hey 8, How about that Faux NBC News?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

And that lying liar Brian Williams? Yeah, just real truthful reporting from the left... Again, another liar from the left... What a tool. And you wonder why people call them Lame Street Media...

[dwarthog]

He can't even recant his lie truthfully either.

More of that "artful word smithing" the left is so fond of when caught red handed.

Wonder how much longer he'll be "telling" the truth on the evening news.

[olevetonahill]

This guy?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9CtujSCcAAghFc.jpg:large

[Sooner8th]

And that lying liar Brian Williams? Yeah, just real truthful reporting from the left... Again, another liar from the left... What a tool. And you wonder why people call them Lame Street Media...What the fvck is your inbred, dumbass hillbilly *** talking about? Post a link moron.

[okie52]

Brian Williams' Katrina Tales Under Scrutiny After Helicopter Lie
Thursday, 05 Feb 2015 08:32 AM
By Nick Sanchez

NBC anchor Brian Williams apologized on Wednesday for falsely claiming his helicopter was downed by an RPG during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and now many are actively fact-checking his other extraordinary claims from over the years.

On Wednesday's "Nightly News," Williams publicly apologized for his "bungled attempt" at thanking soldiers for protecting him in Iraq.

"I made a mistake in recalling the events of 12 years ago," he said. "I want to apologize."

Under heavy scrutiny less than 24 hours after Williams' admission are his tales from Hurricane Katrina.

In one story, he claims he saw a body float by his hotel room window in New Orleans. In another, he claims his five-star hotel was overrun with gangs while he was sick with floodwater dysentery, and was rescued from a stairwell by a police officer.

Williams recounted the first story about the floating corpse in a 2006 interview with former Disney CEO Michael Eisner, blogger Charles C. Johnson reported Thursday.

"When you look out of your hotel room window in the French Quarter, and watch a man float by face-down, when you see bodies that you last saw in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, and swore to yourself that you would never see in your country . . ." Williams said, recounting the 2005 hurricane. "These are Americans. These are my brothers and sisters and one of them was floating by."

The likelihood that a body would be "floating by" in the French Quarter neighborhood is highly unlikely, as several news outlets noted that there was no flooding there — it sits at one of the highest elevations in the city. The New York Times reported just days after the storm that, "the Quarter's elegant 150-year-old buildings look relatively unruffled, except for some loosened bricks, having been spared the worst of Hurricane Katrina's winds and sitting high enough to have avoided the flooding."

Another blogger noticed a story Williams told not long after the storm.

"My week — two weeks there — was not helped by the fact that I accidentally ingested some of the floodwater. I became very sick with dysentery. Our hotel was overrun with gangs," Williams said in an interview with Tom Brokaw. "I was rescued from the stairwell of a five-star hotel in New Orleans by a young police officer. We are friends to this day."

The blogger noted that Williams doesn't appear to have told the story ever again, but did say in a subsequent Dateline special that the police in New Orleans used the Sheraton hotel as a staging ground for their operations, and that they allowed his film crew to film outside.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/TheWire/brian-williams-apology-helicopter-hurricane-katrina/2015/02/05/id/622858/#ixzz3QtZyfFbR
.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

And that lying liar Brian Williams? Yeah, just real truthful reporting from the left... Again, another liar from the left... What a tool. And you wonder why people call them Lame Street Media...What the fvck is your inbred, dumbass hillbilly *** talking about? Post a link moron.

Wouldn't expect better from you on a story that is seen on almost every website imaginable...

[okie52]

Wouldn't expect better from you on a story that is seen on almost every website imaginable...

8th is well known for his googling skills...

[SoonerProphet]

We knew he was a prolific liar when he facilitated the governing class and their folly in Iraq.

[okie52]

Stolen from another board.

uHVEDq6RVXc#t=31[/QUOTE]

[olevetonahill]

Stolen from another board.

uHVEDq6RVXc#t=31[/QUOTE]



Heh

[rock on sooner]

CBS canned Dan Rather over the Bush matter...wonder how long NBC will
stay with Williams? Credibility is paramount for a network news anchor and
his is long gone...

[Sooner8th]

CBS canned Dan Rather over the Bush matter...wonder how long NBC willstay with Williams? Credibility is paramount for a network news anchor andhis is long gone...Too bad conservatives don't have the same standards for rightwingnuts as they do for mainstream news anchors.

[SoonerProphet]

Too bad conservatives don't have the same standards for rightwingnuts as they do for mainstream news anchors.

Like that dipsh!t terrorist "expert" Steve Emerson and his lies about Islamic morality police in Birmingham England.

The whole industry is filled with court jesters who lick the boots of politicians to gain access.

[okie52]

Again, from another board (to maintain my journalistic integrity).

http://i.imgur.com/Nzqt2RIl.jpg (http://imgur.com/Nzqt2RI)

http://i.imgur.com/bEqOml7l.jpg (http://imgur.com/bEqOml7)

http://i.imgur.com/eOTQDm8l.jpg (http://imgur.com/eOTQDm8)

http://i.imgur.com/5GHn9JCl.jpg (http://imgur.com/5GHn9JC)

[Sooner in Tampa]

Too bad conservatives don't have the same standards for rightwingnuts as they do for mainstream news anchors.
Speaking of bootlickers...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Too bad conservatives don't have the same standards for rightwingnuts as they do for mainstream news anchors.
And you have no ethics, decency, objectivity or morality...

[REDREX]

Bye Bye Brian

[yermom]

his daughter is cute though

[olevetonahill]

his daughter is cute though

Heh I like yer Title LOL

[Sooner8th]

And you have no ethics, decency, objectivity or morality...You don't know what those words mean, because you are conservative republican. There is not a conviction or a core ideology that you will not abandon when a conservative republican breaks them. You will support a person whole wholeheartedly right up until those core values destroy our country. dubya is the prime example. In other words - fvck off ignorant *******, you are too stupid to understand anything beyond simpleton talking points.

[SicEmBaylor]

Too bad conservatives don't have the same standards for rightwingnuts as they do for mainstream news anchors.

Weak. Here's a pretty good example of why your 'lemming' statements are absolute bull****. I have absolutely no problem at all calling out and admonishing those on my own 'side' when they need to be. In fact, it's pretty much all I do. There's little value in blaming liberals for being liberal -- you can't blame a wolf in wolf's clothing; however, I detest statist 'conservatives' who are wolves in sheep's clothing.

Point being this: Only a lemming's first reaction to a news story like this would be to lash out at supposed transgressions by the other side rather than immediately own up to how unethical and wrong Williams' has been. You really have no standing, legitimacy, or credibility left.

[Soonerjeepman]

You really have no standing, legitimacy, or credibility left.

did he/she ever have any?

[SicEmBaylor]

did he/she ever have any?

I'm not sure, actually. I just started reading his (I'm going out on a limb here) posts fairly recently. There may have been a time he made good compelling arguments, but I haven't seen it.

[Sooner8th]

Weak. Here's a pretty good example of why your 'lemming' statements are absolute bull****. I have absolutely no problem at all calling out and admonishing those on my own 'side' when they need to be. In fact, it's pretty much all I do. There's little value in blaming liberals for being liberal -- you can't blame a wolf in wolf's clothing; however, I detest statist 'conservatives' who are wolves in sheep's clothing.Point being this: Only a lemming's first reaction to a news story like this would be to lash out at supposed transgressions by the other side rather than immediately own up to how unethical and wrong Williams' has been. You really have no standing, legitimacy, or credibility left.Here is where you are an ignorant fvcking conservative. Brian Williams says something, not on his program, but on a late night talk show and you are freaking out like the rest of conservative media. He is not an elected public office of the party you have decided his is in. Piyush is an ELECTED CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN who LIED about no go zones in europe, claiming they exist, when none exist. Your righwingnut go to publishes a story that it is in fact it is true - but reading the story it is the exact opposite of the claim piyush made up that there are no go zones in European cites where the police are afraid to go is stated in the article and you are such and lemming and/or too stupid to comprehend what is being said by the authorities in these cities. Like all true conservatives he just made sh!t up. Yet you will try to hang williams around the neck of democrats and fully support and defend piyush. You have never had no standing, legitimacy, credibility, nor integrity at all.

[SicEmBaylor]

Here is where you are an ignorant fvcking conservative. Brian Williams says something, not on his program, but on a late night talk show and you are freaking out like the rest of conservative media.
Do I appear like someone who has freaked out at any point about Brian Williams? The post you just quoted would be the only time I've mentioned Brian Williams, and I'm not interested in Williams so much as I'm interested in your pathological, blind, and slavish devotion to your ideology to such an extent that your first reaction wasn't to condemn Williams but lash out at those you perceive to be your enemies. It's very telling -- perhaps as telling as anything you've ever said or written here or elsewhere.


He is not an elected public office of the party you have decided his is in. Piyush is an ELECTED CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN who LIED about no go zones in europe, claiming they exist, when none exist.
I didn't read through the rest of this thread, but I have absolutely no clue in hell who you are talking about or the European incident you refer to...nor am I interested. This isn't about whatever supposed-wrong you can pull out of your grab bag; this is about your reaction to Brian Williams. Is Brian Williams a public official? No. But he's supposedly one of the most trusted journalists in television who is the anchor and managing editor of the top network news division. Again, I'm less interested in the Williams story itself and more interested in your reaction. It seems the height of hypocrisy for you to constantly complain about "Faux News" and dismissing anyone you don't deem a legitimate journalist only to fail to condemn the many many proven lies of a man who is at the apex of that of those journalists you so esteem.


Your righwingnut go to publishes a story that it is in fact it is true - but reading the story it is the exact opposite of the claim piyush made up that there are no go zones in European cites where the police are afraid to go is stated in the article and you are such and lemming and/or too stupid to comprehend what is being said by the authorities in these cities. Like all true conservatives he just made sh!t up. Yet you will try to hang williams around the neck of democrats and fully support and defend piyush. You have never had no standing, legitimacy, credibility, nor integrity at all.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about what I have said or not said around here. I assure you that posts in which I defend Republicans or mainstream conservatives are few and far between. It's easy to make assumptions, but I've been around here for a very very long time and I've made many many political posts -- the overwhelming majority of them are well outside anything you consider to be mainstream conservatism. I'm not sure what credibility you think I lack since I go to great pains to remain consistent both in my paleoconservative/libertarian ideology and general principles. I assure you that I detest the overwhelming majority of Republicans and conservatives that you seem to think I sit around here defending. I don't expect you to read every post I've ever written, but take a moment to educate yourself on the person with whom you're arguing.

[Sooner8th]

I didn't read through the rest of this thread, but I have absolutely no clue in hell who you are talking about or the European incident you refer to...nor am I interested. This isn't about whatever supposed-wrong you can pull out of your grab bag; this is about your reaction to Brian Williams. Is Brian Williams a public official? No. But he's supposedly one of the most trusted journalists in television who is the anchor and managing editor of the top network news division. Again, I'm less interested in the Williams story itself and more interested in your reaction. It seems the height of hypocrisy for you to constantly complain about "Faux News" and dismissing anyone you don't deem a legitimate journalist only to fail to condemn the many many proven lies of a man who is at the apex of that of those journalists you so esteem.You seem to make a lot of assumptions about what I have said or not said around here. I assure you that posts in which I defend Republicans or mainstream conservatives are few and far between. It's easy to make assumptions, but I've been around here for a very very long time and I've made many many political posts -- the overwhelming majority of them are well outside anything you consider to be mainstream conservatism. I'm not sure what credibility you think I lack since I go to great pains to remain consistent both in my paleoconservative/libertarian ideology and general principles. I assure you that I detest the overwhelming majority of Republicans and conservatives that you seem to think I sit around here defending. I don't expect you to read every post I've ever written, but take a moment to educate yourself on the person with whom you're arguing.Too fvcking funny - conservatives on here blasted me not being up on the latest faux outrage about williams and you state "I have absolutely no clue in hell who you are talking about or the European incident you refer to...nor am I interested." Typical, ignoring a HUGE story that a leading conservative elected official, piyush jindal, take an interest in world events. I find you laughable for caring about something brian williams said - not on the job mind you - but on a light night talk show while ignoring a leading conservative elected official going overseas and making sh!t up. Apply the same standards to faux "news" that you have "supposedly one of the most trusted journalists in television who is the anchor and managing editor of the top network news division". You are interested in MY reaction, well OK. Whether or not his helicopter was shot at as he claimed - once again not on his job as "supposedly one of the most trusted journalists in television who is the anchor and managing editor of the top network news division" mind you, effects me nor you nor anyone else none whatsoever. What policy does that story influence? NONE. Faux "news" backing dumbass dubya on cuttin' taxes won't turn surpluses into deficits, iraq having wmd's, there are death panels in the ACA DOES effect my life by molding public opinion to a bunch of cant think for themselves lemmings does. As for knowing about you, I do. I read your profile and I LOL at you when I read the "war of northern aggression" I have seen you state on here that the south attacked fort sumter because lincoln mobilized some troops. The fact is the lincoln called for 75k troops three days AFTER fort sumter was attacked - the confederacy committed the first act of aggression and started the civil war. Don't be stupid and believe conservative southern revisionist history. My question to you is - why do you hate America? Why do you support a foreign nation who took up arms and attacked the good ol' US of A? You have no clue about "paleoconservative/libertarian ideology and general principles" you are being force fed by the kochs. You don't live in kansas, I do. The kochs don't believe in no taxes - they believe in no taxes on THEM. My taxes went up while the kochs were ELIMINATED. When a surplus that a democrat handed over to a republican went to deficit guess which tax bracket scheduled to be lowered is being pushed back? You got it - the lowest. Don't be such a lemming and actually understand the game the kochs are playing with their self-severing ideology

[TAFBSooner]

Do I appear like someone who has freaked out at any point about Brian Williams? The post you just quoted would be the only time I've mentioned Brian Williams, and I'm not interested in Williams so much as I'm interested in your pathological, blind, and slavish devotion to your ideology to such an extent that your first reaction wasn't to condemn Williams but lash out at those you perceive to be your enemies. It's very telling -- perhaps as telling as anything you've ever said or written here or elsewhere.


I didn't read through the rest of this thread, but I have absolutely no clue in hell who you are talking about or the European incident you refer to...nor am I interested. This isn't about whatever supposed-wrong you can pull out of your grab bag; this is about your reaction to Brian Williams. Is Brian Williams a public official? No. But he's supposedly one of the most trusted journalists in television who is the anchor and managing editor of the top network news division. Again, I'm less interested in the Williams story itself and more interested in your reaction. It seems the height of hypocrisy for you to constantly complain about "Faux News" and dismissing anyone you don't deem a legitimate journalist only to fail to condemn the many many proven lies of a man who is at the apex of that of those journalists you so esteem.



