Only Fox News...

MooZilla · Post by **MooZilla** » July 20, 2004, 10:46 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126249,00.html

Fox news is just full of a bunch of idiots. Enough said.

I know im going to catch a bunch of flames for this, but i dont see why they're taking the attention off of the Bush administration and putting it on Clinton's presidency, which in my opinion, was great. Atleast he didnt lie to us like to go to war on a harmless, 3rd world country, for his own reasons.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 20, 2004, 11:48 pm

It's not like prior attacks were ignored or blown off or anything...

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 20, 2004, 11:54 pm

MooZilla wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126249,00.html

Fox news is just full of a bunch of idiots. Enough said.

I know im going to catch a bunch of flames for this, but i dont see why they're taking the attention off of the Bush administration and putting it on Clinton's presidency, which in my opinion, was great. Atleast he didnt lie to us like to go to war on a harmless, 3rd world country, for his own reasons.

Kinda like this board

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 21, 2004, 9:39 am

Fox news is little more the propaganda

Notice that the ONLY people you will ever find to declare fox "fair and balanced" are religious right wing freaks

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 21, 2004, 12:22 pm

There were also questions about how the Clinton administration handled prior attacks in the beginning (around 9/11).

Llaffer · Post by **Llaffer** » July 21, 2004, 12:55 pm

Is it propaganda when FoxNews releases a story that no one else has?

Or is it every other liberal media's choice to not post the story that's the problem?

Shaerra · Post by **Shaerra** » July 21, 2004, 1:15 pm

It's not like there are liberal fucktards crawling out of the woodwork to regurgitate the same outright LIES and Michael Moore quotes...but I'm being redundant, aren't I?

The real liars here are the Demotards that first supplied all of the "intelligence" to Bush, then ADVISED him to go to war, then sing a different tune when election time comes:

"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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb,
18, 1998

"[WE]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."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct.9, 1998

"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."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated 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 redefine 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."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is
in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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.. 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."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 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."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . 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... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

...and now these same Democrats say President Bush lied - that there never were any weapons of mass destruction and he took us to war unnecessarily. But the country should be used to them doing or saying whatever "feels good at the time". After all, that's the root of their belief system.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » July 21, 2004, 1:21 pm

Llaffer wrote:Is it propaganda when FoxNews releases a story that no one else has?

It's propeganda when it's news from a year or two ago and only being brought to light now, a few days before the 9/11 commission does their thing.

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » July 21, 2004, 1:23 pm

I believe the president has his own advisors...and does not really take "memos" and "post-its" from democrats/republican senators/representatives telling him to goto war.

The quotes that were actuallly around the decision time of going to war, are of representatives and senators regurgitating the lies they were told by the Bush administration, as to get the house to vote "War - YES".

Also, why are quotes from 1998 even remotely relevant? He probably did have WMD's back then...that was when they were being destroyed...yadda yadda, I don't know why I'm typing this...deaf ears...fell on...etc..

And like I said about this in the other post, I watch Wolf Blitzer interview Berger's attorney...and Wolf was laying into the guy...really laying into him...it was very funny watching Wolf try to trip him up. Couldn't do it though, cause this guy has been defending this case for almost a fucken year!!

Shaerra · Post by **Shaerra** » July 21, 2004, 1:46 pm

So your position is that all of those quotes should now be ignored, the Democrats "position of the day" should be taken as Gospel, and President Bush should not be re-elected because he made the same mistake that 2 or 3 people made in the past...he believed the fucking Democrats?

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » July 21, 2004, 1:51 pm

He is guilty of listening to his advisors, and taking what they reported as whatever he took it as.

If the report used the word "maybe" and "possiblly" as qualifiers, then yes, he misled America by telling us he "had" WMD's.

That's his mistake, and his mistake alone. It has nothing to do with republican or democrat. It is his own fuck up. hence why quotes of people saying "well, The President told me Saddam HAS wmd's, so lets go get him," i really don't see where that has any relevance.

They were lied to, and believed him, they made the same mistake I did, I trusted my President. Hence, my flip-flop of supporting that tyrant (read: Bush) 12 months ago, to being appalled by his very image now.

