That's why I don't listen to them without a huge grain of salt! Their strong bias is just as blaringly clear as that of any other pundit. It's what they do. It's also why I don't go to them and swallow what they have to say as true.
This is easier to say than debunking WHAT they say. Bias aside, they could well be telling the truth either wholly or in part. Merely dismissing it as propoganda does not falsify any of their claims.
Sure, it wasn't ALL hearsay... that's true. But there was a good strong healthy dose of it I think.
Then acknowledge the valid points and point out the hearsay so that it can be addressed. Merely saying it is hearsay doesn't make it so.
Try these ignorant, ill-informed statements on for size then:
I'd ask readers to note what Brother John originally posted. Here is a link to the actual speech and the text in question:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html
Second, without question, we 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. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. 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, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.
Wow.
Wow indeed. Seems you've taken things out of context, and are somewhat lazy in you research. It took me three minutes to "Google It."
Did President and Mrs. Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry ALL make such blatant LIES?? Yet in the past several months of this election year it's been claimed over and over and over that President Bush: "Lied to the American People".
That's because he did. We've outlined that in detail in "Did We Have Justification," and elsewhere.
really... Then why is it that the words of the political opposition support his supposed 'lie' time and again??
They didn't support his lie.
Are these leaders of the DNC all equally ignorant and ill-informed on such an important matter?
No, Brother John. But clearly you are given your willingness to embrace a statement without verifying it.
It doesn't matter where it came from or who said it, it IS propaganda.
and 'Why.." you ask... because #1: It suits Pat's ends. #2: Not all "American Conservatives" are Republicans or believe in President Bush. So what? Not all Dems agree with Kerry or wanted him for their president. So what? That doesn't prove anything.
When you have a number of well placed Republicans taking a stand against Bush, and only Zell Miller taking a stand against Kerry...I'd say that indicates a lot. As to it "suiting Pat's ends", you assume he has "ends" without proving what they are. Is this how you debate? Making unverifiable claims and ad hominem attacks?
Why would Sen. Miller (Not a 'former senator') endorse President Bush and deliver a scathing rebuke of his own party at the GOP convention??
I'll see your lameduck Senator and raise you one former Right Wing Senator Bob Smith (known as the most conservative member of the Senate):
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/102904_smith_letter.pdf
Better yet, let me add another one:
http://p198.ezboard.com/frepublicansforkerryfrm2.showMessage?topicID=398.topic
My goodness. Look at the name of that web site. Republicans for Kerry?
I've not heard this rumor, could you site it or give a link? Thanks.
Learn to Google, Brother John. I typed in "Republican Civil War". Simple. Here it is:
http://www.independent-media.tv/itemprint.cfm?fmedia_id=9436&fcategory_desc=Under Reported
Call it what you like Steve, I stand by it and believe I'm safe in doing so.
It is still an ad hominem attack...and easily disputed. You attack the man rather than his statements, by saying what is in effect "Well, consider the source," or by suggesting that he has suspect motives. His motives might indeed be impure or unethical, but that doesn't falsify his statements.
Regards,
Steve
