I found this site interesting

[oldman420]

http://factcheck.org/
:thumbsup:

 

[PatboyX]

liberal rag!

 

[oldman420]

 

[oldman420]

?

 

[TuxDave]

I use it often to debunk crappy political arguments. Combine it with snopes and religioustolerance.org, then you're good to go.

 

[conjur]

A very well-known site but largely ignored by the Bush-God fanbois.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
A very well-known site but largely ignored by the Bush-God fanbois.

And, when convenient, the lefties. It's usually convenient.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
A very well-known site but largely ignored by the Bush-God fanbois.

And, when convenient, the lefties. It's usually convenient.

I don't know of anyone other than the Bush-God fanbois who ignore the site.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
A very well-known site but largely ignored by the Bush-God fanbois.

And, when convenient, the lefties. It's usually convenient.

You worry about what YOU ignore...let the lefties worry about themselves.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You worry about what YOU ignore...let the lefties worry about themselves.

That's the very definition of hypocrisy. Congratulations. :roll:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You worry about what YOU ignore...let the lefties worry about themselves.

That's the very definition of hypocrisy. Congratulations. :roll:

Actually the definition of hypocrisy would be if I supported one group of people ignoring something and not the other. I was merely suggesting that while you seem concerned with the fact that the lefties ignore the facts TOO, I'd be more concerned that that implies you're also ignoring the facts...that seems to have slipped by you.

I don't support ANYONE ignoring the facts...what I don't like is the whole attack method of political argument. It's not suddenly ok just because the other side does it too. So I don't think I need to tell you where you can cram those cookies.

 

[SNC]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
A very well-known site but largely ignored by the Bush-God fanbois.

And, when convenient, the lefties. It's usually convenient.

I don't know of anyone other than the Bush-God fanbois who ignore the site.

So all the lefties that claim that Bush lied about Iraq trying to get Uranium are going to apologize?

Click here

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SNC

Originally posted by: conjur
I don't know of anyone other than the Bush-God fanbois who ignore the site.

So all the lefties that claim that Bush lied about Iraq trying to get Uranium are going to apologize?

Click here

Can't pull up that site here at work but, read this:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/29/cbs_wmd/

 

[imported_Smithy]

ah who runs this oldman?

Make sure you know who the 'fact' writers are.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Smithy
ah who runs this oldman?

Make sure you know who the 'fact' writers are.

Yeah...this non-partisan group is a bunch of hacks. :roll:



http://factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docID=70

 

[SNC]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SNC

Originally posted by: conjur
I don't know of anyone other than the Bush-God fanbois who ignore the site.

So all the lefties that claim that Bush lied about Iraq trying to get Uranium are going to apologize?

Click here

Can't pull up that site here at work but, read this:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/29/cbs_wmd/

Salon???? You are kidding right? I'm not even going to bother looking.
The point of my coments were based on your assumed respect for the "facts" at factcheck.org.
Have you had a chance to read the article yet?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SNC

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SNC

Originally posted by: conjur
I don't know of anyone other than the Bush-God fanbois who ignore the site.

So all the lefties that claim that Bush lied about Iraq trying to get Uranium are going to apologize?

Click here

Can't pull up that site here at work but, read this:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/29/cbs_wmd/

Salon???? You are kidding right? I'm not even going to bother looking.
The point of my coments were based on your assumed respect for the "facts" at factcheck.org.
Have you had a chance to read the article yet?

Yes, I have. And, Salon? No, I'm not kidding. It's an *excellent* article. The fact you won't bother to even look speaks volumes as to you being a partisan hack.

One measure of the debacle is a "60 Minutes Wednesday" segment that millions of viewers now will not see: a hard-hitting report making a powerful case that in trying to build support for the Iraq war, the Bush administration either knowingly deceived the American people about Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities or was grossly credulous. CBS news president Andrew Heyward spiked the story this week, saying it would be "inappropriate" during the election campaign.

 

[bozack]

haven't links to this site been posted on numerous occasions? why is this thread still open....

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack
haven't links to this site been posted on numerous occasions? why is this thread still open....

What's wrong? The exposing of the Bush campaign's lies and distortions too much for you to take?

 

[SNC]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SNC

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SNC

Originally posted by: conjur
I don't know of anyone other than the Bush-God fanbois who ignore the site.

So all the lefties that claim that Bush lied about Iraq trying to get Uranium are going to apologize?

Click here

Can't pull up that site here at work but, read this:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/29/cbs_wmd/

Salon???? You are kidding right? I'm not even going to bother looking.
The point of my coments were based on your assumed respect for the "facts" at factcheck.org.
Have you had a chance to read the article yet?

