Sunday, September 24, 2006

Fox News Shows (Again) Why It Isn't "Fair And Balanced"

During an interview with Bill Clinton that aired this morning, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace insisted it was conducted in “good faith.”

Check out the image at right. That's how the Fox News website promoted the interview.

"Fair and balanced"? Hardly.

45 Comments:

Anonymous trinity said...

David R. Mark...
"Check out the image at right. That's how the Fox News website promoted the interview.

"Fair and balanced"? Hardly."


Well, I watched the interview, and I think it's pretty accurate to say that "Clinton Gets Crazed". I don't know how that is inaccurate, or unfair or unbalanced. Clinton definitely had a major meltdown here. Not a pretty sight, either.

I think Clinton came off as an aggressive bully in this interview. And speaking for myself, I've seen quite enough of that wagging finger, thank you.

Man, what a stark contrast between the way Clinton reacts to hard questions and the way that our current president handles criticism. Simply amazing.

5:24 PM  
Anonymous Ditto said...

One cares about the truth. The other doesn't.

5:57 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said Well, I watched the interview, and I think it's pretty accurate to say that "Clinton Gets Crazed". I don't know how that is inaccurate, or unfair or unbalanced. Clinton definitely had a major meltdown here. Not a pretty sight, either.

Trinity - you be honest( if it possible for you) to answer how you would react if you were invited on say the "Dr Phil Show" to talk about repukes view on the Iraq war, but instead you were asked why you are the worst Grandmother in the U. S. I can visualize seeing you foam at the mouth, fire coming from your eyes, your body shaking all over and you shaking your fist at the camera.

Your are definately a "Conservative Without Conscienc". I would never be surprised that if you were asked by GWB, you could torture one of your grandkids to be sure they never had a democractic thought.

7:01 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said... Man, what a stark contrast between the way Clinton reacts to hard questions and the way that our current president handles criticism. Simply amazing.

Yea, bush knows as soon as the camera or microphone is off, he will get his revenge and the person will never ask again and most likely will anyone else. Besides, I have never seen Bush asked any hard questions. He speaks only to pre-planned, pre-selected and rehearsed groups. Trinity, you are so full of repuke spin your head has to be swirling.

7:11 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

To Trinity - Sorry about my previous post. All questions to GWB are hard, like what is your DOB, how many states in the U.S. and how many semeters in tri-semesters? He is the only President that can not pronounce about 10,000 english words properly.

7:55 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Man, what a stark contrast between the way Clinton reacts to hard questions and the way that our current president handles criticism. Simply amazing.

Insert head exploding icon here.

Our current president handles criticism by letting an anonymous senior admin official say "Nobody listened to him anyway" (Paul O'Neill) or getting in the person's face and rambling about "people coming to kill you" (Matt Lauer) or suggesting the criticism is coming from a person who is confused (Colin Powell) or even more, is suggesting we're the same as terrorists, when they're not (Colin Powell again).

Clinton stood up and handled that interview like a champ, and answered all questions point-blank, and explained everything while defending himself.

Bush has near-monthly events with "citizens" where they heap praise upon him and fawn over him like he's an idol.

10:17 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Clinton brought up very good points the Repukes like Trinity do not care to address. They instead opt to bury what he said with conservative spin bullsh-- like "Clinton had a meltdown," etc.
So answer Clinton's questions.
Why did the Repukes at the time criticize him for going after OBL? What did Bush do about the Cole? And more importantly, WHY DID BUSH FIRE RICHARD CLARKE and also misalign Clarke and the Clinton Administration's efforts to go after Al Quaeda and OBL?
I agree that Trinity is too blind a sheep to recognize that most of Bush's interviews are staged with preselected interviewers, like that hack homosexual prostitute.

"Baa, Baa, Bush Sheep
Have you any bull?
Yes, sir, yes sir,
Three bags full."

11:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Fox News were "fair and balanced," the promo would be something like "President Clinton discusses what he did to fight terrorism, and catch Osama Bin Laden. Did he do enough? You decide."

"Crazed" is an opinion word. It's not an objective word. 'Nuff said.

