Bob Beckel was on Hannity tonight, some of you might have seen him as he was, again, a member of the panel. This time, they were discussing the Nancy Pelosi/CIA situation. He said that any kind if inquiry would not be about whether or not Pelosi lied because "the American people don't really care about that...."
Hannity responded with the fact that he thought people DID care that she might have lied about our CIA and put our country in jeopardy........
The liberal Beckel chimed in with "Oh, please....as you talk I hear the Star Spangled Banner..."
Is it really just TOO PATRIOTIC for Americans to get to the truth, to expect a Speaker not to lie about the CIA? I found that a very curious and revealing comment........Did you catch it?
z
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
71 comments:
Beckel is exactly what's wrong with the Democrat Party. They have moved so far left, that they don't even realize how that remark sounds to the American people.
Amazing isn't it that the only thing they believe in is a political party. My Mom said to me once that for them "their party IS their religion". I think that's right.
Not all Democrats, but those who disdain their country, or Christians and patriotism, as "unenlightened" beliefs, are such shallow thinkers.
They stand for nothing but power, and in so doing tear everything down that's good and free.
Very sad.
Pris
Mustang, I actually get that feeling from Beckel, too...I do believe he knows the truth but he's too invested in hating Republicans to realize he's hating his country instead.
Pris, imagine that remark? I wish Hannity would have called him on it, but Hannity RARELY does that.
You didn't miss much, he had jesse ventura on.....who said Bush should have prevented 9/11 because they were told "Planes, Buildings" WHY didn't Hannity remind him that no president can ground American planes indefinitely! What is WITH these people?
Beckel should know better. I don't expect much from ventura.
Mustang,
"Either Mr. Beckel is a complete dumb ass, or he is dishonest."Actually, he's a Democrat, which is a political party split into two wings, dumbasses and liars.
You do remember the huge primary season rift between the dumb ass wing (Obama) and the liar wing (Hillary Clinton).
As a political strategist, Mr. Beckel has to have a foot in both camps.
When, on Monday night, Hannity introduced Bob Beckel (a senior political analyst for Fox News familiar to Hannity watchers) on the “Great American Panel”, Beckel said, “I know what my job is here. To be the piñata. So let’s go.”
About three minutes into the discussion:
BECKEL: Can I just make one point here? Tony [Blankley] makes it sound like this investigation will be about what Nancy Pelosi said and what she knew and when she knew it. The average American could give a damn about what she knew. This is a broad-ranging discussion of the Bush-Cheney administration–––something we would love to have. Barack Obama doesn’t want it, by the way.
HANNITY: Before we get into that–––this is important. When you say the American people don’t care: She accused the CIA of lying, Bob. It’s these brave men and women who put their lives on the line for our security and our safety. To protect her own skin and her contradicting statements, she lied, and she doesn’t have the character to stand up and–––
BECKEL: Can I stand up and do the Star Spangled Banner at the break? Or do you want me to do it now?
HANNITY: All right! [smiling to the camera]
BECKEL: I am not–––I am not–––jumping on the CIA, although they have had a long and troubled history with Congress. I used to be the liaison with intelligence committees on the Hill. Sometimes the CIA by nature does not come out and give a complete story.
To the disappointment of hair-trigger rightwing gaffe spotters, the banner line is obviously inspired by Beckel’s awareness of being the piñata on the program.
Bob Beckel is a perfect example of the Political Prostitute. Not even he believes the tripe he spews. You can't and be in the least intellectually honest.
I suppose that he may be a dyed in the wool liberal, but I can't see very many people that truly drink the cool-aid to that degree. On the other hand, Barry has the tendency to make "shivers run my leg" for many in the mainstream leftist media.
I didn't see the show.
However, I think that Beckel is spouting what a lot of Dems will be spouting as they try to prevent damage to the Party -- by sloughing off the very same things they criticized not so long ago with regard to the GOP (corruption, lies, etc.). They just can't bring themselves to recognize that the Dem Party is mostly a bunch of liars. Ergo, in their pitiful excuse for thinking, "Lying doesn't matter."
There are an awful lot of people out there who believe the Democrats can do no wrong in their search for the workers paradise. Lies and deceit are just tools, and since they are being utilized for "the common good" their use is justified.
What the American people care about and what they will be made aware of as this moves forward is that the Pelosi situation is irrelevant.
Fourth Branch Cheney was running a little lab to do his best to extract false information in order to legitimize the occupation of his oil fields and that will come out.
This will all go back burner because the right wing cowards are simply in a little holding pattern hoping this will distract Rollo from the whole story.
Pelosi was a coward, yes. The left lacked the courage to tell the right wing bed wetters that they were being manipulated and acting like frightened children. That was the sin of the liberal leadership.
It's relevant to the American people in the fact that the leader of the House of representatives lives in a glass house.
Beamish..that's right.
Greywolfe, Beckel's a hack. Sometimes, he's not unlikable, but he's so ideological you can see he can't even try to learn...
Always..I expected the dems with the 'lying doesn't matter' (See Psi Bond and Ducky's comments; one figured Beckel was scared of Hannity so he couldn't help himself by using the Star Spangled Banner line and the other has to bring up Halliburton again....!)
Hermit, that number of people who believe the Dems can 'do no wrong' is shrinking; you see the polls which say Republicans are moving up in identification numbers?
psi bond...I hate to break a promise, but didn't delete you because I feel it's important Conservatives see that Beckel actually did say that. Thanks for the transcript. You should try watching Hannity; he argues with civility, you could learn from some of the facts there, and you'd learn Beckel and he are good friends outside the studio.
He doesn't want us to care because that would endanger him. He is in for a horrible surprise sooner or later.
Beckel is simply doing what the left always does to ward off scrutiny. They ridicule righteousness and doing the right thing , to silence critics.
