Monday, October 31, 2005

Alabama, Here I Come.

Tomorrow I will be going on “vacation”. I will be traveling to the Virginia countryside, through Tennessee, to Alabama. I will be visited some friends of mine, and to see the deepest parts of the Deep South. I am hoping to see the Gulf Coast line, to see what is left of the destruction left over from Hurricane Katrina.

I will be gone for about a week and a half, and while gone, I will have no internet access. Therefore, there will be no further updates of Nitwit Planet until late next week.

’Till then, I wish you all well, and hopefully I will have stories worth sharing to tell you all.

7 Comments:

Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Just wanted to take a moment to remind all of my liberal fans out there about what the most vocal Democrats were saying about WMD's in Iraq. Very interesting how they said pretty much the same thing Bush did and now they are accusing him of lying. Without ado here is the parade of the duplicious!

John Kerry, January 23rd, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Sandy Berger February 18th, 1998
"He''ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."


Nancy Pelosi December 16th, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."


Senator Carl Levin September 19th, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Al Gore September 23rd, 2002
"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."


John Kerry October 9th, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."


Ted Kennedy September 27th, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Madeleine Albright November 10th, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Jay Rockefeller October 10th, 2002
"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."


Robert Byrd October 3rd, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

Senator Bob Graham December 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."


Well, well, well! I hope that in the interest of keeping everyone fair and balanced that whenever they repeat the stupidity of "Bush lied" that they also include the above liars as well!

5:23 PM  
Blogger M A F said...

Fans? That is hilarious!

All the Democrats that you listed prior to 2002 are hardly relevant. Lest of course you are arguing that Bush decided to invade Iraq predicated upon information going back to 1998. (see selected talking points quotes)

It is illogical and unsound to predicate one's decisions relying upon information that was 4-5+ years old. This is really a poor argument to make to validate the invasion of Iraq.

Think about this for a moment, Republicans (and the party supporters) relying upon the words of Clinton and the members of his administration despite their fervent belief that he is a liar as are the members of his administration. (Oh the irony.)

That said, I have no problem referring to the rest of the named DLC members as liars who carried Bush's water and his lies. They too lied predicated upon the intelligence information that Bush provided both houses of congress (see Rockefeller and Byrd quotes).

Again, while I agree that these Democrats were telling lies they were not advocating (not even those statements made in 1998-9) for the invasion of Iraq like Bush. But I digress.

When you start listing statements that Democrats made after Bush's State of the Union Address, and the Powell presentation before the UN you really undermine your desire to pillory the Democrats.

In the future I'd suggest that you only post the comments made previously to 2001. This way the Democrats lies stand alone.

10:40 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Fans? That is hilarious!
=====>You know you are. It's ok. Don't feel embarassed.

All the Democrats that you listed prior to 2002 are hardly relevant. Lest of course you are arguing that Bush decided to invade Iraq predicated upon information going back to 1998. (see selected talking points quotes)
======>Actually they are very relevant because they obviously were behind the the President when it was potically expedient. And now when their liberal base puts the screws on them they act like they were bamboozled! And the same intel that he saw they saw and all agreed on. Including the liberals faorite poster boy John Kerry.

It is illogical and unsound to predicate one's decisions relying upon information that was 4-5+ years old. This is really a poor argument to make to validate the invasion of Iraq.
=====>Aparently it was ok back then for these Democrats too. I am not saying that the Iraq intelligence was sound. I am only stating the obvious fact thatif "Bush lied" so did they. That's all. Nothing more nothing less.

Think about this for a moment, Republicans (and the party supporters) relying upon the words of Clinton and the members of his administration despite their fervent belief that he is a liar as are the members of his administration. (Oh the irony.)
=====>Oh the duplicity! The Democrats who are constantly harping about how Bush lied to the American people about the intelligence regarding WMD when the major players of their own party were in complete alignment with Bush then and now act as if they were no where near being in agreement! By the way the intelligence they saw was not given to them by these folks including Clinton only that when they ALL (Democrats and Republicans, and England, FREance, Germany, Japan, the UN, etc) saw the intelligence they agreed on it. By the way lest you forget Clinton IS a liar. He purjured himself under oath or did you forget that little impeachment thing?

That said, I have no problem referring to the rest of the named DLC members as liars who carried Bush's water and his lies. They too lied predicated upon the intelligence information that Bush provided both houses of congress (see Rockefeller and Byrd quotes).

=====>Wow. I am not sure if this is some sort of epiphany! So then we both agree that the Democrats are liars as well and for now on you will include them when you say Bush lied?

Again, while I agree that these Democrats were telling lies they were not advocating (not even those statements made in 1998-9) for the invasion of Iraq like Bush. But I digress.
=====>No they WERE advocating war. That's the point! That's why they voted to support the invasion! Oh just when I thought you finally got it. Wow what a sucker punch...

When you start listing statements that Democrats made after Bush's State of the Union Address, and the Powell presentation before the UN you really undermine your desire to pillory the Democrats.

In the future I'd suggest that you only post the comments made previously to 2001. This way the Democrats lies stand alone.

=====>Why? Are those the ones that excuse the support that these lying Democrats gave Bush? Bottom line is that liberals like yourself have no interest in the truth. Only what satisfies your hatred of Bush. Sad sad sad.

But I guess that's what makes you such a fan of mine.......

6:47 AM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Here's something you might find interesting. But be careful it might hurt your feelings, probably because it's true.


Michael Moore Owned Halliburton, Defense Stocks
Jim Meyers
Friday, Nov. 4, 2005
NewsMax.com

Filmmaker Michael Moore has made a career out of trashing corporations and said he doesn't own any stocks due to moral principle.

How then did author Peter Schweizer uncover IRS documents showing that Moore's very own foundation has bought stocks in some of America's largest corporations – including Halliburton, other defense contractors and some of the same companies he has attacked?

In his blockbuster new book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," Hoover Fellow Schweizer reveals the glaring contradictions between the public stances and real-life behavior of prominent liberals including Al Franken, Ralph Nader, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.

But he reserves some of his sharpest barbs for Moore.


In his first documentary "Roger & Me," Moore skewered General Motors, Schweizer points out.


In "The Big One," he went after Nike and PayDay candy bars.


"Bowling for Columbine" was an attack on the American gun industry.


Oil companies played a major role in "Fahrenheit 911."


His upcoming film "Sicko" pillories drug companies and HMOs.


On his television shows "TV Nation" and "The Awful Truth," he criticized HMOs and defense contractors.


He once said that major defense contractor Halliburton was run by a bunch of "thugs," and suggested that for every American killed in the Iraq war, "I would like Halliburton to slay one mid-level executive."


Publicly, Moore has claimed he wants no part of these companies and won't own stock.


In his book "Stupid White Men," he wrote: "I don't own a single share of stock."


He repeated the claim in a 1997 letter to the online magazine Salon, saying: "I don't own any stock."


The year that Moore claimed in "Stupid White Men" that he didn't own any stock, he told the IRS that a foundation totally controlled by Moore and his wife had more than $280,000 in corporate stock and nearly $100,000 in corporate bonds.


Over the past five years, Moore's holdings have "included such evil pharmaceutical and medical companies as Pfizer, Merck, Genzyme, Elan PLC, Eli Lilly, Becton Dickinson and Boston Scientific," writes Schweizer, whose earlier works include "The Bushes" and "Reagan's War."


"Moore's supposedly nonexistent portfolio also includes big bad energy giants like Sunoco, Noble Energy, Schlumberger, Williams Companies, Transocean Sedco Forex and Anadarko, all firms that 'deplete irreplaceable fossil fuels in the name of profit' as he put it in ‘Dude, Where's My Country?'


"And in perhaps the ultimate irony, he also has owned shares in Halliburton. According to IRS filings, Moore sold Halliburton for a 15 percent profit and bought shares in Noble, Ford, General Electric (another defense contractor), AOL Time Warner (evil corporate media) and McDonald's.