Not that I'd expect brainwashed Levinites to understand such things. They think it's un-American if you dare say that conservative talk radio hosts are wrong to say "terrorists" instead of "alleged terrorists."

11:24 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

whoop4467 said...
"Trinity - you be honest( if it possible for you) to answer how you would react if you were invited on say the "Dr Phil Show" to talk about repukes view on the Iraq war, but instead you were asked why you are the worst Grandmother in the U. S."


Another slam at me, this time suggesting that I'm dishonest. Can't you simply discuss issues?

In any case, Whoop, your "Dr. Phil Show" analogy is flawed. As Mike Wallace said on the air, the groundrules that Clinton agreed to were "15 minutes--to be divided evenly between questions about the Clinton Global Initiative and anything else I wanted to ask."

Wallace had prepared ten questions for Clinton, five on the CGI and five on various other issues. I'm not sure if he got to them all, since Clinton went bonkers after the third question and spent most of the time filibustering in response to it.

So your contention that Wallace somehow played some sort of a dirty trick on Clinton, big whoop, is erroneous. Man, you guys talk about Sen. Allen being an experienced politician and not handling a question from the media very well. (and THAT one WASN'T exactly Kosher) Let me quote Anonymous on Allen:

"Allen was rude to the reporter. As a seasoned politican, he should have been able to answer the question without getting flustered or angry."

Now that we're talking about Clinton, of course you guys apply that famous liberal double standard of yours. So typical.

11:52 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Here's how the ultra-liberal Christian Broadcasting Network News put it:

Video: Clinton Responds to 9/11 Criticism

See for yourself.

Trinity, this is not a battle that you can win.

12:07 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Anonymous said...
If Fox News were "fair and balanced," the promo would be something like "President Clinton discusses what he did to fight terrorism, and catch Osama Bin Laden. Did he do enough? You decide."


Yes, and had Clinton conducted himself in a normal manner, the way you would expect a guest to do when interviewed, that would undoubtedly have been the headline.

But no. Instead, Clinton threw a hissy fit, and in so doing, created an even bigger news story over and above the fact that he was being interviewed.

Anonymous said...
"Crazed" is an opinion word. It's not an objective word. 'Nuff said."


Well, they couldn't very well have used the word "unruffled" or "lay-back" in describing Clinton's conduct, now could they? What are you saying? That the FNC should have just not mentioned the fact that Clinton went nuts on Wallace? As though ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC never use "opinion" words when reporting on President Bush. Really, you guys are funny.

12:09 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"Here's how the ultra-liberal Christian Broadcasting Network News put it:"


I'm not sure what it is you're showing me, rob. If it's the more benign headline they used, I would just say that perhaps they may have worded it a little differently had it been their own reporter who Clinton got so testy and "in the fact" with.

I'm not making the claim that "crazed" is an objective word, rob. I'm just saying that it was an accurate one. And I'm also saying that "opinion" words only seem to bother liberals when they're used by FNC. You'd be hard pressed to point to a network that is completely unbiased in their reporting 100% of the time.

12:21 AM  
Blogger Crystal said...

Okay guys... we all know that trinity doesn't "simply discuss issues". She insults our intelligence when she makes such patronizing insinuations. Just don't write responses to what she posts. Dismiss her as idle chatter and background noise. Her reality is in a bit of a slant and we all know which way.
Silly trinity.

12:32 AM  
Blogger Crystal said...

Clinton did a beautiful job answering the questions. As soon as Mr. Wallace noticed he was getting spanked, he wanted to change the subject to Clinton's Global Initiative. Clinton added context to the question, then answered very intelligently, not excusing himself fully from some fault.
Interviews like this are not some tea party, as some might like it to be, especially when the media conglomerate you are being interviewed by would love nothing more than to nail him to a proverbial cross. He was very exact with his wording and made his point beautifully. Softball with a Fox News reporter is a good way to shoot yourself in the foot.
Kudos to Clinton! Good for you!

12:43 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

I would just say one more thing about Clinton's insistence that he tried so hard to get OBL. The problem with the way the Clinton Administration went about going after bin Laden was that President Clinton would not put the rules of engagement for capturing him in writing. At least, not in the clear, unambiguous language that the CIA demanded from him.