I think this was taught by that Saul Alinsky.
So, to Mr. Beckel I say ..too bad, buddy, we will not be silenced.
That corrupt Ma "Barker" Pelosi needs to be investigated AND removed from her post as speaker.
WVDOTTR
We can rely on Ducky to come in and say something twice as stupid as the tripe that was coming out of Beckels mouth.
The point Ducky is that the Democrats were every bit as involved in this war, the waterboarding, the support for going into it all as the Bush administration was, you are such a friggen retard it makes my eyes hurt just reading your crap. Ducky.... The Clintons were discussing War with Iraq, all of them were long before Bush even had the hairbrained idea to do it.. the point is that Bush tricked noone, they were in this all along but some morons such as yourself still can't see that even that the truth is slapping you right across your stupid little face.
So let's play this game again you dolt
-------------
"[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
-------------
"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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
-------------
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
-------------
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
-------------
"(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 B[urgler]erger, Feb 18, 1998
-------------
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
-------------
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
-------------
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
-------------
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
-------------
"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 in 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
-------------
"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that." -- Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
-------------
"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 is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
-------------
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
-------------
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
-------------
BILL MOYERS: President Bush's recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?
JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure.
BILL MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?
JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech, as he did in the State of the Union Address, is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true.
Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
-------------
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
-------------
"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
-------------
"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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
-------------
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
-------------
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 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
-------------
"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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
-------------
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 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
-------------
"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
-------------
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
-------------
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
-------------
"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
-------------
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
-------------
"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
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
The point Ducky is that the Democrats were every bit as involved in this war, the waterboarding, the support for going into it all as the Bush administration was, you are such a friggen retard it makes my eyes hurt just reading your crap.
------------------------------
So what should Pelosi have done? In order to receive any briefing at all she had to maintain silence?
She was not the chairman of any committee that could have raised concerns. She was not in the executive branch. Porter Goss and Lindsay Graham also remember it Nancy's way. So why aren't they equally lying?
Now stop being an Ann Coulter troll wannabe.
Normals are looking for an explanation of just why the spotlight shifts to an unimportant matter involving Pelosi when Bush/Fourth Branch are looking at the real possibility that they might be prosecuted. Must be the "liberal media" (LMAO) at work.
Fact is that Fourth Branch was running a rogue operation to get some false confessions so that some fence sitters would join the far right bed wetters and support the occupation of Cheney's oil fields. And that is going to come out.
What should she have done? sat down and shut the hell up just like what the rest of you ignorant libtards need to do.
Waterboarding has been used for decades, it was used long before Bush and it will be used long after, the situation is that now people like Pelosi use things such as this as a political tool to show the world what a monster republicans are because stupid people such as yourself will believe every word they say and ignore the fact that they were all a party to it.
What makes us smarter than your dumbass is not because we trust the right and not the left, it's that we are smart enough to not trust any politician that sits on camera and lies to our faces, we don't make excuses for them which is all you seem to do, the only difference between Bush and Pelosi is a vagina and a few gallons of Botox.
She was not the chairman of any committee that could have raised concerns. She was not in the executive branch.She's a member of f'n Congress it's her job whether she's a chairman of the toilet brigade committee to raise a stink if need be. The irony is she only raised a sting when she thought Republicans/Bush Administration would get all the blame. Now that we know she was briefed and knew the score yet lied to us she just looks like an ass.
...unimportant matter involving Pelosi when Bush/Fourth Branch are looking at the real possibility that they might be prosecuted. It's important Duhkkky because she says she didn't know...had the power to make a stink...didn't and now wants us to believe that the CIA briefs members of Congress on what they're NOT doing.
If Bush/Cheney is culpable for allowing "torture" than she is too.
i did see beckel mock the idea american people "understand" or care about the "ways" of washington z. but to mock the "intelligence" of americans is nothing new from the left. and will only become more frequent the more embolden they believe they are!!
psi bond...I hate to break a promise, but didn't delete you because I feel it's important Conservatives see that Beckel actually did say that.
Thanks, Z. Your generosity and flexibility are marvels to uphold. Intelligent discourse between opposing sides is within reach.
I recorded the Hannity-Beckel segment and played it back until I got all the words down correctly. My (vain?) expectation was that by presenting the facts here and correcting your misremembered version, some rightwingers would realize that they might be too quick to see what they hope to find.
When Hannity says “All right!” and smiles to the camera, he is not condemning dastardly “liberal treason”; he is expressing admiration for the hilarity of Beckel’s clever riposte. Beckel did not chime in with "Oh, please....as you talk I hear the Star Spangled Banner..."
You should try watching Hannity; he argues with civility [“This is free speech; you can be as rude as you want,” Hannity told a rightwing guest on tonight’s show], you could learn from some of the facts there, and you'd learn Beckel and he are good friends outside the studio.
I rarely miss Hannity’s show. The last time I did, it was only for a refreshing dose of something poignantly real and true: “Farrah’s Story”. By the way, the info on the net is that Beckel, demonized here, is a born-again Christian. He is not afraid of Hannity, but he showed his hand by making it clear he has no illusion about his role in the segment, which is invariably fixed so that the prevailing message to come out of the panel’s debate is thoroughly conservative.
Beckel, rather than being afraid, has a genuine admiration for Hannity’s propagandist’s skills. When Beckel made the probably true assertion that the average American couldn’t care less what Pelosi knew, Hannity countered with the different notion that Americans should care that she said the CIA lied about what they told her (Senators Jay Rockefeller and Bob Graham also say there are discrepancies in the CIA’s briefing records), knowing that the longer he keeps talking about her, the more it will draw down her poll numbers.
psi bond...this is so void of truth and righteousness that I won't delete you as promised this time because I want people to see it. It's important.
That I didn't get the exact words is pointless, my point is exactly right about the anthem, and very, very sad. ..imagine an American hearing another American demanding we not have someone lie about our CIA and finding that so egregiously patriotic he teases about a background of that music?
Wonderful that Beckel's supposedly a born again Christian. But, what's that have to do with the subject we're discussing?
and then you talk about conservatism 'prevailing'...it sure doesn't, because both sides are always represented on that show and one can see both sides' points; there IS no clanging bell which announces who won.
Try Olbermann or Maddow some time and tell me about what "prevails". Remind me next time they have two conservatives in a WEEK on the show, okay?
Imagine living in a country where the average American wouldn't care about the Speaker of the House lying? Of course they do. Some people still care about character, regardless of this government.
The Left takes a disgusting situation of the Spkr of the House lying about something that important with horrid inferences about our intelligence agency (She's #1 on the list of people the CIA spoke to, did you hear?) and twists it to be "you shouldn't care that she lied, what's the matter with YOU!?"
Talk about obfuscation.
I see nothing RUDE in what Hannity said ... What's not funny about "You can be as rude as you want to...it's free speech?"
At least they can be ON his show..catch Olbermann or Maddow some time ..
By the way, CNN's actually having a few conservatives on now...not as many as they did for about 2 months recently (after having had nearly none for years), but some. That's a big step for "America's newsroom", huh!?
PsiBond,
Beckel, rather than being afraid, has a genuine admiration for Hannity’s propagandist’s skills. When Beckel made the probably true assertion that the average American couldn’t care less what Pelosi knew, Hannity countered with the different notion that Americans should care that she said the CIA lied about what they told her (Senators Jay Rockefeller and Bob Graham also say there are discrepancies in the CIA’s briefing records), knowing that the longer he keeps talking about her, the more it will draw down her poll numbers
Oh that it were true that Sean Hannity's talking had the magical "propagandist" power to draw down Nancy Pelosi's poll numbers.
::rolls eyes::
Do people in San Francisco even watch the Hannity and Skeletor show?
Imagine living in a country where the average American wouldn't care about the Speaker of the House lying? Of course they do. Some people still care about character, regardless of this government.
What Beckel said is that the average American doesn’t care about what Pelosi knew. Not that they wouldn’t care about her lying. The push to conflate what she said with the idea that the CIA is lying en masse is a Republican distraction from the real investigation that many Americans want to see.
The Left takes a disgusting situation of the Spkr of the House lying about something that important with horrid inferences about our intelligence agency (She's #1 on the list of people the CIA spoke to, did you hear?) and twists it to be "you shouldn't care that she lied, what's the matter with YOU!?"
What's the matter with YOU?! That you shouldn't care that she lied is not anything Beckel said. But, although you and the rest of the right have already convicted her, it has not been proven that she lied about what she was told. The release of the classified documents that both Pelosi and Cheney are calling for may settle that.
Talk about obfuscation.
All right. Let’s talk about obfuscation. The most important questions facing America are whether our government sponsored torture and why. The brouhaha about Pelosi is just an unsubtle attempt at obfuscation of the real issue. A developing story not reported on Fox is that much of the use of so-called innocent-sounding Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (further euphemized by abbreviating it as E.I.T.) was directed at obtaining a confession of links between al-Qaida and Iraq in order to help the Bush administration make its case for war in Iraq. Republicans have much to obfuscate in this case.
I see nothing RUDE in what Hannity said ... What's not funny about "You can be as rude as you want to...it's free speech?"
In context, it’s clear it wasn’t meant to be funny. The guest, who was not a U.S. citizen, said he did not want to be rude in talking about the Obama administration. Hannity’s response, “This is free speech; you can be as rude as you want,” was meant to encourage him to be as rude about Obama as Hannity often is.
At least they can be ON his show..catch Olbermann or Maddow some time ..
On Hannity and O’Reilly, the pundits who regularly get a segment all to themselves to say whatever they want unchallenged are rightwing. These include Dick Morris, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, and Dennis Miller. Alan Colmes, in his rare appearances, used to get a segment to himself. But being a liberal, he now has to share his segment with his conservative sister-in-law Monica Crowley.
By the way, CNN's actually having a few conservatives on now...not as many as they did for about 2 months recently (after having had nearly none for years), but some. That's a big step for "America's newsroom", huh!?
By the way, the Great American Panel regularly has only one Democrat, although the majority of Americans identify themselves as Democrats. Maybe Hannity believes the Great Americans are all Republicans, huh?!
Oh that it were true that Sean Hannity's talking had the magical "propagandist" power to draw down Nancy Pelosi's poll numbers.
Have you heard? Hannity has millions watching his daily TV show and millions listening to his daily radio show. Millions more hear about whom he targeted from his fans.
::rolls eyes::
Open your eyes, beamish.
Do people in San Francisco even watch the Hannity and Skeletor show?
Skeletor left the show some time ago. It's just Hannity unplugged. The problem is not with her constituency back home. But if she loses the confidence of her colleagues in Congress, she could lose her leadership position. That's the cherished objective of Hannity and others like him: they could care less about the real issues they are covering up.
PsiBond,
I rarely if ever watch television, and it's even more rare that I listen to radio talk shows. I wasn't aware that Skeletor was gone from the Hannity and Skeletor show.
Skeletor left the show some time ago. It's just Hannity unplugged. The problem is not with her constituency back home. But if she loses the confidence of her colleagues in Congress, she could lose her leadership position. That's the cherished objective of Hannity and others like him: they could care less about the real issues they are covering up.I think Speakerette Pelosi is doing a marvelous job of losing the confidence of her fellow Congressmen all by herself.
