Fogbuster

Your assessment of me only enhances my self-esteem. Now that you have clearly demonstrated what a partisan political hack you really are -- masquerading underneath your "objective search for the facts" charade -- every criticism you level at me merely proves how small, vindictive, and utterly intolerant you are of anyone who dares challenge you with a viewpoint that differs from yours.

I wear your disdain for me as badge of honor. Receiving your criticism proves I am on the right track. Thank you.

As for which president was better or worse -- or smartest or dumbest -- there is every reason to know that despite these utterly hysterical purely partisan attacks on GW Bush and his presidency being displayed now, the war in Iraq is turning to the good for the Iraqi people. And that makes it good for all the people of the Middle East, and all people of the world.

Once again, the U.S. has taken a stand for the sake of others, as she did in WWI and WWII, and followed it through to the end. Both the Korean War and Vietnam were failures of U.S. resolve to follow through, and thank God Geo Bush and the U.S. are not repeating the same mistakes made by Truman and Kennedy/Johnson.

So, no matter what you and the Michael Moores of the world try to do, Iraq is now free of the totalitarianism you so blithely overlook, just as the NYTimes did by elevating a Walter Duranty to the status of a Pulitzer "authority" on the Soviets, even as he *knew* Stalin was starving to death 13 million Ukrainians and killing another 50 million through his secret prisons, gulags, and extermination camps. People like you overlook these things to suit your own political agenda, but others do not.

You and the Dems may choose to overlook the horrors of Saddam's regime, all to suit your purely personal private partisan agenda, but the Iraqi people surely do not; nor do other people of conscience.


//

PressCoverage

lol... what i'm intolerant of are the intolerant... everything about this paragraph is either ironic or hypocritical.... not that we've come to expect anything better from you, God Squawker...

of course you do.... that's why you return for more, and are so desperate on getting in the last word of every thread like an immature high school girl... you're embarrassing yourself with this faux front of superiority... you're as reactionary as i wish you to be.... and it's oh so satisfying...


more textbook hypocrisy by our resident Pat Roberts, considering 99% of your blathering posts are partisan hack jobs against past liberal leaders (which usually make no sense, and no one is buying)... spare me your "good for the world" schlock... if "good" is having your father and brother ripped from your home at 3 a.m. and holes drilled in their heads, then i hate to imagine what "bad" truly is... log into your eBay account and see if you can buy a clue for cheap... i'll pay the shipping...

you were saying something about partisan hack jobs? here's more hypocrisy... it's funny how utterly irrelevant you've become here... does anyone really look forward to you and your posts? surely there's one... actually, Boy King most certainly IS repeating the same mistakes of the past... over and over again... trying to pound a square block into a round hole...


behold, more strawman argument! ... you must have gotten an 'A' in drama... great passion, albeit utterly pretentious.... unfortunately, no one's buying a ticket, because your script is sucks....

substitute the word Rethuglican for "Dems", and the words Bush's regime for "Saddam's regime" and you have a paragraph that hits much closer to the mark...

summing up: a nice heaping helping of hypocrisy from our resident leader of the out of touch party.... this is like shooting fish in a barrel...

Fogbuster

I'm glad you spent so much time telling me what for. Now I know how worried you are that people may actually believe what I'm saying over whatever it is that you say you say you are saying.




I'm so "out of touch" you can't stay away from me!!






//

PressCoverage

i think that may be a record for the word "You" in a sentence... Four, yes?

stay away from you? dude, you're everywhere... you never shutup, you never consider an opponent's viewpoint, you never let it die... to stay away from you would be to not post here... and that won't be happening... so, keep flattering yourself if it makes you feel better inside... my collisions with you are pure coincidence, trust me on that one... but when i do suffer through your drivel, i thoroughly enjoy kicking the crap out of it...

half the time, i gloss over your chunk-spewing within the first few irrelevant "God is Great" words... so utterly boring... you, however, follow ME incessantly...

Fogbuster

Yeah, well, since you apparently believe the entire universe revolves around what *YOU* believe, it is only fitting and proper to give YOU your due.

Be that as it may, as long as there are attempts to steal America from what she is supposed to be, what the electorate -- guided from above -- chose her to be, as long as there is Michael Moore, and Paul Begala, and Al Core, and Hillary, and all the rest who want to keep America from achieving her providential mission, yeah, I'll be around to expose the hypocrisy.

When the results of the piranhas and sharks are producing this: http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story...6-f676f25b536a

you better believe I will be around.

The moment you all want to be nice and play straight up, cut the crap and infantile selfish behavior, I'll go back to fishing or whatever. Until then, I'm your worst nightmare because I won't cut and run, and I won't shut up. When there is phony, hypocritical, small-minded, self-serving spinning going on, I'll be there to expose it. When there is effort to whip up the mob to a feeding frenzy to kill not only another president, but the entire nation, I'll fight it.

You don't like that because you think your view of life is accurate, "superior", but it is not. So the fact that you don't like what people like me say is of less consequence than what is good for the whole. You, like every solitary individual, has your own personal view on things, and that's fine. But when it is a view that simply sees what _has been_, and you then say it is "what always will be", that's not enough. We need a view of _what can be_, so that we can do what is best for ALL.

Meanwhile: EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT in the late 1990s, during the Bill Clinton administration, with Bill Clinton intel, publicly voiced that the U.S. *should take action to remove Saddam Hussein*. Every single Democrat said Saddam had to go. Every one of consequence. Then, when Bush actually does it, it suddenly becomes "an evil invasion", "killing innocent people", "war crimes". That sucks in the worst possible way.

The definition of hypocrisy is right there in the Dems' actions.


//

PressCoverage

"apparently" must be a relative term to you... i never said or indicated i felt the world revolved around me... you "give" me nothing, besides ammunition....

and ladies and gentlemen, there we have it... "achieving her providential mission"... thank you for confirming that you're a zealot, bent on appropriating your wacky view of God and Christ for us all to adhere to... this is really why i can't stand you... what would Jesus do? well, he wouldn't be an eternal captialistic jerk, nor would he be a Conservative.... lol... the irony of YOU uttering the phrase "around to expose the hypocrisy" is stunningly poetic...

and so will i...

cut the crap? infantile selfish behavior? wow... once again, you wrote the book on that here, Mr. Roberts... need i remind you again who took the gloves off first between you and i? oh yeah, that's right... it was you.... but, see, while i display fitting venom that Con men can actually hear, i also tackle the theme of the debate itself... you, when you run out of deflection, usually offer a one-sentence "na-na" line, coupled with a gay smiley, and run along to your next sermon elsewhere...

i'm convinced you're a playwright... lol... such vim!... my worst nightmare??? no one's asking you to cut and run... you serve liberal purpose much more by merely typing... please don't go, and just keep doing what you do... but whatever you do, please.. don't "expose it".... lol... that WOULD be a nightmare...

while it is accurate, i never indicated my view on life was superior... though you have yet to beat me in a debate... as soon as you start detouring from facts in a specific debate and instead chirp about ideology and "providence", it's like a standing 8 count for you... i'm so far ahead of you on points, you'll need a knockout... and i know you don't have the ballast for that, no matter how clean a shot you connect with...

ummm, what the F are you even takling about? lol

LOL.... link the undeniable fact every Democrat publicly voiced exactly that ... or recognize you carry absolutely no weight here anymore... are you just gonna, oh, how did you put it? "throw crap against the wall and hope it sticks?"... you mentioned something about it falling back in your face? lol... yeah... at what point do you stop making things up out of thin air and portraying it as widely known fact?

Fogbuster

With credit to FTW:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-...337#post380337



"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

"[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."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 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 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, Dec, 5, 2001.

"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 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 seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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 alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (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. "[W]ithout 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 has 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.



Now, of course, if you can disprove any of these, I'll be willing to listen.

If you cannot, then, yeah, this pretty much proves beyond any shadow of doubt that you *ARE* the worst partisan agenda-driven hypocrite on this list. By far.




//

PressCoverage

lol... you're such a tool.... credit to FTW? that list is all over the internet, especially on wacko righty blogs... unfortunately, it hardly states ALL dems said "Saddam had to go"...

anyhow, i would have to be a democrat in order to be partisan... unfortunately for your latest sermon, i'm not...

your words exactly:

yet over half your list is from after Clinton left office... certainly NOT all the quotes here suggested the "U.S. should take action to remove Saddam"... that is merely you adding 2 and 2 and getting 5 .... oops, not quite....

might i remind you that 133 representatives voted against the original resolution Boy King rushed to order before the 2002 midterms... that's right, 133... Further, 23 Senators said no to invading Iraq, all but TWO of them Democrats... you said flatly that every single democrat said Saddam had to go... did you not?... now you're changing the parameters of your bloviating, ignorant statement.... as usual...

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

Seen this quote a number of times on brown-shirtish righty blogs everywhere... It's their rallying point.... Yet they never provide the rest of his speech... Just this truncated sentence is all you ever see... Nevermind that Ted voted against the invasion, and yet you're sitting here flat LYING, asserting he somehow called for the removal of Saddam based on this quote above... lol... wow, you'd make a horrible journalist... and this capsulates the irresponsible bull***** of Con man agenda... anyhow, reactionary jackass, here are the FACTS behind Ted Kennedy's speech that day at Johns Hopkins: ...

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLI.../iraq.kennedy/

"I have come here today to express my view that America should not go to war against Iraq unless and until other reasonable alternatives are exhausted."

Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the top goal of U.S. policy toward Iraq should be to get weapons inspectors back on the job without conditions. And he said the country should work closely with the United Nations to force Saddam to comply with resolutions on disarmament that came at the close of the Persian Gulf War.

Kennedy hinted at recent Democratic complaints that the Bush administration has politicized the issue of national security and has impugned Democrats who try to engage the administration in debate about what course of action to take.

"It is possible to love America while concluding that it is not now wise to go to war," Kennedy said. "The standard that should guide us is especially clear when lives are on the line. We must ask what is right for our country and not party."

"Resorting to war is not America's only or best course at this juncture," Kennedy said. "There are realistic alternatives between doing nothing and declaring unilateral or immediate war. War should be a last resort, not the first response."

yet you're farting on and on here completely changing the intent of his words... what a POS...

Fogbuster

Yep, that's you all right. Proving it with every post you make, sadly.



//

PressCoverage

yeah, that's right... no response to another debunked load of crap from you... just more crying... sadly...