The CIA operatives wanted to be absolutely clear on what it was they were permitted to do in capturing OBL, out of fear of their being scapegoated in the event that something went wrong.
This was the cause of much frustration on the part of those working in counter-terrorism in the 90s.

And that's just the truth of the matter. Take it for what it's worth to you. Clinton is just a little too sensitive and defensive on this subject, which perhaps is understandable to a point. But he should not try to rewrite history and claim that he did everything he possibly could have to get OBL, because he never took the lead and gave the clear presidential order that the agents were asking him for back then.

1:02 AM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

Trinity - I am curious. Have you read the "911 Commisssion Report" and if so, do you dismiss all of it or just those parts you disageee with? If not, I recommend it to you.

Have you read Richard Clarke"s book ( I have not yet at this time) about Clinton's effort to capture OBL and fight "terrorism"? Knowing that Clarke worked for Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, would it keep you from believing what Clarke said?

Also would you tell us what GWB did before 911 to capture OBL and what he did after 911 ( I already know that he had OBL cornered in Tora Bora, the Armies of several nations at the ready, the support of all Americans and 90% of the world and knowing that OBL is now important to GWB until after the election)? Has GWB done all that he can do to capture OBL and he is not in Iraq??

If GWB has not done it in 5 years with the support of all Americans, the support of 90% of the world, the support of the many nations armies, how do you repuks expect Clinton to do it in 3 years( everything I have read it was not until about 1997/1998 that there was actionable evidence that OBL was the mastermind behind most of the terrorist acts- one source was the 911 report) with the repuks fighting him every second of every day- which I know you can quote all of the negative comments by the repuks about Clinton's effort to go after OBL and Al Qaeda.

Please Trinity, debate this issue with facts( and some opinion if necessary) and not the diatribe of: you are ignorant,your an idiot, you hate GWB, you are clueless or any of your other elemtary school yard names.

2:23 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

I'm not making the claim that "crazed" is an objective word, rob. I'm just saying that it was an accurate one.>>

That's your opinion. And that's the point.

See, Trinity, the problem is that Fox News claims to be objective. That's the point of the "fair and balanced" moniker.

By using an unobjective word -- an opinion word with obvious negative connotations -- Fox News did the opposite of being "fair and balanced."

You don't want to admit this, because you are biased by your blind hatred of all things Clinton. If CNN interviewed President Bush, got him flustered or angry or whathaveyou, and then used the word "crazed" in its promo, you'd go apeshit (pardon my French).

2:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hakuna Makaka looneyland. I see the loons of the left are all up in arms about this Klinton interview. Got to get out there and protect the sociopathic rapist. Get over it libbys. BJ was finally asked a tough question and we got to see the real BJ. Oh I long for the days of interns and cigars.

Oh and rob, as far as Trinity going "apeshit" over the word crazed being used in describing Bush. There is a lot more harsh and disgusting attacking of the president by the loons on the left I am sure us conservatives can go "apeshit" over. And we dont hate all things Klinton. Roger was kind of amusing.

8:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BJ is the clear definition of a sociopath. Nothing is his fault, everyone else is to blame.

BJ said, "The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible while I was there." Did he mean collectively they refused and if so how could they with Gorelick wall in place?

Another lie by BJ, he said, "Now, I've never criticized President Bush, and I don't think this is useful." I guess he doesn't remember some of his speeches in Europe.

And the best was when he said, "All I'm saying is, you falsely accused me of giving aid and comfort to bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia." I don't recall Chris Wallace saying that. The again BJ must be hearing those little voices in his head.

Amazing how he gets when asked the tough questions or is shown the truth. He got that way with Peter Jennings. He is so afraid that his legacy is going to be remembered by cigars that it drives him nuts.

Just goes to show what a better man George W. Bush is. The looney left throws all their criticism and defamatory remarks at him, yet he doesn't become angry and on the verge of violence.

9:04 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

The Republicans actually like this story of Clinton's outburst over the OBL questions because it helps them bury and obfuscate perhaps the biggest newsstory of the week that makes them and their King Bush look really bad.
Fortunately the story was repeated on most main stream media after appearing in the NYT and Washington Post: The National Intelligence Estimate that the Iraq War is actually making the global radical Islamic terrorism threat even greater.
Then we had Negroponte's lame response that the report, combinining intelligence from 16 global intelligence agencies, represented only a "fraction" of the intelligence estimate.
So where is the intelligence specifying Iraq is helping the Islamic terrorism battle?
As usual for the Bush Administration, Negroponte neither put his opinion into any context or offer any substantiation, nor was he required to do so by the media.
The Repukes and Bush sheep have been largely ignoring this MSM story all week about the NIE, as evidenced by conservative websites like RealClear Politics.
Revisiting the Clinton years through the former president's alleged "crazed outburst" in rebutting conservative spin about his actions against OBL can now only help the Repukes and the Bush sheep continue to ignore the utter failures of the Bush Administration not only with OBL but the terrorism war in general.

9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And then he gets pissed at his staff for getting him into a bad interview that shows his true colors and anger. Atta boy BJ, keep blaming others for your faults.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1707730/posts

9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh and TWOT
Maybe the NY Slimes should report all the facts, not the ones they like and agree with. Talk about sheep. You all cant seem to get the fact that BJ was a terrible president and an even worse human being. It a shame that heart operation was a success.

9:48 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

The fringe right are showing off their colors. They hate Clinton, so of course, it's "fair and balanced" to say that Clinton was "crazed."

Your opinion, people, perhaps shared by Fox News. But it's not objective. It's not "fair and balanced."

If you could just control your misguided rage for a minute, you'd agree with what is obvious.

11:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

rob, you are pulling a Klinton. Whose misguided rage are you talking about and who is denying the fact that Klinton cant deal with answering a tough question? The fact of the matter is the viewers wanted Chris Wallace to ask Klinton that question and he did. Klinton who is the one who turned beet red or should I say communist red and was on the verge of violence. I guess Klinton is getting a little senile and thought Mike Wallace was doing the interview and thought he would get thrown softballs as usual.

11:47 AM  
Anonymous Smirky said...

Chris Wallace had a follow up question he never did ask ---
"Mr Clinton, you said you failed but you still 'left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy' Mr Clinton are you saying you left a proven failed policy for the next administration, knowing it was useless, or are you saying it was workable but not by you and your people due to ineffectiveness??"

12:20 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

It's a simple question: was Fox News fair to call Clinton "crazed," or is "crazed" an opinion word.

All the fringe right has shown here is that they hate Clinton, and I guess they assume that's an objective view.

But a news organization -- which Fox News claims to be -- would not use an opinion word, certainly not a volatile one like "crazed."

12:34 PM  
Anonymous GoreFriend said...

Crystal and Trinity, I am always amazed by your comments.

Clinton is not responsible for his reaction to the questions Wallace chose to ask him.

Always, always, the fault lies with Global Warming.

12:48 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"See, Trinity, the problem is that Fox News claims to be objective. That's the point of the "fair and balanced" moniker."


But rob, with all due respect, ALL of the networks claim to be objective, don't they? THAT'S the real point.

The fact is, however, that although the media may TRY to be completely objective, more times than not, you can tell where they stand politically by the way they cover news. It's clear in the stories they report, as well as in the stories they refuse to cover.

I will say this. I don't think that FNC would deny that they fall somewhat right of center in their overall makeup, whereas the old media, aka MSM, always vehemently denies that they tend to have more of a leftist worldview that permeates their coverage.

Not only that, but from what I read here on JABBS, it appears that just about everyone here is in denial about liberal bias in MSM. I've heard you guys state as much again and again. Is that not true?

12:54 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Another thing. Clinton whined to Chris Wallace that he never asked anyone in the Bush Administration tough questions like he got.

Turns out, that's just not true. This, from Patterico's Pontifications:

"In 2004, Wallace asked almost the exact same question of Donald Rumsfeld that he asked Clinton today.

Here’s what Wallace asked Clinton today:

[H]indsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

And here is what Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld on the March 28, 2004 episode of Fox News Sunday:

I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?

What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?

Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority."


So, let that put an end to the myth that Clinton tried to perpetuate that FNC treats conservative guests one way, and liberal guests another.

