Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Tell the above to John McCain, for atarters. Oh yeah, all that never happened....> I've repeatedly asked for evidence, and all anyone can provide are liberal blogs written years after the fact.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Other Liberal fantasies, according to The Spork of Spin: McCartyism.> Is that where everyone donned monocles and top hats, and sat on people's knees? Because if you're talking about McCarthyism, yes it happened. No, it wasn't the witch hunt liberals have made it out to be. There were communist spies working in our government.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/09/politics/main1302808.shtml?CMP=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=HOME_1302808" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories /2006/02/09/politics/main1302808.shtml?CMP=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=HOME_1302808</a> Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who's been indicted in the CIA leak investigation, testified that his "superiors" authorized him to leak classified information to reporters. <snip>
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Anyone who defends Joe McCarthy needs loses credibility. Period.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Is that where everyone donned monocles and top hats, and sat on people's knees?<< At least that explains your confusion on the matter.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Anyone who makes blanket statements and can't recite any facts to back them up has no credibility.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <At least that explains your confusion on the matter.> I'm not the confused one here.
Originally Posted By RandySavage Douglas, do you know what an ideologue is? It's someone who blindly, desperately clings to a belief even when all the available evidence demonstrates its falsity. It's not something you want to be labeled. You think the smear campaign Bush authorized against McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary is a liberal fantasy? Go ahead and conduct a little research on that "fantasy." It's been well documented by all the news media - oh, wait, they're part of the same liberal conspiracy, right? Do yourself a favor: turn off Rush Limbaugh and THINK FOR YOURSELF. In the hours after the World Trade Center was hit, Bush and his Cabal began following the Wolfowitz Doctrine (which outlined a plan for nation-building in the Middle East beginning with Iraq). Maybe the real reasons for this course of action were strategic ("Saddam must be removed from power to stabilize the region"), maybe they were personal ("Saddam tried to kill my Dad."), who knows. The point is, the Administration didn’t tell us the real reasons (which I could have supported). Instead, they invented stories about Iraq having a hand in 9/11 and pursuing WMDs. They willfully deceived the American people and the world. Maybe invading Iraq was the right thing to do; maybe not. Either way, we should not have been deceived by our own government into believing it had to be done expediently for our own security…
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's the rest of the world that's confused.> Hardly. It's just a few poor, unfortunate souls, some of whom post here.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Douglas, do you know what an ideologue is?> Yes, and I'm not one. My positions can be backed up with verifiable facts. <You think the smear campaign Bush authorized against McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary is a liberal fantasy? Go ahead and conduct a little research on that "fantasy."> Yes, I do believe it is a liberal fantasy, and I have conducted a little research, as I already noted. It's true that President Bush did appear on a stage with a veterans' advocate who trashed Senator McCain's Senate voting record, and that the President later apologized to the Senator for that. And it's true that the Bush campaign did criticize some of the Senator's stands on some issues. But there's no credible evidence that the Bush campaign smeared McCain's service record or family life. It appears to be a liberal fantasy. <The point is, the Administration didn’t tell us the real reasons (which I could have supported).> They did give us those reasons. They may not have been as prominent, but they were given. <Instead, they invented stories about Iraq having a hand in 9/11 and pursuing WMDs.> They told us what our intelligence agencies were telling them, and the intelligence agencies of other countries agreed.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>They told us what our intelligence agencies were telling them<< Our intelligence agencies were not telling him that al-Qaeda and Saddam were working together.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Our intelligence agencies were not telling him that al-Qaeda and Saddam were working together.> True, but they did tell him that there were contacts between them, that Saddam was supporting other terrorists groups, and that members of Al-Qaeda had received shelter in Iraq. All that was true, by the way.
