quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
Bush: No Proof of Saddam Role in 9-11

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," George W. Bush.

I say "put up or shut up".

quote:
A recent poll indicated that nearly 70 percent of Americans believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved.
My my, I wonder where they all got that impression!
Whomod, why do I get the impression that most of what you post is canned anti-Bush rhetoric from a liberal website?

You consistently post things that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc., said previously and try to label them as liars and contradictory. MY OWN opinions are not the same on many things, both political and personal, as they were six months or a year ago.

As I quoted from Rumsfeld at length on a previous topic, when he was in front of a Senate committee a few months ago, he said he made comments prior to the Senate hearing that, for example, we knew for certain that Iraq had WMD's, and that we knew exactly where in Iraq these WMD's were.
Rumsfeld said he wasn't lying previously, he was speaking with the best intelligence that was available to him at the time he made the initial comments. And the intelligence Rumsfeld based his comments on was --like any other intelligence reports that both he and the Senators receive updated EVERY DAY-- can be corrected later to have been corroborated, to have been completely wrong, or just slightly clarified intelligence.
Or we may have actually known exactly where the weapons were 7 months ago, and at this point now now they've been slipped off to Syria, or are buried under the Iraqi desert somewhere.

I'm confident that if you went through every speech, press conference, and off-the-cuff remark to reporters by Democrats, you'd find similar inconsistencies, and outright stupid remarks by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and other Democrats. People everywhere get rushed, make erroneous statements, can be very tired from a long day when interviewed, or whatever. Democrats say stupid stuff too.
( Rush Limbaugh used to run them on Democrats. He especially liked to rip on the idiocy of Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders ).

But with a Democrat in the White House, the liberal media doesn't report these things, the way they have the mis-step comments of Reagan, Bush Sr., and ESPECIALLY, Dan Quayle and G.W. Bush.

I don't count as "lies" things that were said several months ago, that appear to be honest mistakes, or based on faulty intelligence they were given. I think they're too smart not to know that outright lies would be proven to be outright lies, and wouldn't announce things they knew to be untrue. Because in a few months, it would eventually come to light and they'd be called on it.
When they found mobile labs, Rumsfeld and Bush said in comments to the press that WMD evidence had been found. I think they truly believed that at the time when they were interviewed and said we had proof of WMD chemical labs, that we had the smoking gun, and they later were informed a day or two after making these comments that the mobile labs were swept clean of evidence, and not the smoking gun they first proclaimed to the press.
In a situation like this, I give them the benefit of the doubt.

Whereas you eagerly jump on the slightest inconsistency, and hype it to death.

quote:
Originally posted by whomod:

By the way, I think it's time to make a list of all the news outlets that are "liberal"

1)Yahoo News
2) AOL News


I think you can count virtually the entire U.S. media, except for a few overtly conservative sources, such as the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and a few others.
And a few conservative columnists. I again refer to G-Man's stats from the "Liberal Media" topic.
http://www.robkamphausen.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=27&t=000801

The amount of reporters who identify themselves as liberals or Democrats is an overwhelming majority.
The number of reporters who say they consistently vote for Democrats are an overwhelming majority.
And that colors the news with an inevitable liberal bias, when they report on conservatives, whose views they don't share.

This has been made clear in a number of books and studies.