1:04 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Smirky said...
Chris Wallace had a follow up question he never did ask ---
"Mr Clinton, you said you failed but you still 'left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy'


Since Clinton made a point (several times) of referring Wallace to what Richard Clarke had to say on the subject, it should be noted that Clarke has said several things in the past. Here are some of his comments on foreign policy:

First off, Clarke made it clear that "there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration."

There was an overall strategy, however, and this is what Clarke said about that:

QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?

CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.


For a more detailed interview of Clarke, in his own words, see the URL below.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html

1:25 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

it appears that just about everyone here is in denial about liberal bias in MSM. I've heard you guys state as much again and again. Is that not true?

>>

not exactly. i think the belief system is that some reporters are liberal, some are conservative, and those who believe that all media suffer from "liberal media bias" are delusional.

taken another way: if conservatives didn't claim "liberal media bias," they wouldn't be able to claim their side needs to be heard more.

but the number of examples of acceptance of bush talking points as truth by the MSM is startling.

1:41 PM  
Blogger Crystal said...

Okay... for the record THERE IS NO LIBERAL MEDIA. I don't know where you guys pull that from, but believe me I'd pass on smelling it. Those days are long gone when Rupert Murdoch decided to migrate from Australia and buy up media influencing malleable, lazy and impressionable American minds.

I'll just repeat waronterrible's comment, cause it's a very good point, in fact the most important right now...

Our National Intelligence Estimate states that the Iraq War is actually making the global radical Islamic terrorism threat even greater, which is a report the intelligence community leaked... now imagine how their hands must be tied to have to leak things for the American public to know about them.

Our policies need to change, so there must be a power shift because the way we are dealing with things IS NOT WORKING! If is were, I wouldn't be writing here, nor complaining. This administration is coo-coo.
Nuff said.

1:47 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

"Oh and TWOT
Maybe the NY Slimes should report all the facts, not the ones they like and agree with. Talk about sheep."
Do you have any proof the NYT, through printing findings of the very prominent and important National Intelligence Estimate, the Bush Administration would have just preferred to have kept classified if the NYT reporters hadn't been doing their jobs, left out "all the facts?"
Give me at least a speck of proof.
I've heard some vauge, pure skepticism from conservatives that the NYT censored out parts of the report stating good things about Iraq in the broader War on terror. Show me the proof.
If this is so, maybe the Bush Administration should immediately declassify the entire report.
And I stand by my observation that this very important issue to the future stability of the U.S., as observed by Crystal, is being censored by at least the conservative media who would not dare accept any negative criticism of their Master and King Bush.
The good of the country be damned.

2:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoops
You really need some professional help and I suggest you get it real soon. In your reference to Trinity, when did Chris Wallace ask Bill Clinton why was he the worst president? I seem to have missed that question. But just like BJ you need to lie also. You libtards sure no how to spin when bubba is confronted.

2:19 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Okay, I admit it when I'm wrong. My apologies to Real Clear Politics. where it has been pointed out to me did have a column on its "Blogosphere Buzz" on the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq increasing terrorism.
I relied on a key word search on the website yesterday using several words that for whatever reason did not produce the column or any of its articles contained within.
Thanks.

2:34 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Crystal, I agree with your overall point, but to be fair, The Nation, Mother Jones and Air America Radio are all representatives of the Liberal Media.

The problem is, fringe conservatives have decided that all media is liberal. That's b.s., but it keeps them angry and motivated.

2:39 PM  
Blogger Crystal said...

I stand corrected rob. I'm glad you brough that up! I don't get those particular ones myself.
I find good news sources (i.e.- Democracy Now! Great news, not without fault or sometimes bias, but gutsy... I like that.), because I search for them... but a lot of the public does not research and places like Fox News rely on that to continue the dis-information campaign Clinton was refering to.

5:39 PM  
Blogger Crystal said...

Oh, oh.... I thought of one they might call left-slanted (just because he stands up to crap that comes out of our desecrated white house)... Keith Olbermann... my props to that guy!! I think he's just amazing with his poignant use of language in his special comments. His genius and straight-shooting mentality is just unmatched by any other news commentator. So impressive.