Sean Hannity didn't make her come out and claim "the CIA lies to Congress all the time" or characterize the enhanced interrogation techniques employed upon captured Al Qaeda members that she was fully briefed on and subsequently voted to pay for (along with her fellow Democrats) as "torture."
Sean Hannity is covering up something?
Are you a conspiracy theorist?
It seems to me that Beckel's Star Spangled Banner quip was in response to Hannity's citing the CIA as "these brave men and women who put their lives on the line for our security and our safety." Concepts like "brave" and "putting their lives on the line" are today regarded by most Democrats as being as old-fashioned and passe as the spinning wheel. This is what as known as Decadence. For a good sketch of the "Progressive" type and his mindset, read, or view the film version of, "The Time Machine" and study closely the future element of humanity called the Eloi. They are decadent, defenseless, stupid and indolent-- but pretty, and fun loving. Ever hear a better summation of the modern liberal?
I don't know a fun loving liberal...
But, other than that, Zack, you nailed it!
psi bond...this is so void of truth and righteousness that I won't delete you as promised this time because I want people to see it. It's important."
You haven’t shown that anything I said is devoid of truth. I hope I won’t have to repost it to show the difference between what you think I said and what I did say. And I hope you don’t keep only those posts that make conservative viewpoints look good or liberal viewpoints look bad, according to your opinion.
That I didn't get the exact words is pointless, my point is exactly right about the anthem, and very, very sad. ..imagine an American hearing another American demanding we not have someone lie about our CIA and finding that so egregiously patriotic he teases about a background of that music?"
It’s not that you didn’t get the exact words that matters; it’s that you didn’t get close enough to convey Beckel’s intent. Beckel’s banner line was neither a confession of disloyalty nor a personal attack on Hannity, as you suggest. Taken in context, this was not an issue that called for an indignant patriotic response about the sacrifice of men and women in the CIA. It is a question of what the CIA told her and whether the briefing memos are accurate. There is some evidence that they are not.
Wonderful that Beckel's supposedly a born again Christian. But, what's that have to do with the subject we're discussing?"
Beckel, whom we have been discussing, has been vilified here as a typical evil liberal. His born-again Christianity runs counter to the usual stereotype for liberals. And, BTW, it may indicate, that, like many rightwing Christians, living up to his savior’s commandments is one of his concerns.
and then you talk about conservatism 'prevailing'...it sure doesn't, because both sides are always represented on that show and one can see both sides' points; there IS no clanging bell which announces who won.
Try Olbermann or Maddow some time and tell me about what "prevails". Remind me next time they have two conservatives in a WEEK on the show, okay?"
The names of Olbermann and Maddow are never mentioned on Hannity’s or O’Reilly’s shows. It appears to be a Fox directive. Even, recently, when both Hannity and O’Reilly took offense at an interview segment on Olbermann’s show, and they replayed a quote, Olbermann was edited out. They mentioned Tom Brokaw as being somehow responsible for it, although he had no part in the show. Putting a token liberal, who is made to feel like a piñata, on the “Great American Panel” is not a fair debate, especially when he’s often interrupted or shouted down and given scant opportunity to present a liberal viewpoint on an issue. The dominant voices on those panels are invariably rightwingers. Hannity’s “Lib-er-al Translation” segment never has a liberal to respond to the sophomoric jabs Hannity superimposes on out-of-context remarks of the president or another Democrat. Many important stories that may result in negative fallout for Republicans are simply not covered by Hannity (or O’Reilly). For example, the GQ story about the Worldwide Intelligence Update reports prepared for Bush’s eyes that had cover sheets that bore manipulative biblical quotations. For another example, Vanity Fair’s story on Wolfowitz.
Originally posted May 20, 2009 3:37 AM
Psi Bond,
I generally tend to avoid media spin doctors on the left and the right and go directly to the raw sources for my information. The internet is a wonderful tool for that.
Nancy Pelosi's press conference(s) are there for all to see.
The CIA's records of who in Congress they briefed on EITs and when is there to see.
Nancy Pelosi's "memory" does not match that of people in the same room briefed by the CIA at the same time.
She's drawing criticism from members of her own party for that.
No one wants to go out on the partisan hack limb with her (and Rockefeller and Graham and you) because there's nothing to gain from being a laughingstock.
beamish: I generally tend to avoid media spin doctors on the left and the right and go directly to the raw sources for my information. The internet is a wonderful tool for that.
Really? Do you interview face-to-face the people making the news and government officials? Are you on the scene when it happens?Those are the original sources. The Internet provides thirdhand edited material, just like old media, but often without the professionalism.
The issue is not whether Pelosi was briefed but what she was told.
The government documents concerning what was said in the briefings are still classified. People's memories of what was said six years ago could be unreliable. The memos that have been declassified are not strictly accurate. They indicate Bob Graham was briefed four times. His detailed diary indicates he was briefed only once. The CIA has recently conceded that he 's right about that. And Sen. Graham says he was wasn't told anything about "enhanced interrogation techniques". All the relevant documents, that both Cheney and Pelosi want made public, need to be released before a fair-minded person can determine who is lying.
For fun watch Hannity. He has all the answers and always knows better than the president what to do. It's such an awful national tragedy that only hardline rightwingers take him seriously.
Psi Bond,
What I mean by going to the raw sources of information is that I don't rely on Stephen Colbert (or Sean Hannity) to tell me what my own eyes can see and read for myself.
All you're presenting is further reinforcement of one of my operating axioms of comparative analysis - "leftists lack reading comprehension skills." To wit:
The government documents concerning what was said in the briefings are still classified. People's memories of what was said six years ago could be unreliable. The memos that have been declassified are not strictly accurate. They indicate Bob Graham was briefed four times. His detailed diary indicates he was briefed only once. The CIA has recently conceded that he 's right about that. And Sen. Graham says he was wasn't told anything about "enhanced interrogation techniques". All the relevant documents, that both Cheney and Pelosi want made public, need to be released before a fair-minded person can determine who is lying.
