The Flimflam Men
Our print column on flimflammers present and past is up.
posted by Spencerblog at
9:01 AM
Friday, December 19, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
posted by Spencerblog at
9:01 AM
RSS Feeds© Copyright The Delaware County Times, a Journal Register Property & part of Journal Register PA -- All rights reserved | Our Publications | About Our Ads | Privacy Policy/Terms of Service
25 Comments:
eliminate ‘persons of congenitally defective reasoning’ from the gene pool.”
the so-called intelligentsia are the most gullible of all.”
I loved these two nugs! Sounds like he was talking about Libs! Lol...
Gil - You forgot to mention the biggest one of all. The Flimflam men in the White House. The guys that convinced America that Sadam was a threat to the U.S.
You mean White House men like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Sandy Berger? As well as would-be White House men, John Kerry, Wesley Clark and John Edwards?
Not to mention Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin and Henry Waxman.
See other flimflam men and women here.
I suppose you could these people con men and flimflammers, in so far as they said Saddam was a major threat with WMD, supported going to war against him and then renegged on that support when the going got tough.
Or you could just call them Democrats.
Forget that more LibDems than Repubs were sold on Saddam having WMDs. Bush lied! Waaaaahhh!
Gil - It was the Bush administration that sold this war to the suckers. Not Clinton, Kerry or anyone else. What ever happened to "the buck stops here?" Obviously this administrations saying is "Theres a sucker born every minute." Bush sought out inteligence that would fit in with his plans, and rejected the intel that didnt fit. There were some people, Howard Dean, Kucinich, Bob Graham, Obama, Joe Wilson, weapons inspectors Scott Ritter and Hans Blix, that weren't buying it. Just this past week the truth came out when Dick Cheney said we would have gone to war regardless of the WMD issue.
Bob,
The point stands.
Call Bush what you want. He sold the war in good faith. WMD was one reason given. There were others. And many many Democrats agreed with them.
Bush was no con man. It's silly and unpersuasive to try to paint him as one.
Gil - I wish Tim Russert was here to rerun some of the clips that prove you wrong. Bush did not sell this war on good faith. He sold this war on blind faith. Blind faith that the people of this country would support his beleif that he was a good Christian soldier doing Gods will by invading Iraq. How well I remember Bush saying that he had proof that Sadam was trying to buy yellow cake from Africa. When that was proven to be false, he changed his language to say that "the British believe Sadam was attempting to buy yellow cake." Thats AFTER he was told that the information was bogus. Am I making that up Gil? How good is your memory? That's selling the war on good faith? And I remember Russert calling him on it. Then there was this statement by Bush on Meet the Press "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." And Im watching this and thinking - BS! The inspectors were just there! Whats he talking about? Months before the war, IAEA scientists were telling Bush that the aluminum tubes were not suited for nuclear weapons. Bush KNEW this, but ignored this information. Then there was the exodus of people from the administration who claimed that Bush was just LOOKING for a reason to go into Iraq. And now Cheney is confirming that. And how many times did Bush try to tie Iraq to 9/11? Every time he spoke about going to war with Iraq, he mentioned 9/11. Not once, but over and over. He knew damn well there was no proof of a connection, but he saw this as a way to convince people to support his war effort. And you SUCKERS bought into it. What exactly do you believe Gil? Do you believe there are still WMD's? Do you believe Sadam was connected to 9/11? Do you believe Joe Wilson's claims were wrong? Are you willing to ignore evidence, and historical fact in your search for moral justification? The point stands Gil. Bush did not sell this war in good faith. Bush used cherry picked intelligence, half truths, and imbelishments to sell this war, because that was the only way he COULD sell it. And because of that, over 4208 soldiers are dead, and well over 20,000 seriously wounded. And because of that there are close to 98,000 dead Iraqi's. And because of this invasion, Iraq became a real life training ground for terrorists, and it became a reason, and a rallying point for American hatred. All because this pathetic excuse for a president was determined to take out Sadam. Maybe you can forget the way this really went down, but I never will.
Thought you would be interested in this quote from a journalist who writes for Israel's most reputable paper "According to Abbas, Bush said: 'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.'"
Good Faith ????
Bush was no con man. It's silly and unpersuasive to try to paint him as one.
Yeah, funny how Bush alternates between clueless dolt and sinister schemer like that. LibDems just can’t keep their stories straight.
This is what happens when angry simps let their emotions get the best of them and they get to grasping at reasons to justify their hurt feelings. And they type a lot too. Yep, like angry children, them Libs…
Bob - What are you A Comunist? Why woud you want to bash our president. You are still alive because of him. R is right. All of that stuff you write are just lib media lies. That stuff never happened.
Gil - What's silly and unpersuasive is trying to convince others, and possibly yourself, that this war was sold on good faith, when overwhelming evidence proves otherwise.
USA1? An unwelcome breath of stale air, combined with the stench of a urine soaked back alley. Aqualung comes to mind. The perfect compliment to R.
Bob,
There is no overwhelming evidence that the war was sold on bad faith.
It certainly appears the Bush Administration had it wrong when it came to WMD. But so did every other western intelligence agency in the WORLD.
You ignore what every Democrat had to say about the matter from Bill and Hillary Clinton to John Kerry, John Edwards, Carl Levin and all the rest.
The Senate Intelligence Committee had access to almost as much intelligence info as the administration. The intelligence was wrong on WMD. But not on what Saddam Hussein had done in the past and what he probably would have done in the future; reconstituted his nuclear program and WMD.
Bush bears the responsibility for taking the country to war. But to say he did it, knowing there was no WMD, as some sort of con is just weak partisan thinking.
As for USA1, can't you tell when you're being had? The comments have all the earmarks of someone who is aping Randal, not really agreeing with him.
Bob,
you could use some reading on these topics before you keep quoting Keith Olbermannn and MSNBC.
Take a look here, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html , for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's Report on the information Bush used for Iraq. If the 500+ pages is too much for you to read, it's summed up here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html).
During your reading, please note that there is a minority dissent as all your Lib friends cut out the conservatives during the reports preparation. And to think that the most "biased" report states over and over again, "substantiated by intelligence information." It's kind of funny you have the audacity (more like lack of knowledge due to your bias) to say what you do with the facts that are out there. You sit here and blame Bush for everything but forget to mention the fact that if Gore, Clinton, Hillary, etc would have dissented from the start, we wouldn't have gone with the public's support. You've found a scapegoat and will go to the grave blaming him for Iraq and the financial crisis (I'm sure Bush's plan helped Spain get their 25% unemployment rate).
Gil - I'm not buying it, and I'm surprised that you are. I gave you specific instances where the administration spun the truth to sell this war, as proof that Bush didn't sell it on good faith as you claim. You didn't address one of them.
You said "The Senate Intelligence Committee had access to almost as much intelligence info as the administration." Thats right. Why do you think Bob Graham was against the war. Please read Wash. Post column "What I knew before the invasion" by Bob Graham. Here's an excerpt. - "From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan. Now I had come to question whether the White House was telling the truth -- or even had an interest in knowing the truth.
On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not."
Gil, just my one assertion that Bush switched the wording of the yellow cake story, is proof that the war was not sold on good faith.
As Pat Buchanan said "This is an imperial war" I guess you still don't get it.
PS: I know USA1
Bob,
Obviously, you are so invested in the left's narrative of the war, it's pointless to continue.
That the left can't imagine that the Bush Administration got it wrong on the WMD but might have been right about the need to rid the region of Saddam Hussein is just too much for the left to bare.
Many Democrats understood the threat Saddam posed and supported the war effort to get rid of his thuggish regime. That mistakes were made in strategy and tactics, prolonging the war and making it bloodier is tragic and the administration deserves the lion's share of the blame.
But again, bad faith? Maybe you don't even know what good faith and bad faith are.
If you think that Bush started the war in Iraq out of some personal pique or for some personal or political gain then well that would be bad faith.
But if he believed deposing Saddam was in the best interests of America's long-term security well then - even if he was wrong about that - he was acting in good faith.
Joe Wilson is a liar and an ass. The Washington Post as much said so years ago.
Now, this is tiresome. On to more important things: How do you know USA1? And how do you know he is not having you on?
I can't take those individual seriously who believe W went into Iraq to avenge his father's failure to take out Saddam. Clearly, we were ALL convinced there were legitimate threats in Iraq with both WMD's and terrorist groups able to transport WMD's through their boundary.
Why not bring up those 9/11 conspirarists?
Gil - It doesn't surprise me that you, and many others on the right, would prefer the issue of how and why we went to war in Iraq, to become a non issue. Supporters of the war ended up with egg on their face. So even though soldiers continue to be deployed, injured and killed, the topic becomes, as you would say, "tiresome" to those who would prefer to push it to the back burner. Let me ask you this. If Bush intentionaly deceived the public to sell a war that he believed to be necessary, would that be in good faith? Not in my book. The Downing St. memos are more proof of an administration willing to do whatever is necessary to start a war. As for Joe Wilson, the easy way out is to trash him, rather than to admit that he was right about the yellow cake issue.
Jonas, I have said from the start that Democrats who voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, did so out of cowardice. After 9/11they were afraid they would come across as unpatriotic, and loose votes if they opposed Bush. Many also figured it would be a cake walk, and that they would end up on the right side of a wrong issue. Maybe you shoud research the Downing St. memos. BTW, I rarely watch Obernam.
Gil - How do I know USA1? Im the one that turned him onto your blog. I know he's aping R. I'm aping the aper. Can't you tell when your being had? Oh wait, you bought into the war. I guess you can't tell when your being had.
I suppose if Obama sends 30,000 more men to Afghanistan that'll be cool with the anti-war left because well, Obama can do no wrong.
We'll see.
You say the Democrats who voted for the war did so "out of cowardice."
Well, maybe. Or maybe they actually thought it was the right thing to do with the info that they had.
Who knows? You sure don't. And presuming the worst about the motives of people you don't know is the ultimate in "bad faith."
As for USA1, if you're going to ape the aper, and expect people to get it, you're going to have to do a better job.
Gil - I didn't expect anyone to get it. Other than USA1. I expected everyone else to buy into it. But hey! I just saw your latest post about Boston Barney! And you know what that means?
SHOW TUNES!!!!!!!!!
Hey C. Scott Shields, Esq. WWW.LAWYERSGONEWILD.com, are you ready to rumble?
Spencerblog
I dont know about you, but I get it. Monday Times headline:
Bloger Apes Aper. Makes monkey out of columnist.
We kid Spencerblog.
Gil - Gil - Reread your last post. How does any of that even address, or disprove my allegations ?
The administration sold this war by claiming that Sadam was an imminent threat.
Ever watch Lewis Black? He does a brilliant bit about the administrations selling of the war. Maybe you should watch it. Its on DVD and available at Hollywood or Netflix. If nothing else, you will appreciate the humor.
USA1 - Easy on the Jagermeister. You dont want to be the next David Diano.
Liberals... basing their politics of hurt feelings on comedian routines. Lol...
I don't think anyone wants to be the next David Diano, even DDD himself.
Gil - Just because someone is against the war in Iraq, doesn't make them anti war, or a pacifist. I think most reasonable people supported going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Most of the world supported that move also. It was the sudden shift af attention to Iraq that defied logic or reason. As for my statement about the Dems covering their asses, I firmly believe that. I dont care if it sounds like bad faith.
I know this is a difficult concept for Randal to grasp, but lets try.
We don't base our politics on comedy routines. The comedy routine by Lewis Black is based on fact, and is used as a tool to point out the lies and hypocracy of the Bush administration. If you don't think the use of comedy is an effective method to influence change, then you haven't been paying attention. John Stewart? Bill Maher? Come to think of it, I can't think of any really funny conservative comedians. I know Fox gave it a shot and it bombed. But then the best comedy is based on reality. Something you don't get to much of on Fox.
We don't base our politics on comedy routines.
This. Then followed by this in the very same post:
If you don't think the use of comedy is an effective method to influence change, then you haven't been paying attention.
Hurt Feelings Libs who get their politics from fellow shrill lying Lib partisans like Stewart and Maher are a riot! Lol... Such impressionable weak minded dupes shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home