"I'm only saying that it happens on both sides."
Could you provide a few prime examples of major media
outlets telling lies & obvious distortions against
Democrats on matters of substance? How about a few
examples where they call Democrats, "contentious
liberals", "hard line liberals" or they have a "liberal
agenda"?
And once again why has CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC or CNBC
ignored those memos by Democrats that, among other things,
has placed pure partisan politics above national security
& placed our troops at risk? And why has the memo listing
50 examples of Iraq/Al Qaeda connections being ignored
when Democrats & the liberal media have repeatedly
attacked the Bush administration saying that there was no
such connection?
Regarding "imminent threat"...... I suggest you read the
SOTUA & the, 'President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat',
speech word for word.
Democrats claimed Bush "lied" & "misled" when they falsely
claimed that Bush called Iraq an "imminent threat". Major
media outlets & liberal politicians attacked Bush claiming
that Bush said Iraq is an "imminent threat" within hours
of the SOTUA.
imminent : ready to take place; especially :
hanging threateningly over one's head <was in imminent
danger of being run over>
Saying that Iraq could attack the US soon or might enable
terrorists to do so is not the same thing, however, as
arguing that Iraq was poised to attack the US. That's
what "imminent" means.
President Delivers "State of the Union"
...."Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.".....
whitehouse.gov
October 7, 2002
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
...."The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?....
....The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies".....
whitehouse.gov
I suggest you read the articles linked below & then decide
who said what & more precisely when they said it. If they
didn't lie & distort, then there is no such thing as a lie
or a distortion in politics or the media.
Message 19469570
Message 19469610
Message 19508187 |
