"Yeah - we said Bush lied!
I never meant it personally, I just improvised!"

The only 'evidence' of Bush 'lying' about pre-war intelligence came from Joe Wilson. Remember all that? "Plamegate"? One of the many other scandals the left cooked up which they thought would be the issue they would use to get Bush impeached, Karl Rove 'frog-marched' out of the White House, Cheney charged as a criminal, and so on and so on and so on.

And where is Joe Wilson now? Where are the criminal charges the left and the media were so SOOOOO sure would be levelled? All gone. Because it has been proven that Bush didn't lie. He was right. It was Joe Wilson who lied. It has been documented in British Intelligence that Saddam's Iraq DID try to get uranium from Niger.

The simple truth is, the Dems and the lefties were given access to the same pre-war intelligence that Bush had. And they still voted FOR the war. If it was as flimsy as all that, then why did they vote for it? Why won't they publically recant their votes? Why don't they level criminal charges against Bush or impeach him? After all, if you're right, he's a criminal and a war criminal to boot - right?

Again - if you're so sure that Bush lied, the bring forth the evidence. Bring it to your congressman. He's there to represent you - right? To represent your point of view. Bring your evidence to them, and to the media. Lay it all out on the table and then demand that they go in front of those cameras and declare it to the world. No one's going to believe you if you use comic-book characters like Michael Moore. He's too over the top and frankly he's no more trustworthy than Joe Wilson was. You need to get credible people in Congress or the House to take your conspiracy theories and start using them in their debates and campaign appearances.

Go ahead - try it. Get your elected representatives to use your theories and run with them in the upcoming elections.

But you won't do it. Because you know these theories can't be proved. You can stand there and say "Bush lied" all you want. But you know as well as anyone there are perfectly reasoned and logical counters to them. Any debater worth his salt could blow them out of the water.

Which is why, even if you DO take your arguments to your Congressman, they'll ignore it. They wouldn't dare to use that kind of clap-trap in an actual political debate.

Think about it. Have you ever heard your leftie politicians repeat any of the stuff you see on the left-wing blogs? Your bloggers are the ones who supposedly have 'all the answers' - right? So why aren't they using them to recant their votes, demand an immediate withdrawl from Iraq and impeach Bush to boot?

Ah how soon we forget. Well, at least some people choose to forget.

When the War on Terror started, Bush went to Congress to ask for funding. With only 1 or 2 exceptions, everyone voted in favor of it. In fact, the 'left' couldn't wait to stampede to the microphones saying how much they agreed with him.

FF to the War in Iraq to topple Saddam. Again, Bush passed resolutions at the U.N. which authorized him to proceed. If they were so dead-set that it was an 'illegal' war, they certainly didn't vote that way. Neither did left-wing politicians in Congress. They all voted to authorize it (with 1 or 2 exceptions), and indeed they wanted TWO debates over the resolution (which they got) so there would be no mistake that they voted in favor of it. One notable vote in the matter was John "F'n" Kerry, who 'voted for it - before he voted against it.'.

FF to Nov. 2005 (just last year). John Murtha, who voted for the war, ran screaming to every camera he could jump in front of that we should leave Iraq. Left-wing politicos had been saying so for months - thinking the war was 'too hard'. They used such rhetoric as "illegal war", "unjustified", "imperialistic", "unauthorized" and so on and so forth, praying to a God they didn't believe in that no one in the country would remember they voted for it in the first place.

If the Dems are so hell-fire sure that the war is wrong, illegal, unjustified and ignoble - why don't they vote to cut off funding? There's all sorts of stuff they could do to sabotage the war - it they REALLY think it's wrong. And you people? Why not write your congressman and demand that they cut off funding for the war? Or demand that we 'bring the boys home'?

Oh yes - Murtha. He was so proud of his new courageous resolve that we must leave Iraq. Finally, the Republican leadership had enough. They introduced a resolution - which would have granted the Dems everything they CLAIMED they wanted. A resolution to withdraw from Iraq. Here was their big chance for the Dems to put their votes where their big mouths were.

The vote came in November 2005. Only THREE Dems voted in favor of the "cut and run" bill. Again - if they are so sure of their position - why won't they vote to quit? Or cut off funding? Or any of the other measures which would bring their 'war is illegal' rhetoric to it's logical conclusion? For that matter - the UN. If they're so sure it's an illegal war - why don't they vote to condemn Bush as a war criminal?

Because that's all they've got - hot air. They know that they themselves voted for the war. They know at the UN they passed the resolutions to authorize it. Because the war was not, is not, and never will be illegal or unauthorized. It was sanctiond by the Dems, the UN, everyone - except the terrorists and Saddam.

Time for another Rush Limbaugh profundity. In a parody of "Do-Run-Run", they wrote a song which outlined the situation so well the Dem's linguini-spined position:

Kennedy: They had a bona-fide and our hearts stood still!
We do run run run, we do run run!
Murtha demanded that we pull out up on capital hill!
We do run run run, we do run run!
Yeah, up on capital hill! At hill, we had to vote on a bill!
That's when we ran away! We do run run run, we do run run!
Thanks a lot Murtha!

I know just what you're thinking that we don't have a spine!
We do run run run, we do run run!
I've got one around here somewhere!
Clinton: I loaned out mine!
We do run run run, we do run run!
Yeah, we got no spine! That's why we're behind!
And if you stand up to us - we do run run run, we do run run!

Kennedy:
They picked on me at 7 on the network news!
We do run run run run, we do run run!
Called us on the carpet to defend our point of view!
We do run run run, we do run run!
Yeah, we said Bush lied!
I never meant it personally, I just improvised!
I, uh, think it's time to run away again!
We do run run run, we do run run!
Over here - this way! Uh, that's not EXACTLY what I meant!
We're, uh, we're all for the troops!
We, uh, we never said withdraw RIGHT NOW!
Just a timetable! Or an estimated timetable....!

Time for another Rush Limbaugh profundity:

"For all this talk about how (the church) needs to moderate it's tone - how they must do this and must do that to satisfy the demands of the secularist left. Well - try saying - "you secularists need to moderate YOUR tone a little." Blasphemy! They will not even consider it! And they're not a religion - but they think of themselves as such. And so the Pope is a threat to them, whoever he is. Because to them he's nothing more than a judge - a supreme court justice whose word is final and they can't touch it or do anything about it. And so they illustrate by virtue of their fears exactly what their own philosophies have constructed."

"You secularists think you've got it bad with civil liberties now? Let me tell you something: If you hate Christmas, you win. If you don't like nativity scenes, you win. If you think perversion should be legalized and aculturated, you win.

You don't talk to be about civil liberties! Because civil liberties are on the loss on the side of right, decency and morality. We're losing all of that under the guise of civil liberties! And it's not coming from the Right or from G.W. Bush, it's coming from people like you on the left who don't like the fact that you're in the minority. You don't like the fact that there's a majority - you call that TYRANNY. And so you want to inflict your minority viewpoint on everyone else and you wind up destroying genuine civil liberties! You namby-pamby leftist have no idea what the loss of civil liberties is, you're out there making stuff up and demanding the loss of real civil liberties! People can't smoke where they want to anymore! New York is passing laws to tell restaurants what oil the can and can't use to cook with! Eminent domain - if some government official thinks he can make tax revenue using your property he can sieze it from arbitrarily! We've got leftists and secularists looking at the constitution and seeing things in it that aren't written there, and seeing things that are written and saying the founding fathers didn't 'mean' it! The 'right' to an abortion! You want to talk about civil liberties? Try being a baby in the womb of a leftist, what are your odds?"

Yeah - the media has been WAY too soft on Bush up until K.O. started feeling his cheerios (insert sarcasm here).

I hope more mainstream organizations like ABC and CBS adopt MSNBC's 'we're liberal and we're proud' attitude so everyone can see the truth they've been trying to hide for over fifty years - that they're left-wing liberal democrats and they want Democrats to win - at any cost. It's only honest. They can't use forged documents like they did at CBS and keep saying they're objective truth-seekers....

Clinton not treated with kid gloves? Have you forgotten that Michael Issikof, the Newsweek magazine editor who had all the facts of Clinton's Lewinski doings, spiked and covered up the story to protect him - until it was exposed by Matt Drudge? And the many interviews with Billary, in which she was allowed to say it was all the doings of a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' and the hosts all smiled and nodded? The "Pretty in Pink" press conference? Hillary being allowed to get away with saying nothing but "I can't recall" during her grand jury testimony about the mysterious documents that proved ill business doings that remained hidden in her office until AFTER the stature of limitations had expired? Clinton blaming the torching of the Davidian compound on Janet Reno and the media accepting it without question? Clinton ordering Peter Jennings - "Don't go there!" (using the same finger-wagging) at the first hint of questioning his legacy? http://newsbusters.org/node/7882 I could go on and on. But all of it - conveniently forgotten - by the left.

And you (saying "you" as a general descriptor of those in favor of the political left) are still going back to the root of your Bush hate - "His brother was governor of Florida in 2000".

You still think the election was 'stolen' from you. Gore demanded and got over three recounts - and he lost them all. Yet you still think you were robbed. I guess it all goes back to that. You think the only way Republicans can possibly win is by cheating and stealing. It couldn't possibly be that they're better at persuading the American people. It couldn't possibly be that people didn't want to elect Gore. It couldn't possibly be any of those things - could it? After all - no intelligent person would vote Republican - would they? They have to have been tricked - or disenfranchised - or discriminated against. That's the only possible way Gore could have lost.

How convenient indeed.

Thanks to Gore's arrogant refusal to accept his rejection, he started the current trend of Democrats running to the cameras after they lose elections and demanding recounts because they can't accept defeat in the arena of ideas.

Gore got less votes. He lost. In order to overcome that simple truth, the left has to come up with conspiracies of voter fraud, intimidation, discrimination, butterfly ballots, hanging chads, and now malfunctioning voting machines. And the rumblings are already starting among the left, gathering teams of lawyers to 'contest' the upcoming mid-term elections in case they lose those, because they are no longer sure they'll win.

College football rivalry? You're still cheering for the team that lost in 2000.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092606/content/truth_detector.guest.html

In the sound bites from this press conference, Bush the 'dumb cowboy hick' spanks the insolent reporters using the "war in Iraq created more terrorist" line. Not only that - the President of Afghanistan himself stomps on them as well. But what does he know, right?

Verify sources and consider them. Ye'll find a LOT of sources on this interview here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092506/content/clinton_interview_overview.guest.html

Just go to the bottom of the page for links to over a dozen articles and analysis.

All I really got from this was that Clinton can't take tough questions. He's used to having interviews like on Larry King et. al where the toughest questions asked of him are "do you agree that Bush is bad for America?" Can anyone say 'softball'?

Bush is repeatedly and regulary excoriated in the most disrespectful and insolent manner possible by almost everyone he is interviewed by and 'hostile' questions/comments come up repeatedly by the snarky interviewers who almost always suffix it with 'why won't you admit your mistakes and confess that this war/your presidency is illegal/illegitimate?'

But let one interviewer ask the crowned King-William Jefferson-Blyyyyyyythe-Clinton-III if HE did anything wrong and he blows up. Note he was not asked to 'admit his mistakes'. But he responded as if he had been.

Always the same song and dance. Wagging his finger in our faces and saying "I did NOT have sex with that woman. I never lied - I never told anyone to lie." Chewing on his bottom lip as if he were the one who had been horribly wronged. Furiously attacking everyone who disagrees with him, but if he is ever criticized it's: "Hey - no attack.... ever fed... a hungry child."

The wagging finger is almost a sure sign that he's lying. He lied right there in that interview. He said Richard Clark was removed before 9/11 from his post - hinting that this 'led' to the attacks and that if only he had remained there, they might have been prevented. He even cited Clark's book as proof of it. But if you actually read his book, Clark says himself that he REMIANED the terrorism 'czar' until AFTER 9/11 and that he changed posts not at the insistence of the Bush admin, but because he wanted to be in charge of the new department.