"Also on Moore's investment menu: defense contractors Honeywell, Boeing and Loral."


Does Moore share the stock proceeds of his "foundation" with charitable causes, you might ask?


Schweizer found that "for a man who by 2002 had a net worth in eight figures, he gave away a modest $36,000 through the foundation, much of it to his friends in the film business or tony cultural organizations that later provided him with venues to promote his books and film."


Moore's hypocrisy doesn't end with his financial holdings.


He has criticized the journalism industry and Hollywood for their lack of African-Americans in prominent positions, and in 1998 he said he personally wanted to hire minorities "who come from the working class."


In "Stupid White Men," he proclaimed his plans to "hire only black people."


But when Schweizer checked the senior credits for Moore's latest film "Fahrenheit 911," he found that of the movie's 14 producers, three editors, production manager and production coordinator, all 19 were white. So were all three cameramen and the two people who did the original music.


On "Bowling for Columbine," 13 of the 14 producers were white, as were the two executives in charge of production, the cameramen, the film editor and the music composer.


His show "TV Nation" had 13 producers, four film editors and 10 writers – but not a single African-American among them.


And as for Moore's insistence on portraying himself as "working class" and an "average Joe," Schweizer recounts this anecdote:


"When Moore flew to London to visit people at the BBC or promote a film, he took the Concorde and stayed at the Ritz. But he also allegedly booked a room at a cheap hotel down the street where he could meet with journalists and pose as a ‘man of humble circumstances.'"


That's hypocrisy with a capital H!

1:20 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

And it's Bill Bennet that is the racist? This is absolutely fabulous!

Source Newsbusters.org
Andy Rooney: "'Negro' Is a Perfectly Good Word"
Posted by Brian Boyd on November 4, 2005 - 06:03.
On Friday morning’s Imus in the Morning program on MSNBC, Andy Rooney, from CBS, interrupted the I-Man’s positive description of Democratic Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., to state that he doesn’t like the term "African-American" and considered "Negro" to be "a perfectly good word."

Imus described Ford as an "African-American" prompting Rooney to interject, "I object every time I hear the word, words ‘African-American.’ You know? I don’t know why we have gotten caught with that." After saying he doesn’t want to be called an ‘Irish-American,’ Rooney went on to state his preference for another term, "The word ‘Negro’ is a perfectly good word, it’s a strong word and a good word. I don’t see anything wrong with that." Video Available: Windows Media or Real Player

Dictionary.com offers a counter view of Rooney’s feelings about ‘Negro.’ In reference to the ‘usage note’ under ‘black’ it states that "It was not until the late 1960s that black (or Black) gained its present status as a self-chosen ethnonym with strong connotations of racial pride, replacing the then-current Negro among Blacks and non-
Blacks alike with remarkable speed."


Gee? How come the liberal media isn't blasting this all over the airwaves???? Hmmmm. Such a mystery!

1:31 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Just some more of that old liberal media bias again....


Friday, Nov. 4, 2005 4:06 p.m. EST
Times Cuts Patriotism from Marine's Letter




The New York Times cut patriotic comments from a letter written by a U.S. Marine before he was killed in Iraq.

The family of Cpl. Jeffrey Starr slammed the Times for selectively excerpting the letter he wrote to his girlfriend, intending for her to read it in the event of his death.

A November 2 Times story about soldiers killed while serving multiple tours of duty mentioned 22-year-old Starr, who was serving his third tour of duty when he died, and included this excerpt from his letter:

"I kind of predicted this ... A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances.”


In fact, the letter read in its entirety (emphasis added):
"I kind of predicted this, that is why I’m writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances. I don’t regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it’s not to me. I’m here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark.”

Starr’s mother Shellie told the New York Post that the "part of the letter about freedom and dying for it was much more important for him than what they wrote from the letter.”

9:02 AM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

This is aparantly happens when you think you can buy peace with Muslims by hating America.

Great article!

8:41 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home