The Bush-Hater Is A LIAR!
(correction: the material about "misquoting" that was here was a misinterpretation by Republicus--no matter, the material below is more to the point)
"Luckily you are a very fast shrinking minority of thought."
Lee Harvey
Sounds like little Lee Harvey is trying to sell his war for regime change by looking at bad intelligence and exaggerating it.
An AP-Ipsos poll has found that Bush improved his job approval rating from 37 percent in November to 42 percent now, with a drop in disapproval from 61 percent to 57 percent.
Those are certainly not the kind of numbers a president of a constitutional republic should be fat and happy with, but that's not the point (though Lee Harvey was sure to have rushed in to change the subject and make that the point, hence the pre-emption).
The point is that while that was happening--a swelling of support for the President, from the 30's into the 40's, and disapproval down from the 60's into the 50's-- Lee Harvey was telling everybody not that support for Bush constituted a "minority of thought" (technically true, as indicated by the polls), nor that it was a "shrinking minority of thought" (which is false, backwards, in fact, as the latest polling indicates), nor that it was a "fast shrinking minority of thought" (which is an exaggerated falsehood, a distortion of reality), but a "very fast shrinking minority of thought."
Which is an over-the-top, out-and-out Lie.
posted by John | 5:57 PM
16 Comments:
I really think you enjoy egging this guy on.
====
The worst part of Jeff's perspective is that he lies to himself. He has totaly convinced himself that Dubya is bad that he won't see anything else.
He won't see that the biggest threat in Iraq, for instance, is Al Qaeda.
Jim Brown Baghdad, 4 Nov 2005 James B. Brown COLONEL, MILITARY POLICE COMMANDING 18th Military Police Brigade CAMP VICTORY APO AE 09342 had this to say:
We have learned a lot about our enemies this past year. One of the most significant events was the interception of the Al Qaeda strategy letter from Al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan to Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq. The letter demonstrates that our enemies are waging a global war against us and all free peoples. The desired end-state of our enemies is to take us from a multi-cultural society with freedom of religion and thought to an eighth century caliphate dominated by a religious zealot who will tell us what to wear, what to think and how we are to worship.
---
This was from a letter he wrote on his last day in Iraq before heading back to his base in Germany. I have the full text of that letter from two sources.
Hi Kelly.
There's a lot more where that came from.
Both Zarqawi and Bin Laden himself have said or written precisely what the President has said, that Iraq is the place where the war against America will be won or lost.
However, the situation in Iraq--vis-a-vis "the enemies" we are fighting--cannot be boiled down to just Al Qaeda.
It's a complex political situation against different factions with their own agendas--religiously-driven or otherwise-- but, certainly, Al Qaeda is there and thrives on any strife perpetrated by other groups or by their own destabilizing mischief.
It more than qualifies as the central front of the War on Terror.
I disagree with you 100% Kelly. I gave dubya the benefit of the doubt on Bin Laden and Afghanistan. He proved a failure there and when he blatantly lied and used your own glaring cowardice and fear of being the next target of Al-Queda against you, you blinked, I didn't. I knew he was lying, a criminal act against our nation to start a false illegal war. I am not a peace activist as Republicus claims, thats just a convenient deflection of reality cooked up by you cowards to bathe yourselves in the alternate reality you can't seem to escape from. I am against pre emptive illegal wars based on complete lies and forging and twisting of intelligence to lie to congress( a crime by the way) and the American people to support an action with no merit in truth or the reality to which you so desperately cling to.
I will never understand or attempt to anymore, you folks so blinded by fear that you have essentially completed the job of those assholes who successfully carried out the only foreign terrorist act on our soil. You should be ashamed of yourselves for the way you caved and cut and ran away from all that was good about our country to hide behind torture, murder, the dissolving of personal freedoms, all in the name of stopping those same acts. You have made it worse with your complicity to a criminal administration hell bent on agendas that have nothing at all to do with terrorism.
Free Fall For The President
Dec. 9, 2005
President Bush cites progress in the Iraq War while addressing a group of midshipman in Annapolis, MD. The President’s approval ratings have declined considerably since the war began, although recent polls suggest they may have bottomed out. (CBS)
Quote
In fact, the Democrats have one, simple job for the next 11 months: to not do anything stupid to get in the way of the GOP's overall campaign of self-immolation.
(The American Prospect) This column was written by Terence Samuel.The holidays are coming, people are not broke and they are feeling pretty good about themselves, and that for the moment may have arrested George W. Bush's downward spiral in the polls. It'll be interesting to see how Democrats react to that piece of good news for the White House.
