Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #1  
    This must be the Pre 9/11 thinking Bush is always talking about. I guess he would know, since he has got first hand experience.

    Watch video, it is a bit long bu well worth it.

    Last edited by NRG; 09/28/2006 at 08:29 AM.
  2. #2  
    Come on, NRG. Do you have anything intelligent to say about this? What does Olbermann say that is accurate and not misleading? What does he say that doesn't contradict the 9/11 Commission? What does he flat out lie about?

    9/11 Commission Report.pdf
  3. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #3  
    Bump
  4. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Come on, NRG. Do you have anything intelligent to say about this? What does Olbermann say that is accurate and not misleading? What does he say that doesn't contradict the 9/11 Commission? What does he flat out lie about?

    9/11 Commission Report.pdf
    Everything seems to check out. Tell me what you find he lied about?
  5. #5  
    Come on. I'm trying to help you here. Here's a great opportunity to articulate how Bush and his team dropped the ball and then lied about it. If you've watched the video and verified its claims, as you say, this should be trivially easy. Identify three claims that are accurate and not misleading.

    1.
    2.
    3.

    If you're correct, I'll concede.

    9/11 Commission Report.pdf
  6. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #6  
    Maybe something like this?

    Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

    For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

    Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

    "And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

    Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in607356.shtml
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Come on. I'm trying to help you here. Here's a great opportunity to articulate how Bush and his team dropped the ball and then lied about it. If you've watched the video and verified its claims, as you say, this should be trivially easy. Identify three claims that are accurate and not misleading.

    1.
    2.
    3.

    If you're correct, I'll concede.

    9/11 Commission Report.pdf
    I think you should tell me what it is exactly you take issue with? I feel it is accurate from most of the reading I have. If I felt it was inaccurate I would not have posted it.
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    I think you should tell me what it is exactly you take issue with? I feel it is accurate from most of the reading I have. If I felt it was inaccurate I would not have posted it.
    The problem with this whole approach is that you take two minutes to post, and I take an hour to refute it. If you actually made a statement or shared your conclusions, it might be worth the effort, but you don't even show evidence of having read or watched your own links. Since you seem unable to actually make any relevant assertions, you're trying to overwhelm with volume.
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=164

    The video is filled with inaccuracies and misleading statements, but I don't want to waste time detailing a response if you don't believe in it enough to repeat its claims.

    It makes a lot of claims. Can't you state at least three?
    1.
    2.
    3.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    Maybe something like this?
    No. Make a statement.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    ...but I don't want to waste time detailing a response...

    Then don't.
  11. #11  
    I'll give three examples for the liberal left...

    1. Bush lied, people died.
    2. Haliburton
    3. Cheney is evil.



    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    No. Make a statement.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Then don't.
    Thanks so much for your thoughtful advice, but I try to make my own decisions.

    Would you care to identify any accurate claims in the video? To be clear, Olbermann said a lot of things that are true. I don't have a lot of time, since I'm leaving for the weekend tonight, so I'll go first.

    1. The program's name is Countdown.
    2. Clinton is not in office; Bush is.
    3. Clinton has acknowledged that he failed to get bin Laden.

    See? That wasn't so hard. I believe those statements are true. And I stand by them.
  13. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #13  
    Who cares what Olbermann says (judging by his ratings, nobody even watches him)? The man has been fired from more jobs than any other broadcaster ever. He always leaves on bad terms, and burns every bridge (just ask his fellow espn hosts). His trying to carve out alittle audience now by being the voice of the liberal left. Who cares.
  14. #14  
    Here's your "Liberal Media":

    Newsweek Prints Two Different Covers

    Newsweek offered different covers overseas and at home this week, featuring a close look at violence in Afghanistan for international readers called "Losing Afghanistan" while its domestic edition focused on photographer Annie Leibovitz for a story titled "My Life in Pictures."

    International editor Fareed Zakaria said the magazines often have different covers because they are tailored to different audiences overseas and at home. Domestically, Newsweek is a mass-circulation magazine with a broad reach while overseas it "is a somewhat more upmarket magazine for internationally minded people who travel a lot," he said.

    "Afghanistan is sort of the first victory in the war on terror. For that to be going badly is tremendous," Zakaria said. International editions feature a photograph of what appears to be a Taliban fighter with a grenade launcher.

    Domestic editions featured a photo of Leibovitz, one of the nation's premier photographers, on the cover with several children.

    Zakaria noted that the Afghanistan story was also promoted on the cover of the domestic editions, and that the magazine had negotiated an exclusive for Leibovitz's new book.

    Last year, Newsweek stirred up criticism over a different series of covers. In February 2005, the weekly newsmagazine featured a photo of an American flag in a garbage can in the Japanese-language edition that did not appear on the domestic or the international editions.
  15. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #15  
    DaT,

    Im sure there is a point somewhere.......
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps View Post
    DaT,

    Im sure there is a point somewhere.......
    What don't you get? He's pointing out another example of the biased liberal media trying to manipulate the election by playing down national security issues. They'll go back to putting military bashing articles on the covers after the election.
  17. #17  
    Aw, no liberals want to take the bait?

    Ok, the lies were mostly limited to his main points. He repeatedly misquoted Rice, and disputed a strawman without addressing what she pointed out was missing in the al Qaeda "strategy" - a "workable" approach to Pakistan. He flat out lied about the 9/11 Commission Report saying that bin Laden expected Bush to attack; he even omitted part of the excerpt to convey that lie. He quoted part of the PDB about al Qaeda, but omitted the very next paragraph which described more than 70 FBI investigations and some CIA activity all focused on bin Laden - because that would contradict his thesis that they did absolutely nothing about al Qaeda during 2001. There's much more.

Posting Permissions