See other War, War, War Articles
Title: SEAN HANNITY - "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life"
Source:
Impeach Bush 103
URL Source: http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/impeach103.html
Published: Nov 9, 2005
Author: Steve Rendall
Post Date: 2005-11-09 16:52:44 by Uncle Bill
Keywords: servicemen, "Explain, American
Views: 5676
Comments: 60
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life."
SEAN HANNITY - Fox News Channel - Hannity & Colmes, April 6, 1999 - expressing opposition to the Clinton administration´s 1999 Kosovo actions. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-19) not displayed.
.
.
.
#20. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
I'm with you there, JT. Once, I read something by P.J. O'Rourke where he said "Republicans gain power every now and then, and that's when they remind you of why they don't gain power often." (Not an exact quote.) I thought he was joking. But now I know it was true. I don't just want them to lose power. I want their party to be destroyed and to disappear forever, and for no one to ever speak its name aloud again. They deserve this for placing Bush/Cheney in power.
Yeah, the Kosovo war was a total humiliating loss for the United States. Do you live in reality? We got rid of a nazi killer without killing and wounding thousands of our kids. Period. And Clinton ran it, and the repukes said it would be a quagmire. Guess who was right? Guess who is the first president to reduce the national debt since Kennedy? Yup, the old Clenis, the best president since Roosevelt.
Clinton is no different than Bush. NWO trash.
PJ was probably serious at the time, but he has bailed out of the GOP. He's a moron, but not quite as stupid as he used to be.
One of them made me wealthy and happy, one of them nearly bankrupted me. Guess which was which. You gotta lighten up. There is good and there is bad. Clinton was GOOD, Bush is BAD. My state has lost $6000 per household because of this piece of shit; I have lost at least that much. Dems watch our money, the Repukes love to spend it by giving the wealthy tax cuts. How much did YOU get in the tax cuts? I bet, about $500. The rich fucks got $300K. Don't be stupid.
I agree with what you said about the Bushes. I disagree with your views on that evil baby killer clinton. Clinton like Bush had no declaration for war. They are both supporters of the UN. Clinton signed the Brady bill. Are you for the surrendering of our second amendment rights? You can't blame Bush for everything that is wrong with the economy. It is part clintons fault too. It is also part our fault as Americans for not working hard enough, for buying cheap Chinese goods and many many more reasons.
I really have to take exception to your comment we 'rescued' an ethnic group that was being massacred............the Serbs, along with jews and gypsies, are still being killed by those we aligned ourselves with==the drug dealing, prostitute pimping, terrorizing kosovans.
Instead we blew the limbs off of innocent people with cluster bombs dropped from 30,000 feet and tossed some DU on them for good measure. You just re-affirm my faith that "D"s love to blow the piss out of helpless third world nations just as much as "R"s do and that American's will tollerate the slaughter and "good wars" so long as they are fat, dumb, and have a big 401K. Here, this antiwar.com artical says it much better than I can: Remember Kosovo? There has been lately a great deal of commotion in the press as to whether Emperor Bush the Lesser and his satellites have lied to their people about the supposed "weapons of mass destruction," which have not been found even after six weeks of occupation and unfettered access to all parts of Iraq. As if the notion of the Emperor deceiving his subjects was something new! Does anyone remember Racak, the "massacre" used to justify the Rambouillet ultimatum and the subsequent bombing of Serbia in 1999? Or, for that matter, the "genocide" that took place in Kosovo during the bombing – only, it didn't? Apparently not. Nor is it remembered that even after these lies were decisively debunked, their peddlers never suffered any adverse consequences. In the specific case of Kosovo, the train of lies and abuses is so long a thick book would hardly do it justice. What is happening in Iraq now is merely a re-run of what happened in Kosovo. Because the Empire got away with murder, literally, launching a clear war of aggression and occupation while spinning all sorts of preposterous lies about it, Kosovo made Iraq possible. Never forget that. Even as Tony Blair was trying to lie its way out of Iraq lies, the Guardian featured a series of articles seemingly critical of British support for Imperial interventions, titled "Did we make it better?" In the segment on Kosovo, writer Jon Henley creates an impression that even as poverty, crime and violence are rampant, NATO's bombing and invasion in 1999 – and the subsequent occupation – is one hundred percent justified. Four years after the Operation Allied Force ended, the lies behind it persist. Reign of Terror On June 9, 1999, representatives of the Yugoslav government and NATO signed an armistice in a tent outside Kumanovo, Macedonia, ending NATO's 78-day air assault. Within a week, NATO troops occupied the Serbian province of Kosovo, and their KLA allies began a reign of terror that has continued ever since. In June 1999 alone, over 250,000 Serbs, Roma, Turks, Muslims, and Jews were forced to leave Kosovo, often with little or no property. In addition to targeting Serbs, Albanians launched special pogroms against the Roma ("Gypsies"), in the best tradition of their WW2 ancestors. In July 1999, 14 Serb farmers were murdered while harvesting their fields outside the hamlet of Staro Gracko. (An IWPR hack aptly named Fron Nazi claimed they were victims of "Serb subterfuge," even as KFOR statistics showed one Serb was being murdered every 24 hours.) In October 1999, an Albanian mob murdered Bulgarian UN worker Valentin Krumov for speaking what sounded like Serbian. In February 2001, a bus full of Serbs who were coming to visit their cemeteries was blown up by a remote-controlled mine. Three Albanians arrested in connection with the bombing were released by December 2001, and one "escaped" from the US fortified base Camp Bondsteel. Throughout Kosovo, Serbs have retreated into towns and villages that have become virtual concentration camps. If they venture outside those areas, which are guarded by NATO troops and not infrequently cordoned off with barbed wire, they risk death. The most notorious ghetto has been Orahovac. Other enclaves, like Gracanica and Decani monastery, are frequently under attack. In the north of Kosovo, local Serbs have managed to stop the Albanian takeover on the southern side of the Ibar River, in Mitrovica. Together with several towns in the north, this is the only remaining territory in Kosovo not dominated by the Albanian separatists, which has made it a target for constant attacks by Albanians, occupation authorities, and their cheerleaders. Even Albanians have been targets of organized violence, as the terrorist KLA targeted "collaborators," political rivals and witnesses to its murderous deeds. Albanian militants have demolished or desecrated over 110 churches, chapels and monasteries. They have destroyed hundreds of monuments and even libraries, renamed towns, streets, and the entire province ("Kosova") in an effort to completely eradicate any non-Albanian presence in Kosovo. Reign of Lies Reports often say all of this has happened despite the presence of 30,000 NATO troops, but the truth is, it happened because of their presence. The vast majority of attacks were never solved. Yet it is a public secret that most perpetrators are "former" KLA – now employees of the UN-funded "Kosovo Protection Corps," commanded by the notorious KLA leader and former Croatian officer Agim Ceku. In April 2002, two men were killed while trying to plant a bomb under a railroad track used by Serbs. They belonged to the "Albanian National Army," the newest incarnation of the KLA, declared shortly thereafter a "terrorist organization." They were also members of the KPC! On June 3, 1999, NATO was still attacking Yugoslavia and the Alliance mouthpiece Jamie Shea gave his usual afternoon briefing. When a reporter asked if there were any indications that the KLA was prepared to be disarmed by NATO "peacekeepers," Shea responded coyly: "Well, we will have to wait and see, won't we?" We didn't have to wait for long. The KLA entered Kosovo perched upon NATO tanks, rampaged through the province unchallenged, made a big show of handing over a handful of obsolete weapons, changed uniforms and went legit, with a UN paycheck as an added bonus. A Deadly Message Four years after NATO's "humanitarian war" ended, it still claims lives. UN police found the butchered bodies of Slobodan, Ljubinko and Radmila Stolic [Stolich] inside their burnt-out home early on June 4 this year. It was an ax murder sloppily contrived to look like an accident. UN police spokesman Derek Chapelle is quoted in a June 4 Reuters report, "The people were attacked as they were lying in bed in the middle of the night. These people died as a result of a brutal beating, not a fire." At the very bottom of the article, tucked into near-oblivion, is a note that local Serbs told the reporters the Stolic family was under Albanian pressure to sell their house and leave Kosovo. That their murder was meant as a message to other Serbs is abundantly clear. But is this mentioned? No. In fact, reporting that some 400 Serbs decided to pack up and leave town after the murders, Agence France-Presse never once mentioned possible perpetrators of the attack, let alone the motive. Official American propaganda carried the same story, but focused on dismissing Serb concerns about their security, and again, never even hinted at the obvious identity of the murderers. These are but the latest examples of an ongoing pattern of denial and obfuscation, pervasive throughout the Imperial media when it comes to reporting on Kosovo. Murders of Serbs by Albanians were initially excused as "revenge attacks," implying some sort of "payback" for Serb atrocities. But as the attacks continued and atrocities accusations became increasingly impossible to substantiate, a new euphemism was created: "ethnic violence." This implies that Serbs and Albanians are attacking each other. Yet no one can cite a single case of Serbs wantonly attacking and murdering Albanians in these past four years. Not one! When Albanians suffer violent deaths in Kosovo these days, it is at the hands of other Albanians – members of crime syndicates or "former" KLA (often one and the same). Spin the Murder The Stolic family was murdered again – this time metaphorically – when the politicians took the stage. UN Viceroy Michael Steiner claimed the Obilic murders were "clearly aimed at stopping reconciliation… a perfidious crime which was directed against multi-ethnicity in Kosovo." What reconciliation? What multi-ethnicity? What planet does Steiner live on? Kosovo Albanian "prime minister" Bayram Rexhepi issued a statement expressing condolences to the Stolic family (!) and termed the murders a "criminal act… directed against the stability, peace, and prosperity of Kosovo and its future." But of course! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before? All these brutal murders, abductions and massacres are really a sinister plot to make the innocent, victimized Kosovo Albanians look bad and ruin their future of peace, prosperity, multi-ethnic democracy and independence! Why, the dastardly Serbs must have massacred themselves! Official Serbian news agency cites an interview UNMIK spokesman Simon Haselock gave BBC radio, where he is quoted as saying that "no police force in the world is capable of protecting every family and every individual" and that the security situation in Kosovo has lately "improved dramatically." Like the rest of NATO apologists – to be fair, this is actually his job – Haselock uses the diminishing frequency of attacks to claim improvement. But that attacks on Serbs now happen once a month instead of once a day has largely been a function of the diminishing number of Serbs, not the diminishing desire of Albanian segregationists to attack them. The platitudes of Steiner and Rexhepi and Haselock's tautological nonsense are trying to divert attention from the realities of the occupation. Kosovo Serbs and other ethnic groups are targets of an organized, systematic Albanian campaign of ethnic cleansing, aimed at creating an ethnically pure, independent Albanian Kosovo. Sounds familiar? That's because this was an accusation leveled at the victims, the Serbs, by the Albanians and the Empire in an effort to preclude their defense. Good Riddance On the eve of the murders in Obilic, Viceroy Steiner announced he would be quitting the job at the end of June. Kosovo Serbs should bid him good riddance. From his first act in office – forging a unified Albanian political front – to his most recent prevarications, Steiner has pushed the occupied province on the road to ethnically cleansed independence. However welcome his departure may be, one must remember that Steiner was never the real problem. Conceived, established and perpetuated by violence, the occupation of Kosovo is itself the greatest enemy of peace, liberty and prosperity in the southern Balkans. Bloody Hands Many opponents of the Kosovo war supported George W. Bush in 2000, fooled by the neocons' loud opposition to the bombing, which was nothing more than opportunistic posturing, into believing Kosovo was "Clinton's war." But Bush the Lesser has made no changes to Clinton's policy in Kosovo – or anywhere in the Balkans, for that matter. And why would he? It was Kosovo that made Iraq possible: both illegal, illegitimate wars resulting in equally illegal and illegitimate occupations, not to mention the toll in destroyed human lives and property, or the destruction of social and cultural heritage. Senator Joseph Lieberman, who would like to be Emperor after Bush, said in 1999 that the blatantly fascist KLA was "fighting for American values." Lieberman came close to being elected vice-president in 2000, and this statement was never held against him. There have been several proposed resolutions in the Congress supporting the independence of Albanized Kosovo, but not one – not one! – demanding an end to the occupation. Today, Kosovo is an issue almost forgotten in the American political discourse, even though the United States is chiefly responsible for the current state of affairs in that Serbian province. Empire's hands are drenched with blood of the massacred and tears of the dispossessed. It is not surprising that those who should be ashamed of their actions have forgotten Kosovo. But those who care about honor, justice and liberty have every reason to remember.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death" - Me.
