Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 09/08/2008 5:34:04 AM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: SJackson

Too many Isikoff lies to deal with this early in the morning.


2 posted on 09/08/2008 5:40:55 AM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson

mark for later


3 posted on 09/08/2008 5:41:03 AM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (Happiness is a choice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson
"True, those were the claims repeatedly made by the President and other senior officials in the run up to war-and which turned out to be almost entirely wrong."

Stopped reading right there. Perhaps Mr. Isikoff might want to revisit that statement. The simple fact, as uncomfortable as it might be for Isikoff to admit, is that the democrats agreed with the Pres. Look at their votes & look at their statements of support.

This is the same nitwit who reported, falsely, on the Koran that was flushed down the loo at Gitmo. And then, after something like 15 people were killed in riots his report sparked, he withdrew the report, saying that as it turned out, the report was incorrect.

This schmuck has blood on his hands. He's the last person that should be critical of Horowitz.

4 posted on 09/08/2008 6:04:28 AM PDT by sofaman (Moses dragged us through the desert for 40 years to the one place in the ME with no oil - Golda Meir)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson

ping


5 posted on 09/08/2008 6:13:36 AM PDT by preacher (A government which robs from Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson

Horowitz is a BIG dog, Isikoff is a flea..


8 posted on 09/08/2008 6:31:52 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson

Isikoff calls Horowitz partisan. Enough said.


9 posted on 09/08/2008 6:37:00 AM PDT by popdonnelly (Obama was not properly vetted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson
The UN itself was the WMD.

The UN wrecked the whole country of Iraq and let the weak die and Saddam Hussein to murder at will so the UN could get rich from the oil-for-food corruption.

That's why no WMD was found in Iraq, Saddam had the effects of potent WMD through the corrupt UN.

Making actual poisons causes a mess you have to eventually clean. Who needs that hassle when you have the UN?

10 posted on 09/08/2008 6:38:31 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (Sarah Palin 08 12 16 20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson

btt


14 posted on 09/08/2008 7:22:48 AM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson

Wow did somebody put a burr under Isikoff’s saddle?


15 posted on 09/08/2008 7:58:22 AM PDT by CPT Clay (Drill ANWR, Personal Accounts NOW ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson

I am unapologetic in my support for the war in Iraq. Iraq was crawling with terrorists in 2003. SH would have acquired WMD when the sanctions were lifted. The combination of a sanctuary for terrorists, SH, and WMD is frightening. Bush could have taken the easy road and let this threat pass to the next president. Iran is the best evidence that the Iraq war was necessary. Iran is a rogue state with WMD. Iraq would have been much worse than Iran.

Regardless of your opinion about the necessity of the GW2, the rat behavior in the occupation stage has been treasoness. They have put our brave men and women in grave danger by encouraging the enemy. How many have died because of the relentless criticism of our president and our brave men and women in uniform? If the treasoness rats had prevailed, we would have had an embarrassing retreat and Iraq would have turned into a terrorist state just like Afganistan. A terrorist Iraq would have been a much more grave threat than Afganistan because of Iraq’s immmense oil wealth.


16 posted on 09/08/2008 8:17:14 AM PDT by businessprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson

Has David Horowitz exhibited one instance in which he doesn’t have total credibility? How is Isikoff on credibility?

And there’s a dispute why?


17 posted on 09/08/2008 8:24:19 AM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SJackson
Leave aside Horowitz's inability to make distinctions. ( I am called a "left leaning journalist-a description that will surprise certain members of the Clinton administration who once cast me as a member of the "vast right wing conspiracy.)

Try again, Mikey...It's the Clintons who were unable to make distinctions. You were for 'em or Agin' 'em, and if you were agin' 'em you were a part of the VRWC.

18 posted on 09/08/2008 11:52:17 AM PDT by gogeo (Democrats want to support the troops by accusing them of war crimes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson