Pat Robertson: "I warned Bush on Iraq"

[Guest MikeSC]

LO F'N L @ the statement, "The press is in Kerry's back pocket"  Please, get fucking real already.

It's absolutely the fucking truth. Just because you wish to not face it hardly makes it not the case.

 

Note: There haven't been forged documents passed off as real that opposed Kerry. Nor has a comment that was first made 4 months ago treated as news by somebody the press has pretty well ignored as a loon for years that was damaging to Kerry. Nor has the head of a network's political division stating that while both candidates lie, only one side's "lies" need to be disputed.

 

Just mentioning a few problems.

Yes

 

and the "response" from Bush was different

 

Pat Robertson should emerge from his 700 Club Tower to clear this up.

 

I'm guessing he misquoted Bush there

Why? So the press can ignore it as they did with Bremer's clarification of his comments?

-=Mike

Ok so you point to once incident, on one network, which in the long run has done more damage to Kerry then Bush, which involved an issue, no one cared about, and no one was going to change their vote for.

The obsession over Abu Gharib.

The mis-reporting on the situation in Iraq.

The possibility of a draft --- which even got a 60 Minutes story. The "Iran supports Bush" lie from earlier this week.

Their refusal to shoot down the "voter suppression" lie from 2000.

Remember the whole "Swift Boat Vets are tied to Bush" stories --- yet the utter lack of any "liberal 527's are tied to Kerry" stories? Didn't think you did.

Oh and the Pat Robertson thing, the most I have seen it being used, is as fodder on comedy shows.  Nobody is taking Robertson seriously now, anymore then they did before.  Once again, an issue or subject, no one is changing their vote over, and no one cares about.

Care to explain why it's even getting mentioned PERIOD? Any ideas?

 

If "nobody cares", then the press is even WORSE than expected, since they're simply throwing shit against the wall to hurt Bush.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

The "obsession" over Abu Gharib? LOL. Yes because continually showing a picture of someone with panties on his head, when much worse things were happening there, is certainly obsessing over it. You may be correct in saying there was obsession, but the obsession was misplaced and focus and much of the more tame things going on there.

 

Mis-Reporting on the Iraq situation? Oh you must mean the coverage of Bush making speeches about how things are going great.

 

Voter Suppression of 2000 is clearly not a lie, just your unwillingness to accept what is in front of your face.

 

Swift Boats being tied to Bush was never what was said, they said their cause was funded by republicans, which was absolutely true.

[Guest MikeSC]

The "obsession" over Abu Gharib? LOL. Yes because continually showing a picture of someone with panties on his head, when much worse things were happening there, is certainly obsessing over it.

Obsessing over a story that occurred months ago and was being punished was going very much over-the-top. One bad company received MONTHS of non-stop coverage.

Mis-Reporting on the Iraq situation? Oh you must mean the coverage of Bush making speeches about how things are going great.

Nope, the stories that wish to portray Iraq as descending into anarchy and being worse than it was under Saddam.

Voter Suppression of 2000 is clearly not a lie, just your unwillingness to accept what is in front of your face.

Except --- and you know this for a fact --- you cannot BEGIN to prove it. Hell, the Commission on Civil Rights couldn't prove shit. Police roadblocks did NOT occur.

 

It did not happen. Period. Much as you wish to claim otherwise.

Swift Boats being tied to Bush was never what was said, they said their cause was funded by republicans, which was absolutely true.

Bullshit. The NY Times did a whole hit piece on that story.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

The US Commission on Civil Rights was about as "bi-partisan" as Hannity and that Other Guy. When dissenting Republican members of that particular report you're talking about asked wrote up their dissent which included a rigid statistical analysis of the conclusions that the other members made, it required Congress to pressure Mary Frances Berry, the Chairperson and an unstable loon, to include it. There was a reason nobody took that commission report seriously, it was based on junk science and logic gaps so larget they would make Evil Knievel nervous.

[Guest MikeSC]

The US Commission on Civil Rights was about as "bi-partisan" as Hannity and that Other Guy. When dissenting Republican members of that particular report you're talking about asked wrote up their dissent which included a rigid statistical analysis of the conclusions that the other members made, it required Congress to pressure Mary Frances Berry, the Chairperson and an unstable loon, to include it. There was a reason nobody took that commission report seriously, it was based on junk science and logic gaps so larget they would make Evil Knievel nervous.

Oh, Peter Kirsanow still holds a bit of a grudge. The stories of what went down with the Commission (and, as you mentioned, the Commission majority couldn't really demonstrate anything happened) were infuriating --- but expected. Hell, the problems Bush had in even getting Kirsanow seated showed the problems with them.

 

And people should read Katherine Harris' op-ed in the Washington Times about Florida in 2000. As she pointed out, in all of the suits filed, only 2 people stated that they were victimized by the purge of the voting rolls --- which was required by a law passed by the legislature and signed by Dem. Gov. Lawton Chiles.

-=Mike