5:45 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

But just like BJ you need to lie also. You libtards sure no how to spin when bubba is confronted.

Were you hatched from an egg?

7:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Davey G-String are you speaking for whoops? If so please tell me where to find Chris Wallaces quote about being the worst president or are facts to hard for you all and my point is proven about spin and libs.

8:11 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

If so please tell me where to find Chris Wallaces quote about being the worst president or are facts to hard for you all and my point is proven about spin and libs.
Do you take anything other than literally? Whoops was insinuating that trinity would get upset if she was hit with a scurrilous allegation. That's all. Understand now? Or will this bit of explanation fade into the ether while you ramble on about libtards and DemonRATS? Do you really, seriously expect people to debate with you when cheap-name calling is all you can do? Hello? Pow?

9:00 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

Anonymous said...
Whoops
You really need some professional help and I suggest you get it real soon. In your reference to Trinity, when did Chris Wallace ask Bill Clinton why was he the worst president? I seem to have missed that question. But just like BJ you need to lie also. You libtards sure no how to spin when bubba is confronted.

Yea, nameless repuke, you missed the question because I never wrote it or asked it. You need to stay away from the drug laced cool-aid. I gave her a hypothetical to ask her how she would react,but instead of answering she evaded the question by using the typical repuke matra of switching subjects.

She has not answered it yet nor my second and third questions about what GWB has done to capture OBL and why since he had 5.8 years to do it?

1:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

whopp ,I remain nameless because the person who runs this site has removed my name and password for speaking the truth. Now you are so uneducated you find the need to throw out the name calling because that is all the substance you have, albeit a very small substance. Now getting back to your notion that Chris Wallace called BJ the worst president ever, lets refresh. You made that statement, I called you on it, you now say it is hypothetical. So in order to make yourself look good in the eyes of all these other misinformed libs you feel the need to lie again. And then we all find out today that BJ lied again right to the American people on TV. He never left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda. He is just a no good lying scumbag like all you libs. HAKUNA MAKAKA

8:04 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

So in order to make yourself look good in the eyes of all these other misinformed libs you feel the need to lie again. And then we all find out today that BJ lied again right to the American people on TV. He never left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda.

Do you have a brain? How do you get up in the morning and remember to dress yourself? How did you get through school? Are you through school or are you 14? Seriously, man. You're completely incoherent, and seek never to weigh evidence, even when its put right in front of you as an explanation. How brain-dead are you? Are you understanding these questions?

11:06 AM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

Anonymous said...
whopp ,I remain nameless because the person who runs this site has removed my name and password for speaking the truth. Now you are so uneducated you find the need to throw out the name calling because that is all the substance you have, albeit a very small substance. Now getting back to your notion that Chris Wallace called BJ the worst president ever, lets refresh. You made that statement, I called you on it, you now say it is hypothetical. So in order to make yourself look good in the eyes of all these other misinformed libs you feel the need to lie again. And then we all find out today that BJ lied again right to the American people on TV. He never left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda. He is just a no good lying scumbag like all you libs. HAKUNA MAKAKA

Hey ,you still nameless repuke, all you have to do is go back and re-read my post to Trinity. It is still posted on these boards. I have said to all repukes on these boards that I think GWB is and will be the worst President ever appointed by the SCOTUS and elected. That may also still be on these boards as well.

I do not know if you are male or female, but if you are a male and you abhor a good BJ by a female, then you are a sexual pervert. If you are a female I can not speak to your pleasure of giving a BJ. At 62, my getting a BJ from a female( my wife) is coming less frequently( non-existant truthfully). But, notice, I do agree with you that lying about getting a BJ is wrong.

From what I read on these post from repukes like you, you repukes want to wrap yourself around the right-wing christians mantra so hopefully some of their "Christian Perfume" will rub off on you to cover your Un-American, Un-patriotic, intolerant,sanctimonious, "Chickenhawk" stench that engulfs your whole being.

If you repukes really are patriotic you would advocate tearing down all of the "For Sale" signs for all levels of our government, both foreign and domestic( second to increasing your enlistments in the military).

Here nameless is something educational for your school yard name calling:

I am rubber
You are glue
Your comments bounce off of me
And stick on you.

12:02 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares