Why?: Conservative, politics, opinion, american, average,

Mar. 19, 2008 at 08:45:51 AM

Why do left-wing hate sites and know-nothing, blowhard liberal radio hosts and commentators insist on lying about John McCain's Iraq quote by saying he "wants" to be in Iraq 100 years when it's clear he never said such a thing?

*** check it out

[link:www.youtube.com]

Why is the left lying about the so-called Bear Stearns bailout claiming the government has spent 30 billion dollars when they haven't spent a cent, just guarantees so far?

*** do you understand the way free govt money for big corporations works. The feds extend the offer of $30 bn, and their cronies take that as a starting point.

Why did Al Gore only want a selective recount in only Florida Counties with huge democrat voting majorities?

*** because that is where the undervotes were. West Palm Beach had the hanging chads, the 10%(?) of ballots with no vote for Pres, and the butterflies w/ Pat Buchannon's vote tallies gained 1000% from 96 to 2000.

Why is Bush V. Gore theft and Roe V. Wade not accessory to murder?

*** Why did the Supremes make the declarative statement in the ruling that the ruling could not be used as a precedent? As for Roe v Wade, the number of abortions was not changed as result of the ruling, only the manner in which they were done - safe and legally.

Why is the democrat campaign rally at McCain's office today being passed off as a protest? I wonder if Hillary and Bill Clinton's support for the war and their years of claiming Iraq had WMD's and that Saddam had to be removed will be a major topic?

*** uh, cuz they are protesting.

Why does the left gleefully cheerlead and hope for bad news and troop deaths in Iraq and bad economic news here at home?

*** No one wants more deaths in Iraq. We want the Iraqis to run their own country, as they have done for 5000 years.

Why are the coservative commentators on this site so much more fair and balanced and dedicated to facts than the fringe, partisan left-wing commentators?

*** I think that is likely your point of view. You also likely see Fox News as fair and balanced also.

Why, with all the bad economic and foreign policy news, does todays Zogby/Reuters presidential poll show McCain soundly whipping both Obama and Clinton? I thought McCain was just some old crazy guy who hugged Bush and Obama and Clinton were Gods gift to politics, to America and to the world?

*** Haven't seen the Zogby poll, I know the SurveyUSA from 2 weeks ago, Obama was not only whupping McCain by 12 points, he was leading in electoral college 240 to 180 in safe votes, and with leaners had 282. He is also within 3 points in TX, PA, and was leading FL.

Report Abuse

Voiceofreason

Mar. 19, 2008 at 09:10:22 AM

View Profile

Rating for this article

Phaedrus,

You gave responses but nothing that logically explains the continuing left-wing dishonesty and hypocrisy. I'll address a few:

McCain never said he "wanted" to be in Iraq 100 years. That's all I'm saying. Look at the tape. Why can't you liberals just quote him accurately? That's my point. It's a misquote, plain and simple and it appears the left can't make an argument without these types of lies.

As far as the so-called govt. bailout of Bear Stearns it's not a bailout. The government hasn't spent one dime! But dishonest Liberals are implying differently. One investor alone lost 800 million. How's that a bailout? Again, much like the McCain misquote the left can't make it's case without deception.

Al Gore wanted a recount in democrat counties because he was looking for an unfair advantage, any idiot knows that. There were undervotes and problems everywhere in the state. That's lame. If you want a recount you recount the entire state. That's why he lost, people recognized the hypocrisy and public opinion moved against him. The court recognized the obvious injustice and ruled correctly.

As far a cheerleading for bad news, why do liberals constantly lie about and inflate Iraq civilian deaths? They're constantly claiming the death tally is over a million when every credible, neutral, respected account places the deaths somewhere between 80,000 and 100,000. You're only lying by a thousand percent but who's counting? Face it, the left wants high body counts because it makes Bush look bad.

As far as the campaign rally masquerading as a protest, do you expect much talk of the Clinton's war support and their numerous claims of WMD's in Iraq? Don't answer, it's a trick question. Of course you don't. It's not a war protest, it's an anti-McCain campaign rally. As a matter of fact, I'm sure the crowd is hoping for lot's of American troop deaths today to give the rally some spice.

How's that for fair and balanced?

Report Abuse

Phaedrus

Mar. 19, 2008 at 09:52:24 AM

View Profile

The numbers on the Iraqi dead come from the Lancet, a Brit Med. journal. They put it around 1..4 mil dead, with about 100k from the initial invasion, another 300k plus dead from violence, bombs, IEDs, US attacks, and the rest from desentery, malnutrition, or other water borne illnesses that are easily preventable.

