Thank You John Stewart

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-11-2007
Thank You John Stewart
87
Thu, 09-04-2008 - 12:48pm

Thank you for showing the hypocricy so many of us have been speaking of.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/daily-show-takes-on-the-s_n_123908.html


THe Daily Show clip illustrating what I am speaking of is in the middle of the page...brilliant.

Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
Photobucket

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2008
Fri, 09-05-2008 - 2:07pm
Which is:

We can only be said to be alive in those moments when our hearts are conscious of our treasures. 

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2008
Fri, 09-05-2008 - 2:16pm

Which is:

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2008
Fri, 09-05-2008 - 2:21pm
Uh, yeah, sure.

We can only be said to be alive in those moments when our hearts are conscious of our treasures. 

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-23-2008
Fri, 09-05-2008 - 2:32pm


MONTANA MOM !

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-27-2008
Fri, 09-05-2008 - 4:55pm
You probably just hate when right wing hate monger hypocrisy is exposed.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2007
Fri, 09-05-2008 - 5:47pm

Maybe because some of these issues aren't as simple as right or wrong.
McCain called for more troops for 5 years, and thought we sent too few right away. Was McCain wrong to call for more troops when we had mission accomplished with the troops we had? When we captured Saddam Hussein? We did all of that with fewer troops. McCain disagreed, and publicly said on multiple occassions that he disagreed with the President.

The surge actually failed to meet several timelines and stated goals. Reblicans and Democrats were poised to pull the plug. However, there were several al-quaida attacks that pushed the Iraqi "insurgents" too far, and the tribal leaders worked with the Iraqi govt to call a truce and start to keep the peace. The US took advantage of this, and helped support "the sons of Iraq", a Sunni dominated group that function like a neighborhood watch and patrol. The US paid men to participate, giving "jobs" to young men who were otherwise spending their time battling our troops.
This was NOT part of the surge. There are political goals of the surge that are still not met, promises not kept. While we have a more secure Iraq after the surge, the factors that REALLY helped may have happened regardless of our increase in troops.
If the Iraqi situation hadn't changed, and Sons of Iraq weren't formed, the surge would most likely be considered a failure. Because we have not met all of the goals tied to the surge, I would argue that the surge could be viewed as much as a failure as a success. If things hadn't changed, it would have been McCain in the hotseat. Would McCain say he was wrong? He'd most likely stick to his guns.
If Obama was the president we wouldn't have had the surge. We most likely wouldn't have had the war.
If McCain were president, we would have had the war (apparently) and more troops committed from beginning.
Either way, we would have been better off.

For the record, I agreed with both of them. I believed Rumsfeld's "plan" was a complete disaster, and we sent too few troops. I also didn't believe in the war in the first place.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2005
Fri, 09-05-2008 - 6:07pm

I certainly dont want to put words in Obama's mouth, but if that question was asked of me, my response would be that yes, the surge did improve conditions on the ground. But, that does not mean the Iraq war was justified, it does not mean it was a good idea to start the war in the first place. The surge working does not mean that the US should continue it's presence in Iraq.

Just because it "worked" does not mean it's right. Obama was against the surge because he's against the war. The surge "working" does not change that. If someone thinks a war is wrong, why send more soldiers in to fight it? United States soldiers DIED during the surge. Civilians DIED during the surge. I'm not going to fault a politician for wanting to keep people alive when he's made the decision that the war is wrong. I understand there are lots of people who think the war was justified/righteous/whatever, but since Obama does not, it would be irresponsible for him to support MORE people dying in it.

Finally, considering O'reilly's prediliction for cutting his guests of mid-sentence to launch his own tirade, Obama wouldnt want to give him a long explanation. He would be cut off, and what he had said would be misconstrued a hundred different ways.

Photobucket


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-22-2008
Fri, 09-05-2008 - 6:20pm

Finally, considering O'reilly's prediliction for cutting his guests of mid-sentence to launch his own tirade, Obama wouldnt want to give him a long explanation. He would be cut off, and what he had said would be misconstrued a hundred different ways.


--------------------------------------------------------------------


LOL - I once called the Bill O'Reilly radio show to call him out on something blatanyly SPUN (yes i know, shock, he does spin things) and I was asked why I was calling by the screener and when I told him he wouldn't let me on the air or even talk to him.

boardsiggy

                      

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-13-2006
Fri, 09-05-2008 - 6:41pm

I just do not understand why anyone like O'Reilly. I think it is so rude that he cuts off anyone he doesn't agree with and yells at them. It doesn't surprise me that you couldn't even get on the show, he doesn't want anyone on there except for people who think like him. For him to say fair and balanced and no spin zone is just down right laughable. I put him and Coulter in the same boat and if I was a Republican I would be very embarrassed to have them on my side.


Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-24-2008
Fri, 09-05-2008 - 9:24pm
ITA

 

Pages