Cynical Nation

Compare this to White House staffers all illegally deleting their incriminating email so that it can't be supoenaed.

This is the inherent difference between liberals and so-called conservatives. Liberals are well-meaning, so they can be objective and honest, even about there own faults. Conservatives know that they are liars and thieves, never admit to anything, destroy evidence, don't allow the minority party ANY say in anything, come up with "nuclear options" to stop even the centuries old practice of the filibuster ... the list goes on. Conservatives behave like criminals, lie, conceal, and obstruct simply because they are power mongering fascists.

So, I didn't need to sit down for this one. Now if FOX ever admits to bias, WHEW! then I'll need to take a seat!

All I can say to BH is "Huh?"
Liberals are what and what ?!

ROTFFLMAO

Dan O, Barely has a rule, he has to say something completely and utterly stupid every 24 minutes...a difficult rule to uphold to be sure, but he does a decent enough job none-the-less.

Yes, this one's "This is the inherent difference between liberals and so-called conservatives. Liberals are well-meaning, so they can be objective and honest, even about there own faults," a real gem.

Ironically enough, Liberals, like say, Dan Rather, can't even admit when they've made an obvious and all too glaring mistake, like when they've been passed obviously phoney documents about someone's service record.

Jimmy Carter still peddles the same inane nonsense he based his failed Presidency on. A Presidency that created many of the problems we're dealing with today!

In fact, there is tons of evidence that Liberals seem to lack any self-reflection at all.

Still, in the face of all that, Barely can still come out with such inane statements. There's actually a bizarre "genius" to that - a "genius" for saying utterly vapid, insipid things.

Such is the "genius" of Barely Hanging.

Rather has maintained that the story was true, liar. He admitted that the document was forged. He only says that he did not KNOW IT AT THE TIME.

He says that he would have run the story without the document. It was all true. Even you know it was true, you know that Chimp had daddy get him out of real service.

So, once again you have lied. Dan Rather has admitted that the document was forged, he merely stands behind the story because the overwhelming evidence is that it is all true.

You can't even admit that Chimp & Co. orchestrated the invastion of Iraq under false pretenses. Bah.

Barely, that proves MY point. Rather still believes something without any documentation to back that belief up.

Fine, but putting his own naked beliefs up as a "news story" was reckless and irresponsible.

And he still refuses to admit that he was wrong!

Mary Mapes (a real dork) was fired....that was one good thing to come out of Rather-gate, BUT Rather hired that partisan hack as one of his producers, demonstrating the same kind of hideous judgment John Edwards did when he hired Amanda Marcotte as "an official Edwards campaign blogger."

As to Iraq, I've shown you the documented stories about Saddam's use of "Deterrence by Doubt" (NY Times) and explained how his refusing to comply with 1441 triggered that invasion....you, on the other hand, offer no documentation to the contrary.

You're right, I refuse to accept your inane opinion. Your prior judgment does not warrant that. Moreover, I've posted documented reports published in the NY Times (on several occasions)...so I'm not asking anyone to "take my word for it" (as you are), I'm asking that people take documented fact over foolish conjecture.

Oh god, do I actually have to bitchslap you with the actual facts AGAIN? This is getting boring:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rather

Rather held a one-on-one interview with Killian's personal secretary who vouched for the contents of the documents although she did not authenticate the documents in question themselves.

So I guess with the guy's personal secretary (and many others) validating the actual content of the document, maybe there was just a tiny bit of evidence, eh?

Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now, I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."

So, I guess Rather really did admit he was wrong, didn't he?

I guess you are just a lying sack of shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

In the Security Council meeting following the vote, the Syrian ambassador said on the record

Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[2]

Wow JMK, once again you are just a LYING SACK OF SHIT!

No documentation = NO STORY, Barely.

"Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now, I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."

Well for one thing, Barely that's neither admitting wrongdoing, nor accepting blame for the mishap, as that was part of broader statement blaming Mary Mapes (she was a big part of it) for the debacle.

Where's the statement of remorse OR the "I'm sorry," or "I apologize" or any admission that HE (Dan Rather) made a mistake?

Again, Dan Rather NEVER admitted "he was wrong." He DID throw Mary Mapes under the proverbial bus, but he's never admitted he was wrong.

As to the UNSC vote, it was UNANIMOUS.

AND it was passed as offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations"

US State Department Officials strenuously denied Syria's claim that any "assurances" came from either America or England.

Interesting how you so quickly take the word of a rogue nation like Syria's (Syria and Iran have been funding the insurgency in Iraq) over that of America's......interesting, that's all.

In violating 1441 Saddam Hussein triggered the invasion of Iraq, that's what the phrase "a FINAL opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations," it means the same thing as, "LAST chance Resolution."

LOL. I don't have to make you look stupid this time -- you just did my job for me.

Thanks!

Uhhhh, that's not an argument....or even a refutation, as you wisely did NOT imply that Rather actually admitted that HE was wrong, nor did you actually defend taking Syria's word over the U.S. State Department's.

1441 did NOT, did NOT NOT NOT (are you getting this?) it did NOT trigger an invasion. There was nothing about an invasion, military force, or any such action, either explicitly or even implied, in 1441.

Do I believe Syria over Chimp's cronies -- why yes I do! Syria has more credibility!

Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now, I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."

Stare at this for a long time, dummy. I think what you want Rather to say is "I knew it was all a lie, but being a Liberal I so hated honest true-blue American tough Texan and successful oilman George W. Bush that I just lied and used fake material on purpose to try and make him lose by any means necessary, just like the communist I am!"

Maybe you should buy a Dan Rather puppet and make it say that every night, so you can sleep soundly, know that Rush is Right!

Well, to be sure, Saddam Hussein's violation of 1441 did, DID, DID (how's that for emphasis?) trigger the invasion of Iraq, as it was indeed a "last chance" Resolution, what with it offering Iraq "a FINAL opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations," and all.

And not to put too fine a point on this, but Syria is a rogue-terror supporting state, so again, it's interesting, even ODD that you'd take the word of a Syrian diplomat over that of the US State Dept.

And again, Dan Rather said all that while throwing Mary Mapes under the proverbial bus.

No doubt, the nefarious Mapes, who was also a force behind the Abu Ghraib story, deserved that, BUT no where in that quote does Dan Rather admit he made a mistake, in FACT he emphasizes that he was duped by underlings. That's what "if I knew then what I know now, I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question," means - in short, "Don't blame ME, blame Mary Mapes. She's the one who brought this flawed story to me, in the first place."

Niiiice way to stick up for your cohorts Dan! Real niiiice.

"Maybe you should buy a Dan Rather puppet and make it say that every night, so you can sleep soundly, know that Rush is Right!" (BH)


You know, now I know exactly why I like these exchanges so much, it's like I'm being drawn into Office Space, one of my all time favorite flicks and it's as though I'm Lomborg and your that "red stapler guy."

Only instead of me/Lomborg saying, "Mmmmmmm, yeeeauuuh, I'm gonna have to have you go ahead and move your desk aaaaalll the way back to that wall, so we can put some more boxes in here," I say things like, "Mmmmmmm, yeeeeeauuuh, I'm gonna have to go ahead and explain the difference between "confiscation" and "freezing ill-gotten assetts again," OR "Mmmmmmm, Yeeeeauuuuh, that chart you posted showed that H-1B Visas went from about 50,000 to about 1 MILLION between 1993 and 2000, after TWO limit increases signed into law by the preeevious President, the current administration actually brought those limits back down to their original low levels."

And you do respond, predicatbly enough, a lot like that "red stapler guy," the equivalent of muttering, "OK, OK, but now I'm going to have to burn the whole building down."

How can I not enjoy this?