If that ain't the freakin' battle cry of the 21st century... Amen!
Government blows, and that which governs least blows least...
Kosovo, I will never forget, where is the outrage? Towers falling, a comparison
Flushed down the memory hole. We terror bombed their cities and villages, crammed them into barbed wire wrapped "ghettos", and supplied weapons and training to 3rd parties that would slaughter them without a second thought...and then we have the balls to call them Nazies. I don't think the wars will ever end now. "D" or "R", they'll find us some "good wars" to get involved in to continue the profits and slaughter.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death" - Me.
So, which party is the guardian of my gun rights? The majority of both voted for the misnamed assault weapons bill.
I didn't say they're identical. Different rhetoric, different mostly inconsequential issues to keep the american people divided, but their ultimate goal is the same--a collectivist one world government where they, the elites (our illustrious leaders) have all the power and wealth. They don't care one iota for the sovereignty of this nation or for the individual American man and woman.
my #32. missed you!
Thank you Ma'am. I check in often but I don't post. You have several courageous patriots here including you and I enjoy reading the things you post and write, and more often than not there is little I could add to articles and well stated opinions, so I lurk a bit.
BTTT
BTTT
BTTT Hehehehe
Uncle B...please stop reminding me of our Irish hactchlings on Trotsky's key chain..it's bad enough the Jewish ones steal Irish names...
Hehehehe 8-)
This is one of my favorite Bushbot displays of "principle." Bush as President: Bush Asks for $15 Billion to Fight AIDS in Africa Clinton as President: Clinton Wants $175 Million for AIDS Programs
Yeah, I told my brother (a CPA) ..'no Bush isn't a real conservative'..."What the war," he said. Me: 'Yeah, and the fact the $15b is going to "HIV" in Africa...' No response, just his Bonehead vote in November...I guess $175 Million for AIDS and $15 Billion for AIDS is an accountant's investment into the future...I pity his beautiful little daughters...got my own to worry about.
Mega dittos! I hate all politicians now. When you think about it, someone has to a one sick fuck to think that telling others how to live is a worthy calling. Screw all governments and anyone who even thinks they have some right to tell me what to do or how to spend my money. It would be worth it to find out that JimRob the traitor had a heart attack. I'd show up at his funeral just so I could piss on his grave.
In speaking of the Truth, Henry David Thoreau once said: "Any Truth is better than make-believe ... rather than love, than money, than fame, give me Truth."
