Comments on: Do Fox News Anchors Only Watch Fox News?

By: moonbat monitor

moonbat monitor — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:07:00 +0000

wow. do you honestly think for a second that we coulnd’t take out their nuke capababilities?

no one is talking about invading/occupying.

think about it.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 12:07:49 +0000

You know, Quaker, that remark was an insult to my intelligence. I am trying very hard not to type a comment I’ll be sorry for later.
How quickly you’ve forgotten how I voluntarily came to your defense over this very issue.

Apparently, for you, being self – righteous is more important than being right. Even people who refuse to go to war can be evil, you know.

By: QuakerinaBasement

QuakerinaBasement — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 04:07:43 +0000

They claim that they are not, in principle, opposed to war,

Actually, some of us don’t claim that. Three hundred and fifty years ago, George Fox chose prison over war. Some still do.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 03:07:38 +0000

You probably wouldn’t know where to by a “Support Magnet.”

By: z adura

z adura — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 02:07:33 +0000

Frank, you are sooooo right. I am gonna trade in my Hybrid for an SUV and slap a “Support the Troops” magnet to it. Then I will clearly belong to the righteous team.

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:07:44 +0000

Excuse me FrankD, you are working under a false premise that most liberals don’t support the efforts of our troops. Bull crap. Many don’t believe we should have invaded in the first place, but that doesn’t mean we don’t support and applaud the efforts of our troops. We don’t think their efforts are being effective because of the overall strategy being run by Bush & Co. Many have called for a change in that failing strategy. In light of the inability or unwillingness of the civilian leadership to adapt, many call for the return of our troops because they support them.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:07:34 +0000

Well, that’s a possible three. But I wasn’t surveying the blog’s population. I was referring to publicly known liberals, who have made statements supportive of the troops’ mission.

By: z adura

z adura — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 22:07:13 +0000

Frank, you just don’t get it. I have family in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think I want them killed? Hell no. But my love of my family members and respect for their sacrifices only increases my resolve to see them come home safely and quickly. I –speaking only for myself — do not support the Iraqi mission.

And Frank, let’s be very clear about the war in Afghanistan. The authorization to use force passed in the Senate 98-0 and in the House 420-1 just 3 days after the attacks on 9/11. We were one as a country in supporting that mission. Can you say the same about Kosovo?

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:07:46 +0000

Before, during or after, I ask you both.

And, Oliver don’t pretend you speak for all Democrats on Afghanistan. There was a considerable amount of resistance to using the military.

And, I’m still asking, where are the liberals who support the efforts of our military in Iraq, now?

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:07:40 +0000

Which is why we supported the attack on Afghanistan, right Frank?

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:07:18 +0000

The left has a problem: They claim that they are not, in principle, opposed to war, but it seems that they’re unable to find a specific war they’re in favor of, when it’s supervised by a Republican.

Please, don’t get the wrong idea; there’s nothing partisan about their view.

/sarcasm

By: z adura

z adura — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:07:09 +0000

Frank, there was much broader Democratic support for Afghanistan than there was Republican support for Kosovo, but why let the facts intrude on your beautiful mind.

By: Dugger

Dugger — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 20:07:35 +0000

Mitter

“They might have been happy that their mission was accomplished, but it was the Bush team that wanted to stage the entire photo op.”

Don’t disagree with that. The world didn’t end when Bush did a photo op, or Bubba, or Read My Lips, etc.

But that sign would not have gone up without the blessing of the Captain of that ship.

W-Squared,

“Can anyone seriously look at Fox News and NOT think it is propodanda?”

yes

And, you really didn’t mean this, right:

“Thier was Zero justification or reason to invade Iraq”

I’m not sure I would have done it, but I would not be rash enough to argue ‘zero justification”.

Perhaps you meant insufficient justification in your mind .

Dugger

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 20:07:16 +0000

No, it isn’t…

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:07:36 +0000

Have they not heard the cry of the Yellow – Spined Dove? Get out! Get out! We’re doomed! We’re doomed!

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:07:15 +0000

Isn’t that the similar to the WarChicken call of “Invade! Invade! We’re Doomed! We’re Doomed!” Unfortunately the WarChicken makes his call at passing shadows or for no real reason screwing up everybody’s peace.

By: White Whale

White Whale — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:07:45 +0000

To address the point of Oliver’s post: Yes

Can anyone seriously look at Fox News and NOT think it is propodanda? I really don’t CARE what televagilist journalistas think or thier opinion! Nothing is news anymore because EVERYTHING has to do with an opinion or viewpoint.

As for all the chest-thumping and pumping up thier nuts:
Saddam was a horrible leader and person, BUT NOT a Hitler figure. Thier was Zero justification or reason to invade Iraq, yet because he is a boogeyman of the right we must enter a sensless war. Kim Jong Ill on the other hand, is STARVING his people and ruling more ruthelessly than Saddam, yet because Bush is uniterested in thier OBVIOUS weapons capabilities, the Republicans turn a blind eye. This shows that reporters at Fox and republican supporters will put our president over national interest.

By: QuakerinaBasement

QuakerinaBasement — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 16:07:27 +0000

As the men on the carrier said to the CINC: Mission accomplished.

All at once, in small groups, or one by one?

By: Jamey

Jamey — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 16:07:15 +0000

“The very obvious point is that the current leaders of NK would no longer be in charge if we chose to attack.”

How is that obvious, JWG? Kindly elaborate for those of us who, unlike you, don’t inhale bus exhaust recreationally.

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 15:07:34 +0000

Iraq, a castrated military with no WMDs. We knocked over a house of cards and the gungho war suporters have learned nothing about the cost and detrimental effect a lengthy opposed occupation has had on our military. As much as their egos have to equate Hussein with the second coming of Adolph Hitler’s Third Reich, the fact remains Hussein barely had the strength to maintain his own power and wasn’t a threat to us or his neighbors.

Contrast with North Korea. They have WMDs that can actually hit the US. They have an army that isn’t ready to desert at the first shot.

Easy story, if Bush had concentrated on the real threats instead of chasing madeup shadows in Iraq, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Ditto for Iran.

And Dukker, it was the Bush propaganda advance team that placed the Mission Accomplished sign, not the men from the carrier. They might have been happy that their mission was accomplished, but it was the Bush team that wanted to stage the entire photo op. Remember this included delaying that carrier’s docking a day so Bush could be flown there and pretend to be a fighter jock, instead of taking a helicopter.