Yes, I have. And, Salon? No, I'm not kidding. It's an *excellent* article. The fact you won't bother to even look speaks volumes as to you being a partisan hack.

One measure of the debacle is a "60 Minutes Wednesday" segment that millions of viewers now will not see: a hard-hitting report making a powerful case that in trying to build support for the Iraq war, the Bush administration either knowingly deceived the American people about Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities or was grossly credulous. CBS news president Andrew Heyward spiked the story this week, saying it would be "inappropriate" during the election campaign.

I know you have a lot on your mind Conjur, but could you find the time to answer the first question I posed?
On the off chance you are missing the up button I will repeat:

So all the lefties that claim that Bush lied about Iraq trying to get Uranium are going to apologize?
Or is factcheck.org only right about things that go against the R's?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SNC
So all the lefties that claim that Bush lied about Iraq trying to get Uranium are going to apologize?
Or is factcheck.org only right about things that go against the R's?

You'll have to ask the lefties, SNC. I've posted before up here that Kerry's ads have been debunked, too. But, if you look at factcheck.org, the debunking is largely of Bush ads or right-wing 527 ads as they are the ones engaging much more in stretching the truth or out-and-out lying.

 

[SNC]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SNC
So all the lefties that claim that Bush lied about Iraq trying to get Uranium are going to apologize?
Or is factcheck.org only right about things that go against the R's?

You'll have to ask the lefties, SNC. I've posted before up here that Kerry's ads have been debunked, too. But, if you look at factcheck.org, the debunking is largely of Bush ads or right-wing 527 ads as they are the ones engaging much more in stretching the truth or out-and-out lying.

I think that the debunking of 527 ads and the fact that a large group of lefties believe that Bush lied about the Uranium are just a tad different. I really believe that no one believes a word of campaign ads.

Are you saying that you are a centrist? Or a closet rightie?


Edit: Didnt you start a thread about CBS not running the story about the Niger deal?
here.

You ended the post with

A chance to expose the Bush fraud and, possibly, speed up the investigation of the CIA operative name leak and they shelve the story?

Sounds like you believe Bush lied. If Factcheck.org is as great a place as you claim, will you edit that post? Or do you not believe the article there?

I think you are leftie enough to address the question.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SNC

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SNC
So all the lefties that claim that Bush lied about Iraq trying to get Uranium are going to apologize?
Or is factcheck.org only right about things that go against the R's?

You'll have to ask the lefties, SNC. I've posted before up here that Kerry's ads have been debunked, too. But, if you look at factcheck.org, the debunking is largely of Bush ads or right-wing 527 ads as they are the ones engaging much more in stretching the truth or out-and-out lying.

I think that the debunking of 527 ads and the fact that a large group of lefties believe that Bush lied about the Uranium are just a tad different. I really believe that no one believes a word of campaign ads.

Are you saying that you are a centrist? Or a closet rightie?


Edit: Didnt you start a thread about CBS not running the story about the Niger deal?
here.

You ended the post with

A chance to expose the Bush fraud and, possibly, speed up the investigation of the CIA operative name leak and they shelve the story?

Sounds like you believe Bush lied. If Factcheck.org is as great a place as you claim, will you edit that post? Or do you not believe the article there?

I think you are leftie enough to address the question.

Anti-Bush <> leftie


And, there is plenty of evidence that the Bush administration (not just Bush) KNEW the uranium claim was fraudulent. How else do you explain the quick back-pedaling by the likes of Condi Rice immediately afterward?

I don't think people understand just how much in control people like Wolfowitz and Feith really are.

 

[SNC]

So the article on Niger there is wrong?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SNC
So the article on Niger there is wrong?

Why do you say that? I think the factcheck.org article is rather factual.

Wilson: Bush's Words "The Lie"

(From a web chat sponsored by Kerry for President Oct. 29, 2003)

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:24:53 AM)
I would remind you that had Mr.. Cheney taken into consideration my report as well as 2 others submitted on this subject, rather than the forgeries

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:25:06 AM)
the lie would never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:25:14 AM)
so when they ask, "Who betrayed the President?"

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:25:30 AM)
They need to point the finger at the person who inserted the 16 words, not at the person who found the truth of the matter

However, it doesn't tell the whole story. The salon.com article goes into even more detail.

And, note my last reply to you:

And, there is plenty of evidence that the Bush administration (not just Bush) KNEW the uranium claim was fraudulent. How else do you explain the quick back-pedaling by the likes of Condi Rice immediately afterward?

I don't think people understand just how much in control people like Wolfowitz and Feith really are.