Lewrockwell.com Listeners to talk radio and readers of mainstream conservative publications and websites are by now thoroughly acquainted with what passes for debate on the Iraq war in those venues. All good, patriotic conservatives agree with President Bush’s policies, and anyone who doesn’t is a traitorous liberal. Rarely is the subject of conservative or libertarian opposition to the war raised – although Sean Hannity deserves credit for having Pat Buchanan on his radio show fairly regularly – and when it is, such antiwar types are deemed "unpatriotic." The only debate permitted in these quarters centers on tactics, not the fundamental morality of the war. Even the president has framed the issue in this way. Speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on January 10, he said: The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right. In short, the only "responsible" debate involves nibbling around the edges of the war, discussing tactics; questioning the war itself is "irresponsible" and "partisan." That was then; this is now. William F. Buckley, Jr., for better or for worse one of the founding fathers of the modern conservative movement, has jumped ship on the Iraq project. In a column titled simply, "It Didn’t Work," the founder and editor-at-large of National Review, the very magazine that declared all right-wing opposition to the war treasonous in a now-infamous cover story, bluntly stated: "One can’t doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." Buckley then elucidated on this a bit: Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols. That is, a civil war, which most observers not blinded by the Bush administration’s prewar propaganda predicted without even consulting their crystal balls, has broken out among deeply divided groups of people who were previously held together only by force, as even Buckley cagily, without quite attributing this belief to himself, admitted. "It would not," averred Buckley, "be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each others’ [sic] throats." Now Buckley went on to urge President Bush – and, by extension, conservatives in general – not to give up on the idea of transforming some parts of the world into friendly democracies through military action, especially if we would just get over our hang-ups with firebombing and nuking civilian cities, as the Allies did in World War II. (I’ll direct you to Justin Raimondo’s column here for a fuller dissection of Buckley’s piece.) Still, for the eminence grise of modern-day conservatism to declare explicitly that the Iraq mission has failed signals a potentially seismic shift in the terms of the debate. Now, perhaps, we can get down to the business of debating the policy itself, not just whether or not there was enough body armor for the troops. Reaction to Buckley’s column on the right was swift and, for the most part, predictable. The intellectual giants at http://FreeRepublic.com, ever tolerant of dissent from the Bush party line, responded with such thought-provoking gems as: Buckley is getting old. Some weaken with age, some don’t. It’s sad though. I haven’t read any of Buckley’s tripe for years. It’s good to once again realize why every now and again. Good thing Buckley isn’t in charge. I don’t like quitters. He [Buckley] may have been the father of the 50s Conservative Movement, but he’s one step in his grave now. I remember when Barry Goldwater started goings [sic] senile. And that is just a sampling from the first 50 responses; the Freepers went on to make another 344 similarly intellectual retorts. Even Buckley’s own magazine felt the need to distance itself from his comments, claiming that "declarations of defeat in Iraq" such as the column by their editor-at-large "are pre-mature. . . . Defeatism is self-fulfilling." However, one very noteworthy conservative voice took a much less combative stand. Perhaps because he considers Buckley "like a surrogate parent in a way," Rush Limbaugh was much less quick to condemn Buckley’s opinion as the ravings of a senile old defeatist. In fact, Limbaugh made what must have seemed a startling admission to most of his audience: You know, a lot of people look at conservatism and see a monolith. You know, one conservative is the same as all, and as you know, as being a conservative, most of you are yourselves. There are many different derivatives out there of our so-called movement. I mean, you've got some great social conservatives who are protectionists. You have some other great conservatives who have one view on foreign policy that differs from the president's. Some would say the president is not actually a conservative when it comes to foreign policy. (Emphasis mine.) Stop the presses! A conservative has actually admitted that Bush’s foreign policy, in the view of "some other great conservatives," does not itself qualify as conservative! This had to have come as a shock to the Dittoheads who have, for the past four or five years, been subject to Bush-worship of the highest order and the denigration of anyone who disagrees with Bush as a treasonous liberal. Limbaugh went on to describe, in more or less perfect detail, the standard conservative foreign policy view of the pre-9/11 era: Now, if you go back, the James Baker wing of foreign policy, and many – I could – who's another? Well, Brent Scowcroft, who was one of the early opponents. . . . . Their brand of foreign policy can essentially be summed up like this: If there's no vested, stated national security issue, then it's none of our business to get involved – Pat Buchanan might fall into this, as a derivative, in a way. Doesn't involve us, it's none of our business, trying to bring democracy to people, if it doesn't help us, is foolish. It's a waste of time, it's a waste of our army, it's a waste of our treasure, and so forth. This, by the way, would also be the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush, who wrote in his memoirs: Trying to eliminate Saddam . . . would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. . . .We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. . . .