Indeed, declassified documentation would bring to light who's memory is fuzzy and who is outright lying.
What we presently have to work with are members of the House Intelligence commitee remembering being briefed on (and approving) interrogation techniques the CIA was employing, Pelosi denying being briefed on the interrogation techniques alongside members of Congress who remember the briefings, the content of those briefings, and Pelosi's presence at those briefings - and Graham's allegedly "detailed" diary of CLASSIFIED proceedings.
Um, yeah.
Lonely on that limb, isn't it?
It could well be true that Pelosi and company knowingly voted to fund interrogation procedures they now find politically inconvenient to stand behind for whatever reason.
No one is claiming Pelosi is competent, then or now.
It must be a conspiracy to make Pelosi look like an idiot.
beamish: What I mean by going to the raw sources of information is that I don't rely on Stephen Colbert (or Sean Hannity) to tell me what my own eyes can see and read for myself.
You bring your reading comprehension skills into question by insinuating I claimed Hannity and Colbert are raw sources. Which is not to say that, like you, I draw broad generalizations about the reading skills of an entire political group. Your inductive illogic could be a sign of an acute anti-liberal bias. Who knew?
By the way, Stephen Colbert was funny exactly because he simply told us what our own eyes can see.
As a rule, one must rely to some extent on thirdhand media sources or fourth-hand political blogs to determine what to pay attention to. For an individual cannot listen to the online clip or read the transcript online of every news conference and every speech of every politician in Congress, or his op-eds. And then read the Congressional Record of all public proceedings. In other words, there is more information digitally available than can be accessed, consumed, and analyzed in a single lifetime. Which means, there is an inevitable need for higher-level media sources above the raw sources in the media.
Indeed, declassified documentation would bring to light who's memory is fuzzy and who is outright lying.
Yes, as I said before, it should be clear that all the necessary evidence has yet to be declassified so a fair-minded decision can be made who is lying or in error in this Republican-led lynch-mob distraction. Some CIA records may prove inaccurate, though.
However, since Republicans couldn't care less about torture but care that she may have had knowledge of it earlier than she remembers, Pelosi may need to resign her leadership position. She won't be the first congress person to have to do so. Probably a secondary Republican objective is to avenge Trent Lott. Barney Frank said the controversy over Pelosi’s charge has not hurt her “in the slightest” and that the Republican call for an investigation was orchestrated for partisan gain.
beamish: Um, yeah. Lonely on that limb, isn't it?
You may have heard this: "One man with courage makes a majority, " to quote Old Hickory.
The spiral-bound notebooks for which Bob Graham was ridiculed when he sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 may make some CIA briefing claims dubious. Since the CIA detailed who was briefed on the interrogation techniques, Graham asked for the dates they talked with him. They named four sessions. Graham turned to his spiral notebooks, and determined that on the first three of four dates cited, no briefing was held. When he presented that information to the CIA, they reluctantly concurred that their information was erroneous. There was, however, a briefing on Sept. 27, 2002, and Graham's record is labeled "detainee interrogation." However, although he was NOT permitted to take notes, "I did not hear at that briefing information on waterboarding or treatment of specific detainees or other interrogation techniques which would've been beyond that which were conventional for military or civilian agencies of the U.S. government," Graham said. He added: "I noted that the CIA, in describing what was briefed to me and what had been briefed three weeks earlier [September 4, 2002] to Speaker Pelosi, used, I think, verbatim the same words to describe both briefings." If the CIA misreported three briefings, one has to ask how reliable is the CIA's briefing information? And one has to wonder how the CIA could describe two briefings in the same language if techniques like waterboarding were discussed at one (attended by Pelosi), but not the other (attended by Graham)?
Even CIA Director Leon Panetta acknowledges that the CIA's records on its congressional briefings on interrogation techniques aren't necessarily reliable. He recently wrote in a letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, "You and the committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened."
No one is claiming Pelosi is competent, then or now.
No Republican is claiming Pelosi is competent, then or now
I heard on one of the primary-source grapevines that there's a conspiracy in progress in which the right is out to discredit as many Democrats in Congress as possible before 2010.
Mercifully, Republicans who believe in torture have not asked that Pelosi be waterboarded to find out when she knew what she knew.
PsiBond,
As a rule, one must rely to some extent on thirdhand media sources or fourth-hand political blogs to determine what to pay attention to. For an individual cannot listen to the online clip or read the transcript online of every news conference and every speech of every politician in Congress, or his op-eds. And then read the Congressional Record of all public proceedings. In other words, there is more information digitally available than can be accessed, consumed, and analyzed in a single lifetime. Which means, there is an inevitable need for higher-level media sources above the raw sources in the media.
This is the same paradox of having people of average intelligence grade the IQ tests of geniuses.
I've listed plainly what we have solid to work with:
- The CIA's record of briefings given to Congress
- Pelosi's allegations that she was uninformed / misinformed
- Other Congressmen contradicting Pelosi
Everything else is partisan spin and hearsay.
If you want to claim Graham's spiral notebook is a reliable, "detailed" diary of classified intelligence briefings, you're either indicting yourself as an idiot, or indicting Graham as unqualified to hold a security clearance, or both.
Until the relevant CIA briefing are declassified, all we have is Pelosi accusing the CIA of lying (with no proof to back the claim), and a bunch of Congressmen, both Democrats and Republicans, contradicting Pelosi.
It doesn't look good for Pelosi.
I heard on one of the primary-source grapevines that there's a conspiracy in progress in which the right is out to discredit as many Democrats in Congress as possible before 2010.
I suggest tin foil hats. Not aluminum. Aluminum is not dense enough to stop the CIA mind control lasers.
Mercifully, Republicans who believe in torture have not asked that Pelosi be waterboarded to find out when she knew what she knew.
Do you think she'd break?
I think she'd cry about her hair getting mussed up. She probably went through worse as a sorority sister in college.
psi bond, I don't give a damn what anybody says about waterboarding; next to beheading, it's a picnic in the park. Our soldiers can take it so the guy with the keys to telling us who's taking New York out will just have to take it, too. Besides, this has VERY little about the technique and how HORRIFYING it is. This has everything to do with idiots in this country who feel not hurting those who'd love to demolish this whole great land is a great idea and will make them like us.Don't forget, we now have a president who abhorred the war because it 'bred terrorists' and now thought it was a dandy idea to release to the world CIA MEMOS. And then thought releasing photos FOR TRANSPARENCY might help terrorists like us. Thanks for your vote.
I'm deleting you. As I said before, you're using this as a forum for yourself, again, and that's that.
As I say on my sidebar, "keep it succinct" So, I am. I let you stick around because beamish is so good at making you look foolish and has a blast doing so, but I'm wearying of seeing your long tomes.
And yes, I know you'll sneak back at some post that's under the radar screen..knock yourself out. I don't have the free time you obviously do to try to find your comments on old pieces and don't really care as long as my good readers don't have to be subjected to what you provide: an echo of Keith Olbermann.
Thanks. Have a good weekend.
Z: I let you stick around because beamish is so good at making you look foolish and has a blast doing so, but I'm wearying of seeing your long tomes.
If you really believed that was true, Z, it would make the best sense to leave my posts intact so readers can decide for themselves how right you are.
Psi Bond,
Z does not want you posting here. That you continue to troll here and repost deleted comments (now likely deleted because you're not welcome here) makes you look foolish, without my help.
I'm fairly confident I can "make you look foolish" on any blog, including your own (if you had one).
You up for it?
Psi Bond,
I have no interest in personal contests, certainly not in ones in which rightwingers reserve the right to decide the winner.No, you're only interested in trolling a blog you've been asked to leave.
Your feelings of being a loser started well before blogging was invented.
I am interested in an intelligent exchange of views between individuals holding opposing ideas.Well, start your own blog, or find one with hosts that possess more patience for people who lack reading comprehension skills.
Besides, if, on my blog, I deleted your posts, I would win no contest.Yes, but you'd need electroshock therapy to delete the truth of being embarassed on your own blog from your mind.
I don't think your powder burns. Start a blog. I'm game.
Psi Bond,
Having to repost my entries is one of the challenges I am willing to accept in trying to find an intelligent exchange of ideas.You don't have to repost your deleted comments. You could take a hint, and take a hike.
If there's no "intelligent exchange of ideas" to be had here, then your returning to harass Z on her blog is just you being an asshole.
It's cute that you think you actually have something relevant to offer here though.
So your challenge doesn't interest me. Neither does your exalted opinion of yourself.Says the imbecilic that keeps reposting his deleted comments on a blog for the attention he craves, and keeps coming back to reply to my mocking of the same.
Go ahead. Post a reply. You can't help yourself.
psi bond. for the record, Olbermann chickened out. Hannity did not.
"If you really believed that was true, Z, it would make the best sense to leave my posts intact so readers can decide for themselves how right you are."
I don't have to make any sense to you, psi bond. I couldn't care less what you think of me or this blog.
Us "righties" as you keep saying, just keep plugging along trying to combat a dishonest leftist-oriented media and this is how I'm keeping it. This is why we blog.
Yup..I am right. It's MY opinion, my commenters have THEIR opinions and NONE of us needs YOUR constant degrading and psychotic need to post on a conservative blog at which you are not welcome.
Just so anyone else unfortunate enough to have to read this exchange knows, psi bond has frequented Frontpagemag.com for years and has never been in ANY way pleasant or humorous or even remotely willing to entertain any other than liberal thought.
This isn't Z being unkind to a new commenter. This is Z who's already asked psi bond to leave numerous times and yet he persists.
Lib troll Ducky, too, posted a FPM, and we used to really get into it, but there is a different feeling with him because he is a troll at others of my friends' blogs and Ducky and I've developed a kind of truce which has allowed us to get past dislike and at least put up with each other (usually!). We could probably write our own responses to each other's comments by now, his way being 'outing' Republican senators as gay creeps and championing and standing up for the rights of any gay leftist, of course, in typical leftist fashion, but I digress... He exhibits a modicum of humanity and humor, something I like.
Beamish is overflowing with both and he could say the F word ten thousand times a day on my blog and I would only put up a disclaimer for those unwilling to read it. Not delete. (don't you DARE, Beamish!)
You keep researching and copy/pasting, and knock yourself out, psi bond. But, really, I think starting your own blog is the ticket for you. And stop abusing mine.
May 24, 2009 10:16 AM
psi bond; I know you just read this. I can see you on my sitemeter, believe me.
I want you to know it's really not my nature to be this unkind but,as much as that's not MY nature, I don't expect it in others, either. It's why I literally get tears in my eyes when I hear the left's AWFUL nasty belittlement, even jeopardizing, of all I hold dear and that's why I invite you to leave my blog. None of us conservatives doesn't THINK about the left's points; I watch ALL news, including Olbermann and maddow, as I've said before. I admire much of what Hitchens writes and VERY much do not admire others of his works. I believe that is how America will survive, and the type of agenda drive ideology you reveal doesn't help America. Nor does it help my blog in any way.
I'm sorry you can't participate in undemeaning, constructive, even open-minded ways, but I know you too well for too long.
I wish you peace. I really do.
"Us 'righties' as you keep saying, just keep plugging along trying to combat a dishonest leftist-oriented media and this is how I'm keeping it. This is why we blog."
You're darned right it is!!! Go get 'em, Z!!!
And don't worry about qualifying your actions. We know what kind of gal you are... :)
I rarely if ever watch television, and it's even more rare that I listen to radio talk shows. I wasn't aware that Skeletor was gone from the Hannity and Skeletor show.
That you’re out of touch with Fox is obvious. You should watch Hannity's show. Hannity is always civil, never rude, and he's informative, according to Z. But without a co-host to hold him in check, he is free to promote his angry misrepresentations without challenge. In any case, he is fun to watch and laugh at..
I think Speakerette Pelosi is doing a marvelous job of losing the confidence of her fellow Congressmen all by herself.
Her statements are being amplified and misrepresented by the rightwing press and infotainers like Hannity.
Sean Hannity didn't make her come out and claim "the CIA lies to Congress all the time" or characterize the enhanced interrogation techniques employed upon captured Al Qaeda members that she was fully briefed on and subsequently voted to pay for (along with her fellow Democrats) as "torture."
Hannity makes it seem that she said that. "Who knew spies are so deceptive, " retorted Stephen Colbert. "[The CIA] mislead us all the time," Pelosi said. "They misrepresented every step of the way, and they don't want that focus on them, so they try to turn the focus on us." It has not been proven that Pelosi is lying. Seeing what they hope to find is how many rightwingers avoid disappointment. There is no allegation that men and women in the CIA in the field risking their lives are lying, but by claiming that there is, Hannity is trying to make this an issue about patriotism. Equating the thought the CIA may have mislead Congress with an act of treason is a sly propagandist's srategy. Pelosi said, "They told us they had opinions from the [Justice Department's] Office of Legal Counsel that they could, but not that they were using enhanced techniques, and that if and when they were used, they would brief Congress at that time. As a member of Intelligence, I thought I was being briefed. I realized that was not true when I became ranking member."
Sean Hannity is covering up something?
Hannity could not care less about the important public issues he is helping to obfuscate. He's not to blame, thoughe can't help himself.
Are you a conspiracy theorist?
[joke] My conspiracy theory is that rightwingers love to go liberal bashing on rightwing blogs to compensate for gnawing feelings of inferiority [/joke]
(Not as alarming as the idea that liberals are trying to bring America down, it is nonetheless my humble contribution to conspiracy theory building.)
Hey, beamish, air conditioner vents are cool!
Originally posted May 21, 2009 3:55 AM
This is the same paradox of having people of average intelligence grade the IQ tests of geniuses.
Most IQ tests can only be graded in one way, since questions are designed to have one right and many wrong answers, which is why a graded IQ test is an effective means of recognizing and measuring genius. In fact, an unsophisticated computer can grade IQ tests automatically with the right software installed.
However much one may pride himself on being independent of them, professional higher-level media, rather than just raw sources, are indispensable. In this connection, note that Google is a metasite that indexes and classifies all the other sites on the Internet. which cannot be all visited by any single individual.
I've listed plainly what we have solid to work with:
- The CIA's record of briefings given to Congress
- Pelosi's allegations that she was uninformed / misinformed
- Other Congressmen contradicting Pelosi
Everything else is partisan spin and hearsay.
No, it's conflicting memories. The allegation that Pelosi deliberately lied about her recollections is diversionary partisan spin. It's fact that the CIA said Bob Graham had briefings on four dates, but was in error about the first three dates. The agency conceded that that it was in error in its records. Furthermore, it is history that the CIA has a long and troubled record in provided the truth to Congress. For example:
- In 1977, CIA Director Richard Helms pleaded guilty to perjury after telling the Senate that the CIA was not involved in a Chilean coup.
- In the 1980s Iran/Contra scandal, the CIA had a hand in illegally selling arms to Iran to help finance the Nicaraguan Contras, then lying about it to Congress.
- After a plane carrying Baptist missionaries was shot down by the Peruvian military in 2001 because a CIA surveillance aircraft had wrongly identified it as drug-smuggling, Congress was not told of endemic problems in that CIA counternarcotics program.
If you want to claim Graham's spiral notebook is a reliable, "detailed" diary of classified intelligence briefings, you're either indicting yourself as an idiot, or indicting Graham as unqualified to hold a security clearance, or both.
Graham's famous spiral notebooks recording his activities uncovered an error in the CIA's record keeping that the agency admitted. Demean me or demean Graham, as you like, but that is fact. Reread my post and you will discover that I did not say that Graham took any notes or made any journal entries about the contents of the CIA briefings. Those were not allowed.
Until the relevant CIA briefing are declassified, all we have is Pelosi accusing the CIA of lying (with no proof to back the claim), and a bunch of Congressmen, both Democrats and Republicans, contradicting Pelosi.
The fact that is ignored by those who want to rush to judgment is that, as even Leon Panetta admits, the completeness and trustworthiness of the CIA's briefing records are not established.
It doesn't look good for Pelosi.
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer said the opposite tonight, but he's not a primary source..
I suggest tin foil hats. Not aluminum. Aluminum is not dense enough to stop the CIA mind control lasers.
That's just hearsay. Keep it under your hat. Souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, government conspirators, and all manner of other conspiratorial agents with power and intention are believed to haunt our world and control our lives.
Mercifully, Republicans who believe in torture have not asked that Pelosi be waterboarded to find out when she knew what she knew.
Do you think she'd break?
Do you think what she would say when waterboarded would be the truth?
Originally posted May 23, 2009 3:01 AM
You won’t find this story on Fox (“We report, you decide”) News or its website, but a conservative Chicago-based radio talk-show host Erich “Mancow” Muller took his listeners’ advice and voluntarily underwent waterboarding on May 22 and reluctantly concluded it was “torture.” Mancow had earlier pooh-poohed the conclusion that waterboarding was torture (though the U.S. government prosecuted as war criminals some Japanese soldiers who had conducted waterboarding against U.S. soldiers, and even court-martialed a U.S. soldier who had engaged in it in Vietnam).
Jesse Ventura, who underwent waterboarding in his training as a Navy Seal, says it is torture.
Christopher Hitchens says it is torture. He also has experienced waterboarding firsthand.
Hannity says it is not torture. He offered to be waterboarded for charity, but he chickened out.
Originally posted May 23, 2009 3:04 AM
No, you're only interested in trolling a blog you've been asked to leave.
Having to repost my entries is one of the challenges I am willing to accept in trying to find an intelligent exchange of ideas.
Your feelings of being a loser started well before blogging was invented.
Nonsenical ad hominem remarks like that are mainly what disqualify you from my search. Even including my quoted words included, your post above amounts to more than 50% juvenile insults So your challenge doesn't interest me. Neither does your exalted opinion of yourself.
Beamish is overflowing with both and he could say the F word ten thousand times a day on my blog and I would only put up a disclaimer for those unwilling to read it. Not delete. (don't you DARE, Beamish!)firetruck
firetruck
firetruck
firetruck
firetruck
firetruck
firetruck
firetruck
firetruck
firetruck
(x 1000)
hehehe
Z: I let you stick around because beamish is so good at making you look foolish and has a blast doing so, but I'm wearying of seeing your long tomes.
That must be why you keep deleting my rebuttals. If you really believed that was true, Z, it would make the best sense to leave my posts intact so readers can decide for themselves how right you are.
beamish, it’s imbecilic to want to challenge someone to a debate whom you believe to be an imbecile.
Go for it–––I'm sure you will want to debate that, beamish.
psi bond. for the record, Olbermann chickened out. Hannity did not.
Not quite, Z. Olbermann offered to pay one thousand dollars to Hannity's charity, for every second that Hannity lasted when waterboarded by someone., because Hannity volunteered to be waterboarded on his show for charity. But Hannity has declined to go through with it. As they say, you are not entitled to your own facts, Z.
Because you never get my humor, or so you pretend, is no reason to keep insultingly insisting that I have no humor.
Maybe I should take your suggestion and blog at others of your friends' blogs, too :-)
By the way, retaining only your side of an exchange of posts (like an answer to a post that isn't there) makes no sense to anyone. but I know you couldn't care less about making sense. Very sensibly, you admitted that.
beamish, it’s imbecilic to want to challenge someone to a debate whom you believe to be an imbecile.The only paradox here is that you claim to seek intelligent discourse, yet won't admit up front to your opponents that you're an imbecile.
To your credit, you don't make it hard to notice.
Go for it–––I'm sure you will want to debate that, beamish.No.
The only debate there is that it isn't imbecilic to believe leftists are incapable of rational thought.
I certainly have never had that belief refuted with evidence.
But, being fully versed in the debate tactics of the greatest leftist forensics champion the world has ever seen, Pee Wee Herman, I've no interest in going round and round with "I know you are but what am I?"
As is the stale case with you, every post.
PsiBond,
By the way, your bike's at the Alamo.
in the basement
beamish, it’s imbecilic to want to challenge someone to a debate whom you believe to be an imbecile.
The only paradox here is that you claim to seek intelligent discourse, yet won't admit up front to your opponents that you're an imbecile.
Only juveniles can believe everyone who has different political views is an imbecile.
To your credit, you don't make it hard to notice.
To your credit, you don't hide your immaturity.
Go for it–––I'm sure you will want to debate that, beamish.The only debate there is that it isn't imbecilic to believe leftists are incapable of rational thought.
The only conclusion here is that you are avoiding the question by changing the subject.
I certainly have never had that belief refuted with evidence.
The reason for that is not hard to understand since your working motto is "See what you expect to see".
But, being fully versed in the debate tactics of the greatest leftist forensics champion the world has ever seen, Pee Wee Herman, I've no interest in going round and round with "I know you are but what am I?"
So you were taught by Pee Wee Herman. No wonder you are what you are.
qvohh emgsgf,nu
ibz qbw qc fhlcy ydpb jggng wezg urpino aaxniz [url=http://www.louboutinaustraliaclub.com/#jtej73836]Christian Louboutin Outlet[/url].
[url=http://www.louboutincanadasales.com/#aguf495542]Christian Louboutin Shoes[/url] ptbpuz ke kghlqy; fmewln nz ju fren, wcwcyp rngclv ho ksch fp yljvpo ty sl lhfjmm rokpzv rqeh cyoaj bx dpjxhq$
3902325532pbvth llodbu jfqx rflgj cynvtt imnhsg lblgju xsabay liphhs dujapu et 1120234780 rg lxdrn ichc coctmw zrobch ajwjf uwaqy jp eoswh [url=http://www.shoplouboutinuk.co.uk/#87sldb]Christian Louboutin UK[/url] zplhis hsxdyh zg vumyxs senc batjqd tvbrml qz jmqrfn qobte jiecxu ldqfmg mu bg ectoro kx [url=http://www.buynorthfacecanada.com/#ylpy423142]North Face Sale[/url].
[url=http://vbtwitter.com/showthread.php?10140-Ten-Defeat-Rationalization-back-Feign-CNA-As-A-On-Induction&p=67022#post67022]6383[/url]
[url=http://axia.ws/axia/phpbb/phpbb/phpbb/posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=37704]1067041[/url]
[url=http://www.abc-stars.ru/user/nimunfta/]rf[/url]
Post a Comment