You seem to make a lot of assumptions about what I have said or not said around here. I assure you that posts in which I defend Republicans or mainstream conservatives are few and far between. It's easy to make assumptions, but I've been around here for a very very long time and I've made many many political posts -- the overwhelming majority of them are well outside anything you consider to be mainstream conservatism. I'm not sure what credibility you think I lack since I go to great pains to remain consistent both in my paleoconservative/libertarian ideology and general principles. I assure you that I detest the overwhelming majority of Republicans and conservatives that you seem to think I sit around here defending. I don't expect you to read every post I've ever written, but take a moment to educate yourself on the person with whom you're arguing.

Please take a moment to educate me on what exactly you mean by paleoconservative. I somehow doubt the Wikipedia definition corresponds exactly to your beliefs. For example, do you identify with distributism?

I'm also thinking that paleoconservative and libertarian aren't all that close on the 2-D.

[SicEmBaylor]

Please take a moment to educate me on what exactly you mean by paleoconservative. I somehow doubt the Wikipedia definition corresponds exactly to your beliefs. For example, do you identify with distributism?

I'm also thinking that paleoconservative and libertarian aren't all that close on the 2-D.
Excellent questions, actually. I went ahead and scanned the Wiki entry for paleoconservatism, and I didn't read anything in particular that I took major issue with. It's actually fairly spot on (a very minor quibble or two notwithstanding). I'm especially pleased they included a section on the Jeffersonian/southern agrarian tradition among some paleoconservatives since I do identify with the Jeffersonian/southern agrarian tradition within paleoconservatism despite the fact I've never 'literally' been involved in agriculture in any shape, form, or fashion...but of course the term doesn't really have anything to do with that in any case.

By 'paleoconservative' I mean almost exactly what the Wiki article laid out. The article would seem to split the Catholic paleocons from the ‘southern tradition’ paleocons. The contention between the two seems to be oversold a bit by wikipedia, but it is true there are elements of Catholic paleocon thought that I reject especially since I have little fondness for Catholicism in general. In any case -- I consider myself part of the 'old right.' I believe Jefferson was right in his belief that the United States was created and ought to remain a small de-centralized Republic. I believe the United States was created as the embodiment of the European enlightenment and conservatism, fundamentally, is about preserving those principles represented within our founding documents and both traditional and social institutions (less so the latter but more on that later). I believe the United States was built on western European tradition, and that western European cultural heritage and tradition is important, should be protected, and should be valued above multi-culturalism. Immigration, therefore, is a policy that I steadfastly oppose in any form whether it be legal or illegal immigration. I also oppose student visas to study in the United States. As another example: I believe American-style (small r) republicanism is best suited for Americans, and I absolutely oppose Wilsoniansim that makes spreading American democracy around the globe the cornerstone of American foreign policy. It means that I’m a non-interventionism who values working relationships with nations, regardless of how distasteful we find their government. I also oppose free-trade agreements with non-equitable/non-comparable nations and economies. I believe free-trade has fundamentally destroyed the United States’ ability to produce physical goods, and I believe it has resulted in a lower standard of living.

Paleoconservatism and libertarianism are a bit closer than you think, especially on foreign policy issues. Many paleoconservatives tend to side in with libertarian-leaning politicians. Sometimes, it’s a matter of both sides arriving at the same conclusion for vastly different reasons. I’m not a perfect paleoconservative by any means which is why I indicated I have a libertarian streak. I do value traditional American values and social institutions, but not to the extent that I support law or policy to enforce said tradition which puts me slightly outside of the paleoconservative mainstream (but not necessarily outside the Jeffersonian tradition). I support marriage equality; although, I believe (notwithstanding the 14th Amendment which should be repealed) it is and ought to remain a state issue to be decided legislatively rather than judicially. My personal belief is that government has no business sanctioning marriage one way or the other -- it should be a private contract between two (or more) consenting adults. I also support an end to the drug war (which some paleoconservatives do as well to an extent), and the legalization of marijuana. Ultimately, from a legal standpoint, it’s fair to say that I value an individual’s liberty over the preservation of social norms and values. However, that isn’t to say that I don’t believe those social values and institutions shouldn’t be protected and valued in other non-legally binding ways. Most paleoconservatives are Christians, whether protestant or Catholic; however, I am a Deist. That doesn’t put me outside the Jeffersonian tradition either for obvious reasons. My libertarianism ends at the border of the United States. Too many libertarians make the argument that national borders are arbitrary and should be abandoned entirely or that restricting the movement of people is a form of tyranny -- I couldn’t disagree me. I have a libertarian streak, but that libertarian streak is fully contained within the legal borders (physical or otherwise) of the United States.

The question of distributism is tricky for me. To be direct -- no, I don’t identify myself as a distributist, but there are elements of distributism that I subscribe to. I have long argued and absolutely believe that big business represents as big a threat to the liberty of the individual as big government, and I have never understood why more conservatives aren’t as distrustful of big business as they are big government. The former is as capable of infringing upon your rights and liberties as the former. A person’s right to capital and to personal property is the most fundamental right of any American. I also believe in ensuring as fair a marketplace as possible. The degree to which I support the distributists is probably best illustrated by the fact that I support local and state community efforts to protect privately-owned/small businesses from predatory practices by national or multinational corporations. For example, I’m perfectly fine with a local community refusing to grant a permit within city limits to WalMart. Traditional small-town America with its local businesses and civic organizations are worth protecting. What I’ve never understood about distributists is how they think they can pave a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism (whatever form that may take). At the end of the day, I really believe distributism is impossible and they must end up on one side or the other….I come out on the side of capitalism.

[TAFBSooner]

(saving electrons . . .) Most paleoconservatives are Christians, whether protestant or Catholic; however, I am a Deist. That doesn’t put me outside the Jeffersonian tradition either for obvious reasons. (snip)

Thank you for the thoughtful response. There's a lot there to think about, and me without time to research for the next few days.

I knew there are Deists today (should it be "there are still Deists" or "once again there are Deists"?), but hadn't met any. Do some people inherit Deism from their family, or do pretty much all of them come to it from surveying the alternatives? (I'm a UU, coming from a Methodist background.)

[SicEmBaylor]

Thank you for the thoughtful response. There's a lot there to think about, and me without time to research for the next few days.

I knew there are Deists today (should it be "there are still Deists" or "once again there are Deists"?), but hadn't met any. Do some people inherit Deism from their family, or do pretty much all of them come to it from surveying the alternatives? (I'm a UU, coming from a Methodist background.)

Most seem to come from some sort of Christian-tradition, but that's not always the case. There are also different types of Deists that range on a scale from Christian Deism to nearly agnostic. I'm much closer to the Christian Deist side of the scale which is to say that I think Christianity sets an excellent moral framework for mankind in a broad/general sense. I believe Jesus was a real man, and he was a great teacher of how man ought to treat their fellow man, but I do not believe he was the son of God. I don't believe in the 'miracles' of the Bible or the rather fantastical tales. I don't believe in hell. I don't believe in sin. I don't believe God takes an active participant role in human affairs. I also don't believe in the more dogmatic aspects of Biblical teaching.

I was raised Methodists, but we were not frequent church-goers. In my childhood, one of my closest friends was the Methodist minister's son until they moved so that was the most time I ever spent in church. Whether it be Sunday school or church itself, I was never comfortable with certain aspects of Christianity. I never bought into what they were selling hook, line, and sinker. This increased as I got older, and I really struggled to reconcile my beliefs with an actual Christian denomination -- I look at Unitarians for awhile. The truth is that I was always a Deist in my heart, but it took me awhile to realize it.

[champions77]

I have to laugh at the righteous indignation the left is showing for one of their "mouthpieces" being exposed as a liar. They seem very content to let their hero BHO spew his lies, deception and misinformation on a daily basis, and they are usually quite comfortable with the sycophants at NBC, ABC and CBS not reporting the news or giving 15 second spots when it is critical of the President, while exaggerating or amplifying any perceived accomplishments.
The main stream media, both in print form and on TV have carried BHO's water throughout his time in the National spotlight. And have shown themselves to be lacking any degree of professionalism or objectivity in doing so. So when they feign being agitated over something like the Brian William's one lie, as if they all of a sudden have a moral code they hold anyone to, it again shows how ridiculous the left is.

[okie52]

http://i.imgur.com/JGDk4gZ.jpg

[okie52]

http://i.imgur.com/9rBrxJJ.jpg

[okie52]

http://i.imgur.com/AhM3wLl.jpg

[TheHumanAlphabet]

You don't know what those words mean, because you are conservative republican. There is not a conviction or a core ideology that you will not abandon when a conservative republican breaks them. You will support a person whole wholeheartedly right up until those core values destroy our country. dubya is the prime example. In other words - fvck off ignorant *******, you are too stupid to understand anything beyond simpleton talking points.
I am so glad you know me that well that you can describe me so well. While you are at it and know me so well, please tell me what type of degree I have, I forget...also, where do I live, I need directions home this evening...

[Sooner in Tampa]

Here is where you are an ignorant fvcking conservative. Brian Williams says something, not on his program, but on a late night talk show and you are freaking out like the rest of conservative media. He is not an elected public office of the party you have decided his is in. Piyush is an ELECTED CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN who LIED about no go zones in europe, claiming they exist, when none exist. Your righwingnut go to publishes a story that it is in fact it is true - but reading the story it is the exact opposite of the claim piyush made up that there are no go zones in European cites where the police are afraid to go is stated in the article and you are such and lemming and/or too stupid to comprehend what is being said by the authorities in these cities. Like all true conservatives he just made sh!t up. Yet you will try to hang williams around the neck of democrats and fully support and defend piyush. You have never had no standing, legitimacy, credibility, nor integrity at all.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Troll ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Proven plagiarist and liar. Just a vacuous copy and paste troll.

[Sooner8th]

I have to laugh at the righteous indignation the left is showing for one of their "mouthpieces" being exposed as a liar. They seem very content to let their hero BHO spew his lies, deception and misinformation on a daily basis, and they are usually quite comfortable with the sycophants at NBC, ABC and CBS not reporting the news or giving 15 second spots when it is critical of the President, while exaggerating or amplifying any perceived accomplishments. The main stream media, both in print form and on TV have carried BHO's water throughout his time in the National spotlight. And have shown themselves to be lacking any degree of professionalism or objectivity in doing so. So when they feign being agitated over something like the Brian William's one lie, as if they all of a sudden have a moral code they hold anyone to, it again shows how ridiculous the left is.So now brian williams is one of our mouthpieces huh? Was he on his show when he told that story? NO. Too bad you don't apply those same lofty standards to actual rightwing mouthpieces as you apply to people you you have deemed to be a liberal spokesman. How many blatant lies has rush told? How often does faux "news" lie? Everyday, but that doesn't seem to bother you. How about the huge whopper of a lie your boy elected republican conservative official claiming there are no go zones in europe. Embarrassed and humiliated conservative republicans on two continents. Focus on something important.

[Sooner8th]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Troll ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Proven plagiarist and liar. Just a vacuous copy and paste troll.

Two words - you know them.......................tyler duden.............dumbass

[Sooner in Tampa]

So now brian williams is one of our mouthpieces huh? Was he on his show when he told that story? NO. Too bad you don't apply those same lofty standards to actual rightwing mouthpieces as you apply to people you you have deemed to be a liberal spokesman. How many blatant lies has rush told? How often does faux "news" lie? Everyday, but that doesn't seem to bother you. How about the huge whopper of a lie your boy elected republican conservative official claiming there are no go zones in europe. Embarrassed and humiliated conservative republicans on two continents. Focus on something important.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Troll ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Proven plagiarist and liar. Just a vacuous copy and paste troll.

[Sooner8th]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Troll ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Proven plagiarist and liar. Just a vacuous copy and paste troll..........................................Tyl er Durden......................................

[FaninAma]

his daughter is cute though

I guess....if you like porn stars.

[yermom]

i'm talking about Peter Pan...

http://www.timeout.com/newyork/blog/why-allison-williamss-peter-pan-didnt-fly-on-nbc

[Turd_Ferguson]

i'm talking about Peter Pan...

http://www.timeout.com/newyork/blog/why-allison-williamss-peter-pan-didnt-fly-on-nbc

Look like a dude...

[okie52]

Williams has been suspended for 6 months without pay.

[REDREX]

He's DONE

[Sooner8th]

So, you boys got your pound of flesh. Now, just today one of your mouthpieces published a blatant, boldfaced out and out lie about obama saying - The spread of vibrant social diversity is constricting the GOP’s ability to champion conservative causes, such as smaller government and independent families, President Barack Obama said in a softball media interview. http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/09/obama-hints-immigration-will-drown-conservatism/ Obama never said that in the interview. Where is your demand for the pound of flesh from the daily caller? Too bad your outrage and indignation does not extend to your own mouthpieces.

[okie52]

Brian Williams was the guy I usually watched for the national news. I've had fun with his "misremembering " but I really hate to see his career end over it.

[okie52]

So, you boys got your pound of flesh. Now, just today one of your mouthpieces published a blatant, boldfaced out and out lie about obama saying - The spread of vibrant social diversity is constricting the GOP’s ability to champion conservative causes, such as smaller government and independent families, President Barack Obama said in a softball media interview. http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/09/obama-hints-immigration-will-drown-conservatism/ Obama never said that in the interview. Where is your demand for the pound of flesh from the daily caller? Too bad your outrage and indignation does not extend to your own mouthpieces.

Well, 8th, show us how it's done. Jump on out there and roast Hillary, Brian or any other prominent lefty for their lies. As a man of integrity you can set an example for all to follow.

[Sooner8th]

Well, 8th, show us how it's done. Jump on out there and roast Hillary, Brian or any other prominent lefty for their lies. As a man of integrity you can set an example for all to follow.Too funny, you people jumped on both hillary and brian not to mention any other dem or liberal while totally ignoring constant and repeated lies from reagan, bush, faux, rush and any rightwingnut media outlet ect. What a fvcking hypocrite.

[Breadburner]

They just buying time....This idiot is gone......

[okie52]

Too funny, you people jumped on both hillary and brian not to mention any other dem or liberal while totally ignoring constant and repeated lies from reagan, bush, faux, rush and any rightwingnut media outlet ect. What a fvcking hypocrite.

We need your leadership 8th. it is shameful the way that hypocrites only attack members of the opposing party while ignoring the lies of their own party members.

You are a beacon...a guiding light in this area. I know that you will continue to criticize dems for lying just like you do pubs. Integrity demands it and you are a man of "integrity".

[Sooner8th]

We need your leadership 8th. it is shameful the way that hypocrites only attack members of the opposing party while ignoring the lies of their own party members. You are a beacon...a guiding light in this area. I know that you will continue to criticize dems for lying just like you do pubs. Integrity demands it and you are a man of "integrity".I find it too funny that you people who believe anything anyone from the right says are demanding I "criticize dems for lying just like you do pubs". Since when is brain williams a dem? Follow your own advice, you jumped all over hillary and williams for a lie, but give pass to faux "news" who has been proven to lie more than any other network. You and yours stood my and believed death panels, fixing the unemployment numbers, cuttin' taxes actually raises tax revenues, obama was born in keyna, his is a muslim, his is a socialist ect. Just yesterday your new shining conservative beacon joni ernst calling got busted for herself a "combat veteran" when in fact she was never in combat. From politico - Vietnam veteran calling Ernst a “fraud” for referring to herself as a combat veteran despite only commanding a transportation company that never came under enemy fire.Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/joni-ernst-combat-veteran-115080.html#ixzz3RRc2ZEJn Do you call this a lie? So much more important than what hillary said.