In fact, the Democrats have one, simple job for the next 11 months: to not do anything stupid to get in the way of the GOP's overall campaign of self-immolation. And to that end, the evidence suggests that, at least for a little while, they shouldn't say anything at all. For one thing, there is a credible argument to be made that no one is listening anyway. And there is an even larger fear that they will say the wrong thing.
The recent attempts by President Bush to rescue his Iraq policy offer yet another example of why the biggest thing Democrats have in their favor is a White House that has lost its swagger. Their biggest problem may be a Democratic Party that can’t seem to find its own mojo.
On Wednesday, House Democrats met to puzzle over the problem. And on Thursday Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said she is not necessarily interested in forging or enforcing some kind of party position on Iraq in the same way she was on other issues, like prescription drugs. "There is no leadership conversation about pushing members to go one way or the other," Pelosi said. "We don’t have a party position on matters of war."
The idea here is to take the high road and to avoid looking like political opportunists when people are dying every day in Iraq, but Democrats don't want a cackle of disparate voices to make them look like a weak alternative to guys who are messing up right now. But that is how they look: the president makes an utterly unsuccessful speech about victory in Iraq, demonstrating once again that his presidency may be effectively over, and yet Democrats still somehow manage to come across as divided, disorganized, and flailing.
Even in comparison to a president going down in flames.
Pelosi did make the point that the dissension among Democrats may be less significant than advertised: The debate, she say is "about when, not if we should reduce our troops" in Iraq.
In the end, I suspect Democrats have not hurt themselves much. And we know the president did not help himself at all. More than half of Americans think he is now just spouting rhetoric on Iraq: They appear to be done with the issue and to have made up their minds that this war was, and is, a mistake and there is nothing you can tell them now to make them feel better or to change their minds. Bush can make all the "major" speeches he wants: People don't believe anything he says anymore, particularly when the morning news out of Iraq is beginning to sound like the daily body count out of Vietnam, and when the Secretary of State is forced to spend her time assuring the world in vague generalities that the United States really, truly believes that torture is bad.
Without any other attractive options, the president is forced into a situation of trying to do to the political opposition at home what he has not been able to do to militarily to the insurgency in Iraq. As a result, there is the howitzer barrage that has been unleashed on anyone who has criticized the president or the war lately.
"Those Democratic congressional leaders who try to suggest that we don't have a plan are deeply irresponsible," declares White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
Last week, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Peter Pace said military personnel needed to do a better job spreading the good news about Iraq. "We can say, 'We are winning,' and we will stay at it because our children and grandchildren deserve to live in the kinds of freedom you and I have enjoyed all our lives," he said, "We have done ourselves a disservice in the way we have defined the progress of Iraqi forces."
But Bush and his apostles may find themselves in the interesting position of talking more when everyone is listening less. That's what happens in a credibility gap. It may be that Americans have decided that they have had enough of this war whether Saddam had WMDs or not, whether the White House believed everything it said that turned out to be wrong or was lying, or whether there are 100 battle-ready Iraqi army divisions or just two guys on a corner ready to take up the slack when the Americans leave. They don't like this war anymore, and it's Bush's war, so they don't like him much anymore either. And it would behoove Democrats to not to get in between a sinking president and an increasingly disdainful electorate.
Terence Samuel is a political writer in Washington, D.C.
Actually, your perspective is totally fucked up as usual. I was thanking you for not misquoting me, as I am proud of my stance and stand by each and every word. But since distortion is such a prevalent part of the wiring of your screwed up brains right now, you took it as me saying you were misquoting me."
Actually, Lee Harvey, since distortion is such a prevalent part of the wiring of YOUR screwed up brain, and since Republicus has already well-demonstrated your chronic grammatical shortcomings, Republicus' own assumption that "I appreciate you not misquoting me" meant "I would appreciate it if you stop misquoting me" is understandable, particularly after Republicus encountered that very same charge from hyper-sensitive Gothamimage when the latter was presented with his own words separated by ellipses-- as your quotes were-- so the erroneous assumption is understandable.
In other words, what can you expect?
Republicus has been forced into the habit of viewing your comments in the same way that a word jumble or word search from the newspaper is presented to him.
I may not be very eloquent with words, I might not be very skillful with the debate, but I know when I have the facts in front of me and he has not produced them, yet.
All I see is a guy filled with the same kind of hate that fuels the insurgence we fight in Iraq. It is the same hate that fueled Mr. McVeigh, that fueled Mr. Oswald, and fuels those whose agenda can only be carried out through threats.
BINGO, Kelly.