And no, I won't be voting for Kerry either...so don't even try it. I'll be voting for Nader...but to me my vote means "NO CONFIDENCE". I want my "NO CONFIDENCE" option on the fucken ballet!!!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 21, 2004, 1:54 pm

You should haul this over the current events forum guys.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 21, 2004, 1:59 pm

BTW this story is being covered by more than fox news. It's the political hot potato of the day.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/grind/

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 21, 2004, 2:01 pm

It's his own fuck up that the congress voted to go to war? Since when did Dubya gain that level of Reagan-esque control over the legislature?

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » July 21, 2004, 2:33 pm

Dubya asked to goto war, presented his arguments, congress believed him...hence, yes, it is still his own fault for lying.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 21, 2004, 3:10 pm

So the democrats in the house and senate weren't lying, but Dubya was, even though they got their information from the same place? That's some interesting logic there...

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 21, 2004, 3:32 pm

Amazing how democrats can glaze over what their own people were saying. Selective memory!

I forgive you for trying your best in an election year to ignore the facts and try and get your candidate elected. You are only waffleing like your candidate Kerry is famous for so it falls right in line with what's to be expected.

Whatever Kerry campaigns for you can be sure he'll push for the opposite after the election. Why would he change the way he operates?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 21, 2004, 5:27 pm

Winnow wrote:Amazing how democrats can glaze over what their own people were saying. Selective memory!

I forgive you for trying your best in an election year to ignore the facts and try and get your candidate elected. You are only waffleing like your candidate Kerry is famous for so it falls right in line with what's to be expected.

Whatever Kerry campaigns for you can be sure he'll push for the opposite after the election. Why would he change the way he operates?

Kerry was a baby killer in Vietnam

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 21, 2004, 7:06 pm

Our congress was filled with lies so they would feel Iraq was a true threat.

The democrats admit they were wrong.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 21, 2004, 7:15 pm

Thess wrote:Our congress was filled with lies so they would feel Iraq was a true threat.

Democrats are so gullible!

How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.
- Adolf Hitler

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » July 21, 2004, 7:21 pm

Siji wrote:
Llaffer wrote:Is it propaganda when FoxNews releases a story that no one else has?
It's propeganda when it's news from a year or two ago and only being brought to light now, a few days before the 9/11 commission does their thing.

Sort of like abu ghraib, being reported on only after the internal investigation's report came out? You wouldn't be holding up a double standard would you?

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » July 22, 2004, 9:53 am

Like Thess said...atleast democrats are admitting they were wrong.

And I'm not ignoring it, Winnow, I already said, I'm not voting party line, I'm voting "NO CONFIDENCE" (read: third party since there is not an actual no confidence vote).

Llaffer · Post by **Llaffer** » July 22, 2004, 10:43 am

I've never heard a statement of appology from anyone.

They're just saying the opposite of what they said 2 years ago (when it was the people's popular opinion).

Now that the people's opinion is shifting, they too shifted to try to keep their votes.

Just because they changed their minds doesn't by default mean an admission of being wrong.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 22, 2004, 11:18 am

I really don't understand why it is bad to admit you were wrong. No one is always right. Re-evaluating decisions and opinions is a perfectly healthy thing for someone to do.

Llaffer · Post by **Llaffer** » July 22, 2004, 11:55 am

Thess wrote:I really don't understand why it is bad to admit you were wrong. No one is always right. Re-evaluating decisions and opinions is a perfectly healthy thing for someone to do.

I don't have a problem with people admitting they are wrong.

I've just not heard anyone say that.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 22, 2004, 2:45 pm

So I take it you have done the research and watched Kerry's speech on the Senate floor debating whether or not we should go to war with Iraq. It is fairly obvious he believed that Iraq was a threat because he believed our intelligence, and president that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

In Kerry's speech for the Iraq war he stated "The reason for going to war, if we must fight - maddam president, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf war prisoners, or Kuwaitii property, as much as we decry the way he's treated his people - regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desireable as it is to change the regime."

John Kerry has explained repeatedly, almost everyone voted for that resolution after being assured by George W. Bush that we would not goin without UN backing.

Shaerra · Post by **Shaerra** » July 22, 2004, 4:12 pm

UN backing?

Those jackasses would NEVER back a plan to ENFORCE their own resolutions. They're too chickenshit. What'd it take, 10 years before we said, "Ok, enough of the bullshit, we're stopping this crap right here, right now".

Asking the UN to back us in disarming Saddam is like asking an Oprah-loving soccer mom to stop letting little Timmy lay down on the grocery store floor screaming and throwing things because he can't have Cookie Crisp while standing there saying, "Timmy, let's use our inside voice."

Sometimes you have to spank some ass.

God forbid George Bush ousted the world's latest version of Hitler. That's just HORRIBLE!!!!

ONCE AGAIN you have the Democrats saying out of one side of their face, "Oh, we should have done something about that murderous dictator sooner" and out of the other side of their face, they say, "Why did we attack that poor Saddam man? There were no WMD's!"

JUST LIKE the "terrorist threat information" bullshit. At the same time, the Democrats have a PANEL about why every terrorist threat prior to 9/11 wasn't realeased, and they are on the news every other week bitching about all of the terrorist warnings as of late. WHICH WAY DO YOU WANT IT, ASSHOLE?!?!

Of course, when I say the Democrats bitch no matter WHAT you do, I am only talking about the ones who aren't busy drinking like a fish, screwing their staff or stuffing classified documents into their socks and underwear.

And Bush told Congress what HE was told, BY THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. So now you Democrats are saying "Well, he repeated what he was told by his advisors, so he's a liar. The Democrats that gave Bush the false information are not the liars because they didn't say it on camera."

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » July 22, 2004, 4:52 pm

22nd of the month.

Ya, that's about right.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 22, 2004, 5:08 pm

God you are a retard Shaerra, it makes me feel good to know that you are on the other side of the political fence then I am.

Shaerra · Post by **Shaerra** » July 22, 2004, 5:23 pm

Wow... Mudslinging?

From a Democrat?

There's a first.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » July 22, 2004, 5:24 pm

Again, you give Kerry a pass for believing the very same intelligence community yet you see no problem criticizing the President for doing the same.

http://www.georgewbush.com/Media/KerryonIraq.swf

Shaerra · Post by **Shaerra** » July 22, 2004, 5:27 pm

Excellent link.

But be warned. When you use logic to debate the Democrats, you end up hearing nothing but lies and "Yo mama!" insults in return.

Post by **Sylvus** » July 22, 2004, 5:34 pm

Man, some of the things in that Kerry deal are kind of preposterous. Look at June 2003 and the bold "headlines" they put up. The first one says that he said it would be irresponsible at this time to say that the president misled people about WMDs. Then, to make it appear that he is waffling, they say 3 days later that Kerry said Bush misled... though if you read it he says that Bush mislead the senators into believing there would be international support. Two completely different issues. Or look at the first January 2004 one where he says that he doesn't believe that the preident "took us to war as he should have", yet they totally try and twist it in the synopsis.

They're really grasping at some straws there.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » July 22, 2004, 6:30 pm

I don't think you're looking at it the same way I am. I see him continually changing his position according to what will make him popular. I just don't think the guy stands for anything other than "get elected at any cost." Hell it doesn't even list some of his biggest waffles.

It's a timeline, from first to last do you notice the shift?

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » July 22, 2004, 6:44 pm

There are a lot of contextual holes in that "analysis." Contextual holes are the most fundamental way of creating a nice spin effect for simple-minded hillbillies like our above two posters (and not sylvus

).

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 22, 2004, 7:11 pm

Yeah okay, I'm going to waste my time trying to make Shaerra believe she is wrong. All you have to do is look up her posting history to see how she can not be convinced she is in the wrong.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 22, 2004, 7:36 pm

Thess wrote:Yeah okay, I'm going to waste my time trying to make Shaerra believe she is wrong. All you have to do is look up her posting history to see how she can not be convinced she is in the wrong.

I bet I can convince Shaerra she's wrong on a point.

Shaerra,

It's simply not true that Star Trek fans are all geeks. Some of them can be dweebs.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 22, 2004, 10:05 pm

Rekaar. wrote:Again, you give Kerry a pass for believing the very same intelligence community yet you see no problem criticizing the President for doing the same.

http://www.georgewbush.com/Media/KerryonIraq.swf

Hrmmm, who has greater access to "the intelligence community"?

There's no question that the Bush administration used intelligence selectively to persue their agenda, and in all the quotes I've seen of Kerry saying "Sadam is a bad man, and we should remove him" nowhere do I see "Sadam is a bad man, and we will remove him, no matter what the international community or our own people think"

Karae · Post by **Karae** » July 23, 2004, 2:18 am

Rekaar. wrote:Again, you give Kerry a pass for believing the very same intelligence community yet you see no problem criticizing the President for doing the same.

Because he admits he made a mistake. Bush is busy pointing the finger at everyone but himself when it was his responsiblility.

I can admire someone who stands up and takes blame for their mistakes. I can't respect someone who shirks their responsibility and points a finger at every scapegoat in the field.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 23, 2004, 2:55 am

Shaerra wrote:So your position is that all of those quotes should now be ignored, the Democrats "position of the day" should be taken as Gospel, and President Bush should not be re-elected because he made the same mistake that 2 or 3 people made in the past...he believed the fucking Democrats?

nice spin, retard. you must think you are talking to your family or something and that were all morons too. basically all those quotes you posted pretty much show what a great job the clinton administration and the UN did in keeping WMD's away from Iraq, cause from where I'm sitting, Hussein sure as fuck didn't have any.

the main difference is clinton didn't and kerry wouldn't go off on some half cocked reckless charge into a country to illegally depose it's leader without UNSC approval and incredibly solid evidence of an immediate threat. they'd probably also have a better action plan then "bomb the shit out of them and then sit back while the tidal wave of freedom and democracy washes over the entire region."

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 23, 2004, 5:06 am

I really don't see how I could get mad at a president getting a blowjob, or lying about it (I don't think that should have *EVER* been asked to begin with)

I have never once stated I am a democrat because I am not. I am a liberal, that I have stated, I vote for who I think will be the best for the person for my state, my country and the people around the world. Yeah - of course I will probably inherit more money if more republicans are voted in, both my parents are republican - I was raised republican, because my parents have money.

However when I see americans dying for no reason, when I look around and think - what the hell is going on here, I need to get more educated on what exactly is happening. I actually predicted what would happen if we invaded Iraq - do you think I wanted to be right on something like that? Absolutely not. I wish that the reason we invaded the country was right, and why we had gone into that country to begin with was right.

However it wasn't, regardless of looking at myself and how much better I'd be financially (my parents lost over 5 million dollars do to the stock market and economy crashing).

Regardless of my own situation and what would be best - I think about the entirety of america and the world - if you look at Bush and believe your own eyes and ears, you will see that he is bad for the world and a moron in general.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 23, 2004, 5:28 am

Thess wrote:
However it wasn't, regardless of looking at myself and how much better I'd be financially (my parents lost over 5 million dollars do to the stock market and economy crashing).

Please clarify this statement. Are you associating the stock market drop or putting the blame for the stock market drop on Bush?

I don't want to take this out of context before I respond.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 23, 2004, 5:31 am

No, I am not.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 23, 2004, 5:41 am

I don't see the connection between that parapgraph and the rest of your post. The stock market was heading for a dive even before 911 (which wasn't Bushs fault) and the resulting quickening of the stock market crash was not Bushs fault.

The tech bubble was way the hell out of control before day one of Bushs administration. I'm not blaming Clinton but the outrageous tech stock skyrocketing prices happened during his administration and it wasn't something that could possibly last forever. Stick Clinton in for a third term and the stock market still crashes.

I'm not bashing your post but that event was inevitable.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » July 23, 2004, 5:52 am

Winnow wrote:I don't see the connection between that parapgraph and the rest of your post. The stock market was heading for a dive even before 911 (which wasn't Bushs fault) and the resulting quickening of the stock market crash was not Bushs fault.

The tech bubble was way the hell out of control before day one of Bushs administration. I'm not blaming Clinton but the outrageous tech stock skyrocketing prices happened during his administration and it wasn't something that could possibly last forever. Stick Clinton in for a third term and the stock market still crashes.

I'm not bashing your post but that event was inevitable.

Wrong, the stockmarket took a dive before 9/11 and it was Bush's fault. The election of a moron who was on vacation half the time, had proven himself time and time again a fiscal failure, and was already beginning to push the economy into deficit spending seriously affected the confidence of the investor and caused that first dive.

Could also argue that the second was his fault, since he's responsible for 9/11. He had the briefings and either didn't read them or did nothing in response to them - either way he failed as President and is responsible.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 23, 2004, 9:27 am

Karae wrote:
Winnow wrote:I don't see the connection between that parapgraph and the rest of your post. The stock market was heading for a dive even before 911 (which wasn't Bushs fault) and the resulting quickening of the stock market crash was not Bushs fault.

The tech bubble was way the hell out of control before day one of Bushs administration. I'm not blaming Clinton but the outrageous tech stock skyrocketing prices happened during his administration and it wasn't something that could possibly last forever. Stick Clinton in for a third term and the stock market still crashes.

I'm not bashing your post but that event was inevitable.
Wrong, the stockmarket took a dive before 9/11 and it was Bush's fault. The election of a moron who was on vacation half the time, had proven himself time and time again a fiscal failure, and was already beginning to push the economy into deficit spending seriously affected the confidence of the investor and caused that first dive.

Could also argue that the second was his fault, since he's responsible for 9/11. He had the briefings and either didn't read them or did nothing in response to them - either way he failed as President and is responsible.

You cant go as far as to say 911 was Bush's fault, it wasnt by any means. Under the same circumstances that attack would have taken place under any president, honestly, how many threats do you think the white house recieves that we have absolutly no idea about?

Him being a fucking idiot and going into a preschool to read with little kids AFTER he was informed about the first plane, and continuing to smile and bullshit with little kids after he was informed about the SECOND attack is a whole seperate issue

Llaffer · Post by **Llaffer** » July 23, 2004, 11:25 am

Karae wrote: Could also argue that the second was his fault, since he's responsible for 9/11. He had the briefings and either didn't read them or did nothing in response to them - either way he failed as President and is responsible.

Hmm .. a council of people after months of investigations just announced that it wasn't Clinton's or Bush's administration at fault. Yet people still are convinced what they want to believe.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 23, 2004, 12:42 pm

Karae wrote:
Winnow wrote:I don't see the connection between that parapgraph and the rest of your post. The stock market was heading for a dive even before 911 (which wasn't Bushs fault) and the resulting quickening of the stock market crash was not Bushs fault.

The tech bubble was way the hell out of control before day one of Bushs administration. I'm not blaming Clinton but the outrageous tech stock skyrocketing prices happened during his administration and it wasn't something that could possibly last forever. Stick Clinton in for a third term and the stock market still crashes.

I'm not bashing your post but that event was inevitable.
Wrong, the stockmarket took a dive before 9/11 and it was Bush's fault. The election of a moron who was on vacation half the time, had proven himself time and time again a fiscal failure, and was already beginning to push the economy into deficit spending seriously affected the confidence of the investor and caused that first dive.

Could also argue that the second was his fault, since he's responsible for 9/11. He had the briefings and either didn't read them or did nothing in response to them - either way he failed as President and is responsible.

I can't believe you seriously wrote that.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 23, 2004, 12:45 pm

Karae wrote:
Winnow wrote:I don't see the connection between that parapgraph and the rest of your post. The stock market was heading for a dive even before 911 (which wasn't Bushs fault) and the resulting quickening of the stock market crash was not Bushs fault.

The tech bubble was way the hell out of control before day one of Bushs administration. I'm not blaming Clinton but the outrageous tech stock skyrocketing prices happened during his administration and it wasn't something that could possibly last forever. Stick Clinton in for a third term and the stock market still crashes.

I'm not bashing your post but that event was inevitable.
Wrong, the stockmarket took a dive before 9/11 and it was Bush's fault. The election of a moron who was on vacation half the time, had proven himself time and time again a fiscal failure, and was already beginning to push the economy into deficit spending seriously affected the confidence of the investor and caused that first dive.

Could also argue that the second was his fault, since he's responsible for 9/11. He had the briefings and either didn't read them or did nothing in response to them - either way he failed as President and is responsible.

Holy shit!!! hold on a sec let me print this so I can wipe my ass with it.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » July 23, 2004, 6:42 pm

I can't believe you people can't distinguish between fault and responsibility. Amazing.

VeeshanVault

Only Fox News...

Only Fox News...

Re: Only Fox News...