[olevetonahill]

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140209013353/creepypasta/images/a/a9/Don%27t_Feed_the_Troll.jpeg

[okie52]

I find it too funny that you people who believe anything anyone from the right says are demanding I "criticize dems for lying just like you do pubs". Since when is brain williams a dem? Follow your own advice, you jumped all over hillary and williams for a lie, but give pass to faux "news" who has been proven to lie more than any other network. You and yours stood my and believed death panels, fixing the unemployment numbers, cuttin' taxes actually raises tax revenues, obama was born in keyna, his is a muslim, his is a socialist ect. Just yesterday your new shining conservative beacon joni ernst calling got busted for herself a "combat veteran" when in fact she was never in combat. From politico - Vietnam veteran calling Ernst a “fraud” for referring to herself as a combat veteran despite only commanding a transportation company that never came under enemy fire.Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/joni-ernst-combat-veteran-115080.html#ixzz3RRc2ZEJn Do you call this a lie? So much more important than what hillary said.

Brian Williams isn't a dem or representing a left leaning network? So the pubs were actually attacking their own? This is progress!!!

But 8th, you already stated that the pubs are hypocrites for not attacking their own after attacking dems for their lies. I understand that and I know you hate hypocrisy. Perhaps a look at the definition of hypocrisy would be in order.


Hypocrisy is the claim or pretense of holding beliefs, feelings, standards, qualities, opinions, behaviors, virtues, motivations, or other characteristics that one does not actually hold. It is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another.[1][2] In moral psychology, it is the failure to follow one’s own expressed moral rules and principles.

So the pubs are hypocrites for not attacking their own (well, of course, unless Brian Williams turns out to be a pub). No one can doubt you aren't a hypocrite because you have always been quick to criticize dems and pubs alike when they are guilty of lying. After all, you are a man of integrity.

[BetterSoonerThanLater]

8th loves to manipulate the topic to fit his ideals. His narcasistic mind can't comprehand his own hypocrisy. Everyone that disagrees with him are all lumped togther in his mind. There are only 2 beliefs: His and everyone elses. And in his mind, only his is correct.

It just shows how narrow-minded he is, and how his insignificant mind is unable to process more than one stream of thought. He is what some would call dumb, uninformed, and uneducated. Like a large percentage of the younger generation, his ability to accept things outside of his confort zone is diminshed. He cannot hold basic forms of face to face communication, thus relying on plagarism and "copy and paste" functions to communicate in the virtual world. His low self-esteem angers him, and he deflects that aggression onto those in which he is speaking with. His feable and delicate mind is heavily influenced by those looking to exlpoit his unwavering and "lemming-like" support--regardless of the moral implications. He is a follower. Unable to support independant rational thought.

I'll pray for you , 8th. you desperately need it.

[REDREX]

More lies from Brian---- Is he a good liberal man of integrity? http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/brian-williams-reporting-now-questioned-on-berlin-wall-navy-seals/ar-AA9mY34?ocid=iehp

[okie52]

Not looking good for Brian's return.


Former SEAL: None of Brian Williams' Embed Story Can Be True
Sunday, 15 Feb 2015 03:59 PM
By Sandy Fitzgerald

There is no way suspended NBC News anchorman Brian Williams was telling the truth about being embedded with a SEAL Team Six mission, a former member told CNN Sunday.

“What Brian Williams is saying, none of it can be true,” former SEAL Team Six member Don Mann told "Reliable Sources" host Brian Stelter. "For a reporter to be embedded with SEAL Team Six or any Tier One unit — that just doesn’t happen.

The objective for any such unit is to conceal its activities and mission, said Mann, and "the last thing in the world we would want is a reporter sitting in a helicopter embedded in one of these units.”

Williams told late night talk show host David Letterman in 2012 that he flew to Baghdad with SEAL Team Six, describing that he was told not to make eye contact with them or talk with them.

He later claimed he got a piece of fuselage from a helicopter downed during the assassination of Osama bin Laden, which Mann also said could not be possible.

For a SEAL Team Six member to have retrieved a piece of a downed helicopter would have entailed too much risk during the heat of battle, he pointed pointed

“In the midst of all that a SEAL would have to go back in and grab a piece of that tail,” Mann told Stelter. "There’s no way in the world that would happen. It would be criminal.”

There have been a few cases in which members gave souvenirs to presidents or CIA directors, but reporters would not get one, said Mann.

“A reporter’s objective is in contrast to the military’s,” Mann said. “A reporter wants to expose everything that we’re trying to conceal.”

Mann's statements were similar to those of another former SEAL, Brandon Webb, who told The Huffington Post that Williams' story sounded "completely preposterous" because the SEAL community has a "healthy dislike" to embedded journalists.

Further U.S. Special Operations Command Spokesman Ken McGraw said that the military does not "embed journalists with this or an other unit that conducts counter-terrorism missions."

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/brian-williams-nbc-news-seal-embed/2015/02/15/id/624926/#ixzz3RwjwO0TB

[olevetonahill]

Not looking good for Brian's return.

Heard hes gonna Run Billarys 2016 campaign , hes well qualified

[SicEmBaylor]

Stick a fork in him, Williams is done. The more this piles up, the more improbable his return becomes.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Truly the Lame Stream Media is being seen as the faux news networks that they are...

From Dan Rather now Liar Liarton Williams. News Readers is too nice a name, they sure as hell aren't "journalists"...

[okie52]

Heard hes gonna Run Billarys 2016 campaign , hes well qualified

heh...

[champions77]

So here is NBC, the ones that rigged a Chevy pickup with the side mounted gas tanks with a device to insure that an explosion would result from a side impact, feigning outrage at Brian Williams lie, but refuse to hold BHO to the same standards, time and time again? Probably influenced Brian Williams to exaggerate the truth a tad. Sure makes for a lot more interesting story telling on Letterman.
When the lies of Bill Clinton were exposed and his fans reasoned it away with "I voted for the President of the United States, not the Pastor of the United States". Nice. As if someone that lies one time about one thing, would not lie about something else is naivety at the highest degree.

A the next press conference, would it not be nice to have a reporter when questioning BHO preface his remarks by saying "Now Mr. President it is a proven fact that you are a liar. So why would you expect us to believe you now as to this particular issue?" The fact that BHO, despite the fact that he has been caught in numerous lies, has a 40% approval rating? Standards and values have been compromised in this country. And it does not serve us well. We can only pray that we'll vote for the person that is the most trustworthy in 2016, the one that allows his past to be examined and has a history of surrounding himself with honorable people of unquestionable integrity. Not the one that gives the best speech, or is perceived as the "coolest".

[Sooner8th]

So here is NBC, the ones that rigged a Chevy pickup with the side mounted gas tanks with a device to insure that an explosion would result from a side impact, feigning outrage at Brian Williams lie, but refuse to hold BHO to the same standards, time and time again? Probably influenced Brian Williams to exaggerate the truth a tad. Sure makes for a lot more interesting story telling on Letterman.When the lies of Bill Clinton were exposed and his fans reasoned it away with "I voted for the President of the United States, not the Pastor of the United States". Nice. As if someone that lies one time about one thing, would not lie about something else is naivety at the highest degree. A the next press conference, would it not be nice to have a reporter when questioning BHO preface his remarks by saying "Now Mr. President it is a proven fact that you are a liar. So why would you expect us to believe you now as to this particular issue?" The fact that BHO, despite the fact that he has been caught in numerous lies, has a 40% approval rating? Standards and values have been compromised in this country. And it does not serve us well. We can only pray that we'll vote for the person that is the most trustworthy in 2016, the one that allows his past to be examined and has a history of surrounding himself with honorable people of unquestionable integrity. Not the one that gives the best speech, or is perceived as the "coolest".Too bad the right doesn't hold faux "news" and republican presidents to the same standard. Fox News apologizes 4 times for inaccurate comments about Muslims in Europe http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/18/medi...slam-comments/

[champions77]

Too bad the right doesn't hold faux "news" and republican presidents to the same standard. Fox News apologizes 4 times for inaccurate comments about Muslims in Europe http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/18/medi...slam-comments/

Hey at least they Apologize. What inaccurate comments did they make about Muslims in Europe?

How many times has your hero apologized for the lies and misinformation he has perpetuated during his 6 plus years? You do agree that without his multiple lies, his signature legislation, the ACA, would have never been passed, right? What a legacy. And some would say that morals and integrity are not important considerations when choosing a President? Maybe the most ignorant thing I've ever heard.

[Sooner8th]

Hey at least they Apologize. What inaccurate comments did they make about Muslims in Europe? How many times has your hero apologized for the lies and misinformation he has perpetuated during his 6 plus years? You do agree that without his multiple lies, his signature legislation, the ACA, would have never been passed, right? What a legacy. And some would say that morals and integrity are not important considerations when choosing a President? Maybe the most ignorant thing I've ever heard.You don't know? This was a HUGE story - look it up. I gave you a link. NBC and williams both apologized, is it good enough like the faux "news" apology is? obama did apologize for the some losing their insurance. Tell me - has bush or ANY republican apologized for saying tax cuts wouldn't cause deficits? Has bush or ANY republican apologized for lying about everything to do with iraq? NO....

[champions77]

You don't know? This was a HUGE story - look it up. I gave you a link. NBC and williams both apologized, is it good enough like the faux "news" apology is? obama did apologize for the some losing their insurance. Tell me - has bush or ANY republican apologized for saying tax cuts wouldn't cause deficits? Has bush or ANY republican apologized for lying about everything to do with iraq? NO....

I am not going to do to great lengths to defend W. He did spend money like a liberal democrat. He certainly was not a conservative. Neither is Jed. The tax cuts were his way of stimulating the economy, no worse than the deficits created by your hero, as a matter of fact BHO will have created ten trillion in debt in 8 years, W four. Both created way too much debt.

As to W lying about Iraq? So W was the dumbest President in US History, at least that's what the left claims, but was smart enough to hoodwink Congress and the American people into going to War? Sorry but that dog doesn't hunt. It's an absurd theory, not based on fact. Even before W was President, many dems are on record as stating that Saddam cannot be allowed to have WMD's. Intell confirmed this.

We should never have to apologize in fighting evil. Saddam, using poison gas, a WMD, murdered thousands of Kurds in Northern Iraq. Maybe the story that should be told today is how our Commander in Chief, in giving our play book to the enemy, by giving out troop withdrawal time frames and what we would do or not do, allowed ISIS (the JV Team) to gain a strategic stronghold in Iraq, now occupying thousands of square miles, effectively giving away any advantages we had gained from our previous deployment. All because he was going to placate his leftist base, regardless of what negative consequences that would result. A residual force, left behind, would have prevented what we have today.

[Sooner8th]

I am not going to do to great lengths to defend W. He did spend money like a liberal democrat. He certainly was not a conservative. Neither is Jed. The tax cuts were his way of stimulating the economy, no worse than the deficits created by your hero, as a matter of fact BHO will have created ten trillion in debt in 8 years, W four. Both created way too much debt. As to W lying about Iraq? So W was the dumbest President in US History, at least that's what the left claims, but was smart enough to hoodwink Congress and the American people into going to War? Sorry but that dog doesn't hunt. It's an absurd theory, not based on fact. Even before W was President, many dems are on record as stating that Saddam cannot be allowed to have WMD's. Intell confirmed this. We should never have to apologize in fighting evil. Saddam, using poison gas, a WMD, murdered thousands of Kurds in Northern Iraq. Maybe the story that should be told today is how our Commander in Chief, in giving our play book to the enemy, by giving out troop withdrawal time frames and what we would do or not do, allowed ISIS (the JV Team) to gain a strategic stronghold in Iraq, now occupying thousands of square miles, effectively giving away any advantages we had gained from our previous deployment. All because he was going to placate his leftist base, regardless of what negative consequences that would result. A residual force, left behind, would have prevented what we have today.You mean like a conservative republican. In constant 2009 dollars reagan increased spending by 80%, bush 1 by 29% over 4 years, clinton the same 29% but over 8 years, bush II 66% over eight years, obama only 17.5% over 6 years. You have got to be kidding me. NONE of those reasons were given to invade iraq. NONE. Iraq has WMD's we know that for a FACT. Mushroom clouds. I see you are following jeb's talking points - my brother was right and it is all obama's fault. unfvckingbelievable............................... ..............

[Sooner in Tampa]

I am not going to do to great lengths to defend W. He did spend money like a liberal democrat. He certainly was not a conservative. Neither is Jed. The tax cuts were his way of stimulating the economy, no worse than the deficits created by your hero, as a matter of fact BHO will have created ten trillion in debt in 8 years, W four. Both created way too much debt.

As to W lying about Iraq? So W was the dumbest President in US History, at least that's what the left claims, but was smart enough to hoodwink Congress and the American people into going to War? Sorry but that dog doesn't hunt. It's an absurd theory, not based on fact. Even before W was President, many dems are on record as stating that Saddam cannot be allowed to have WMD's. Intell confirmed this.

We should never have to apologize in fighting evil. Saddam, using poison gas, a WMD, murdered thousands of Kurds in Northern Iraq. Maybe the story that should be told today is how our Commander in Chief, in giving our play book to the enemy, by giving out troop withdrawal time frames and what we would do or not do, allowed ISIS (the JV Team) to gain a strategic stronghold in Iraq, now occupying thousands of square miles, effectively giving away any advantages we had gained from our previous deployment. All because he was going to placate his leftist base, regardless of what negative consequences that would result. A residual force, left behind, would have prevented what we have today. That narrative has been ignored by the left forever. There was little doubt in A LOT of peoples heads about Saddam and WMDs and they were not just Americans!! I think Saddam WANTED the world to think he had WMDs so there would be a certain amount of fear in dealing with Iraq.

[SicEmBaylor]

We should never have to apologize in fighting evil. Saddam, using poison gas, a WMD, murdered thousands of Kurds in Northern Iraq. Maybe the story that should be told today is how our Commander in Chief, in giving our play book to the enemy, by giving out troop withdrawal time frames and what we would do or not do, allowed ISIS (the JV Team) to gain a strategic stronghold in Iraq, now occupying thousands of square miles, effectively giving away any advantages we had gained from our previous deployment. All because he was going to placate his leftist base, regardless of what negative consequences that would result. A residual force, left behind, would have prevented what we have today.

There is a hell of a lot of evil in this world, and it is neither necessary nor our responsibility to rid the world of it. Removing Saddam was one of the worst Presidential decisions in American history. Saddam was a secular leader who kept the radical jihadists in his country under control brutal and evil though he may have been. Everything that has happened in Iraq since is a direct consequence of that initial decision to invade despite the fact that so many now blame ISIS on Obama. The man deserves universal scorn and criticism, but not on that issue.

Nobody gave the Jihadists our 'playbook.' That's as dumb as it is asinine. They have a very long memory, they're very patient, and it's their territory. It doesn't matter a hill of beans whether we announced a pullout date or not -- we created a vacuum in Iraq the Jihadists have been more than capable, predictably, of filling. Unless you believe that the United States should remain deployed in Iraq in-perpetuity, this is a problem that was created when the first American soldier touched Iraqi soil in 2003. And if you think we ever had an 'advantage' in Iraq then you're delusional. There was no lasting advantage; there was only an unsustainable short term advantage.

[champions77]

There is a hell of a lot of evil in this world, and it is neither necessary nor our responsibility to rid the world of it. Removing Saddam was one of the worst Presidential decisions in American history. Saddam was a secular leader who kept the radical jihadists in his country under control brutal and evil though he may have been. Everything that has happened in Iraq since is a direct consequence of that initial decision to invade despite the fact that so many now blame ISIS on Obama. The man deserves universal scorn and criticism, but not on that issue.

Nobody gave the Jihadists our 'playbook.' That's as dumb as it is asinine. They have a very long memory, they're very patient, and it's their territory. It doesn't matter a hill of beans whether we announced a pullout date or not -- we created a vacuum in Iraq the Jihadists have been more than capable, predictably, of filling. Unless you believe that the United States should remain deployed in Iraq in-perpetuity, this is a problem that was created when the first American soldier touched Iraqi soil in 2003. And if you think we ever had an 'advantage' in Iraq then you're delusional. There was no lasting advantage; there was only an unsustainable short term advantage.

If you do not believe that announcing our future intentions publicly in a war zone is not giving our enemy an advantage, then you are lacking serious common sense. You keep putting it all on Bush. And I am certainly not a "Bush apologist", but you conveniently forget how many people at the time, were intent on removing Saddam Hussein from power, both parties. When the war dragged on, it all of a sudden became "Bush's War" as if he was the only one in our government in favor or it.
By the way, I don't think it is necessary to throw out personal attacks on here because I may possess an opposing view than yours. You remind me some of 8th who resorts to personal attacks when disagreeing with someone. Pretty weak shtick.

[Sooner8th]

That narrative has been ignored by the left forever. There was little doubt in A LOT of peoples heads about Saddam and WMDs and they were not just Americans!! I think Saddam WANTED the world to think he had WMDs so there would be a certain amount of fear in dealing with Iraq.AGAIN - none of these reasons were given at the time. It was all about he HAD WMD's and mushroom clouds.

[Sooner8th]

If you do not believe that announcing our future intentions publicly in a war zone is not giving our enemy an advantage, then you are lacking serious common sense. You keep putting it all on Bush. And I am certainly not a "Bush apologist", but you conveniently forget how many people at the time, were intent on removing Saddam Hussein from power, both parties. When the war dragged on, it all of a sudden became "Bush's War" as if he was the only one in our government in favor or it. By the way, I don't think it is necessary to throw out personal attacks on here because I may possess an opposing view than yours. You remind me some of 8th who resorts to personal attacks when disagreeing with someone. Pretty weak shtick.What do you mean sudden became "Bush's War"? It was ginned up by cheney and bush! The whole damn rotten thing.

[champions77]

Pre-War Quotes from Democrats

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. *

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998. * video

"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century."
Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998 *

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998 *

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998. *

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998. *

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. *

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. *

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. *

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. *

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. *

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. *

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. *

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002 * video

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. *

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002. *

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002. *

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002. * video

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002. *

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. *

[Sooner8th]

Pre-War Quotes from Democrats "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. * "Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998. * video "Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century." Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998 * "It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path." Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998 * "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998. * "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998. * "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. * "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. * "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. * "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. * "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. * "We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. * "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. * "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. * "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. * "My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..." John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002 * video "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. * "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002. * "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002. * "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002. * video "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002. * "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. *You are desperately trying to re-write history. Those first ones have nothing to do with attacking iraq. The rest of them was listening to cheney's cherry picked and made up intel. Hell, they even fooled colin powell, who in turn fooled me. It was a war ginned up by cheney and bush under false pretenses - PERIOD.

[champions77]

8th, I know you are desperately trying to lay 100% on Bush, and Bush was the driving force in going to war, agreed. But to try and remove the dems from any culpability in the matter is a silly exercise on your part. History has a way of leaving a lasting footprint. Sometimes it favors you looking back...and sometimes it does not. The fact is that a lot of dems, even way before W, wanted Saddam gone. Their words are proof of that, and they're well documented.

[Sooner8th]

8th, I know you are desperately trying to lay 100% on Bush, and Bush was the driving force in going to war, agreed. But to try and remove the dems from any culpability in the matter is a silly exercise on your part. History has a way of leaving a lasting footprint. Sometimes it favors you looking back...and sometimes it does not. The fact is that a lot of dems, even way before W, wanted Saddam gone. Their words are proof of that, and they're well documented.I am desperately trying to lay 100% on Bush? Can't even use a new word? It is a 100% on bush. There is a HUGE difference between wanting him gone and willing to go to war to do it. It's like being married and wanting to sleep with someone else and doing it. Again - bush's war. PERIOD - no debate.

[champions77]

I am desperately trying to lay 100% on Bush? Can't even use a new word? It is a 100% on bush. There is a HUGE difference between wanting him gone and willing to go to war to do it. It's like being married and wanting to sleep with someone else and doing it. Again - bush's war. PERIOD - no debate.

You mean stand up there giving speech after speech, talking about how we cannot allow Saddam to have WMD's, but it takes someone else who has a set to do what they could only talk about?
Must be in the democrat DNA. I don't know how many "tough guy" speeches your hero has given, a guess by now you have conveniently forgotten the "red line" speech on Syria that Putin had to bail him out on. BHO is a very scary guy to have leading us right now. Your adversaries sense when you are weak, and they will be their most aggressive when they see or sense that.

Gosh knowing what we now see in Putin, I wonder what BHO was promising Putin through Medvedev that night on the stage when the live mike picked up BHO's promise to Putin? Do what you want, we won't interfere? Putin figured out BHO was weak when he cancelled the missile defense system for Eastern Europe that was promised by W. I think he did that the first week he was in office. That was followed by the "apology tour" right? What a show of strength.

[champions77]

For those that have forgotten what a horrible despot Saddam was;

Life in Iraq under Saddam

On July 8, 1982 Saddam Hussein drove into the city of Dujail, Iraq. After six men attempted to ambush the dictator, thousands of Dujail residents were thrown in jail and tortured. At least 148 men and boys were executed on orders signed by Saddam Hussein. link video

Saddam pursued a long-term program of persecuting the Iraqi Kurds, including the use of chemical weapons. During the Iran/Iraq war, Saddam appointed his cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, as his deputy in the north. In 1987-88, al-Majid led the "Anfal" campaign of attacks on Kurdish villages. Amnesty International estimates that more than 100,000 Kurds were killed or disappeared during this period. link link

As well as ensuring his absolute control inside Iraq, Saddam tried to make Iraq the dominant power of the region. In pursuit of these objectives he led Iraq into two wars of aggression against neighbors, the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait. link link

On June 27, 1993 Vice President Al Gore said, "But there's no question about the fact that he and his Baathist regime in Iraq rule by terror and atrocity, and they have intimidated the people of Iraq by imposing such suffering upon them to let him remain in power. He tortures people, kills people and so he has remained in power and that's unfortunate." link

The Oil-for-Food Program was established by the United Nations in 1995 and it terminated in late 2003. Its intent was to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs. The program was introduced as a response to arguments that ordinary Iraqi citizens were inordinately affected by the economic sanctions aimed at demilitarizing Saddam Hussein's Iraq, imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War. Under UN supervision, the Oil-for-Food program became a major financial scandal allowing Saddam to pocket billions of dollars through kickbacks and other illicit deals. In addition to the billions of dollars Saddam received illegally under Oil-for-Food, many more billions were gained by smuggling oil to neighboring countries outside of the program. During this period, the United States Navy searched thousands of ships bound for or departing Iraq as part of its Maritime Intercept Operations and the enforcement of U.N. economic sanctions. link link

The Baath Party was the only legal political party in Iraq. It pervaded all aspects of Iraqi life. Membership, was necessary for self advancement and conferred benefits from the regime. link link

Army officers were an important part of the government's network of informers. Suspicion that officers had ambitions other than the service of the President led to immediate execution. It was routine for Saddam to take pre-emptive action against those who he believed might conspire against him. link link

Human rights abuses under Saddam:


4000 prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib Prison in 1984.
3000 prisoners were executed at the Mahjar Prison between 1993 and 1998.
About 2500 prisoners were executed between 1997 and 1999 in a "prison cleansing" campaign.
122 male prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/ March 2000. A further 23 political prisoners were executed there in October 2001.
In October 2000, dozens of women accused of prostitution were beheaded without any judicial process. Some were accused for political reasons.
Women prisoners at Mahjar were routinely raped by their guards.
Methods of torture used in Iraqi jails include using electric drills to mutilate hands, pulling out fingernails, knife cuts, sexual attacks and 'official rape'.
Prisoners at the Qurtiyya Prison in Baghdad and elsewhere were kept in metal boxes the size of tea chests. If they did not confess they were left to die. link link link

Saddam issued a series of decrees establishing severe penalties for criminal offences. These include amputation, branding, cutting off ears, and other forms of mutilation. Those found guilty of slandering the President could have their tongue removed. video link

Much of the recent controversy surrounding Abu Ghraib has made only vague reference to the prison's nightmarish past. Under Saddam Hussein, some thirty thousand people were executed there, and countless more were tortured and mutilated, returning to Iraqi society as visible evidence of the brutality of Baathist rule instead of being lost to the anonymity of mass graves.
video video link link

Saddam's son Udayy maintained a private torture chamber known as the Red Room in a building on the banks of the Tigris disguised as an electricity installation. He ordered the Iraq football team to be caned on the soles of the feet for losing a World Cup match. He created a militia in 1994 which used swords to execute victims outside their own homes. He has personally executed dissidents, for instance in the Shia uprising at Basra which followed the Gulf War. video video link

Members of Saddam's family were also subject to persecution. Some 40 of Saddam's relatives, including women and children, were killed. link link

The Fedayeen (Uday Hussein's militia) assassinated opposition figures, broke the backs of those accused of lying to the government and chopped off tongues, fingers, hands and heads. Sometimes victims were decapitated and the heads were delivered to their families. link link

On September 17, 2002 President George W. Bush wrote, "The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to be able to speak freely; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children—male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society—and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages." While the President was not specifically referring to Iraq this September 2002 National Security Strategy report defined the foreign policy goals of the Bush Administration (sometimes called the Bush Doctrine). The National Security Strategy was updated in March 2006. link link

On March 11, 2003 ABC's Nightline reported that thousands of Marsh Arabs were murdered by Saddam Hussein. Marsh Arabs live in an area along the southern border of Iran and Iraq believed by many to be biblical site of the Garden of Eden. During the 1990's the wetlands were drained for two primary reasons. Draining of the wetlands allowed Saddam to seize political control over the region and it also gave improved access for oil exploration. ABC reported that since 1991 an estimated 100,000 Iraqi Marsh Arabs had become refugees in Iran. video

On April 9, 2003 U.S. forces entered the city of Bagdad. CBS News reported, "With the regime's feared security forces nowhere to be seen, Iraqis dared to cheer U.S. troops and attack the symbols of Saddam's rule. They danced in the streets, waving rifles, palm fronds and flags, and defaced posters of the longtime Iraqi president..." link video

In October of 2003, an Iraqi torture tape was obtained by the media. On the tape, what appear to be Fedayeen Saddam members and Republican Guard troops are shown administering cruel punishments, including chopping off fingers, cutting off tongues, breaking a wrist with a heavy stick, and throwing people off a multi-story building. Also depicted is a beheading by sword, which takes several attempts to complete. video link link

In July of 2004, the Iraqi National Olympic Committee put on display torture devices which were used by Uday Hussein to punish soccer players who failed to perform to expectations. Journalists were shown medieval-style torture equipment, including an "iron maiden-like" casket with metal spikes fixed to the inside. Talip Mutan, an Olympic Committee official said, "There were torture camps of Uday Hussein where sportsmen and women had been murdered or tortured, beaten and left to rot. Your worst nightmares came true in those camps. Using an iron maiden, Uday used to punish not only athletes but also everyone who made him angry. Tortured people were kept in it for hours. When he was nearly dead, he would be brought out..." Also on display was a chain whip with steel barbs the size of a tennis ball attached to the end. Uday would also beat them with iron bars, tan the soles of their feet, and drag them on pavements until their backs became bloodied, then dunk them in sewage to ensure the wounds became infected. video link link

On March 24, 2006 U.S. Joint Forces Command published the "Iraqi Perspectives Project: A View of Operation Iraqi Freedom from Saddam's Senior Leadership." This unclassified report defined the nature of Saddam's regime by stating, "His atrocities differ from those of Hitler and Stalin only in scale, not intent." Inside Iraq societal relations broke down as neighbor no longer trusted neighbor and citizens feared denunciation even by their own family. "In a meeting of Baath Party officials one of Saddam's thugs singled out for special praise to Saddam a man who had executed his own brother for blaspheming the regime." link

[Sooner8th]

JESUS...........................what part of none of these were brought up for a reason to go to war do you not get? Keep coping and pasting and build your case in your mind. Iraq was bush's war, you voted for him twice, get over it.

[champions77]

JESUS...........................what part of none of these were brought up for a reason to go to war do you not get? Keep coping and pasting and build your case in your mind. Iraq was bush's war, you voted for him twice, get over it.

Hey I'm really not here to condone our involvement in Iraq at all. Probably was not the right decision. But I think it is a tad disingenuous for those on here to make it out like Saddam didn't do that many bad things and that the war was 100% on George W. Bush, and the Democrats were 100% against it. Also the notion that we did not have many problems with Muslims until we invaded Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. These monsters have been killing innocent people around the world for centuries.
Iraq? Hindsight is 20/20. You could second guess a lot of things, a lot of decisions in the past. Your "vision" is always better looking back than looking forward.
Do I want Jeb Bush to be the Republican nominee for President? HELL NO!!

[Sooner8th]

Hey I'm really not here to condone our involvement in Iraq at all. Probably was not the right decision. But I think it is a tad disingenuous for those on here to make it out like Saddam didn't do that many bad things and that the war was 100% on George W. Bush, and the Democrats were 100% against it. Also the notion that we did not have many problems with Muslims until we invaded Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. These monsters have been killing innocent people around the world for centuries. Iraq? Hindsight is 20/20. You could second guess a lot of things, a lot of decisions in the past. Your "vision" is always better looking back than looking forward.Do I want Jeb Bush to be the Republican nominee for President? HELL NO!!I never said democrats where a 100% against it. What I said was - it is bush's war. 100% - cheney and bush wanted it, promoted it, LIED about it. End of story..................