Posted on Bartcop....Democrats weenie-like on PT911

[springhill]

Founds this right on!

Sometimes I really hate being on the side of the spineless weenies.
Watching the left defend Clinton and this comedy about 9-11,
they're saying things like, "In my judgment, there are parts of this movie
that are, to my way of thinking, inaccurate to say the least."

Can they be any more weenie-like?

<snip>

Reminder:
Americans are stupid, stupid, stupid.

They have no idea that "inaccurate" is a nice way of saying, "Lies."
They think "inaccurate" is when they said "435" when they meant "433."
"Inaccurate," to most people, means they got 98 on the test, not 100.

"This is a pack of damned lies," means a fag liberal is lying about Godly Bush.

[msongs]

1. oh but dems need to be nice -

why talk like regular americans when you can obfuscate?

Bush is a tryant. (roll the clip of bush commenting on dictators. Roll the clip of bush saying he is a propagandist)

Bush is a liar.

why do elected dems have such a tough time saying this?

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[bluestateguy]

4. Circa 1938: "Well, I respectfully disagree with Chancellor Hitler"

"I have a different vision for Germany. I think the Chancellor has made some errors in judgment that are not in our best interest."

Oh, and say it in a really soft, librarian type of voice.

[blm]

6. Question - Has Clinton ever made these statements in his defense or does

bart only judge OTHER Democrats by a standard he won't use for Bill and Hillary whose nicey-nice play with the Bushes is what got this country stuck with Bush2 in the first place.

Read Clinton's book - he closed the books for Poppy Bush so he could have a "peaceful retirement" - how did that work out for the rest of us and this world?

That said, I will still fight against the 9-11 lies of the RW and other Dems are. too.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/08/john-kerry-blasts-abcs-desperate-docudrama/

[Blue_Tires]

2. bart is still the king!

[blm]

7. Does bart have transcripts of Clinton addressing the lies from 2001-2004?

Cuz this didn't JUST happen - Clinton let this shit slide for 5 years and saddled every other Dem with his refusal to speak against the lies.

From 2001 thru 2004, how many 'Clinton to blame for 9-11' books came out?


And how many of these authors and "journalists" were given significant airtime?

And how many press conferences and lawsuits did Clinton launch to answer the charges?

If you're wondering WHY every Democratic candidate has been stuck fighting the GOP meme that Democrats are weak on terror, it's BECAUSE Clinton never answered these charges for the FIVE YEARS they have existed. THAT gave ABC the cover to launch this movie.


Here's a list of some titles I found.

DERELICTION OF DUTY, by Robert “Buzz” Patterson. (Regnery Publishing, 2003) A top Clinton military aide’s “eyewitness” account of how Bill Clinton compromised America’s national security.

BETRAYAL, by Bill Gertz. (Regnery Publishing, 1999) The Washington Times defense reporter explains “how the Clinton administration undermined American security.”

BREAKDOWN, by Bill Gertz. (Regnery Publishing, 2002) A reporter for the Washington Times describes how “America’s intelligence failures led to 9/11.”

USEFUL IDIOTS, by Mona Charen. (Regnery Publishing, 2003) The columnist and television commentator goes on the attack against liberals who “got it wrong in the cold war and still blame America first.”

THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO AMERICAN HISTORY, by Thomas Woods. (Regnery Publishing, 2004) A conservative interpretation.

SHADOW WAR, by Richard Miniter. (Regnery Publishing, 2004) The author argues that President Bush is winning the war on terror.

LOSING BIN LADEN, by Richard Miniter. (Regnery Publishing, 2003) How—on multiple occasions—Bill Clinton allowed bin Laden to slip through his fingers.

FIGHTING BACK, by Bill Sammon. (Regnery Publishing, 2002) A reporter for The Washington Times recounts the White House’s actions in response to 9/11.

[AlamoDemoc]

3. when you have folks @ Foux like Chris Wallace saying this is foul

and defamatory movie, then I imagine the Rethugs are in trouble;

"Chris Wallace:...but when you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.—it better be what she said or I think she has a heck of a case.."

[Phredicles]

5. Can't be said often enough: Every time it looks like Democrats won't

stand up for themselves, another bunch of voters is left wondering what they will stand up for!