PDA

View Full Version : Mitch McConnell Busted On Gross Hypocracy



Gayle in MD
11-11-2010, 08:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'> In his new memoir, Decision Points, the former president tells of a meeting he held in September 2006 with Mr. McConnell, then the Republican whip in the Senate. The occupation of Iraq was going horribly, American and Iraqi casualties were rising sharply, costs had mushroomed into the hundreds of billions of dollars, and Iraq was teetering on the brink of full-scale sectarian civil war. Mr. McConnell was concerned, and he gave the president his advice.

But why was he concerned? It wasn't because of bloodshed, destruction, a hemorrhaging budget or a slide toward disaster. He was fearful that the morass in Iraq would cause the Republican Party to take a beating in the approaching mid-term elections. And what was his advice? He urged the president to “bring some troops home from Iraq” to lessen the political risks, Mr. Bush writes.

This incident, which Sen. McConnell's office has not denied, shines brightly on the contemptible hypocrisy and obsessive partisanship that have come to mark the senator's time in office.

At the time that Sen. McConnell was privately advising Mr. Bush to reduce troop levels in Iraq, he was elsewhere excoriating congressional Democrats who had urged the same thing. “The Democrat[ic] leadership finally agrees on something — unfortunately it's retreat,” Sen. McConnell had said in a statement on Sept. 5, 2006, about a Democratic letter to Mr. Bush appealing for cuts in troop levels. Sen. McConnell, who publicly was a stout defender of the war and Mr. Bush's conduct of the conflict, accused the Democrats of advocating a position that would endanger Americans and leave Iraqis at the mercy of al-Qaida.

Unless he is prepared to call a former president of his own party a liar, Mr. McConnell has a choice. He can admit that he did not actually believe the Iraq mission was vital to American security, regardless of what he said at the time. Or he can explain why the fortunes of the Republican Party are of greater importance than the safety of the United States.

</span> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 17pt'> But the public has a right to expect its leaders to pursue loftier goals than partisan success. When voters hear Sen. McConnell these days — at a time of continuing economic hardship — say that Republicans' top priority must be to limit President Obama to a single term, they should ask themselves: Why does he place greater value on that purely political goal than on American citizens' well-being?

</span> </div></div>

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010311110017

Deeman3
11-11-2010, 09:11 PM
Perhaps both are the same.

llotter
11-11-2010, 09:24 PM
McConnell was doing things the right way unlike traitors on the other side. Politics used to stop at the water's edge and America presented a united front in foreign policy, especially in time of war. Our elected officials are supposed to give there advice behind closed doors and then get behind the decision of the President who has the responsibility as Commander-in-Chief.

The traitors among the Dims was explicitly done to undermine our country to gain political advantage...how outrageous is that?

Gayle in MD
11-11-2010, 09:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps both are the same. </div></div>

Not to me they aren't. McConnell is one of the most money grubbing people on The Hill.

The ONLY thing he cares about is staying up there long enough to jam more money down his deep pockets.

He has Never once, voted for a single environmental protection action, not once.

He has consistantly been one of the biggest spenders on The Hill...

G.

G.

LWW
11-12-2010, 03:37 AM
So ... are you blaming Bush for doing the right thing now? Or are you blaming McConnell for wanting be done what you and the rest of the far left demanded be done?

Yes ... the doublethink is strong in you also.

LWW

Gayle in MD
11-12-2010, 08:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McConnell was doing things the right way unlike traitors on the other side. Politics used to stop at the water's edge and America presented a united front in foreign policy, especially in time of war. Our elected officials are supposed to give there advice behind closed doors and then get behind the decision of the President who has the responsibility as Commander-in-Chief.

The traitors among the Dims was explicitly done to undermine our country to gain political advantage...how outrageous is that? </div></div>
Oh, ok, I get it, you approve of gross hypocracy.

Gotcha.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
11-12-2010, 09:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But why was he concerned? It wasn't because of bloodshed, destruction, a hemorrhaging budget or a slide toward disaster. He was fearful that the morass in Iraq would cause the Republican Party to take a beating in the approaching mid-term elections. And what was his advice? He urged the president to “bring some troops home from Iraq” to lessen the political risks, Mr. Bush writes.

</div></div>This is no difference than the gross hypocrisy of Democrats during this mid-term election. The Dems were bailing ship like crazy on their socialist healthcare bill because they saw how toxic a topic it was with the voters.

eg8r

sack316
11-12-2010, 09:40 AM
I thought Bush's memoir was all lies?

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-12-2010, 09:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought Bush's memoir was all lies?

Sack </div></div>

LOL, nit picking this morning?

You know what I meant.

G.

sack316
11-12-2010, 09:54 AM
Nah not not picking, just being observant /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

The book was full of nothing but lies until you found something you liked from it. Now you know I couldn't let you off that easy! Even if it is the weekend /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Plus it seemed slow on here today, so had to give ya something to do /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-12-2010, 09:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But why was he concerned? It wasn't because of bloodshed, destruction, a hemorrhaging budget or a slide toward disaster. He was fearful that the morass in Iraq would cause the Republican Party to take a beating in the approaching mid-term elections. And what was his advice? He urged the president to “bring some troops home from Iraq” to lessen the political risks, Mr. Bush writes.

</div></div>=This is no difference than the gross hypocrisy of Democrats during this mid-term election. The Dems were bailing ship like crazy on their socialist healthcare bill because they saw how toxic a topic it was with the voters.

eg8r </div></div>
It's different because of the slander he was spreading around about Democratics, while he was right on board with their own ideas....

But as we have seen, Republicans stayed away from bringing up anythinig that Reminded the public, of the disastrous years of Bush and his blank check majority.



The Dems made a huge mistake, Ed. They should have been less affected by the Republican Slander Machine, focused on the progress they made, instead of allowing Republicans to lie about them....and in fact, they have failed miserably, to handle that machine, correctly.

This is exactly why the Presidnet lost some of the support, from his base, and they didn't vote in big enough numbers, to hold the Congress.

Also, as is famously alwasy said, when elections change majorties, happens always, when a President, holds both houses, and even more so in a bad economy...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

I think many have misread this election, or intentionally skewed the so called, "Statement" that was made.

Alsok, many didn't appreciate how well the President's afforts were working, partyly becaause they never grasped how really close we were to a complete collapse, followed by the worst Depression in history. IOW, he never got the credit he deserved.

When the economy is bad, most don't stop to realize how much worse things might have been, and they don't care who caused it, they just want it over...but without the effective actions, taken by those in power, we'd be in a much worse set of circumstances right now.

G.

eg8r
11-12-2010, 10:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It's different because of the slander he was spreading around about Democratics, while he was right on board with their own ideas....

</div></div>Hypocrisy is hypocrisy in my mind.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Dems made a huge mistake, Ed. They should have been less affected by the Republican Slander Machine, focused on the progress they made, instead of allowing Republicans to lie about them....and in fact, they have failed miserably, to handle that machine, correctly.

</div></div>The only Dems that were able to beat the Reps at anything in the past 20 years are the Clintons. When they lost to Obama a couple years ago that was a signal of future troubles.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think many have misread this election, or intentionally skewed the so called, "Statement" that was made.

</div></div>The statement I heard was, "listen up Dems, we gave you a chance and you flubbed it royally. We don't want to vote for Reps so we just won't show up at all."

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-12-2010, 10:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It's different because of the slander he was spreading around about Democratics, while he was right on board with their own ideas....

</div></div>Hypocrisy is hypocrisy in my mind.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Dems made a huge mistake, Ed. They should have been less affected by the Republican Slander Machine, focused on the progress they made, instead of allowing Republicans to lie about them....and in fact, they have failed miserably, to handle that machine, correctly.

</div></div>The only Dems that were able to beat the Reps at anything in the past 20 years are the Clintons. When they lost to Obama a couple years ago that was a signal of future troubles.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think many have misread this election, or intentionally skewed the so called, "Statement" that was made.

</div></div>The statement I heard was, "listen up Dems, we gave you a chance and you flubbed it royally. We don't want to vote for Reps so we just won't show up at all."

eg8r </div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000"> Well, that isn't what I heard, and in my case, I talked with thousands of Democratic voters, in my state, working for my party, and heard much the same thing from nearly all of them.

1. They were mad that we didn't get the public option, and many didn't realize the real reason why.

2. They were mad that the economy hadn't shown more jobs growth, and again, many didn't realize how many public sector jobs the president HAS created. More than Bush, during his whole tenure.

3. They were mad at Nancy Pelosi, when she took impeachment off the table, when the Democratics took control. I couldn't justify that one, but they did agree, that given the state of the country, when we did take control, an impeachment, would have been bad for the country, overall, in some ways, but in other ways, IMO, it hurt the country, more than people can realize, as far as our Democratic Principles, and our honor around the world, is concerned.

Fortunately, I was able to reason with quite a few, who promised they would vote, after all, once they had the facts...so it was a very productive, and enlightening use of my time, as Maryland, is still blue...and our Democratic governor, martin O'Malley, Steny Hoyer, Barbara Mikulski, all remained in office....

