lefties’ the War in Iraq would be over with, Gitmo would be closed, Guns would be banned (all of them), Oil companies and millionaires would be paying exhorborant taxes, Israel would no longer be getting billions in aid from us, Mary Jane would be legal and Jane Fonda would be VP. Since none of this has happened yet, it is safe to say liberals are not running Washington.
“The biggest gains in 2006 were moderate democrats who beat moderate republicans in moderate states.”
IMO they are all the same birds of a feather just with different labels.
“She was effective and that’s why the Left had to destroy her personally.”
Are you serious? This mythical magical ultra-powerful and all-controlling machine you refer to as “the Left” must be quite a site considering how they are able to put words into people’s mouths and force politicians to say things that make them look stupid.
Palin just wasn’t a very good representative of the conservative movement. He continual claims about refusing to accept funding for the bridge to nowhere (which weren’t true) while sporting thousands of dollars of designer clothes while saying we need to find a way to do more with less just didn’t ring true for the public.
The fact she was touted as a capable and polished Governor only to find she was unable to answer the most basic questions (what do you read, what is the Bush Doctrine, etc) showed she was fake and ingenuine.
As to Biden – everyone knew he was a gaffe machine and he caught plenty of heat when he would let them slide (just as he continues to catch heat).
Sorry Sy, there was no double standard here. The only reason the McCain-Palin campaign failed was because they were attempting to be conservatives but in reality neither of them were.
As to Obama being the “most liberal” I heard that about Hillary during the primary and before that it was Reid, before that it was Kerry etc, etc and now it is Obama. I don’t buy it and the facts don’t support it.
Actions speak louder than words, and I find it odd that “the most liberal” man has not tried to ban guns or open the borders or force all doctors to become government employees meanwhile he is bailing out big business while cutting taxes.
Oh yea….but he’s an extreme liberal. lol
Sy: “Are you suggesting that the current leadership of the Democrats are “moderate†or “centristâ€? Perhaps you’d cite some evidence of that?”
Nice red herring Sy, but I never said they were moderate (when considering the entire political perspective), merely that Obama wasn’t the ‘most liberal’.
In reality, Obama is a moderate Democrat however, just as McCain is a moderate Republican so you can take it for what it is worth.
Instead of building and clinging to a strawman of what hasn’t happened, you need to look at what’s happened or is happening.
We’ve borrowed a shitload of money we don’t have in order to manipulate the Economy that they said was wrecked by too much borrowing. We are announcing the withdrawal dates on Iraq and Gitmo, without a plan, no less. We have Socialized a huge chunk of our Financial & Manufacturing sectors in an attempt to “save” them. We are incrementally moving towards socializing our Health Care system. We lump a bunch of pork into a “Stimulus” Bill that does nothing to stimulate the Economy. We are moving closer to Amnesty for millions of illegals. Anyone who argues against any of these Policies is immediatly labeled as an out of touch “extremist”. Never mind Obama left out his specifics on these when he campaigned, other than closing Gitmo.
We’ve made up a bunch of new “rights” like housing, health care, higher education and have duped an entire new class of citzenry who now demands the Government provide these new rights via redistribution of our Nation’s wealth. Never mind that approach has failed on every historical precedent that’s been set.
costner:
“Sorry Sy, there was no double standard here.”
Than you are blind or being intentionally obtuse. They trashed Palin’s family, when any mention of Obama’s background was off limits. You can effortlessly repeat the talking points on Palin’s experience, but Obama’s lack of gets a pass lke good ‘ol Joe. Palin stumbles about magazines = she’s an idiot. Obama says there’s 57 states = oh, he’s just tired from the trail. Obama can sit in a church for 20 years and not understand where his pastor is coming from. Palin’s husband goes to a service and all of a sudden they both are advocates of secession. Palin borrows (& returned) nice clothes from the campaign = she’s an elitist. Michelle Obama can wear $500 kicks to a homeless benefit = eeewwww! Isn’t she the trendy & cool one.
Pathetic!
costner:
“Nice red herring Sy, but I never said they were moderate (when considering the entire political perspective), merely that Obama wasn’t the ‘most liberal’.”
You can take it up with the National Journal, who are the ones who came up with the analysis. They do rankings of both most liberal & most conservative and it’s based on their voting records.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm
I do seem to recall every democratic senator who has ever run for president being one of the top two or three “most liberal” senators.
Both sides have their boogeymen, they’re just different people.
We’ve borrowed a shitload of money we don’t have in order to manipulate the Economy that they said was wrecked by too much borrowing.
And this pattern of behavior is liberal in nature? Really Sy? I seem to recall us doubling our national debt under Bush (which means we were borrowing a shitload of money we don’t have) and I also recall a massive stimulus bill pushed forth by Bush himself….was he a liberal too?
We are announcing the withdrawal dates on Iraq and Gitmo, without a plan, no less.
Actually dipshit, the Iraqi government provided us with an exit date before Obama was in office, so you can’t really even put that upon Obama.
Closing Gitmo is a great idea whether your are liberal or conservative – because protecting rights of criminals (whether you hate them or not) is inherently American in nature. Hiding them on a military base while claiming they aren’t deserving of rights afforded to them by the Geneva Conventions….well not so much.
Neither of these has jack to do with being a liberal though…so nice try on that one.
We have Socialized a huge chunk of our Financial & Manufacturing sectors in an attempt to “save†them.
Which again started during the Bush administration. Hell you could even argue it started long ago as we have been bailing out companies for decades – just ask Lee Iacoca.
Then again, none of these companies needed to ask the government for help and could have just gone broke on their own.
Again – your attempt to turn this into a liberal issue has failed.
We are incrementally moving towards socializing our Health Care system.
Contrary to the fear mongering spewed forth from Rush and the rest of the righty tighties, the only plans for healthcare are to offer a national insurance program. This is not like what Canada has where hospitals and clinics are controled by the government – but then again it could all be a pipe dream.
Damn those liberals for trying to help people… damn them to hell!
We lump a bunch of pork into a “Stimulus†Bill that does nothing to stimulate the Economy.
First of all even the GOP list of pork for that bill was something like a single digit percentage of the total, so the vast majority wasn’t pork. Second, who are you to say it will do nothing to stimulate the economy? Perhaps it already has.
Still not really a liberal philosophy however. You might not like everything in the stimulus (I sure don’t) but that doesn’t mean the goal won’t be met.
We are moving closer to Amnesty for millions of illegals. Anyone who argues against any of these Policies is immediatly labeled as an out of touch “extremistâ€.
News to me about the illegals, but I think you might be blowing things out of porportion again.
As to labeling the other side as extremist…where have we heard that again? Oh thats right – when Tom Daschle was majority leader we were told about all these extremist policies and extremist judges and extremeist views blah, blah, blah.
Both sides label the others as extremists…how exactly that is a example of liberalism is beyond me.
Sy: They trashed Palin’s family, when any mention of Obama’s background was off limits.
Obama’s family was off limits? Get real – we still hear about his father, we heard about his “muslim” heritage, we heard about his “fake” birth certificate….all of the smears that typically come from the far right. Then they started on the “Michelle Obama is a diva” path but since they didn’t have anything to back it up nobody took the bait.
I’m not sure where you get this idea that “they” trashed Palin when the only thing that was ever remotely controversial was her pregnant daughter and the fact her husband liked to ride snowmobiles. Yes…you’re right – that crosses the line!
You can effortlessly repeat the talking points on Palin’s experience, but Obama’s lack of gets a pass lke good ‘ol Joe.
Is this yet another one of your red herrings? I wasn’t talking about her experience – I was talking about her calling herself a conservative and putting her foot in her mouth which she didn’t need any help doing.
Poor old Sarah – but then again if she can’t stand up to “the biased media” and if things are too hard for her, I don’t think she was cut out for the big chair in Congress.
Palin stumbles about magazines = she’s an idiot. Obama says there’s 57 states = oh, he’s just tired from the trail.
Obama got nailed pretty hard about that little gaffe too. The difference is he had plenty of other examples of his showing his leadership and his intelligence. Palin on the other hand – well every time she opened her mouth her poll numbers dropped and McCain turned a deeper shade of red as his team tried to protect her.
Obama can sit in a church for 20 years and not understand where his pastor is coming from. Palin’s husband goes to a service and all of a sudden they both are advocates of secession.
If you think Palin’s husband being affiliated with that secession group got more airplay than Rev Wright and Obama’s rather poor choice of a church, you’re a friggin’ moron. A blind moron. A blind, deaf, ignorant moron with no sense of reality.
Palin borrows (& returned) nice clothes from the campaign = she’s an elitist. Michelle Obama can wear $500 kicks to a homeless benefit = eeewwww! Isn’t she the trendy & cool one.
First – I never heard jack about Michelle donating to a homeless benefit so this is a lame comparison, but the difference being Palin was trying to present herself as an average person…a down to Earth Mom who just happens to have a job running the state. Her actions spoke otherwise while her words and clever downhome lingo tried to fool the public.
I guess we should all feel sorry for her because she was too ignorant to know her record would be examined down to the last detail. It doesn’t matter what party she belongs to or what her views are – this is how the game works. Both sides dig up whatever they can find against the other side whether it is their desire to eat Big Macs, their past affiliations with terrorists, or the fact their teenage daughter is knocked up while they try to sell themselves as a leader of a party which absolutely despises premarital sex.
With all the whining you are doing about Palin, I might start to think your a closet liberal afterall.
I kinda hope the Republicans DO run Sarah Palin for president or senator or at least representative…
She’s fun to watch.
1) she’s really good-lookin, I don’t think ANYone will argue with that.
2) She’s just about as stupid as a corral post – Tina Fey didn’t even have to re-write what Sarah said to Katie Couric – she repeated it WORD FOR WORD on SNL – and it was freakin hilarious.
3) She’s so much fun to watch, what with her winkin’ and smilin and fancy pageant walkin’ – I HOPE she brings back that phony aw-shucks-gah-aah-aaly-gee-willikers – Hyuck Hyuck Hyuck – gomer sez HEY! bullshit accent that she uses sometimes!
4) Running Sarah for any national office is a guarantee of the democrat winning that office. Even if said dem were a ham sandwich or a potted plant.
I’ll agree Randall, I’m fascinated with her stupidity and bumbling – fun to watch another time around.
Did I mention I thank God everyday she wasn’t elected?
This is not like what Canada has where hospitals and clinics are controled by the government – but then again it could all be a pipe dream.
Actually, you’re thinking of Britain’s NHS, which they instituted after WW2. People there either love it or hate it. Like any human institution, it’s not perfect. But you don’t hear of many Brits (or Canadians)declaring bankruptcy over medical bills.
Canada has federally mandated minimum standards for state health INSURANCE, but it’s up to the individual provinces to either meet or exceed the minimums. People who want better coverage buy supplemental policies. Really, it’s more like our medicare than anything else, it just applies to everyone instead of just the old.
4) Running Sarah for any national office is a guarantee of the democrat winning that office. Even if said dem were a ham sandwich or a potted plant.
Like Howard Dean or John Kerry? Ham sandwich (hot ham and cheese to be exact) and a potted plant (at least personality-wise).
The dems got smart in 2008 and ran someone likable for a change. It worked wonders for Bill Clinton and worked for Obama too.
Well Dude,
Not QUITE the same thing…
As I recall, in 2004 Dean did pretty well until the Iowa caucuses but then lost the nomination to Kerry – not the election to a Republican.
And Kerry lost to an incumbent, wartime president – not a beauty pageant runner-up that took 6 years to complete a 4 year degree in journalism – and STILL can’t put together a coherent sentence. There. Also. By golly. Rufflin’ feathers, you betcha!
apples… oranges…
costner:” I also recall a massive stimulus bill pushed forth by Bush himself….was he a liberal too?”
You just proved my point. You are blasting Bush for doubling the debt and his “massive” $150 bil stimulus, which was rebates to taxpayers. So we can agree
he sure as shit wasn’t acting like a conservative, fiscal or otherwise. At the very least it was tax rebates that put some money into people’s hands, whether they supported him or not.
Obama’s is going to be a what? A $trillion doled out over how long? How many years? Aimed at who, again? How is spending $$ on Murtha’s airport or $280 million on fish hatcheries or $19 billion on medical information systems or $1.3 billion on Amtrak or $4 billion on a Federal Green building agency etc. etc. all basically a grab bag of crap the last Congress couldn’t get through it’s normal greasy channels stimulating our Economy? Don’t go googling for precedents, because it ain’t been done before.
“Actually dipshit, the Iraqi government provided us with an exit date before Obama was in office, so you can’t really even put that upon Obama.”
You mean this one, from Aug. of ’08:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/08/21/ST2008082101403.html
This after how many bills came and went in Congress with witdrawal dates, timelines, funding threats, etc. up to that point? That Congress led by who? Pelosi/Reid/Biden/Obama. The writing was on the wall, and the Iraqis knew it. Didn’t matter though, as it varied so much from what President Obama actually said, right?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/08/21/ST2008082101403.html
Guess not, well then.
Your Iacocca analogy is flawed as well, we gave them a loan, we didn’t take them over and dictate who runs it, owns it, and which creditors got hosed in the process. And that was early ’80s when the Economy was also in recession.
You kinda make this shit up as you go, eh?
Your continual attempts to shift the debate with red herrings are duly noted, but I’m not even sure what your original point is since you seem to dance from issue to issue time and time again.
I still don’t buy into your flawed logic that the Democrats would just love to find evidence enough to bring charges against Bush and Cheney.
If they really wanted to, I suspect they wouldn’t need to dig very far, but it seems Obama and the Democrat leadership have taken the high road on this one. Instead of trying to Impeach the President for idiotic reasons like the Republicans have done in the past, the Democrats know Impeachment and charges are/were not what is best for the nation as a whole…and they have made that clear on numerous occasions. This is why they never went after Bush even when they had more than enough to turn it into a politcal mud slinging battle. It doesn’t even matter if you think Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld did anything wrong – the fact is there is more than enough to investigate and attack and toss in their faces just as the GOP did with Clinton. The end result might be no more than a procedural disapproval, but the damage to their image and their party would be done.
In fact the ultra-left wing of the Democratic party (the extreme liberals that you seem to want to associate Obama with) are still calling for blood while the more moderate base of the Democratic party (the part Obama is clearly aligned with) knows it won’t help solve anything so he continues to distance himself from any action against the prior administration.
And what does he get for his troubles? Republican attacks and petty name calling from talk radio pundits and former politicians.
“Your Iacocca analogy is flawed as well, we gave them a loan, we didn’t take them over and dictate who runs it, owns it, and which creditors got hosed in the process. And that was early ’80s when the Economy was also in recession.”
What analogy do you speak of exactly Sy? I merely said “we have been bailing out companies for decades”. You should learn the difference between an analogy and a statement….because mine was the latter, and it remains true. Hell you might even be able to call it a comparison, but it was in no way an analogy.
Then again I notice you ignored the very next sentence where I said none of these companies needed to ask the government for help and could have just gone broke on their own.
I guess with your almighty wisdom you have a better solution, but thankfully for us you aren’t in the big seat making the tough decisions. GM could have just kept their hands in their pockets and not received a dime of taxpayer money, but I’m sure you would be the first in line bitching when they went broke and the US lost a huge sector of our manufacturing industry…but hey – any excuse to whine and complain about a Democrat is ok right?
Maybe you should listen to Rush a few more days so you can come up with some new talking points… because the shit you are slinging now just isn’t working.
And Kerry lost to an incumbent, wartime president – not a beauty pageant runner-up that took 6 years to complete a 4 year degree in journalism – and STILL can’t put together a coherent sentence.
And even then, through the entire 2004 election I kept hearing that a potted plant could beat an idiot like Bush. Once he won reelection, he’s an incumbant wartime president – a near-impossible mountain to climb.
Spin spin spin…
I can’t beleive I let this go on for so long.. sorry DL.
GAWD!! STFU, Sy.
There… that’s better.
Costner,
L3wis began this thread arguing Cheney made up the story, ie actually fabricated the reporting. If that were true & provable they would’ve been gone by the second term.
I countered that with the original source. You jumped in by making an unbacked claim about Cheney perpetuating the story “long after everyone else knew it was bogus.” Perhaps you’d like to reference who “everyone” is and when they all unanimously came to that conclusion? You then speculated that Cheney must be running for something, to which again you are dead wrong. You also threw your own red herring out by claiming the Republicans are all about impeaching Obama before he was sworn in and that Republicans are about impeachment over “minor items” in general.
Once again I’ll ask you to provide some back-up of that claim/statement/point or whatever term you want to apply, or are you more about arguing semantics and hurling insults? Standard tactic when you got nothin’ else. BTW, here’s the definition of analogy I was working off of:
2 a: resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity b: comparison based on such resemblance.
That’s from Merriam Webster, you made the comparision, and like you anyone can plainly see it is bogus. We’ve made loans sure, but they are few and far between. You yourself had to go back nearly 30 years to find a comp.
Kucinich, Wexler, Conyers, Ellison, Nadler…these are all MOC’s, many with some serious pull within their party, who advanced the Impeachment Bill. There were at least 4 States whose legislatures weighed in in favor, all led by Democrats. So you’re totally full of shit claiming “the Democrats know Impeachment and charges are/were not what is best for the nation as a whole”.
You got anything comparable that anyone but the Republican fringe has offered? Got a MOC or Governor or State Legislature who’s taken any similar steps?
And seriously? You have yourself talked into the notion that the only reason Bush/Cheney wasn’t impeached was due to lack of digging? They spent nearly $3 million on the Plame case alone.
Add in all those MOC’s staffs, investigators, Legislature’s time, all the other public and private court cases (Torture, Wiretapping, Consitutionality of the War, violation of UN Charter) etc. and if you think that entails a lack of digging than you’re dangerously fuct in the head.
You also made the moronic claim they had more than enough to convict, they just decided not to. So I guess you’re saying Democrats have no issue wasting millions of other people’s dollars and tons of time just to get a few talking points out? While there’e plenty to back that up, you are fucking delusional if you think there was any kind of smoking gun, ie a DNA stain, that the Dems wouldn’t have made the move.
You really do make this shit up as you go, which is actually kinda cute, just don’t try to pass yourself of as knowlegable.
AG:
“I can’t beleive I let this go on for so long.. sorry DL.
GAWD!! STFU, Sy.
There… that’s better.”
Actually, a more intelligent response than costners. All about feeling better, AG? Keep up with your meds and you’ll be fine.
You stay classy, buddy.
OK, Dude,
“And even then, through the entire 2004 election I kept hearing that a potted plant could beat an idiot like Bush. Once he won reelection, he’s an incumbant wartime president – a near-impossible mountain to climb.
Spin spin spin…”
I don’t belive I ever said any such thing about president Bush.
…but Bush just barely won with the thinnest of margins – even though he called it “a mandate”.
But! That aside, I’ll concede the argument to you:
PALIN/PAWLENTY in 2012
or better yet:
PALIN/BACHMANN in 2012
…but Bush just barely won with the thinnest of margins – even though he called it “a mandateâ€.
In that case all the democrats would have needed was a candidate slightly more engaging than a potted plant. In 2008 they found Obama and won big.
If Palin wins the nomination, Obama can start writing his victory speech the same day.