The Bear Stearns bailout at this point hasn't cost the Fed anything, but as those loans go into default, it will. Will all $30 go bad? no. But we know based on that portfolio's performance, that at least 5% will, and as things get worse, you can probably triple that.

I hope at the rally, someone asks McCain's peeps if they also believe that all Catholics are whores, and the religion is a cult.

Report Abuse

Phaedrus

Mar. 19, 2008 at 10:32:28 AM

View Profile

From Obama-

Now we know what we'll hear from those like John McCain who support open-ended war. They will argue that leaving Iraq is surrender. That we are emboldening the enemy. These are the mistaken and misleading arguments we hear from those who have failed to demonstrate how the war in Iraq has made us safer. Just yesterday, we heard Senator McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America's enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades.

*** Intelligence and judgment matter. You can't tell the players without a scorecard! If McCain needs Liebermann - Ct4L of CT to help him figure this out, who is going to be sleeping with him at 3am? Phone rings, and John answers, and he has to nudge Joe awake, get the facts straight and call the Pentagon back?

Report Abuse

www.MoronInCharge.com

Mar. 19, 2008 at 10:39:03 AM

View Profile

Voiceofreason, first off, welcome to Voice of Arizona. It's always nice to have a new face here, ready to engage in an intelligent debate on the issues.

That said, let's begin:

Why do left-wing hate sites and know-nothing, blowhard liberal radio hosts and commentators insist on lying about John McCain's Iraq quote by saying he "wants" to be in Iraq 100 years when it's clear he never said such a thing?

Because I heard it on the Jeff Farias Show, and that is where I go to get all my news. You should listen sometime. You're gonna love it.

Why is the left lying about the so-called Bear Stearns bailout claiming the government has spent 30 billion dollars when they haven't spent a cent, just guarantees so far?

Ditto.

Why did Al Gore only want a selective recount in only Florida Counties with huge democrat voting majorities?

Greg Palast wrote about vote caging in those Florida counties, and that guy is never wrong.

Why is Bush V. Gore theft and Roe V. Wade not accessory to murder?

Wow, those really do seem like the same thing. And in fact, the Supreme Court validated both. But my buddy Leonard Clark set me straight.

Why is the democrat campaign rally at McCain's office today being passed off as a protest? I wonder if Hillary and Bill Clinton's support for the war and their years of claiming Iraq had WMD's and that Saddam had to be removed will be a major topic?

Scott Ritter said we should go out and protest, so we're dressing up in our tie-dye shirts and gonna get high this afternoon. Peace out.

Why does the left gleefully cheerlead and hope for bad news and troop deaths in Iraq and bad economic news here at home?

We don't really want more deaths and another Great Depression, but we are so consumed by our hate and blind to your logic, that we'll pray for anything to make Bush look bad.

Why are the coservative commentators on this site so much more fair and balanced and dedicated to facts than the fringe, partisan left-wing commentators?

Goddamn, you're right! Oh well, I'm too married to Jeff, Greg, Leonard, and Scott to see the light now.

Why, with all the bad economic and foreign policy news, does todays Zogby/Reuters presidential poll show McCain soundly whipping both Obama and Clinton? I thought McCain was just some old crazy guy who hugged Bush and Obama and Clinton were Gods gift to politics, to America and to the world?

Maybe all of us liberals are too busy fisting our buddies in the back of a car to get out there and vote.

Hey that was a swell conservation we had Voiceofreason. I really appreciate your use of paragraphs and non-belligerent approach to the issues. It looks and sounds so different from the negative tone of other writers we've have had here lately. You are just a super writer.

Report Abuse

adam

Mar. 19, 2008 at 01:02:56 PM

View Profile

voiceofTREASON,

I am not going to cut you as much slack as MiC does....

http://www.voiceofarizona.com/The_935_Lies-5031-2-9289.htm

Why lie to kill people and make billions in profit?

Why does the media lie?

Who Got Iraq Right?
by Greg Mitchell and Tom Engelhardt

Just imagine: You run a flagship national newspaper, the New York Times. It's the fifth anniversary of President Bush's catastrophic invasion of Iraq. Your own record of reportage in the period leading up to the invasion was not exactly sterling. So, for a change of pace, you decide to turn most of your double op-ed page in your Sunday "Week in Review" over to people who can look back thoughtfully on the misapprehensions of that moment.

But who? Now, that's a tough one. You want "nine experts on military and foreign affairs" who can consider "the one aspect of the war that most surprised them or that they wished they had considered in the prewar debate." Hmm, sounds like an interesting idea. Of course, one option would be to gather together an involved crew who, even before the invasion began, saw in one way or another that problems, possibly disaster, lay ahead. That would be a logical thought…

…But it wouldn't be the Times, which this past Sunday chose to ask a rogue's gallery of "experts" who led (or cheer-led) us deep into the war and occupation what surprised them most. Leading off those pages were Richard Perle, nicknamed "the Prince of Darkness"; L. Paul Bremer III, the former American viceroy of Baghdad, who so brilliantly disbanded the Iraqi army and much of the country as well; not to speak of invasion and occupation cheerleaders Frederick Kagan, Danielle Pletka, and Kenneth M. Pollack. With the exception of Pollack, all of them unsurprisingly pointed the finger elsewhere or claimed they were really on the mark all along.

So, just in case the Times has a sudden, bizarre urge on some future anniversary to ask a cast of characters who didn't drive us into the nearest ditch to look back, it seems worthwhile to start on a list of suggestions for its editors. And that's where Greg Mitchell, the editor of Editor & Publisher magazine, comes in.

He himself is a shining example of someone who exhibited foresight about the invasion and then regularly dealt with issues that the mainstream media was slow to pick up. Just take, for example, this initial sentence he wrote on March 7, 2003, less than two weeks before Bush's invasion began, for a piece included in his new book, So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, The Pundits – and the President – Failed on Iraq: "Considering that we seem to be on the verge of a major war, with little firm evidence of the Iraqi WMD driving it, the questions for Bush at his final press conference before the war seems likely to start were relatively tame." Mitchell then asked 11 questions of his own, all more piercing than any posed on Sunday's Times op-ed page five years later.

As his book makes brilliantly evident, you didn't have to be wrong all the time to be an "expert" on Iraq. His article below begins the necessary acknowledgment of those who were right, or did right, in these years and it should encourage all of us to make our own lists and create our own walls of honor to go with the wall of shame the Times displayed Sunday.

My list would be long indeed, but it would certainly include: the Knight Ridder (now McClatchy) reporters Warren Stroebel and Jonathan Landy in Washington, as well as Tom Lasseter, Hannah Allam, and others in Iraq who never had a flagship paper to show off their work, but generally did far better reporting than the flagship papers; Seymour Hersh, who simply picked up where he left off in the Vietnam era (though this time for the New Yorker); Riverbend, the young Baghdad blogger who gave us a more vivid view of the occupation than any you could ordinarily find in the mainstream media (and who has not been heard from since she arrived in Syria as a refugee in October 2007); Jim Lobe, who covered the neocons like a blanket for Inter Press Service; independents Nir Rosen and Dahr Jamail, as well as Patrick Cockburn of the British Independent, who has been perhaps the most courageous (or foolhardy) Western reporter in Iraq, invariably bringing back news that others didn't have; the New York Review of Books, which stepped into some of the empty print space where the mainstream media should have been (with writers like Mark Danner and Michael Massing) and was the first to put into print in this country the Downing Street Memo, in itself a striking measure of mainstream failure; and Juan Cole, whose Informed Comment Web site was so on the mark on Iraq that reporters locked inside the Green Zone in Baghdad read it just to keep informed.

Maybe I'd throw in as well all the millions of non-experts who marched globally before the war began because commonsense and a reasonable assessment of the Bush administration told them a disaster – moral, political, economic, and military – of the first order was in the offing. And, of course, that's just a start. Tom

You are a bad hack Treason............

Report Abuse

whipitup

Mar. 19, 2008 at 10:03:00 PM

View Profile

[This is a reply to comment by www.MoronInCharge.com on Mar. 19, 2008 at 10:39:03 AM]

www.MoronInCharge.com
Mar. 19, 2008 at 10:39:03 AM

Voiceofreason, first off, welcome to Voice of Arizona. It's always nice to have a new face here, ready to engage in an intelligent debate on the issues.
That said, let's begin:
Why do left-wing hate sites and know-nothing, blowhard...

View this Comment

Moron, Listen to yourself:

"Because I heard it on the Jeff Farias Show, and that is where I go to get all my news."

"Greg Palast wrote about vote caging in those Florida counties, and that guy is never wrong."

"But my buddy Leonard Clark set me straight."

"Scott Ritter said we should go out and protest, so we're dressing up in our tie-dye shirts and gonna get high this afternoon."

Need I say more??????????

Report Abuse

Why?

Comments:

Hey that was a swell conservation we had Voiceofreason. I really appreciate your use of paragraphs and non-belligerent approach to the issues. It looks and sounds so different from the negative tone of other writers we've have had here lately. You are just a super writer.