Bottom line, though, they didn't realize how bad things were when President Obama, and the Democratic Majority, took over....Once I e-mailed them the CBO charts, they got the idea all right.

I would venture to say, I likely spoke with more voters than anyone else on this forum....."It's the economy, stupid" but of course, economists told us all along, job recovery would be very slow.

When people are hurting, reason goes out the window. </span>

LWW
11-12-2010, 10:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="color: #CC0000"> Well, that isn't what I heard, and in my case, I talked with thousands of Democratic voters, in my state, working for my party, and heard much the same thing from nearly all of them.

1. They were mad that we didn't get the public option, and many didn't realize the real reason why. <span style="color: #3366FF">What's the <u><span style='font-size: 11pt'>REAL</span></u> reason why?</span>

2. They were mad that the economy hadn't shown more jobs growth, and again, many didn't realize how many public sector jobs the president HAS created. More than Bush, during his whole tenure. <span style="color: #3366FF">How many is that?</span>

3. They were mad at Nancy Pelosi, when she took impeachment off the table, when the Democratics took control. I couldn't justify that one, but they did agree, that given the state of the country, when we did take control, an impeachment, would have been bad for the country, overall, in some ways, but in other ways, IMO, it hurt the country, more than people can realize, as far as our Democratic Principles, and our honor around the world, is concerned. <span style="color: #3366FF">What would the charges have been?</span>

Fortunately, I was able to reason with quite a few, who promised they would vote, after all, once they had the facts...so it was a very productive, and enlightening use of my time, as Maryland, is still blue...and our Democratic governor, martin O'Malley, Steny Hoyer, Barbara Mikulski, all remained in office.... <span style="color: #3366FF">You seem to be claiming that, in general, Maryland dem voters are too stupid to figure out the issues unless an agitprop spoon feeds them the "TRUTH."</span>

Bottom line, though, they didn't realize how bad things were when President Obama, and the Democratic Majority, took over....Once I e-mailed them the CBO charts, they got the idea all right. <span style="color: #3366FF">Why don't you post those charts?</span>

I would venture to say, I likely spoke with more voters than anyone else on this forum....."It's the economy, stupid" but of course, economists told us all along, job recovery would be very slow. <span style="color: #3366FF">Actually ... the regime told us that if we went along with their fascist takeover of the economy the UE rate would never top 8% and would be well on it's way down by now.</span>

When people are hurting, reason goes out the window. <span style="color: #3366FF">Actually when things are good reason goes out the window ... when things start hurting people start paying attention.

Elections have consequences.

You lost.

Deal with it.

It's unhealthy to live in denial.</span> </span> </div></div>

LWW

Gayle in MD
11-12-2010, 11:01 AM
[quote=sack316]Nah not not picking, just being observant /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

The book was full of nothing but lies until you found something you liked from it. Now you know I couldn't let you off that easy! Even if it is the weekend /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Plus it seemed slow on here today, so had to give ya something to do /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

The book is full of lies. Saying that doesn't say, every single thing in it is a lie. He sure threw McConnell under the truck, did't he? But why? To make himself look better.

I can use the information to make a point, about McCoonnell's gross hypocracy, non the less. AND, it's true, because McConnells office won't answer to it, at all...in fact, they hardly ever answer the phone in that office....or Lieberman's, or McCains....

Doesn't change this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>This incident, which Sen. McConnell's office has not denied, shines brightly on the contemptible hypocrisy and obsessive partisanship that have come to mark the senator's time in office.

At the time that Sen. McConnell was privately advising Mr. Bush to reduce troop levels in Iraq, he was elsewhere excoriating congressional Democrats who had urged the same thing. “The Democrat[ic] leadership finally agrees on something — unfortunately it's retreat,” Sen. McConnell had said in a statement on Sept. 5, 2006, about a Democratic letter to Mr. Bush appealing for cuts in troop levels. Sen. McConnell, who publicly was a stout defender of the war and Mr. Bush's conduct of the conflict, accused the Democrats of advocating a position that would endanger Americans and leave Iraqis at the mercy of al-Qaida.

</span> </div></div>
He's a slime!

LWW
11-12-2010, 11:05 AM
It requires incredible skill at doublethink to claim that Bush is a 100% liar except when he says something that supports the regime's agenda ... at which point he becomes a man of impeccable honesty.

The left had this same problem over Debbie Schlussel ... and democrook boy buggerer Eddie Long ... and just about everyone else.

LWW