Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Democrat lies about the war

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: fossten

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Plain Lies and War Lies

David Limbaugh
Saturday, Sept. 2, 2006

Democrats are outraged over President Bush's new series of national security speeches. There he goes again, politicizing the war.

The Democratic leadership obviously believes the president should muzzle himself so close to the November elections, because what is important for national security might also help Republicans and that must be avoided at all costs.

Democrats are furious over Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's speech to the American Legion this week, in which he compared today's appeasers to those of the World War II era and warned that we mustn't turn a blind eye to today's terrorists the way many did to yesterday's Nazis.

Such talk is off-limits because it offends the appeasers, who, by the way, deny they're appeasers, insisting they're "tough and smart" scavengers on the hunt for the only terrorist on the planet, Osama bin Laden. His capture or death, they imply, will shut down terrorism in its tracks like a redheaded stepchild and put an end to this reckless, recreational neoconservative global gallivanting.

So, let's cease further discussion of the most important issue of the day. Let's put our history books back on the shelves and consign ourselves to repeat the painful and costly mistake of ignoring the relentless march of evil in the world.

In fact, Democrats are the ones politicizing the war and who view it exclusively through a partisan prism. When they stop hyperventilating, they might consider that it is the commander in chief's duty to rally popular support for the troops and their mission.

Of course, the president's task wouldn't be nearly so urgent if Democrats hadn't been undermining the war effort in Iraq almost since it began with a steady stream of disinformation, focusing on the false charge that he lied us into war.

They explain their sudden affinity for the truth – in contrast to their cynically dismissive attitude toward it during the Clinton years – as a matter of the singular importance of the war. While lying per se isn't particularly wrong under their relativist standards – and lying about adulterous relations is even virtuous to protect one's family – lying about war, at least by a Republican president, is so evil it pretty much drives them to the obnoxious Christian state of moral absolutism.

This distinction is interesting given their own pattern of deceit concerning all aspects of the war. Let's review, shall we?

They said Bush attacked Iraq "unilaterally," when he built a coalition of over 30 nations, including Great Britain, and tried hard to persuade the rest of Old Europe to join. To their discredit, they refused. A unilateralist wouldn't have bothered.

They deny that Iraq is part of the war on terror, never mind that terrorists demonstrably disagree. Never mind that the Bush Doctrine clearly defines the enemy to include terrorist-sponsoring nations, such as Saddam's Iraq.

They claim that Bush asserted a connection between Saddam and 9/11, when he explicitly said otherwise. He said Saddam had close ties to terrorists, including al-Qaida and the Taliban, which is undeniably true and which Democrats also persist in falsely denying. Indeed, Iraq was on Clinton's watch list of terrorist nations.

They say Bush called Iraq an "imminent threat," when he called it a "great and gathering threat." The Bush Doctrine called for attacking threatening nations before they could become an imminent threat, when it would be too late. But some anti-war Democrats, like Jay Rockefeller, did call Iraq an "imminent threat."

They say Bush's sole reason to attack Iraq was its WMD. In fact, David Horowitz notes there were 23 "whereas" clauses in the Iraq War resolution, only two of which mentioned WMD and 12 of which concerned Saddam's violations of U.N. resolutions.

They say they were duped into voting for the resolution by administration hype on WMD. But the intelligence Congress received in the National Intelligence Estimate was much less alarmist and more nuanced than the intelligence the president received in the Presidential Daily Briefings. But hey, they had to give their anti-war base some excuse.

They say we had Osama surrounded in Tora Bora and let him go, outsourcing the job of capturing him to Afghan warlords so we could pursue our quixotic junket in Iraq. General Tommy Franks put the lie to all of this malicious nonsense.

On the hyped Wilson/Plame nonscandal – don't get me started.

Most unforgivably, they've lied in painting President Bush as a liar on Iraqi WMD.

There's much more – like their simultaneous condemnation of and advocacy for pre-emptive strikes – but no space left.

Next time you hear Democrats say they abhor lies "about war," remember a few of these gems.

Posted by: Frogman

I don't care either way, but I distinctly remember the PResident on national TV right before the US invaded...? began liberating??? iraq, and him saying that Saddam is an evil doer in the axis of evil, and he has WMDs, and that he needs to be stopped BEFORE he cause use those WMDs. Oh well. Maybe I was having a stroke, and I don't know what I saw.

As I said, either way, idngaf about what the republicans and democrats have to say about the war, as I am neither.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frogman

I don't care either way, but I distinctly remember the PResident on national TV right before the US invaded...? began liberating??? iraq, and him saying that Saddam is an evil doer in the axis of evil, and he has WMDs, and that he needs to be stopped BEFORE he cause use those WMDs. Oh well. Maybe I was having a stroke, and I don't know what I saw.

As I said, either way, idngaf about what the republicans and democrats have to say about the war, as I am neither.

I don't suppose you heard dozens of Democrat congresspeople saying the same things, did you? Because they did.

Anyhow, since you don't really have a comment, have a nice day trolling.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frogman

He did say that he was evil, part of the Axis of evil along with N. Korea and Iran, that it was important we stop him before he has the ability to develop WMDs and that he was a state sponsor of terrorism. These are all absolutely true.

I'm not sure what or if you are taking issue with something.

Posted by: Frogman

Not taking an issue with anything, Calabrio. I was just mentioning what I remembered having heard at my old age. As mentioned earlier, I really do not give a fugg about dems or republicans and their silly arguments.

Oh, and Fossten? It WAS a comment. I merely commented on what I remember having heard. Is that trolling? So someone who comments or posts a reply with which you may not agree, in one of your threads is a "troll"?

Jesus, you can be such a prick to people who don't agree with you, or don't see things your way. Oh, btw, if you take the previous comment as a personal attack, then gtf over it and grow some skin. Ok? Ok. Now go take a deep breath, then get yourself a cookie.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frogman

These are topics where I really wish Republican/Democrat labels didn't matter. On issues of national security and foreign policy, we should have a united voice. The problem is either:

1. The Democrats are so motivated by personal power that they are willing to endanger everyone in their attempt to undermine the administration and their efforts.

2. The majority of the Democrats are so misinformed and possession a critically flawed world view, and they don't recognize it.

Either way, the Republicans aren't guilt of this.

Want an example?

Joe Lieberman. The guy is liberal on virtually every issue. Yet, despite this, he is supported by conservatives ONLY because he recognizes the threats to the country and he supports defense, the most important issue of our age.

If he's elected as a 3rd party, he'll continue to vote as a Democrat. He'll vote for a Democrat leadership too. Yet despite this, many Republicans will back him.

The Democrats however are seeking to crush him because he supported Bush on ONE issue regarding National security.

Posted by: 97silverlsc

Boring. More RWW newsmax trash. not worth the paper it's printed on.

Ooops, sorry about the owned usage, had the fossie disease for a second.

Posted by: biglou71

yeah. well the last time I saw him use it was in the thread where I destoryed the "Mayor" of Salt Lake City's speech up point for point. And your only comeback was something like "whatever".

Sort of like your comeback here. Atleast he knows "Ownage" when he sees it.

Posted by: rmac694203

Wasn't the issue that Liebermann supported the war in Iraq? You say he supports national security, which seems a little broad. I think most politicians, lib or conserv, recognize the current threats to our country. It's just that Liebermann continued to support Bush on the war, unlike most dems and a few repubs.

Posted by: 97silverlsc

Quote:

Originally Posted by biglou71

yeah. well the last time I saw him use it was in the thread where I destoryed the "Mayor" of Salt Lake City's speech up point for point. And your only comeback was something like "whatever".

Sort of like your comeback here. Atleast he knows "Ownage" when he sees it.

As am I, you are entitled to your opinion. You think you "destoryed" the mayors speech, I think what you wrote was too rediculous to even respond to. Score:Mayor-1, biglou71-0

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmac694203

Wasn't the issue that Liebermann supported the war in Iraq? You say he supports national security, which seems a little broad. I think most politicians, lib or conserv, recognize the current threats to our country. It's just that Liebermann continued to support Bush on the war, unlike most dems and a few repubs.

I don't think most libs recognize the threats to our country. I think 97silverlsc is proof of that.

Lieberman's continued support of the military engagement in Iraq is evidenc of his support for national security. While most of the Democrats supported the initial miliatry action in Iraq, now they are running away from that vote. Their desire to cut and run is consistent despite the obvious outcome that would result. Basically, an Iranian superstate controlling Iraq.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frogman

Not taking an issue with anything, Calabrio. I was just mentioning what I remembered having heard at my old age. As mentioned earlier, I really do not give a fugg about dems or republicans and their silly arguments.

Oh, and Fossten? It WAS a comment. I merely commented on what I remember having heard. Is that trolling? So someone who comments or posts a reply with which you may not agree, in one of your threads is a "troll"?

Jesus, you can be such a prick to people who don't agree with you, or don't see things your way. Oh, btw, if you take the previous comment as a personal attack, then gtf over it and grow some skin. Ok? Ok. Now go take a deep breath, then get yourself a cookie.

Grow yourself a longer fuse or take anger management or something. Geez, talk about somebody who dishes it out but can't take it. What a baby (troll).

Posted by: Frogman

~yawn~

From your numerous posts, and all the whining and name calling you do, I see it is you who is the little school girl bish.

/trolling

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frogman

~yawn~

From your numerous posts, and all the whining and name calling you do, I see it is you who is the little school girl bish.

/trolling

LOL what a hypocrite troll. You're no different than barbie.

You: You're a <insert insult/name here>. Oh, by the way, if that's a personal attack, get over it. Oh, and you're a whining name-caller.

Posted by: Frogman

Fkit, you're not worth my time and effort.