BTW, Jeff, Samuels' advice to Democrats to just keep their mouths shut while Bush is in "free fall" is no defense of the FACT that the "free fall" has been cushioned by the base and being buoyed upwards by its consolidation with sympaticos who had wandered off the reservation while you were telling everyone the opposite: that Bush's support was "very fast shrinking."
You misread the evidence.
You erred in your statement.
You were mistaken.
You misspoke.
Therefore...
...YOU LIED!
Therefore...
...YOU'RE A LIAR!
Go on Republicus, tell your people how many times I've voted Democrat in my life. You know exactly how many times. You know damn well I'm no partisan hack. But you are so far gone, that you two compare me, lol, to the terrorists, lol, when it's you two who condone that we act just like them. Wow, the fucking hubris. You guys are really a joke.LOL LOL LOL
To actually think you two believe that an attack on the President by dissenters like me is actually treasonous, well, it only proves my point even more. You guys have lost it. LOL
Jeff said,"To actually think you two believe that an attack on the President by dissenters like me is actually treasonous..."
Need I say more?
Yeah you do. Alot more. Please try and explain how you feel America is it's President, and not the people who actually do make up this country. That's a really telling part of who you are. Do you even have a clue as to the implications of your own thought on that subject. To elevevate the duly elected public servant of the populace to such a pedestal as to not just represent our country, but in actuality be our country, proves you guys have no perception based in reality here. That is just scary, to think that dissent and discourse over a publicly hired official is a treasonous act in your mind, is in essence fascism. You need some help.
"The People" of Republicus are fellow American citizens.
Republicus does not know "exactly" how many times you voted Democrat, and that's as irrelevant as the fact that Republicus didn't even bother to vote in 1996.
Republicus knows that you read Kissinger's autobio (or something) in high school (or sometime) and that you liked to boast of that to "prove" that you weren't the bleeding heart, socialist, UN-worshipping, environmentalist whacko, JFK conspiracy paranoiac, UFO dabbler, anti-corporate, anti-miltitary, terrorist-appeasing, apologizing, justifying, anti-American, and unhinged Bush-hater that you most certainly have proven yourself to be.
That is why Republicus has limited the very occassional telephone call to football and family pleasantries, because when it comes to politics, you, like the nasty crowd you rub brains with, are--as Michelle Malkin has documented-- UNHINGED.
"That is just scary, that dissent and discourse over a publicly hired official is a treasonous act in your mind, is in essence fascism. You need some help."
What is scary is a person who says "I hope Bush gets assassinated!" (and then saying that he stands "proudly" by each and every word) thinks that constitutes as "dissent," and that calling supporters of the president "fascists" and "freakin' fascists" and "anglofascists" is proper political "discourse."
Yes, things YOU have said--in a time of war against ruthless terrorists, no less--are treasonous, as far as Republicus is concerned.
Republicus has enjoyed engaging in reasonable discourse--if not butting heads-- with fellow Americans of anti-intervensionist philosophies, truly pacifist ones, or even ones of isolationism.
But that does not include the far-Left fringe Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan antiwar crowd.
Which you belong to.
Republicus has paid attention to true military and foreign policy experts who provide an alternative but legitimate point of view to consider along with the equal--if not superior--expertise of the leaders calling the shots now (who likewise pay attention and consider alternative viewpoints if they are not counter-productive or outright incompatible to the success of the mission).
They are smart and have textured
the mind of Republicus with different angles to consider.
But you, sir, are a scoundrel who is all over the map and reads, believes, and regurgitates any junk that feeds and "validates" your single-minded hate for the president, a hate based on the grounds of a most debased and personal nature.
You need some help.
And Republicus would appreciate it if you treat Kelly with the respect due to a fellow American citizen, a mother of five children, and a guest of Republicus.
You can go ahead and demand your own fair share of respect as a fellow American citizen--if only by birthright--but you forfeited that by introducing yourself when you swooped in like a screaming Banshee in the commentary section of the November 16 post (i.e. "FYI: What The Democrats Said") spewing invective and defaming the character of your host with a harangue worthy of Lee Harvey Oswald himself.
And stop playing the old friend card so you can burrow and worm your way under the skin and have the parasite wag the host.
We flew in the same flock once upon a time (a large fraternal flock) but we are NOT birds of a feather.
YOU know that I've seen you perhaps twice over many years, and that you included me in a mailing list that bombarded my box EVERY DAY with the same partisan junk you post now on the blog of Republicus.
Republicus did not block you, but asked you persistently to STOP SENDING YOUR JUNK.
You ignored the numerous requests like the little liberal fascist fuck you are.
