fakes

[Dru]

falsies? (o)(o)

[Fairweather]

They're obviously too firm to be real.

 

(^)(^)is small and perky better than big and fake?

[Dru]

"it ain't what you do it's the way that you do it"

 

(.)(.)

[Fairweather]

 

 

(.)=(.) just as important as size?

(.)>(.)

[Ursa_Eagle]

(.)( = Mallrats

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Rather is a fake!

 

Lest us forget, Rather went out of his way to undermine America's foreign policy prior to the war, when he flew to Baghdad and did a softball, sympathetic interview with Saddam himself.

 

Rather is a despicable, biased, traitorous fraud. I relish in his self-destruction. Just desserts.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Backtrack to all the false, and proven false information put out to justify the war. Where was our "liberal" press then? Not a peep. Just goes to show how the conservative press lies low.

 

That's a complete crock.

 

The liberal media made every effort to question, challenge, and criticize Bush's proposals to force Iraq to comply with UN resolutions or face military action. They were sure to load up their "discussion panels" and "guests" with Clintonistas and other left-wingers on every news-cast for 9 months - Summer of 2002 through March of 2003. It was a daily barrage of thinly-veiled contradictory bias from the left. The typical fare.

 

And that leads me to the liberal lie that has become their mantra of late - the so called "rush to war". We farted around for 9 months, trying to work with the inept and impotent UN, giving Iraq plenty of time to hide, export or dispose of their weapons as well as prepare for a war. If anything we waited too long.

[Jim]

Backtrack to all the false, and proven false information put out to justify the war. Where was our "liberal" press then? Not a peep. Just goes to show how the conservative press lies low.

 

That's a complete crock.

 

The liberal media made every effort to question, challenge, and criticize Bush's proposals to force Iraq to comply with UN resolutions or face military action. They were sure to load up their "discussion panels" and "guests" with Clintonistas and other left-wingers on every news-cast for 9 months - Summer of 2002 through March of 2003. It was a daily barrage of thinly-veiled contradictory bias from the left. The typical fare.

 

And that leads me to the liberal lie that has become their mantra of late - the so called "rush to war". We farted around for 9 months, trying to work with the inept and impotent UN, giving Iraq plenty of time to hide, export or dispose of their weapons as well as prepare for a war. If anything we waited too long.

 

This is rich. There was lots of rah-rah, cool graphics, and embedded (read:co-op) journalists. The lies they told to the American people and the UN were not questioned by the media. Get real.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

This story may be a fake but at least it didn't result in 1000 American GI's dying and countless thousands of Iraqis. Your President told a lie far worse than this little story.

 

I guarantee that your concern for "countless thousands of Iraqis" is just a convenient rhetorical device for your anti-Bush rhetoric. Just how much did you think about the "countless thousands" who died every year under Saddam? Answer: not a whit. Just as you told occupy your mind with those under threat of starvation in Sudan today, or elsewhere around the globe - past or present.

 

As for the 1,000 dead U.S. soliders, one must ask how many innocent Americans would have died if we did not take the fight to the terrorists, and waited instead for the next domestic attack like helpless sheep waiting for their slaughter (the Kerry strategy). Impossible to know, so you can throw out the figure of "1,000" without contradiction along with claims of the big "lie" about WMD. Well, Sir, some of us know our history and have longer memories than you think. We contemplate the relative costs and benefits of this war compared to those of the past. And we will base our critique of the success of this war not on some number of dead (oh, no, 1000, <wringing of hands>), but on the overall, extremely complex picture. And we will evaluate the "lie" of WMD as well... for many of us saw the geopolitical significance of Iraq, terrorism, and a growing middle-east fanaticism as the primary reason to overthrow Saddam and face these issues head-on. Terrorism and oppression in the Middle East has been festering and must be countered before Islamo-Fascism develops into a world-wide conflict as did depression-era european and far-east fascism.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

This is rich. There was lots of rah-rah, cool graphics, and embedded (read:co-op) journalists. The lies they told to the American people and the UN were not questioned by the media. Get real.

 

Preceding the war there were no "embedded" journalists. I'm talking about the pre-war criticism and doubts raised on the major networks.

 

During the war itself there was still a constant level of criticism, it was just mixed with the reporting on the execution of the war itself. Following the fall of Baghdad, it was readily audible again.

 

You could prove all my assertions by viewing past broadcasts and counting the number of comments that could be construed as challenging or critisizing the war and compare that to those that praised it. But none of these facts would matter to you as your pinko-colored glasses would never allow it. The news must be 100% condemnatory of the Iraq war for you and your like-minded radicals to be satisfied.

[j_b]

You could prove all my assertions by viewing past broadcasts and counting the number of comments that could be construed as challenging or critisizing the war and compare that to those that praised it.

 

you got that backward. you are supposed to prove your assertions, not the other way around. but this once i'll make an exception and disprove your blatant lies: "Overall, 68 sources, or 17 percent of the total on-camera sources, represented skeptical or critical positions on the U.S.'s war policy-- ranging from Baghdad officials to people who had concerns about the timing of the Bush administration's war plans. The percentage of skeptical sources ranged from 21 percent at PBS (22 of 106) to 14 percent at NBC (18 of 125). ABC (16 of 92) and CBS (12 of 70) each had 17 percent skeptics." note that the criteria for labeling skeptics was very conservative.

 

link to above quote

 

now if you need specific instances of pro-war bias, there is plenty more, just scroll down the page and you'll find it:

 

http://www.fair.org/international/iraq.html

[KaskadskyjKozak]

you got that backward. you are supposed to prove your assertions, not the other way around.

 

This is a discussion forum, not an academic journal.

 

but this once i'll make an exception

 

How magnaminous of you.

 

and disprove your blatant lies: "Overall, 68 sources, or 17 percent of the total on-camera sources,...

 

I question the biases of the organization that made this evaluation, and the criteria they used to define 'skeptical' and 'critical'. I also question the time frame over which the evaluation was performed, and what the 68 sources were. I will not accept what is written in this document as accurate and legitimate just because it is posted on a web-site, or because YOU think it has merits.

 

It will take a lot more than that to convince me that my own personal impressions of the three networks - ABC, CBS, and NBC plus CNN were incorrect. I noted that each had copious amounts of negative criticism and skepticism of the war - before, during, and after it took place. I saw it daily for myself. And there was enough to give me the overall impression that they all held a biased, anti-war position, not the other way around.

[j_b]

KaskadskyjKozak said:

i can't substantiate any of my assertions but take my good word for it because my credibility is extremely high. and just to be sure, anything you might say is so obviously wrong

 

sorry pal, that won't do