Reporter Apologizes for Iraq Coverage

[conjur]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: conjur
Clarke has started a trend. First him, then Kofi Anan apologize for Rwanda

Does anybody else see the irony in this? Recall the libbies here ran around calling anyone who remotely agreed with Bush an "apologist?"

Now look at them, they are running around actually apologizing. And...and... for what you ask? Aparently our attack on Iraq, which if you ask a libbie is all Bush's fault.

Therefore, libbies are really Bush apologists.

What irony?

Do you even know the definition of the word or are you just trying to sound wise?

You failed miserably, btw.


Clarke has apologized for the failures of the intelligence community and the Clinton and Bush administrations to stop Al Qaeda from attacking us on 9/11.


*You* are apologizing for Bush having misled our nation into an unnecessary war on Iraq.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: conjur
What's complex about your blind love of Bush? It's obvious you think he can do no wrong.

You're an apologist for him.

I said they were stupid for choosing to focus on WMD and gave MY OWN reasons why Iraq needed regime change. How is that being an apologist?

I think you're just a small guy who wants to see a powerful conservative fall. What's wrong? Father not pay enough attention to you? The nuns at your catholic school slap you on the wrist one too many times? It's okay...it's not too late to start loving yourself for who you are. See the inner value of yourself...embrace it...let the insecurity fall away like amber leaves from a maple tree...now...take a deep breath...better?

Yet again, a Bush fanboy attacks the other person's character without ever touching on the issue at hand.

Bravo!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: conjur
What's complex about your blind love of Bush? It's obvious you think he can do no wrong.

You're an apologist for him.

I said they were stupid for choosing to focus on WMD and gave MY OWN reasons why Iraq needed regime change. How is that being an apologist?

I think you're just a small guy who wants to see a powerful conservative fall. What's wrong? Father not pay enough attention to you? The nuns at your catholic school slap you on the wrist one too many times? It's okay...it's not too late to start loving yourself for who you are. See the inner value of yourself...embrace it...let the insecurity fall away like amber leaves from a maple tree...now...take a deep breath...better?

Yet again, a Bush fanboy attacks the other person's character without ever touching on the issue at hand.

Bravo!

Hehe - irony in bold.

CkG

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: conjur
What's complex about your blind love of Bush? It's obvious you think he can do no wrong.

You're an apologist for him.

I said they were stupid for choosing to focus on WMD and gave MY OWN reasons why Iraq needed regime change. How is that being an apologist?

I think you're just a small guy who wants to see a powerful conservative fall. What's wrong? Father not pay enough attention to you? The nuns at your catholic school slap you on the wrist one too many times? It's okay...it's not too late to start loving yourself for who you are. See the inner value of yourself...embrace it...let the insecurity fall away like amber leaves from a maple tree...now...take a deep breath...better?

Yet again, a Bush fanboy attacks the other person's character without ever touching on the issue at hand.

Bravo!

Conjur, I think Hero should be left alone. He just doesn't get it.

Back to the topic:
It's good to see that there are people who will be accountable for their actions and be willing to say: "I fvcked up. I'm sorry".
I don't ever see bush doing that. Hell, he's joking about not finding WMD. great to see him joke about justification for a war that caused so many death. Do you see him ever saying anything close to "sorry, i messed up"?

 

[chess9]

Apologizing doesn't do squat for me. They should have done it right the first time. Most of the reporting was bone-headed and stupid and played into the 9-11 sentiment like we were trout on a line.

Ditto for Clarke's apology. Don't come apologizing to me after your negligence killed MY child. Uh, uh. You're likely to get the ++++ kicked out of you. That grandstanding by Clarke turned me off, even though I must say it seemed to be pretty effective for those who were there.

Anyway, apologizing is highly overrated as a social skill.

-Robert

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: conjur
What's complex about your blind love of Bush? It's obvious you think he can do no wrong.

You're an apologist for him.

I said they were stupid for choosing to focus on WMD and gave MY OWN reasons why Iraq needed regime change. How is that being an apologist?

I think you're just a small guy who wants to see a powerful conservative fall. What's wrong? Father not pay enough attention to you? The nuns at your catholic school slap you on the wrist one too many times? It's okay...it's not too late to start loving yourself for who you are. See the inner value of yourself...embrace it...let the insecurity fall away like amber leaves from a maple tree...now...take a deep breath...better?

Yet again, a Bush fanboy attacks the other person's character without ever touching on the issue at hand.

Bravo!

Heheheh, Bush Fanboys

the dittoheads will love me calling them that later

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Do you know what apologist means? Obviously not. Here is a hint. It involves making excuses, not apologizing. You should try knowing what you are blathering about before you criticize others. If you apologize now for being clueless it will not make you an apologist.

I think I might have to buy dictionaries for all the P&N libbies this coming Christmas.

apologist

\A*pol"o*gist\, n. [Cf. F. apologiste.] One who makes an apology; one who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution; especially, one who argues in defense of Christianity.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Ldir

Do you know what apologist means? Obviously not. Here is a hint. It involves making excuses, not apologizing. You should try knowing what you are blathering about before you criticize others. If you apologize now for being clueless it will not make you an apologist.

I think I might have to buy dictionaries for all the P&N libbies this coming Christmas.

apologist

\A*pol"o*gist\, n. [Cf. F. apologiste.] One who makes an apology; one who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution; especially, one who argues in defense of Christianity.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Nice of you to ignore the other definitions.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=apologist&r=67
4 entries found for apologist.
a·pol·o·gist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pl-jst)
n.

A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.


[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

apologist

\A*pol"o*gist\, n. [Cf. F. apologiste.] One who makes an apology; one who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution; especially, one who argues in defense of Christianity.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

apologist

n : a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution; "an apologist for capital punishment" [syn: vindicator, justifier]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

 

[conjur]

dirtboy should go and play in the dirt with the other little kiddies.

He's obviously in WAY over his head up here.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: conjur
Do you even know the definition of the word or are you just trying to sound wise?

See previous post.

Clarke has apologized for the failures of the intelligence community and the Clinton and Bush administrations to stop Al Qaeda from attacking us on 9/11.

Right. I don't quite think that is his agenda. He certainly didn't need a book deal to apologize now, did he?

*You* are apologizing for Bush having misled our nation into an unnecessary war on Iraq.

This is where you are wrong. I don't apologize for anyone. Now if you interpret my opinion on a situation as apologizing for someone else, then you are the one who has failed.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Ldir

Do you know what apologist means? Obviously not. Here is a hint. It involves making excuses, not apologizing. You should try knowing what you are blathering about before you criticize others. If you apologize now for being clueless it will not make you an apologist.

I think I might have to buy dictionaries for all the P&N libbies this coming Christmas.

apologist

\A*pol"o*gist\, n. [Cf. F. apologiste.] One who makes an apology; one who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution; especially, one who argues in defense of Christianity.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Nice of you to ignore the other definitions.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=apologist&r=67
4 entries found for apologist.
a·pol·o·gist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pl-jst)
n.

A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.


[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

apologist

\A*pol"o*gist\, n. [Cf. F. apologiste.] One who makes an apology; one who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution; especially, one who argues in defense of Christianity.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

apologist

n : a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution; "an apologist for capital punishment" [syn: vindicator, justifier]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

Not ignoring anything. You said my definintion was wrong and it's not. Thanks for proving me right yet again!

 

[conjur]

dirtboy wins Most Obtuse Post of the Year Award.

Congrats!

 

[Gaard]

The war was on the grounds that Iraq would pose a threat to the US and the world in the near future because of their deception and constant attempts to developed or acquire forbidden arms

This is such a load of crap. Do you actually believe this HOP?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Gaard

The war was on the grounds that Iraq would pose a threat to the US and the world in the near future because of their deception and constant attempts to developed or acquire forbidden arms

This is such a load of crap. Do you actually believe this HOP?

That's why I thought we needed to go in. I realize most of you are a bunch of op-ed regurgitating nitwits, but I have my own opinions. As I stated in plain English earlier in this thread, I think using WMD for the justification was idiotic for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, I agree with the administration that we needed to go to war.

I know my logic makes a little too much sense and makes it harder to believe your fairy tales, so glossing over them conveniently with a YABA tag is your best approach...proceed.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Gaard

The war was on the grounds that Iraq would pose a threat to the US and the world in the near future because of their deception and constant attempts to developed or acquire forbidden arms

This is such a load of crap. Do you actually believe this HOP?

That's why I thought we needed to go in. I realize most of you are a bunch of op-ed regurgitating nitwits, but I have my own opinions. As I stated in plain English earlier in this thread, I think using WMD for the justification was idiotic for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, I agree with the administration that we needed to go to war.

I know my logic makes a little too much sense and makes it harder to believe your fairy tales, so glossing over them conveniently with a YABA tag is your best approach...proceed.

Who gives a fudge why you thought we needed to go in? You stated that the war was on the grounds that Iraq would pose a threat to the US and the world in the near future because of their deception and constant attempts to developed or acquire forbidden arms which is not only a load of crap...it's a lie.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Gaard

The war was on the grounds that Iraq would pose a threat to the US and the world in the near future because of their deception and constant attempts to developed or acquire forbidden arms

This is such a load of crap. Do you actually believe this HOP?

That's why I thought we needed to go in. I realize most of you are a bunch of op-ed regurgitating nitwits, but I have my own opinions. As I stated in plain English earlier in this thread, I think using WMD for the justification was idiotic for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, I agree with the administration that we needed to go to war.

I know my logic makes a little too much sense and makes it harder to believe your fairy tales, so glossing over them conveniently with a YABA tag is your best approach...proceed.

Who gives a fudge why you thought we needed to go in? You stated that the war was on the grounds that Iraq would pose a threat to the US and the world in the near future because of their deception and constant attempts to developed or acquire forbidden arms which is not only a load of crap...it's a lie.

Gee...the UN Security Council seemed to think the same thing when they passed Resolution 1441. I agree with them...Iraq needed to fully comply, as I said, again in plain English earlier in this thread, to bend over backwards proving they weren't a threat. Who the fudge are they, though.

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Gaard

The war was on the grounds that Iraq would pose a threat to the US and the world in the near future because of their deception and constant attempts to developed or acquire forbidden arms

This is such a load of crap. Do you actually believe this HOP?

That's why I thought we needed to go in. I realize most of you are a bunch of op-ed regurgitating nitwits, but I have my own opinions. As I stated in plain English earlier in this thread, I think using WMD for the justification was idiotic for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, I agree with the administration that we needed to go to war.

I know my logic makes a little too much sense and makes it harder to believe your fairy tales, so glossing over them conveniently with a YABA tag is your best approach...proceed.

It's good you had your own reasons. Now I hope your reasons were based on FACTS. Show us the freaking facts that would mean that Iraq would have been able to build WMDs in the near future, or that they would have been a threat to the US?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Gaard

The war was on the grounds that Iraq would pose a threat to the US and the world in the near future because of their deception and constant attempts to developed or acquire forbidden arms

This is such a load of crap. Do you actually believe this HOP?

That's why I thought we needed to go in. I realize most of you are a bunch of op-ed regurgitating nitwits, but I have my own opinions. As I stated in plain English earlier in this thread, I think using WMD for the justification was idiotic for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, I agree with the administration that we needed to go to war.

I know my logic makes a little too much sense and makes it harder to believe your fairy tales, so glossing over them conveniently with a YABA tag is your best approach...proceed.

Who gives a fudge why you thought we needed to go in? You stated that the war was on the grounds that Iraq would pose a threat to the US and the world in the near future because of their deception and constant attempts to developed or acquire forbidden arms which is not only a load of crap...it's a lie.

Gee...the UN Security Council seemed to think the same thing when they passed Resolution 1441. I agree with them...Iraq needed to fully comply, as I said, again in plain English earlier in this thread, to bend over backwards proving they weren't a threat. Who the fudge are they, though.

Why did they have to bend over backwards to prove they weren't a threat when the war was on the grounds that they would pose a threat in the near future?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Gaard

The war was on the grounds that Iraq would pose a threat to the US and the world in the near future because of their deception and constant attempts to developed or acquire forbidden arms

This is such a load of crap. Do you actually believe this HOP?

That's why I thought we needed to go in. I realize most of you are a bunch of op-ed regurgitating nitwits, but I have my own opinions. As I stated in plain English earlier in this thread, I think using WMD for the justification was idiotic for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, I agree with the administration that we needed to go to war.

I know my logic makes a little too much sense and makes it harder to believe your fairy tales, so glossing over them conveniently with a YABA tag is your best approach...proceed.

It's good you had your own reasons. Now I hope your reasons were based on FACTS. Show us the freaking facts that would mean that Iraq would have been able to build WMDs in the near future, or that they would have been a threat to the US?

Facts? They wouldn't allow out of country unsupervised interviews with scientists who'd know about the WMD program. Or did the resolution say to partially comply...I'm so confused now. Hans Blix said they weren't fully complying...but maybe by 'weren't' he mean 'were'...maybe he went to the same school as John Kerry...I don't know.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Gaard

The war was on the grounds that Iraq would pose a threat to the US and the world in the near future because of their deception and constant attempts to developed or acquire forbidden arms

This is such a load of crap. Do you actually believe this HOP?

That's why I thought we needed to go in. I realize most of you are a bunch of op-ed regurgitating nitwits, but I have my own opinions. As I stated in plain English earlier in this thread, I think using WMD for the justification was idiotic for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, I agree with the administration that we needed to go to war.

I know my logic makes a little too much sense and makes it harder to believe your fairy tales, so glossing over them conveniently with a YABA tag is your best approach...proceed.

Who gives a fudge why you thought we needed to go in? You stated that the war was on the grounds that Iraq would pose a threat to the US and the world in the near future because of their deception and constant attempts to developed or acquire forbidden arms which is not only a load of crap...it's a lie.

Gee...the UN Security Council seemed to think the same thing when they passed Resolution 1441. I agree with them...Iraq needed to fully comply, as I said, again in plain English earlier in this thread, to bend over backwards proving they weren't a threat. Who the fudge are they, though.

Why did they have to bend over backwards to prove they weren't a threat when the war was on the grounds that they would pose a threat in the near future?

A gun in someone's hand isn't a threat until they point it at you, of course, by then it's a little late to do anything about it. The UN was trying to make sure he wasn't concealing a gun...he wouldn't comply...the coalition just enforced the resolution.

Is this really so hard to get, cause I can get really really basic if you want and draw some pictures if that will help.

 

[Gaard]

Were they a threat? Or were they a near future threat?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Were they a threat? Or were they a near future threat?

They may never have become a threat. Saddam, as he grew older and wiser, may have stepped down and instituted a democracy. Besides, why are you asking me...who the fudge am I anyway? Ask the UN Security Council what they thought when they passed the resolution...we all know who the fudge they are.

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Gaard
Were they a threat? Or were they a near future threat?

They may never have become a threat. Saddam, as he grew older and wiser, may have stepped down and instituted a democracy. Besides, why are you asking me...who the fudge am I anyway? Ask the UN Security Council what they thought when they passed the resolution...we all know who the fudge they are.

So they passed the resolution, but did they support going to war?
We are asking you, because you are such a great supporter of this war.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Gaard
Were they a threat? Or were they a near future threat?

They may never have become a threat. Saddam, as he grew older and wiser, may have stepped down and instituted a democracy. Besides, why are you asking me...who the fudge am I anyway? Ask the UN Security Council what they thought when they passed the resolution...we all know who the fudge they are.

So they passed the resolution, but did they support going to war?

That's the baffling part. Why the fudge would you threaten military action for non-compliance and then not follow through once they proved to be in non-compliance?

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Gaard
Were they a threat? Or were they a near future threat?

They may never have become a threat. Saddam, as he grew older and wiser, may have stepped down and instituted a democracy. Besides, why are you asking me...who the fudge am I anyway? Ask the UN Security Council what they thought when they passed the resolution...we all know who the fudge they are.

So they passed the resolution, but did they support going to war?

That's the baffling part. Why the fudge would you threaten military action for non-compliance and then not follow through once they proved to be in non-compliance?

Ding Ding Ding!
Maybe because they didn't see any imminent danger?