Then you disappeared to cover your vile hate and murderous instincts with some compensating display of humanitarian Love and Brotherhood by volunteering to "help" in hurricane-battered New Orleans.
Good for you, but even BETTER for Republicus, because your obsessive and spiteful force-feeding of anti-Bush propaganda ceased.
Thank GOD.
Good riddance.
But then you come back and even though you did stop bombarding my private email box...you decide it a much better idea to start bombarding my public blog, like the sick little fascist you are, trying to put everyone at ease with "Oh I know Republicus! Republicus and I are old friends! I'm really concerned for his welfare! EVEN THOUGH HE"S A FREAKIN' FASCIST AND ANGLOFASCIST AND BULLSHITTER AND MUST BE STOPPED!"
Republicus likes to think of himself as a champion of Free Speech, and regrets having felt compelled to delete a colorful exchange between another guest, Jess, and Lee Harvey.
Lee Harvey, in response to Republicus' accurately identifying him as yet another Black Knight who has had his limbs lopped off but continues to bark out challenges to continue the fight ("Just a flesh wound!")--in other words, he was soundly discredited but still insists he has authority--replied something to the effect of: "You're the one missing an appendage, but it's not a limb."
Republicus assumes the fool meant "brain" (even though the brain is not an "appendage"--quite opposite, in fact; what, BACKWARDS? Surprise!).
However, Kelly made the mistake of taking him at his word, and thought Lee Harvey was making some snide remark about the only other "appendage" apart from limbs: the genitalia of Republicus, that is, she interpreted Lee Harvey's snide crack as saying that Republicus didn't have any, well, balls.
Her women's intuition discerned otherwise, and she sprang to the defense of Republicus, saying he had a better package than Lee Harvey was trying to flaunt.
Lee Harvey got very defensive on that score.
The graphic exchange was deleted.
However, Kelly's intuition indeed picked up on something going on in Lee Harvey's mind that is driving his obsessed determination to dominate--if not discredit and destroy--Republicus along with his determination to discredit and destroy the President of the United States of America.
The liberal is not an egoist but an egotist, which is inferior and relies on psychological defense mechanisms for offense (as well as over-the-top defamations and character assassination of American citizens in leadership positions of far more better character, accomplishment, experience, and education than he.
There is a personal vendetta at work here.
Republicus regrets having felt compelled to delete yet another tactless, BIG MOUTHED and utter irrelevancy to any posted political argument when Lee Harvey saw fit to reference the "mommy" of Republicus and his hometown, something only Republicus should share if he deems fit.
Lee Harvey then decided to post his real name and city of residence as some show of bravado, explicitly accusing the private citizen Republicus--who is sure to be ruffling feathers on the World Wide Web in a world full of sickos like Lee Harvey-- of "having something to hide."
Or protect. Like his privacy?
Anyway, both sets of information--Republicus' hometown and Lee Harvey's real name and city of residence-- were deleted.
The former for reasons of privacy, the latter because Republicus doesn't want the FBI tracking him down and asking him questions about his "old friend" Jeff, whose high "hopes" for the president strongly echo the wishes of terrorists.
When it comes to politics, Republicus has nothing to do with you.
Keep the poor, homeless, tempest-tossed, and wretched refuse of your teeming brain to yourself, Lee Harvey.
The lamp of Republicus shines not for you.
You're a snake.
What are you doing here? You don't belong here.
Poetic justice, you say?
After Republicus subjected poor Gotham to the same?
Not at all. Republicus enjoyed a good give and take and did not plaster the walls of his blog every morning with every screed he read over a bowl of Cheerios.
Republicus spoke his mind, had several of his devastating rebuttals deleted, took a hint (FINALLY! Heh heh) and left, opening his own shop here.
So take a hint, Lee Harvey:
GO AWAY.
Get help, Le Harvey. Go to church or hit the couch.
BTW, I know in your single-minded obsession it's difficult to pay attention to your surroundings and that you block things out, but in case you failed to notice, this was a sarcastic post mocking the over-the-top charges of "LIES! LIES! LIES!" and pointing out that in your seething delirium you failed to notice Bush's approval ratings being buoyed upwards in sharp contradiction to your recent crowing about those who approve consisting of a "very fast shrinking minority."
That was a mistatement.
By your own standards, that is a LIE.
So, after Lee Harvey tries once again to control the message with all sorts of subject-changing distractions, I bring you back to the point of this post:
The Bush-Hater is a LIAR.
Excuse me, Kelly.
When I wrote:
"However, Kelly made the mistake of taking him at his word...However, Kelly's intuition indeed picked up..."
I was referring to Jess.
Thank you for making that correction.
Post a Comment
<< Home