« The French-o-cRATS | Home | Mass Legislature Votes For English Dilution »
Bob (3) Graham (6)
By Matt Margolis | July 14, 2003
From CNSNews.com:
Comments by Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) didn’t add up on Monday, when the 2004 presidential candidate criticized President Bush over information regarding the war in Iraq. While attending the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People convention in Miami Beach, Graham was asked if the president lied when he said in his State of the Union address that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium in Africa to develop nuclear weapons. “I would not use the three-letter word [lie],” he replied. “I would use the five-letter word: deceit. That he deceived the American people by allowing into a State of the Union speech at a critical point when he was making the case for war with Iraq, a statement that he either knew was wrong or should have known was wrong.” For the record, the word “deceit” has six letters.
Welcome to the MattMargolis.com Liberal Idiots List, Senator (7) Bob (3) Graham (6).
Want to demand a recount?? Haha.
Topics: Liberal Idiots |
Related Posts:
July 14th, 2003 at 10:48 pm
Bob Graham should stick to three letter words from now on. See Tag. See Tag Run. See See.
July 14th, 2003 at 10:54 pm
Fortunately Bob Graham isn’t important enough to warrant any actual press scrutiny, or they’d be all over this like Dan Quale’s spelling of potato. Unless of course the press supported only democrats….
July 14th, 2003 at 10:59 pm
This would be all over the place if it were a republican, expecially bush…double standard… double standard….
July 15th, 2003 at 12:18 am
Til Graham has a whole entire book made of his Gaffes, Shrub is still the #1 speech um… fucker upperer.
July 15th, 2003 at 1:30 am
Hahah.
July 15th, 2003 at 1:57 am
Two whole books actually. If this makes Graham a liberal idiot, Bush is a conservative jizz mopper.
July 15th, 2003 at 4:14 am
Matt sure is attracting a lot of Trolls now. Too bad they are all fucking IDIOTS. At least on his good days, Kimmit’s insults were half intelligent. I heard more stinging insults in the fifth grade.
You would think that if Graham had the speech prepared, with the number of letters per word shtick in it, that somebody on his staff would make sure that each word had the correct number by it.
How many DIMocrats looked at that speech and missed that error?
July 15th, 2003 at 8:39 am
Jizz mopper? how many nudey booths are there in the capital?
How can you call Bush a jizz mopper when Clinton spewed on Monica’s dress?
July 15th, 2003 at 1:44 pm
I don’t think CNSweb is the most unbiased source to report on Bob Graham. Do you have independant verification?
July 15th, 2003 at 4:41 pm
Five letter word for Graham-Idiot.
Or..Moron.
July 15th, 2003 at 5:01 pm
Graham ain’t a shining star, but if we were to put under scrutiny every sentence that Bush uses accidentally, well…
Africa sure is a great country!
July 15th, 2003 at 5:06 pm
you already do!
July 15th, 2003 at 7:45 pm
Alright “LiesInMedia” you want verification on the Bob Graham Story?
FoxNews
Sarasota Herald
San Jose Mercury News
Naples Daily News
Newsday
ABC News
San Francisco Chronicle
The Guardian
A simple search online would have showed you that this story made several media outlets… So can you trust CNSNews.com on that story now? Don’t prance around my blog with your “Holier than thou” attitude and your “TruthInMedia” alias. The only thing you consider truth is what you agree with.
Interestingly enough, guess who didn’t report on Graham’s stupidity? Why, none other than CNN
July 16th, 2003 at 12:53 am
If the comment is illustrative of Graham’s stupidity, what about Bush stating that we invaded Iraq because they wouldn’t let the inspectors in? Curious, no?
July 16th, 2003 at 12:47 pm
Okay, first, I don’t see how those are even remotely related.
Second, I do not recall Bush ever suggesting that was the reason we invaded Iraq.
July 16th, 2003 at 12:56 pm
there were so many reasons for going into Iraq, don’t try to suggest there was only one.
July 16th, 2003 at 1:40 pm
From July 14, 2003: “The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-3.html
OK. As of two days ago, Bush thinks Saddam didn’t let the weapons inspectors in and that was the “fundamental reason” for removing him from power.
I’d personally rather have a guy who can’t count.
July 16th, 2003 at 2:01 pm
IT WAS NOT THE ONLY REASON……… GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK BIGGOTED SKULL.
July 16th, 2003 at 3:31 pm
I’ll take the President at his word. “The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely.” Fundamental is synonmous with main. “And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in.” Straight forward enough. “And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power,” Therefore: definition “as a result.”
Translation: The fundamental issue was that Saddam had a weapons program. And as a result of his failure to let the inspectors in, we removed him from power.
Except Saddam DID let the inspectors in. So one must ask, does President Bush know why we went to war. And if he doesn’t, isn’t that error a little more serious than an error in counting letters? I submit that it is.
July 16th, 2003 at 3:36 pm
funny how you take him at his word when it is convenient for you….
July 16th, 2003 at 6:45 pm
Bush did not say “the fundamental reason is…”
Regarding the inspectors. Saddam did not give them full access They were not allowed to make surprise visits… They got pussyfooted around… It was quite clear that Saddam was not being upfront with the inspectors…
So the fundamental answer is, while the inspectors were let in Iraq, they were not entirely let in to everywhere they were supposed to under the conditions they were supposed to. If Saddam had nothing to hide, why wasn’t he more upfront? If the inspectors were given satisfactory access, and weapons weren’t found, sanctions may have been lifted. Now isn’t that curious… Why would Saddam let his country be stricken with starvation and poverty when he had the chance to show the world he’d done good?
Your idiotic Bush bashing is getting old.
July 17th, 2003 at 6:15 pm
You sure like making personal attacks, no?
And really, George Bush is the idiot for not knowing his own reasons for going to war.
July 17th, 2003 at 8:17 pm
Bush knows very well his reasons.
You just don’t want to see things through objective eyes.
July 17th, 2003 at 10:11 pm
Since when does Objective = Bush Fellating?