So who was lying? Clinton, or Clark? Because if Clinton was lying, that's no surprise. But if Clark was lying in his book, then Clinton is doubly at fault, because he lied in citing it as the truth.

This is not a man who is quick on his feet or a great stateman. He's an immature beaurocrat who's used to having the media covering for him, and was flabbergasted that they didn't. If any of these other 'news' networks had any salt in them at all, they'd be asking him tough questions like this. Remember, this is the guy who fought to stomp on the ever-beloved 1st amendment by threatening Disney and ABC to cancel "The Path to 9/11". For once, thankfully, they didn't pay any attention to him.

Slyrr

? Thought USA today (no conservative paper, that one) reported Bush's approval rating just recently 'up' to 44%. How do you 'nosedive' from mid-30s (summer) to 44?

If FOX is 'nosediving' in the same way (can I get an AMEN), then things must be looking pretty good for them.

In terms of market share, viewership and the like, it's true that Fox is going down. But numbers for everyone else (CNN, CBS, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, et. al) are going down proportionally across the board. That has nothing to do with politics - it has to do with the fragmentation of media in general. There are dozens of channels competing for market share.

One of the things that the 'major' networks gripe about all the time is this fragmentation of the media. You hear them constantly pine for the 'good old days' when there were only 3 channels you could get your news from, and they could tell you what to think about anything with no opposing viewpoint. Now they have to (gasp) actually try to persuade people - and if Letterman is a prime example as an entertainer, they've proved already that they can't do it.

Wumpus laid his finger on the sore no one wants to talk about, right there. The typical liberal-minded leftist sees clips like this where a like-minded liberal hits them with an insult, and say "How can anyone believe O'Rielly?"

When they actually try to debate them on equal terms, the leftist will (almost) always revert to type and start calling them names and/or making it personal in some way. Liberals and leftists don't say what they think - they only can say what the feel. And they substitute the emotional satisfaction of the insult (and hearing their like-minded freinds cheering and clapping at it) with the intellecutal satisfaction of actual victory.

To his credit though, at least he was more or less admitting his own leftist bias, as opposed to most news people who are still pretending they're objective.....

"Gimme some inner peace or I'll mop the floor with you!"
"Good, your mind is in a state of readiness!"

What happens next - Homer wanders around the city trying to find a soul-mate because he doubts Marge is. He winds up in a lighthouse projecting his silhouette through the light like the bat-signal. (Bart: "Wow - batman's really let himself go.") But Marge tracks him down, deducing where his wanderings would lead him because she knows him so well, and he concludes she really is his soul-mate. Then the lighthouse goes on the fritz and a cargo boat full of hot-pants crashes on the nearby reef, spilling it's contents into the bay where the whole town turns out to try them on.

Guess there's no need to ask what side of the aisle video sift favors I have never seen vidsift show clips from Fox news, or newsbusters, or Rush Limbaugh 24/7, or other sites which debunk the 'lies' of those who oppose the war - in the interest of equal time.

Or maybe vidsift could show the clips from "Path to 9/11" which Clinton and his chums are trying to suppress - with a banner headline reading "Here's the footage Bill Clinton DOESN'T want you to see!"

CNN was so sure Rumsfeld, Rove, et. al would be 'frog-marched' out of the white house by now because of their own lies and fabrications - and they're obviously still dreaming about it.

CNN should follow videosift's example and just admit what they are - 'We're all partisan leftists. We make all our presentations with that in mind. We admit that we pimp things to make the political Right look bad, and cover up stuff that makes them look good.' Then CNN's ratings might not be plummeting. There's a reason why Fox News is top dog right now. They make no bones about their leanings. CNN is still lying about it and saying they're non-partisan. Unless they fess up to the truth themselves, their ratings will continue to diminish.

There was once a time when reports like the one in this vidclip might have led to national outrage. But because CNN has lost so much credibility, the only ones outraged are the already-hardcore leftists.

I respect differing opinion (except the ones that resorted to profanity). But the whole point of that video seemed to be "Look at what the Bible and what religious people say about atheists. They're all liars." They injected a heavy degree of sarcasm and contempt for religion into it - behaving in a manner that was hard to tell apart from what they say is the "fear mongering religious right".

No doubt the video makers would say "is this any worse that what religious zealots have done with their propoganda over the years?" Is it any better?

No, not all atheists are reprobates. Yet a common thread seems to run through all their philosophies - that because some who are members of a religious faith fall to evil practices, it means that religion itself is flawed and must be eschewed or even outlawed. You can hear that philosophy when the subject of gay marriage is broached. Since X percent of 'traditional' marriages end in divorce, this somehow means the institution of marriage itself is wrong and should be replaced with "poly-amorous domestic arrangements" or whatever it was they are trying to establish as law in Sweden.

Check the book of Alma, chapter 30. All the philosophies of men are pretty much summed up by Korihor, one of the funniest anti-christs in all of scripture.

"These prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets - they are nothing but the silly traditions of your fathers. How do you know of their surety? You cannot know of things which you do not see, therefore you cannot know that there shall be a Christ. You look forward and say that you see a remission of your sins, but it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.... Every man prospers according to his genius - and conquers according to his strength. And whatsoever a man does is no crime."

And 'fear-mongering of the religious right'? I guess we know which side of the political aisle videosift favors. I've heard the philosphies which always resort to "not everything is so cut and dried". It's the same as "you have to see things in shades of grey" and "not everything is black and white". Which is just a cute way of saying what Korihor said. "There is no right and wrong."

"O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not to the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves. Wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not.... But to be learned is good if you hearken to the counsels of God." 2 Nephi 9:28-29

The persons who made this video would no doubt read this verse and then come up with clips that say, "Oh yeah? There are plenty of athesists who are rich! They profited!" It simply betrays a profound misunderstanding of spiritual matters.

"What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loseth his soul? Or what shall he give in exchange for his soul?" Mark 8: 36-37

In the eyes of course of the natural man, they dismiss the afterlife and the 'soul' of man as a fanciful legend used to decieve the gullible - to keep the 'commoners' down, as Napoleon suggested, and trick them into giving money/power to the leaders of the churches.

The natural man's existence consists only of the things they can experience with their senses - taste, sound, touch, hearing and sight. And for them, death means the end of all that, and they have nothing to look forward to but decay in the ground and oblivion. Which is why you constantly hear them saying things like "You only go around once" or "you only live once", which is simply the modern-day re-wording of "Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die."

The subconscious message projected in that is "you'd better do drugs, have sex, drink and gratify all your pleasures now, because once you're dead it's all over".

Which is why the atheist fights so hard against the notion of God and an afterlife, because the possibility of it's existence is terrifying to them. Think back to the movie "Ghostbusters" (since the atheist generally loves hollywood so much). When the prospect of apocolypse was raised, the mayor said "What if you're wrong?" Bill Murray replied, "If we're wrong, nothing happens! But if we're RIGHT...."

Hence, the atheist points to signs of worldly success and says "if God exists, and if those who don't believe are punished, why are these guys so rich and successful?" And again "If religious people are so great, why are so many of them sinners?" And again, "If God's teachings are so wonderful, why did religous leaders cause so much violence in history?" And all these are used, not as impetus to improve future generations, but as excuses to permit current acts of depravity.

A profound misunderstanding. Which is why atheists can point at examples of failed Christian heterosexual marriages and conclude that the entire system is flawed and should be abolished. They can support the spread of porn and say "if you don't like it just don't look, no one's forcing you". But if a billboard showing a picture of Christ and the 10 commandments were raised with the same headline (If you don't like it, just don't look), they'd fight to have it torn down.

"I've always said there's nothing an agnostic can't do as long as he really doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not." Graham Chapman