Actually Henny, I was pointing that out to someone who might still be of the opinion that they do things because it is the right thing to do. The reason you picked that line out is because, as a Republican, you generally choose to attack what's safe to ridicule, right? I mean, you didn't actually believe I was saying America shouldn't look out for it's own self interests, did you? You really are smarter than that, aren't you? My point was that the tactic of spin has gotten to be more important than actually doing the right thing. Secrecy and deceit aren't sound tactics, because even if Mother Theresa is your spiritual advisor, if you lie about it it looks like you are hiding something. People should trust their government, and the government should make it a top priority that the people have reason to trust it. -Michael
If you are ashamed of what you support, it's time for review. If you support what the enemies of our country support, be proud and stand along side them. If you support America, be proud and stand with it. The choice isn't "I hate Bush therefore I will take the positions that will most benefit our enemies." Hate Bush all you want, but don't use it to promote hatred of America and supporting positons of our enemies (and I'm not claiming you are, just an illustration of where I'm coming from). It is possible to dislike the president, but love and support your country. I didn't care for Clinton, but I wouldn't sell my country out (like the NYT) over it. And I damn sure wouldn't create an avatar with Clinton's photo with "real terrorist" across it just because he let bin laden go three times. And I damn sure wouldn't use Clinton's failures to justify supporting the positions of terrorists. It is possible to dislike the president and still be against terrorists. Check out ly2's posts some time. He hates Bush, but he hates terrorists more. I personally don't care whether someone hates or loves Bush. I've not been happy with everything he's done either. But that hatred crosses the line when people invoke it to trash their country and take on the same positions our enemies do. What the NYT did was treason. They didn't just mention a program that existed, they wrote a column and covered details of it. And immediately, the fallout was apparent (with the link I posted above). Did the NYT serve the best interests of America by exposing details of a secret and legal program used to combat terrorism, or did the the NYT serve the best interests of our enemies by giving them details and saying "watch out" like they've done before? That shouldn't be about Bush, that's about America. What they did (again) was wrong. That's selling your country out because your hatred of a man is more empowering than the security of your country. There's no excuse for that. One should be able to say what the NYT did was wrong and they don't like Bush. They are not mutually exclusive positions. Nor is hating Bush vs supporting the positions of terrorists.
Bullshit GTech, you would say the same thing about the Watergate reporters that busted your hero Nixon!
Who needs a watergate? Democrats can't even secure their own computers, how could we expect them to secure America?
It's funny to sell out the values and the American people to Republicans Henny, but we know your mindset already! Want to know how the American People answer back?? It is called IMPEACHMENT!
Your day is coming after the mid terms and the NYTimes is going to be a big help in getting idiots out of the White House!
Ok, not disagreeing with you, just curious. You've been on about this for quite a while now, how many signatures have you personally collected? Are you in fact doing anything positive about it? This isn't one of those "somebody should do something" things that merely repeating it for a year and a half helps with. -Michael
Yes, I'm sorry I'm not human and have no intelligence whatsoever. I am sorry that teenagers, as you once were one, know nothing at all. Heck, how do I survive? I have no intelligence to eat or breathe or digest lunch... wait, how did YOU survive? You must have known SOMETHING as a teenager, which means I do too. I'm out, -Matt
compuXP, glad to see some of the youth can see through the drive by media. Congrats! Its tough to get the real deal when you are constantly barraged with left wing programming.
Which one is better lying for getting head or lying to have people killed. Thousands with no end in site.
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton Depends on what is a lie "[W]e 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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 "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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998 "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002 "(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003 "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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
Gtech you keep beating the same old drum. The major selling point for the Iraqi war was the so called weapons of mass destruction which none were found and the link between Sadam Hussein and Al Qaeda which there was none. Why do you try to distort the truth??
And you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la la I can't hear you!" WMD have been found and many links to al qaida were found as well. Why keep lying and say differently. Doesn't your integrity mean anything? You'd sell out your integrity because your hatred of Bush is so great?