You just keep pushing that thoroughly discredited position there.  Even Bush and Cheney won't say this anymore, but you just keep carrying that water for them anyway. 

Duplicate post, so I'll just say...

OBJECT DESKTOP 2009 is out!  YAY! 

Dodgeball again.  The only authority/approval required by the administration was authorization by Congress.

You served up a hanging curve ball there, but I'll be good & just say it's actually Object Desktop 2009.  And I agree, "YAY!"

How do you know I wasn't cheering for LAST year's version? Hmmm? 

Seriously, thanks, fixed.  Two typos in the same day.   I'm tired, hehe.

Which was predicated on lies the administration knew were lies even as they were telling them.  Sigh.

Here was one of many articles about the meeting between Richard Armey and Dick Cheney when it happened.

And here is one of many articles revealing the lies (and utter bullshit) Cheney told at that meeting.

And lest someone claim that these are somehow "left-wing biased sources" the quotes are from then GOP House Majority Leader Richard Armey himself,  the very man Cheney lied to...in his own words.

Gore solicited it.  YOu did not read up much on that one did you?

Yes those are facts.  They do not support your position.  Wal Mart made record profits too.  SO they are guilty as well?  But this is a good old liberal dodge.  It is not the evidence that matters, but the allegations.  And now that Oil companies are making paltry profits, are you now going to say they cant be a benefactor?  I am really surprised at you.  You claim (a duboius one) that you have run several companies, and yet you can not understand that profits are not a given, and do go up and DOWN.

And you would be wrong. Since over 40 nations partook in that battle of the gulf war (not the next gulf war).

Thank you.  And a valid one.  Obama is not the least (and I will not say most), but it is apparent with his ties to Rezko, and the shady land deal that he is far from the least corrupt.  Rightnow, he is in the middle and moving up.  And his campaign stinks as bad as the Clinton Gore campaigns as for contributions.  Something we may never know because he did use the loophole of the MF law.  But you cant fault him for doing that.  If you are going to do things illegally, dont pave the road to the evidence with an agreement to an audit!

Of course you have to change your tune now, when your own links prove you wrong.  But it is exactly the point.  Clearly you like some wars - irregardless of what the UN does - and not others.  And the only qualifier is who starts them.  WHich makes you a liberal and a hypocrite - but then I repeat myself.

I have mischaracterized nothing.  You just have to keep changing your story to fit the proof in front of you.  By the time this is over, I am sure you are going to be urging Obama to bomb the hell out of some other miscreant.  Like all good pacifists do.  Your problem is that your "story" just does not fit your facts, and I am just using them to show you that.  Opinions of course dont require facts, so I doubt you will change yours.

Do you even read what you quote?  Apparently not.  Did we start another war on June 6, 1944? August 7,. 1942? October 20, 1944?  Shazaam!  I thought it was all WWII!  But now we have WWII, WWIII, WWIV, WWV, etc (since I merely listed 3, not 30 invasions).  Read your quote again.  The war was already on.

Nope!  Wrong again!  Nothing to do with peer reviews.  WIkipedia itself.  Nice starting place, but not the final place.  Better re-read that one.

That shows why you like being wrong.  I am sure Dan Blather cited his sources - the ones he made up?  yea that works!  Fox News is better than the rest, cause at least they try to get the facts right.  And dont create their own.  You are getting comical as you get desperate.

Police dont fight wars (not even in the police action of Korea).  No, you are no pacifist.  A dangerous war monger that needs no justification to bomb the hell out of anyone, except to know who wants to do it.  Bush was never that much of a war monger.  Thank god reason still prevails on the right, because the left are going to nuke the next country that gives them the finger.

You are making a career of your errors.  The proof as it was, was provided to congress (the senate actually since they must approve of the actions).  3 senators read it.  There were no lies, just a bunch of incompetance (if that) on the part of the senate.  Had they done their job, they would maybe have a leg to stand on.  As it was, they did and do not.

The only lies that have been spread are those that want to twist facts to support their lies - like the left.  The facts are clearly available for anyone to peruse and evaluate.  You can come to a different conclusion, but then that would not be a lie, just your opinion.  Better learn the difference.

Your source does not back up your conclusions, and the elipse does indicate the author was hiding something - and a closer look at the actual statement reveals that Armey was indeed upset, but did not say that Cheney lied.  The author said that.  Now that is a good way to cherry pick your words!

The article you link to merely documents that the Cheney/Armey meeting took place.

I would trust Armey to be truthful (to the extent security clearances permit) - I've always admired him.  However, he's hardly the only one to say, "Had I known then what I know now..." - even Hillary wouldn't back down about voting for the war resolution until the primary campaign, though, and I strongly suspect she had more knowledge of the intelligence than most Senators.

The first article documents the meeting.  The second comes years later, in Armey's own words.

And ALL of the Senators were lied to.  It's why they A) feel pissed, and feel responsible.  So they aren't pressing this treason issue because it's embarassing to ALL of them.  Isn't politics grand? 

So because Armey (who knows Cheney is STILL in office during this interview) doesn't actually say the "L" word, we now need to debate the meaning of the word LIE here?  Numberous other accounts from less diplomatic members of the GOP White House have used the L word.  As have many of the Democratic Senators who were in those same briefings.  I just pointed out the watershed moment.

Clinton LIED about getting blown by his intern.  This was to keep from being killed by his WIFE.  I have always condemned Clinto for this.

Cheney LIED about Iraq and Saddam.  This was to start a WAR than sent almost a trillion dollars in taxpayer money to the very company he resigned from to become VP (and will no doubt join again when he is legally allowed to).  I condemn him for this as well.

Now, both of these are lies.  One lie forever ruined a President's legacy.  The other lie got 4,000+ brave, loyal American servicemen killed.

And I can honestly say I'm more pissed about our dead soldiers and looted treasury.

In what world are the Oil companies making paltry profits?  They've posted records gains for years running now.  Sure gas prices may be down (for a while) but that just means they're going to go back to making the profits they were before.

Besides, the rise in oil prices was a BONUS to them.  We went into Iraq in 2003 (before the surge in gad prices) in order to secure those oil fields and contracts for American companies to sustain a LONG-TERM objective of having more oil, ergo more profits for a longer period of time.  We didn't go into Iraq to make gas prices rise.  I'm sure the administration expected a short term spike due to fears of instability, but they wanted to guarantee more CHEAP oil, not jack up prices.

Again, you ascribe to me positions and statements that come from your warped view of me, not from anything I've said or supported. 

As far as what I will support and what I will not, I will take that as it comes.  I won't be following Obama blindly.  As I've listed many times in this thread, I've supported AND condemned military actions under Democrat AND Republican administrations.

They don't have to create their own facts.  They get their talking points created for them--straight from the Bush White House! 

Seriously, don't get me wrong.  While I agree that sometimes their basic news coverage is just fine (how can you "spin" a train crash, after all?), O'Reilly and Hannity (and their ilk) in particular are ABSURDLY biased. 

But I'll do you the credit of assuming you can separate the real wheat from their chaff.

In fact, because he did cite them, they were proven to be FALSE when other journalists, etc. FACT CHECKED him. 

If you'd like to claim that this single instance (or even a dozen like it) invalidates the entire fourth estate, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. 

Every industry is made up of human beings.  Imperfect ones.  I don't throw away the good work done by all of the US Presidents over two centuries, for example, just because of Bush Jr.  And I don't think we should throw away the entire field of journalism over the occasional overzealous reporter.

I nominate you for Secretary of the Department of Redundancy Department.

Define 'record gains' please.  Margin, ROI, what?  Absolute cash can be misleading.

In this case, NET INCOME.   You can't seriously not know about this...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/business/01cnd-exxon.html

And there are hundreds more to match it...every fiscal quarter.

10%, up from ~7%.  Most of us would love to be invested in such a company.  Apple made $1B on revenue of $7B last quarter.  What is your point?

I was answering your question.

"Quotes" indicate their own words.  Outside of quotes are the writers opinion.

Sorry, I am not Bil Clinton, and changing the issue is a popular tactic. Sorry, I wont play that game.  Clearly your opinion of what is stated does not match the facts.  But you are entitled to your opinion.  Just dont claim they are facts.

This world.  Have you seen their 4th quarter profits?  You have!  Shazaam!  WHat are tonights lottery numbers! :LOL:

No, you stated you support Kosovo, even though it was not sanctioned by the UN.  WHy?  Because a democrat did it?  So if Obama starts one, you will support it?  You have indicated so.  Your words not mine.  I merely asked the question.  And as you have already indicated you like wars started by democrats, one can assume intelligently what your answer will be.  But you answer it - after the fact.  It is easy to say "I would never!", but the truth is you already have.  You have a pattern.

Proof please.  Facts need confirmation.  I doubt you have any though.  As none exist.

Well, I did assume you knew the difference between news and commentary programs.  That assumption is apparently incorrect.  But then you do not know what a pacifist is either.

A REAL news reporter would have checked them (but I do understand that since there are none, he has no roll models to follow).

Single Instance?  I did not provide a litany of them for brevity sake.  But we even have a more recent one.  Palin and Africa!  Damn, it is hard debating people that are google impaired.

ANd of course his statement is false on all accounts.  Just hyperbole used to demonize those who produce (as opposed to those who just leech).

Apparently you do not even read your own links.  The "news" story (and I use the term lightly since it does come from the propaganda wing of the left) does not back up your claim.  So I guess you do not know about this.

One year is not "years running".  And that is raw dollars, not the other statistics that indicate high profits.  If you make $100 on a million dollar investment, you are in the wrong business.  But then since you dont know squat about running businesses, I dont expect you to understand that.

Incorrect.  I have never said anything of the kind. So quote me back, or stop lying. 

Incorrect AGAIN.  I supported the first Gulf War, which, if you recall, was started by Bush Sr. a REPUBLICAN.  And I don't support the war started by his son.

You don't even know me, so how could you know what my position was BEFORE or DURING these conflicts?  Again, assumptions based on your invention of me, not actually me.   I supported action in Kosovo, before, during, and after.  The same for the first gulf war.  While I would have supported the removal of Saddam with some carefully placed cruise missiles, I didn't support invading Iraq the second time.  Not did I support Russia's recent actions, before, during, or after.

Incorrect AGAIN.  This was a widely covered story, so you can easily Google this and get a hundred links yourself.  But here's a link with the former GOP Bush White House Press Secretary saying IN HIS OWN WORDS what I just told you.  It's a minute or so into the commentary portion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D08K7Q6hyE

While the SOURCE reported by FOX NEWS about Palin not knowing Africa was a fictitious adviser's name, the STORY that she didn't know the difference is still accurate and confirmed.  So while the name was wrong, the story was true.

Either way, you just defeated your own point that Fox News is "better than" the rest of the MSM, as they make mistakes too...like human beings do.

The article is QUOTING Exxon in its own words!  And they said that they posted their greatest record profit this year over their record profit the year before.  That makes it PLURAL.  Either way, the point is made.  Bush's years in office have been very VERY good to his "family business" friends in Texas and Saudi Arabia.

And your "raw dollars" comment is just inexplicable.  Their own words said NET INCOME, which is after ALL expenses, R&D, refining, etc. etc.  To claim I know nothing about business when you don't seem to understand something as simple as what "Net Profit" is a lovely little mistake on your part, isn't it?