|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash Consortium News Daily Howler Daily Kos Democatic Underground Disinfotainment Today Evil GOP Bastards Faux News Channel Greg Palast The Hollywood Liberal Internet Weekly Jesus General Joe Conason Josh Marshall Liberal Oasis Make Them Accountable Mark Morford Mike Malloy Political Humor - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
Subject: WMDs and Hillary
Bart, you wrote:
> "If you were willing to bet 100 million lives
on that hunch, I'm glad you're not the president, either. "
That is a blatent lie, and you know it.
To say that Saddam had the equivilent
of many MIRV's is just another lie to defend
the liar Hillary.
Neil, are you having another bad day?
*I* didn't say saddam had MIRVs, whatever
they are (drone planes?)
How would *I* know what Saddam had?
The CIA swore they did, in their
top-secret briefing of the senate.
She said in an interview yesterday regarding her pro-war stance: "There are no do overs in life."
When she says that, I believe her.
I wonder if that is what she would tell an OIF
(Operation Iraqi FUBAR) veteran
who lost his legs, arms, eyes. No, there
are no do overs--for them.
Are you attempting to make a point?
I suggest we punish the lying bastard for lie-briefing
the senate.
What do you suggest?
She is arrogant in the extreme, a representative
of the moneyed elite
(is that you? are you being paid to blog
for her?)
ha ha
You flatter me.
She's one of the few people in politics who doesn't
need me.
That guy she's married to, believe it or not,
is smarter than me.
Sidebar:
I do have a bone to pick with her, tho...
I heard she launched a major "web buy" with all
the "big" sites who hate her guts.
I think she should spend some money at sites
where the host is neutral, like bartcop.com
If anyone out there knows Hillary's money people,
mention me, would you?
I'll let you have 15% of whatever she spends
here.
That is a serious question as other blogs have
reported that that is a strategy of the Clinton campaign
--see MyDD) and you are selling out what integrity
you have left (your motto, "a smart mouth,
a hammer and the truth" (or whatever, I don't
read your page much any more) is a hypocritical joke.
Looks like someone is reduced to name-calling because the facts aren't working so well...
One difference between us?
*I* am going to back the Demo nominee 100%.
And if everybody didn't read this web page as
much as you, I'd be rich.
YOUR truth is VERY selective.
YOU have a banana in your hand.
No other Tequila Treehouse boss answers Monkey
Mail on his/her page.
I very honestly and openly pointed out to you
that PBS "The Independent Lens" did a long documentary on
investigative reporting that had two reporters
(one from the WaHoPo) stating emphatically that the Senate
DID in fact have the very sceptical CIA report
about Iraqi WMD, and chose to go along with the WH
influenced one. A revelation--the smoking
gun. But you ignore that fact because it reveals Hillary and
the other Whore Dems for what they are.
What?
Bush had the CIA send the senate a report saying
not
to believe his CIA briefing guy?
I think your reality is selective.
I've never heard of dual reports.
I think you remember "funny."
I could not provide a transcript (still looking)
as the DVD was over $400 (I'm not a Dem elite,
out of my range, and more than I want to spend
to prove a point to you who would ignore it any way).
If there was a dual report, you'd think there'd
be a mention of it on the web.
You choose to believe what you want to believe, like a Bush lover does--there is no difference.
You hate her a lot more than I like her.
One of us has allowed our emotions to cloud our
mind.
She says Bush lied to her, you say he didn't lie
- that he provided them fair and
honest reports that showed the truth about
both versions - is that your position?
That Bush was fair & honest in the run-up to the war?
You have lost a supporter because you selectively
edit out any meaningful and truthful response
from your readers that does not agree with your
propaganda. I have contributed much that you posted
(cartoons, articles, links) and I got your insulting
one-sided edits in return.
You're a long-winded guy, as this e-mail demonstrates.
Sometimes in a long, long, litany-like rant,
I find a point and respond to it,
but there's nothing you can say that I have to
edit out of the conversation.
You always have the Bartblog - so far nobody has
been edited there.
You published a copy of Perkel's letter to the
NY Times; they would not publish mine,
which simply asked "Why does the NY Times lie
so much?"
Dude, please don't list every site that refuses
to print your long, long rants.
Short works a lot better than long - here and
at the NYWTimes.
And Percel claims to be the most dangerous mind
on the Web?
I mostly agree with him, but his "dangerous'
is like your "hammer and the truth".
Why, ...thank you.
You are far more progressive than the people you
want to represent you--far more.
Myself, I will not compromise.
If only we had more like you, Neil.
We desperately need meaningful change in this country--not more of the same.
You choices (probably) boil down to McCain (more
war) and Hillary (less war).
Can we count on you to cast a vote against more
war?
Or will you help McCain's widen Bush's war by
voting for a can't-win third candidate?
Adios and Best Wishes for your health Bartcop.
Neil in VT
I hope you get to feeling better, too.
Discuss
it on The Bartcop Forum
Discuss it on the BartBlog