ikol Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 It's absolutely dishonest. But like I was saying before- if it's fair game for Fox News, who does it regularly, then it should be fair game for left-wing liberals too. When does Foxnews do that? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
owl Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 Well, for one thing, they did it with this very interview! clicky Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 Wow, they hyped their interview with Clinton by showing the most interesting parts (where Clinton turns purple and pokes Wallace's crotch). They did eventually show the whole interview, right? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 i'd like to know how many of the emails wallace claimed to have received about that issue did NOT come from roger ailes or john moody. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
owl Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 I also like how Wallace claimed to be "surprised" by the volume of emails with that particular question. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Kinsley Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 Hey, at least I don't carry a pocketbook. manpurse? It's a diaper bag, damnit!!! Oh. You were talking to the other guy? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tugmoose Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 When Clinton went after OBL during the Monica broohaha, I recall charges of "Wag the dog!" Alls I know is I wake up every day telling myself: "Thank God we don't have universal health coverage!" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
embiggen Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 When Clinton went after OBL during the Monica broohaha, I recall charges of "Wag the dog!" his penis got in the way Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 I hate it when that happens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 clinton bombed an asprin factory in afghanistan about the same time it came out that he spurt upon his intern. afghanistan seemed out of the blue to many americans - very wag the dog-ish. i can't believe how bad the bush administration really is. i never thought clinton would look so good. hell, reagan and nixon look good by contrast. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Alls I know is I wake up every day telling myself: "Thank God we don't have universal health coverage!" No shit! Look how they run other things they ARE in control of. Good point, good sir. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
viatroy Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 i can't believe how bad the bush administration really is. i never thought clinton would look so good. hell, reagan and nixon look good by contrast. i never thought i'd see the day ... No shit! Look how they run other things they ARE in control of. Good point, good sir. true enough. A task force ordered by Congress delivers its recommendations for reforming the health-care system to President Bush. The law establishing the group requires the president to comment within 45 days -- and for five different Congressional committees to hold hearings within 45 days after that. All Things Considered, today. The task force that Americans overwhelmingly want universal coverage. How are they gonna scramble this one? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 When Clinton went after OBL during the Monica broohaha, I recall charges of "Wag the dog!"Alls I know is I wake up every day telling myself: "Thank God we don't have universal health coverage!"Me too, and excellently put. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
brianjeremy Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 C'mon there's gotta be a functioning video of this somewhere. I tried youtube, but each one says that fox has requested that it be removed. Fucking assholes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I think the whole thing is online at FoxNews.com under top videos. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Cleverly worded. Are you of the opinion that Mr. Moore's movie wasn't inaccurate in any sense? The facts of the movie are indisputable. How he puts the facts together is editorializing. What the Path - 911 movie claimes is to be based on factual when the most incendiary parts are fictional and strictly editorializing. Remember too that ABC is owned by Disney who tried to pull the plug on F911 because they did not want to get into politcal tug of wars so to speak, yet they put out a partisan movie, and send screening copies only to the right wing media? Hmm, not too bad of a job staying non-political. Yeah. And the period from the first WTC bomb to January 2001. I was just arguing against the claim that there's a big difference between not catching Bin Laden and manufacturing information (that's begging the question, but I'm not getting into another Bush lied argument) that led to 3000 Americans getting killed. I wasn't trying to lay more blame on Clinton for not catching Bin Laden.I haven't seen either movie and am not claiming that Path to 911 is accurate, but come on! It's considered lying when Bush uses actual intelligence reports to claim that Iraq has WMDs but splicing video clips together to give false impressions isn't dishonest? If you actually listen to what has occured with the Iraq intelligence you can say yes it is actual intelligence that they used. But if you exmine the process they used you can see that they cheated to get their way. Take the aluminum tubes for instance. The only use was for field artillery rockets, at least that is what the experts said. The politcal appointees, said uranimu enrrichment. Guess what they choose as their version of the intelligence. Ditto fot he niger uranium. Sheesh it's too simple to refute the process. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 i was talking to some of my more dense students today. they think bush orchestrated 9/11 in some evil genius conspiracy complete with controlled demolition blasts, etc. and all i could think of was how transparent and shoddy the manufactured reasons for the iraq war were and it blew all plausibility from their arguments. evil, maybe. genius? no way. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 i can't believe how bad the bush administration really is. i never thought clinton would look so good. hell, reagan and nixon look good by contrast.Yeah,that's really sayin' something! And to think I thought Reagan was the AntiChrist. I vividly remember watching the Inauguration in Jan '01 & being just profoundly depressed (esp. after that Election fiasco).I looked at my wife & said 'this is going to be the worst 4 years this country has seen in our lifetime'.Jesus,I thought it would be bad but never EVER in my worst nightmare would I have thought it would be this bad..it's just so beyond the pale it's almost hard to believe even though we watch the news every day. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 the only good that MIGHT come from this could be the end of the theocratic wing of the republicans since that ideology has shown it's even more perverse and bankrupt than what stalin called communism. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 the only good that MIGHT come from this could be the end of the theocratic wing of the republicans since that ideology has shown it's even more perverse and bankrupt than what stalin called communism.Didn't we learn that with the Swaggart/Baker scandals 20 years ago? Isn't "Christian Conservativism" just a euphemism for the remains of the "Moral Majority"? I'm not so sure about the end of the theocratic wing.It seems they've reorganized,registered voters in record numbers,etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 They are motivated in the way the left was motivated back in the '60s. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 the only good that MIGHT come from this could be the end of the theocratic wing of the republicans since that ideology has shown it's even more perverse and bankrupt than what stalin called communism. I'm more of a libertarian-conservative than a religious rightie, but don't you think you're exaggerating just a bit? I mean Stalinism did kill 100 million people. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WilcoFan Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 The facts of the movie are indisputable. How he puts the facts together is editorializing. What the Path - 911 movie claimes is to be based on factual when the most incendiary parts are fictional and strictly editorializing. Remember too that ABC is owned by Disney who tried to pull the plug on F911 because they did not want to get into politcal tug of wars so to speak, yet they put out a partisan movie, and send screening copies only to the right wing media? Hmm, not too bad of a job staying non-political.If you actually listen to what has occured with the Iraq intelligence you can say yes it is actual intelligence that they used. But if you exmine the process they used you can see that they cheated to get their way. Take the aluminum tubes for instance. The only use was for field artillery rockets, at least that is what the experts said. The politcal appointees, said uranimu enrrichment. Guess what they choose as their version of the intelligence. Ditto fot he niger uranium. Sheesh it's too simple to refute the process. From what I have seen/read about the Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs - Oct 2002, this document was the justification that was ultimately used to go to war and the document itself was oversaw by Cheney and Rumsfeld themselves to make sure it said what they wanted. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WilcoFan Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 From what I have seen/read about the Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs - Oct 2002, this document was the justification that was ultimately used to go to war and the document itself was oversaw by Cheney and Rumsfeld themselves to make sure it said what they wanted. It's almost as scary as this document and the list of names that signed: "Statement of Principles" for the Project for the New American Century p.s. I think Clinton is a smart guy and he had a right to defend himself against Fox News. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
viatroy Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Condi and crowd wouldn't state falsehoods would they? It's almost as scary as this document and the list of names that signed: "Statement of Principles" for the Project for the New American Century The same guys who said a year BEFORE 9.11 that we'd need a catastrophic precipitating event to scare the American populace into getting with their program. God bless America. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.