[T]here was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. . . . Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. Bush’s secretary of defense, Dick Cheney, agreed: I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. . . . And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. . . . I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq. For Limbaugh and other conservatives and neoconservatives, however, "after 9/11, everything changed." No longer would prudence and a careful consideration of the limitations of military force enter into the picture when making foreign policy decisions. From now on it was pure Wilsonianism, making the world safe for democracy regardless of the cost in blood and treasure. Thus a fair question can be asked: Whose principles have changed? The conservatives who held to the relatively restrained (but hardly isolationist) foreign policy they had espoused throughout the preceding decades, or those who believed that their principles, and not just with regard to foreign policy, had to be jettisoned after 9/11? Can anyone claim that the former are any less conservative or patriotic for not wavering in spite of immense pressure to jump on the Bush bandwagon? Are the latter truly conservative if they are so willing to make a complete turnaround in their stated beliefs because of one event? The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a largely Bush-sympathetic newspaper, editorialized recently: For Lyndon Johnson, it was Walter Cronkite. Will it be Bill Buckley for George Bush? LBJ felt he had lost the American people when the former CBS News anchor said victory in Vietnam was not possible. Now Mr. Buckley, the conservative icon, says "our mission has failed" in Iraq. Certainly the beginning of America’s endgame in Iraq is upon us. Let’s hope the editors are right.
BTTT
BTTT
Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation
-Pat Buchanan (R) Pat really shouldn't be in that list as he has been consistent in his isolationist position (as am I). Pat would be pretty much against American involvement overseas at almost any point. I agree with him, of course. I believe in the Prime Directive - do not interfer with the natives.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
BTTT
Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation
Uncle Bill. I’ve listened to some of these “parents” of dead serviceman interviewed on the Hannity show. Despite the death of their son/daughter, at least the ones I heard, still remain wed to this christofascist bilge he pumps out. Hannity, btw, is still of service age. Let him get his ass on the line if he so believes in WWIII.
BTTT
Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation
BTTT
Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation
http://www.peacetakescour age.com/yesterday.html Watch it, and weepl
http://www.peacetakescourag e.com/standup.html
Bohemian Grove Calls Compilation (5 Calls) http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=cJqPowtmK2M (5min 41sec) Sean Hannity's credibility questioned http://th eresistancemanifesto.com/audio/sean_hannity_agenda.mp3 (14sec) 9/11 Inside Job Calls Compilation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0ijPww3FOg (1min 50sec) 9/11 Inside Job Calls Compilation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uierjkfRdBE (2min 16sec) Bohemian Grove Calls Compilation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiVQC8R9vZk (8min 46sec) Alan Colmes: This is John Conner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0xf_SF7YhQ (49sec) READ Hannity & Colmes Exposed ht tp://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/260406bohemiangrove.htm The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size
Thanks much!
Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation
BTTT
Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation Death of Habeas Corpus: “Your words are lies, Sir.”
mornin', my favorite uncle. ;)
I couldn't help it. I just wanted to rub his face in it once more.
Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation Death of Habeas Corpus: “Your words are lies, Sir.”
Hmmm, that's an easy one. Because neocon bloodsuckers such as yourself fool people into thinking it's a good idea, and that those that question your lies are "muslimaniacs" or some other bizarre term. Does that answer the question?
BTW Uncle Bill, my last comment was directed at ole Sean, not you...
Hehehehehe. He's a lying piece of crap. Press 1 for English, Press 2 for English, Press 3 for deportation Death of Habeas Corpus: “Your words are lies, Sir.”
Hannity; the epitome of a lockstep, brain dead pubbie. The entirety of his radio show (and that mess on FOX TV) is "Republicans good - Democrats bad." How in god's name could any thinking person remain wed to the R's? I hate them more than the D's because I feel personally betrayed. May they lose both houses and the presidency. The FReeper threads alone would be worth the additional dose of socialism.
#21. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#17)
#22. To: Mekons4 (#21)
Guess who is the first president to reduce the national debt since Kennedy? Yup, the old Clenis, the best president since Roosevelt.
#23. To: h-a-l-f-w-i-t-t (#20)
I thought he was joking. But now I know it was true. I don't just want them to lose power. I want their party to be destroyed and to disappear forever, and for no one to ever speak its name aloud again. They deserve this for placing Bush/Cheney in power.
#24. To: A K A Stone (#22)
Clinton is no different than Bush. NWO trash.
#25. To: Mekons4 (#24)
#26. To: Mekons4 (#16)
We rescued an ethnic group that was being massacred. It was, like WWII and Korea, a good war.
#27. To: Mekons4 (#21)
We got rid of a nazi killer without killing and wounding thousands of our kids.
And Why You Should
by Nebojsa Malic
#28. To: wakeup (#8)
I am so thankful I have woken to the truth and now recognize it's not right against left... it's us against them.
#29. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#27)
#30. To: mennyiben (#29)
Kosovo, I will never forget, where is the outrage?
#31. To: Mekons4, christine (#12)
The idea that both parties are identical is ridiculous.
#32. To: Mekons4 (#12)
#33. To: HOUNDDAWG (#31)
#34. To: christine (#33)
#35. To: HOUNDDAWG (#34)
#36. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#30)
#37. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
#38. To: Uncle Bill (#37)
“Yes, but is this good for Jews?"
#39. To: Eoghan (#38)
#40. To: Eoghan (#38)
I agree with you! Believe that Senator Bill Frist, M.D., who has gone to Africa and has seen how devastating this disease is to so many people that have gotten AIDs in Africa through no fault of their own. This epidemic could go around the world and strike more than the gay community.
20 posted on 01/29/2003 8:10 AM PST by PhiKapMom(Bush/Cheney 2004)
SOURCE
"Can someone tell me how putting more money into prevention is going to help? It is actually quite simple -- safe sex and don't share needles. Probably the most basic answer is "Just Say NO! If someone doesn't know that by now after all the warnings during the last ten years then they are a moron! Is this State of the Union going to be the big give-away? Every day I read about another give-away. Only when it comes to the Defense Department is it a take-away."
2 Posted on 01/17/2000 19:44:57 PST by PhiKapMom
SOURCE
#41. To: Uncle Bill (#40)
“Yes, but is this good for Jews?"
#42. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
How in god's name could any thinking person remain wed to the R's? I hate them more than the D's because I feel personally betrayed.
The FReeper threads alone would be worth the additional dose of socialism.
#43. To: christine (#32)
Is Bill Buckley 'George Bush’s Walter Cronkite'?
Source
March 4, 2006
#44. To: JRadcliffe (#42)
#45. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
#46. To: Uncle Bill (#3)
"America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country"
#47. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
#48. To: Uncle Bill (#45)
#49. To: OKCSubmariner (#33)
#50. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
#51. To: Uncle Bill (#3)
This was done a thousand, or so, troops ago-
#52. To: All (#51)
#53. To: Uncle Bill, lodwick, All (#50)
CALLING SEAN HANNITY 1 (800) 941-7326 
CALLING ALAN COLMES 1 (877) 367-2526
#54. To: lodwick (#51)
#55. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
#56. To: Uncle Bill (#55)
#57. To: Jethro Tull (#1)
#58. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
SEAN HANNITY - "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life"
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#59. To: Uncle Bill (#0)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#60. To: FormerLurker (#58)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest