Joke leaves 'em gasping
Obama quip stuns Citizen of the West banquet crowd
John C. Ensslin
Published January 17, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.
Updated January 17, 2008 at 1:50 p.m.
Photo by Evan Semon © The Rocky
Greeley businessman William R. Farr and his wife, Sharon, leave the Citizen of the West banquet Wednesday at the Adam's Mark Hotel. Farr apologized for a joke he made at the event.
A Greeley businessman apologized Wednesday after a joke about Illinois Sen. Barack Obama fell flat during the National Western Stock Show's annual Citizen of the West banquet.
William R. Farr was pretending to read telegrams congratulating this year's award recipient, University of Colorado President Hank Brown, when he pulled out a piece of paper and said, "I have a telegram from the White House."
Then he added, "They're going to have to change the name of that building if Obama's elected."
Witnesses said they could hear people gasp in the ballroom of the Adam's Mark Hotel.
"I gasped," said Gov. Bill Ritter, who was sitting at the table with Farr.
Mayor John Hickenlooper said, "I don't think he (Farr) intended any mischief or malice, but it was inappropriate."
Afterward, Farr said he regretted making the remark and apologized to anyone offended.
"I apologize for that," Farr told a reporter as soon as the banquet ended.
"I mistook it to be humorous, but it was something I shouldn't have said."
Farr, a member of a pioneering Colorado ranching family, also said he regrets detracting from an evening intended to honor Brown, a longtime friend.
"All that I can say about that is that it was unfortunate and most inappropriate," said Albert Yates, a former president of Colorado State University, who is black. "Even though Bill Farr is a friend, there's just no way to defend what he said.
"I think it was uncalled for and atrocious," said U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, who was also in attendance.
Staff writer Hector Gutierrez contributed to this report.
Back in '97 Eleven years ago, a couple of comments outraged some National Western Stock Show patrons.
* Between calf roping contests, a black rodeo clown, Leon Coffee, attempted to rope a calf without success. After an announcer pointed out that Coffee couldn't rope very well, rodeo clown Eddie Hatfield, who is white, responded by saying that Coffee knew everything about roping because his father and grandfather had died at the end of a rope.
The exchange outraged a number of spectators, who filed complaints with the stock show and the mayor's office. At the time, stock show officials said that Coffee, a 30-year rodeo veteran, helped write the script for the banter, and that the reference was to the lynching of outlaws and not about slaves or blacks. Coffee was not offered a contract at the National Western Stock Show the following year.
* Rodeo announcer Hadley Barrett commented during a horse show that a horse buyer had "jewed down" the price.
He later apologized to the Jewish community and to the National Western Stock Show for his choice of words, promising to never use them again.
But Saul Rosenthal, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, noted that Barrett had made a similiar comment the year before. Barrett declined a new contract the following year.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Holiday movies
Check out our movie page to read reviews and see your holiday options.
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Broncos-Jets Action
Visit our photo galleries for some hard-hitting action photos from Sunday's game.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's postgame rant on the Jets.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Stein's View
Editorial cartoons by Ed Stein
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
Read the Rocky's coverage of Colorado's cannibal, Alfred Packer, in 1886.
January 17, 2008
1:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
cyranogo writes:
Good grief. What is it with these right wing loons. We have Dougy Bruce and his mental problems and now this.
January 17, 2008
5:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
KC writes:
Why in the world do you assign "right wing" to this guy? Because he's older and white? Like Doug Bruce? Gee, who's the bigot now?
Stupid, bad jokes come from both sides of the aisle. But it's the liberals who are continually, chronically offended by things that should be shrugged off. It was just a bad joke.
And what is offensive and what isn't offensive is always determined by who delivers the stupid joke, right?
I never understand that part of the dynamic.
January 17, 2008
7:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rocky writes:
The gentleman should not have made a joke about painting the White House a different color. That was stupid. What he should have said is that Obama or Hillary will ruin America by implementing their failed liberal policies.
It is not about race or gender: Condi Rice, Michael Steele, J.C. Watts, or Ken Blackwell would all make excellent Presidents.
It is about Obama's not voting to protect live born babies, and his liberal tax policies, and his weakness and appeasement on the war against radical Islamofascist extremists.
Obama doesn't have any experience--he has only been a Senator for about 3 years and he spent most of that running for President. His only experience is voting "no" to protect live born babies, and voting "no" to protect America against radical terrorists and their state sponsors.
January 17, 2008
9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Yeah, just a dumb joke. Whether any malice lies underneath is hard to say - maybe yes, maybe no. Nevertheless I'm sure we'll be hearing from all the folks who are shocked, appalled, outraged, ad nauseum. In any case the guy seems to have gotten his due, and he's apologized.
Loved the "Gee, who's the bigot now?" line, KC.
January 17, 2008
9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
bobbyb writes:
Is it possible for Ken Salazar to open his mouth without overstating something? Even for a career politician he has a gift for hyperbole. The remark was inappropriate, but certainly not "atrocious". Please.
January 17, 2008
9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
I thought it was funny. What would have been funnier is a photo of the audience reaction. Grow some skin, will ya?
January 17, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
tkremark writes:
Poor taste yes. Libs do it. Yes. Other Libs Shrug off libs who do it. YES. Libs castigate Repubs > Yes. Oh by the way George Clinton and the Parliament Funk. A Funk Group. Has a song called "Paint the White House Black" You watch if this song is going to be celebrated, but no backlash on that. BTW I like the song but there is a double standard.
January 17, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
J0sh writes:
"failed liberal policies"
What in the world are you talking about?
Who's been in the House, Senate, and Presidency for the majority of the past several years?
Why, a republican! Seriously buddy, I'd suggest you rethink lying and making general statements without qualifying them, when a loser republican:
1)CUT TAXES
2)START WAR
3)BORROWED TAXES FROM COMMUNIST CHINA to pay for war, against FUTURE tax money (your grandchildren's)
Seriously...you have no credibility, and it's all right there based in reality of the state of our country.
"failed liberal policies." PLEASE.
January 17, 2008
10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
williedread writes:
Mr. Farr's sin is not that of racism but unoriginality. The Dick Nixons used "Paint The White House Black" as the title for their 1992 LP release. George Clinton (of Parliament/Funkadelic) used that line as the title of his 1993 maxi-single. For that matter, much-beloved blogger Wonkette used the joke as a title for her Jan. 17, 2007 Daily Briefing post (announcing Obama's exploratory committee). As a man with an appropriately heightened sensitivity to matters of race, I'm more offended by Sharon Farr's hair than I am her husband's ham-fisted commentary.
January 17, 2008
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
ripcord writes:
In 1997 after Tiger won his first Masters, a reporter asked Fuzzy Zoeller about the Master's banquet since Tiger got to choose the menu. He said something about fried chicken and collard greens. Crass and not good for an interview. I in no way defend comments like these, but do see the humor in both of these examples. Does that make me a terrible person? Have we gotten so super sensitive that we cannot say anything? I am a white guy with no rhythm. I know an Irish guy that drinks like a fish. I know an Italian that eats pasta. Oh my gosh. I am so bad. Am I?
January 17, 2008
noon
Suggest removal
Circle8 writes:
Actor?? Alec Baldwin said on TV that people should go to Congressman Henry Hyde's (Illinois) house and stone his family to death. The press did not care.
Congressman Chuck Rangel (NY) called President Bush "Hitler". The press did not care.
Senator Patty Murray (WA) said Osama Bin Laden was a good guy. The press did not care.
Hollywood actors (Ted Danson and others) are appearing in ads supporting dictator Hugo Chavez and his oil company. The press does not care.
A businessman in Greeley Colorado repeated the line from a song and now it is world news. Give me a break.
Face it. The line was a joke that a bunch of whiny people did not like. My ancestors came to this country (present N.M.) from Cordova, Spain, in 1598 and to Los Animas County, Colorado in 1861 so I too am from a Colorado pioneering family. There has been a million jokes about the Spanish race and every other race. Learn to live with it. Jokes about real life are relaxing unless there is malice intended. Repeating a line used so often is not malice. The good lord knows we need to relax in this day and age. So why don't you?
January 17, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
jinxmchue writes:
The joke didn't even make sense. Obama's not black.
January 17, 2008
12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Circle8 writes:
If Barack Hussein Obama is not black then which Obama are you looking at?
January 17, 2008
12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
hondaride writes:
Sounds like that fellow believes the White House is for white folks.
Just like Fuzzy Zoeller believes Tiger Woods and all black people are no more than "boys" and they all like fried chicken and collard greens.
This just exposes the bitter jealousy, envy and evilness inside a person. It's ALWAYS "just a joke" -- to them. They are not black and obviously have never seen Amistad (1997 film). Zoeller and Farr probably believe that slavery was "just a joke" too. Their attitudes are no different than the slave traders that commanded the slave ships to America. They're indifferent, they don't care that they make fun of a person's race. They are racists and it's great when they finally expose themselves like Zoeller and Farr. Shame on them,... and their parents!!
January 18, 2008
7:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Friend writes:
While Farr's comment was probably not ill-willed, this country bumpkin stated a fact known by all. A white man has always been in charge of the white house. The color of the house is undeniably symbolic and a long-time a national and international racist joke. Maybe it's time for a change. How about a nice southwestern color, like adobe.
January 18, 2008
7:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
zzoeller writes:
"They are not black and obviously have never seen Amistad (1997 film)."
Wow, don't get too intellectual on us.
January 18, 2008
7:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
ripcord writes:
hondaride, you are reading too much into this and are extrapolating it to an unintended message. How can you possibly go to a point that Zoeller and Farr think slavery was a joke? These off the cuff jokes likely do not bare their inner being. Do blacks never make fun of whites? What if Jay Leno had said either of these remarks? Can't you see him doing it? Don Rickles made fun of everyone in the audience and was paid handsomely for it. Why must you be so sensitive to a black house or collard greens (I ate a lot of them in North Carolina by the way). Do you not see that both are, yes, a stereotypical joke, yes, in poor taste, but not intending malice or hate?
January 18, 2008
9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
ham writes:
I find Chris Rock to be an offensive racist. He seems to be able to say absolutely anything and it's "funny". It's a blatant double standard.
January 18, 2008
9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
MDarling writes:
willied- that was funny and insulting. But it was still funny.
Q: What we will we call the first black president?
A: Mr. President.
That's why suggesting the WH will have to be renamed is racist.
January 18, 2008
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
ripcord writes:
MDarling, the comment was racial, not necessarily racist. It depends on who says it and in what context that it becomes noteworthy. Mr. Farr, in my humble opinion, was not being a racist, he was offering a poor racial joke. Although it lacked taste, I found it humorous. Are racial jokes so far out of line that they are not funny? As a white man, can I have no rhythm? Can we have no tolerance at all? Are collard greens racial or racist. I submit they are racial without intent of malice or hate used in the context it was used. Poor taste - yes. Noteworthy - no.
January 18, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
ripcord writes:
MDarling, the comment was racial, not necessarily racist. I do not think Mr Farr was intending a racist comment. He offered a poor racial joke. I found it humorous. Are we so sensitive that collard greens become racist? I summit they are racial and not intended to be racist and hurtful. I can be laughed at because this while boy lacks rhythm. I do not find that racist, I find it funny. Steve Martin was "born a poor black child" in the movie The Jerk. He was not a racist. He was making racial humor. Why do we have to have these unproductive discussions when the guy meant nothing demeaning or insulting. Let's take a deep breath and move on.
January 18, 2008
10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
ripcord writes:
Sorry about the duplicate posts. Something is strange about this thread. I have to log in each time I make a comment.
January 18, 2008
1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
rushrulesbaby writes:
Omygosh, omygosh!! And this guy wasn't even a wascully wepublican!
January 18, 2008
1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
rushrulesbaby writes:
So, what was the fuss all about? There are far too many foks out there walking on eggshells anymore.
January 18, 2008
2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Rocky writes:
Obviously “J0sh” is woefully unaware of history and current events.
His first mistake is calling out as a mistake, the great George W. Bush policy to “1)CUT TAXES”. Working Americans APPRECIATED that Bush trusted them with their own money. Loser liberals like “J0sh” agrees with Clinton and Obama, who think that the government is smarter than you and can spend your money better. The end result of the Bush tax relief for all working Americans is: a booming economy, huge GDP growth rates since we recovered from 9-11-01, and unemployment going down, down down. Currently it is at 5%, lower than the average of the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s. Also, the Bush tax cuts resulted in a HUGE increase in tax revenue flows INTO the US Treasury, due to the booming economy, more jobs, thus more people buying and working and paying taxes. You can look it up.
Then the second mistake “J0sh” makes is to blame Bush for “2)START WAR”. If you go back to all the radical Islamofascist attacks on America, starting in
Through the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 (who was President then?), the USS Cole Bombing, the bombing of our embassies, and finally the attacks on Americann soil on 9-11-01, who “started” the war again? Then you had Saddam using WMD on his own people and his neighbors, trying to take over Kuwait and its oil as a first step to controlling ALL Mideast oil, and then disobeying all his cease-fire agreements and UN Resolutions. Then he paid off terrorists, funded and harbored terrorists and maintained his WMD making abilities. Thank God Bush got rid of him and his state run rape rooms and plastic shredders. We need to drain the swamp and so far Bush has liberated 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq, and put functioning democracies friendly to the USA in the place of brutal, murderous anti-American dictatorships.
Then “J0sh” said we “3)BORROWED TAXES” (lol) to pay for the war, thus showing his ignorance yet again, this time on economics. Money flows freely around the world, and many countries want to buy our US backed securities because they know they are backed by the full faith and credit of the powerful United States, not some failed dictatorship or sinking, evil communist country.
As you notice, “J0sh” didn’t answer my valid points about Obama's not voting to protect live born babies, and his liberal tax policies, and his weakness and appeasement on the war against radical Islamofascist extremists.
January 18, 2008
2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bleaker writes:
Rocky -- your ignorance of history and facts is astonding. You need to stop to all the talk radio people and the talk shows on TV and try reading for a change. You might actually learn some facts.
1.) I am assuming you make more than $100,00 per year to make the statements you made about all the money pouring into the treasury and the lower unemployment. I make $85,000 per year. My "tax cut" from 2001 was $11.00 per pay check. My "tax cut" from 2002 was $13.00 per pay check. I paid additional taxes when I filed for 2005, 2006. So it didn't really help me much. Unemployment went down because the government added the armed services into the figures so of course it looks lower than the 70's, 80's and 90's. And yes, more jobs were created but net-net there were no more jobs created than jobs lost. And then the added bonus of the jobs lost were high dollar jobs like computer programmers (went to India) and the jobs created were great jobs like food servers. So the overall dollar value of paychecks have decreased in the last 7 years.
2.) The people who planned and excuted the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 while Clinton was in office are now ROTTING in our jail. The Blind guy got caught and got put away. The bombing of the Cole, if it had happened earlier in Clinton's term, would have had the same outcome -- investigation, trial and jail terms for the bad guys. Now 9-11-01. Gee, Bush is in office and whatever happened to "Get him Dead or Alive". Last I heard is Bush "Doesn't spend alot of time thinking about him anymore." No one has been punished. No one has gone to jail.
On 2....you talk about Saddam's WMD's -- EVEN YOUR fearless leader, GW, has said -- SADDAM didn't have WMD's. SADDAM didn't have anything to do with 9-11. SADDAM didn't harbor terrorist because Saddam was a control freak and didn't get along with terrorist. Especially Al Quaida. The government took out Saddam because he didn't want to trade oil in dollars anymore. He wanted to trade oil in Euros which wouldn't do for GW & Cheney's bank books.
3.) So you think it's OK to owe large sums of money to China and Saudi Arabi? Money flows all around the world. Well, check out the stock market and the way the dollar is being treated. If it's so great, why are we back in a recession so quickly after the recession of 200-2002?
As far as protecting the birth of live babies--tells me you are a Pro-lifer and that's your option. And liberal tax policies -- yeah, it's awful to think that tax cuts should go to people making less than $85,000 a year. Weakness and appeasement on War against radical Islamofascist extremists -- I truly doubt you even know what that is, so I'll leave it alone. You don't appear to be that informed.
January 19, 2008
7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rocky writes:
Nice try, “Bleaker”, but you failed miserably to answer any of my valid points, just as most liberal policies of the past have failed. And, you perpetutated a lot of the liberal lies that I will now decimate.
First of all, I read more books, on both sides, than you do. I know your failed leftist arguments better than you do—I have studied them, studied their counterpoints and using intelligence guided by experience, I have come to the conclusion that you are wrong.
Second, either you are lying about taxes paid, or you did your taxes wrong. The Bush tax relief lowered tax rates drastically for ALL income tax brackets. Therefore, anyone who was paying taxes saw a big cut in the amount of money they were forced to send to Washington to waste.
Bush’s tax relief for working Americans helps ALL working Americans: for example, a married couple with two children and income of $40,000 see their taxes decline under President Bush’s jobs and growth law by $1,133 (from $1,178 to $45) in 2003, a decline of 96 percent. So much for the liberal’s mantra of “tax cuts for the rich”!
The Democrat slogan appears to be: “Taxes for bureaucrats out of the pockets of the people”
Do you prefer the new, lower, more compassionate Bush tax rates? Or the higher, mean-spirited greedy Democrat tax hikes?
Anyone who works for a living knows you are lying. President Bush reduced taxes on ALL working Americans, at all income levels. So yes, that includes the top 1% of earners, (who pay more than a third of the income taxes-- 34.27%), also got a tax break. Why do you want to punish success? Why do you want to tax ingenuity and hard work?
The bottom line, when you strip it all away, the truth of liberal “compassion” is that it's the exact opposite. They are robbing people of their potential. The Democrats are purposely creating more and more dependents. Democrats are taking average, ordinary people and convincing them that they're worthless.
Your other so-called “arguments” are just as flawed…but I don’t have time to answer them now…but be afraid..be very afraid..I will be back to decimate those answers also…
January 19, 2008
8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rocky writes:
The next series of failed lies “Bleaker” told are around unemployment and wages. No, “Bleaker”, if you go to the actual source of unemployment figures, bls.gov, you will see that the dropping unemployment figures due to the Bush tax relief are in the civilian labor force. The “armed services” are not included in these figures. Besides, the total number of volunteer military personnel working in jobs in ALL the armed services is about 1.4 million, out of a total US population of 300 million!
Then “Bleaker” makes the incredibly naïve statement that “net-net there were no more jobs created than jobs lost” LOL! If you look again at the ACTUAL statistics at bls.gov, the number of people entering the workforce has RISEN SHARPLY since the Bush tax relief took effect in 2003, and we STILL have lowered the unemployment rate significantly. That means we took on more workers and STILL reduced the percentage that were unemployed, and our rate now is lower than the average unemployment of the 70s, 80s and 90s.
Then “Bleaker” trots out the old canard about low wage jobs. “Bleaker”, the truth is, these are not mainly low wage McDonalds and Walmart type jobs...(any by the way, please don’t disparage the hard working fast food employees...that is a good job and a stepping stone to better things for those who work hard and play by the rules...but I know, you would rather have them dependent on a liberal government, so you can control their vote)
And with all the negative liberal talk about “McJobs” and low wage jobs, you would think wages are going down! Not so, according to the official stats at bls.gov AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS ARE GOING UP !!! Starting at $15.81 per hour in Oct 2004, they ROSE to $15.82 in November, followed by ANOTHER RISE to $15.85 in December , another INCREASE to $15.90 in January 2005, ANOTHER RAISE to $15.91 in February 2005, and YET ANOTHER raise to $15.95 in March. If you look at bls.gov, you notice that the wage rate has steadily INCREASED since then!
NEVER AGAIN let any liberal tell you about “McJobs” or low wages! Wages are ON THE RISE across America! Again, the proof for ALL TO SEE is bls.gov. You will notice the liberals never provide URL links or backup…unless maybe they reference something Michael Moore or what some forged Dan Rather documents said!!!
The millions upon millions of good new jobs resulting from the Bush tax cuts included hiring occurred across a broad swath of the business landscape, including technical services, temporary employment firms, health care, social work, education and retail. So much for the liberals claim of “McJobs!”
January 19, 2008
8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rocky writes:
Next “Bleaker” tries to defend Clinton and the liberals failed “lawyers and lawsuits” strategy against global radical Islamofascist extremists. When Clinton just went after the perpetrators of the first WTC attack, it was a weak effort that only emboldened the terrorists. That would have been like, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, or Hitler taking over country after country, the United States just went after the actual Japanese pilots and put them in jail, or the specific people who crushed the freedom of people and put Jews into ovens.
Thank God Bush understood that radical Islamist jihad is a totalitarian force, in some ways worse than the Nazis or the Communists that Reagan defeated in the cold war.
Democrats like “Bleaker” try to make a big point of opposing every antiterrorism initiative on the grounds that Bush should be single-mindedly focused on capturing Osama bin Laden.
Leftists like “Bleaker”, seemed to imagine that President Bush was supposed to be spending his time in Arab bazaars offering bribes to people who might have known where Osama was.
“Bleaker”, it would have made more sense to carp about sending troops to Normandy when we really needed to be "focusing on Adolf Hitler." :-)
These are perilous times for Democrats like “Bleaker”: What excuse would they use to oppose the war on terrorism after Osama bin Laden was captured?
With each additional capture of a major al-Qaeda leader, it turned out that, unlike the Democrats like “Bleaker”, a Republican administration could chew gum and walk at the same time.
The Democrats like “Bleaker”’s infantile obsession with Osama bin Laden to the exclusion of all other Islamic terrorism allowed them to sound like hawks while opposing every aspect of the war on terrorism.
“Bleaker”, if America's entire national defense effort came down to the capture of one man, then the only justification for war was a connection to Osama bin Laden.
January 19, 2008
8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rocky writes:
Worldwide intelligence indicated that Saddam was building up WMD, and after 9/11 the chance could not be taken that he was lying or this was -- we had to go find out. It's a different world after 9/11.
Saddam was responsible, through the first gulf war cease fire agreement and the 14 UN Resolutions, to PROVE he destroyed the WMD....WHY DIDN’T HE?
Why did the UN security council vote unanimously, 15 to zip, in UN Res 1441, including France and Syria, that Saddam *** HAD WMD *** and had not disclosed where they were, or proved that he destroyed them?
First read the text of the david Kay report: Http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs... ...then you can talk intelligently about what he found and what he didn’t find yet...otherwise you are just repeating liberal spin.
On the WMD stockpiles...where are they? What happened to them? It is not arguable that they didn’t exist. Clinton, the UN, Kerry, France and all the Democrats and the UN always knew they existed. We found the evidence that Saddam was building WMD, just not the stockpiles that the UN and the french and kerry and clinton said he had.
We know Saddam had them because the UN documented he had used WMD on his own people, killing hundreds of thousands…
The liberation of Iraq and the disarming of Saddam was justified over 14 years, 17 UN resolutions, 2 bipartisan and bicameral overwhelming resolutions, and the overwhelming support of the American people. We were further justified by the David Kay and Duelfer report detailing the WMD and the linkages found between Saddam and al qaeda.
If President Bush is capable, as you say, of lying to send Americans to their deaths for some nebulous petro-oedipal conspiracy no intelligent person has bothered to make even credible, why on earth didn't he just plant some WMDs on the victim after the fact? If you're willing to kill Americans for a lie, surely you'd be willing to plant some anthrax to keep your job.
You see? Your position doesn’t make logical sense…
And if it's in fact true that Bush offered no rationale for the war other than WMDs, why didn’t we simply let Saddam out of his cage and put him back in office? We could have even use some of the extra money from the Oil-for-Food program to compensate him for the damage to his palaces and prisons. Heck, if John Edwards weren't busy, he could represent him.
January 19, 2008
8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rocky writes:
Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998 “Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -- Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.”
So here Hillary Clinton makes the connection between Iraq, Saddam and al-Qaeda in 2002.
January 19, 2008
8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rocky writes:
Then “Bleaker” makes the common liberal mistake of saying “Saddam was a control freak and didn't get along with terrorist. Especially Al Quaida”.
Liberals like Bleaker like to say “There is no connection between Islamic terrorists and the Saddam Hussein regime.” This statement represents one of the few examples of anti-war activists disagreeing with the official line of the Iraqi government. Saddam and his killers always emphasized the proud support of the heroic and revolutionary Iraqi people for Islamic fighters everywhere, including the holy warriors of al-Qaida.
Meanwhile, the al-Qaida crew similarly expresses its solidarity with Saddam – as they did in their Internet statement claiming credit for the recent Kenya attacks, and linking future assaults to potential war against their friends, the Iraqis. If Iraq expresses solidarity with al-Qaida, and al-Qaida expresses solidarity with Iraq, peaceniks face a difficult challenge in arguing that they represent utterly disconnected phenomena.
Furthermore, the disarming of Saddam by force is not based on any links between al Qaeda and Iraq, even though they do exist. They are based on 14 years of flaunting the UN Resolutions and building WMD with the intention of destroying America. We disarmed Saddam for the protection of our people. Thank You President Bush and Thank You Troops!!!
In a videotaped message, the al-Qaida "military commander" for Europe claimed credit for the bombings, saying that the terrorist attack was meant to punish Spain for supporting the war in Iraq. The message came as a total shock to liberals who have been furiously insisting that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with al-Qaida.
Apparently al-Qaida didn't think so. After the Madrid bombings, it looks like liberals and terrorists will have to powwow on whether there was an Iraq/al-Qaida link. Two hundred dead Spaniards say there was. Another liberal lie bites the dust.
Al Qaida ADMITTED they are linked to Iraq terrorists after they bombed Spain! So much for the liberal mantra, "no links between al Qaida and Saddam"!
And so, this nation is very reluctant to use military force. We try to enforce doctrine peacefully, or through alliances or multinational forums. And we will continue to do so.
We must never forget the lessons of September the 11th. The terrorists will strike, and they will kill innocent life, not only in front of a Red Cross headquarters, they will strike and kill in America, too. We are at war.
January 19, 2008
8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rocky writes:
Then Bleaker trots out the tired old argument that Bush and Cheney did it for oil profits! LOL! Bush and Cheney don't work for oil companies and don't make oil profits. Success in an important industry in a past job seems to be a disqualifying characteristic for president for liberals.
So liberals say it was all about oil. Not really, but so what? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that our whole economy, and therefore our national security, depends upon imported oil? Why is it even theoretically inappropriate to fight in order to ensure the continued free flow at market prices of a substance so essential to our survival and independence? Meanwhile, Saddam's psychotic and despotic regime would represent a profound danger to the world even if he controlled no oil assets whatever. The United States imports almost none of its petroleum from Iraq, but our European "allies" (the French, in particular) get a great deal of their energy from that country – and therefore ardently oppose the idea of waging war. On this issue, it's the appeasers – not the hard-liners – who are "all about oil."
Also, America is the lone superpower, so we could have easily just TAKEN the oil of Kuwait after we liberated them from Saddam, or just TAKEN the oil after we liberated Iraq. Who would stop us? But what did we do instead? We built schools and handed over the oil fields and soveriegnty to the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people are now benefiting from their own natural resources, instead of the brutal murderous Saddam using them to pay off Kofi Annan's son in the UN Oil for Food scandal, and Saddam making more palaces and state run rape rooms.
January 19, 2008
9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rocky writes:
Then “Bleaker” tries to talk down the economy and fool people into thinking that we are in a “recession”. Bleaker is unaware that a recession is 2 quarters in a row of negative GDP growth. Since the Bush tax cuts, we have had scorching high GDP growth and low low unemployment and inflation…that is why we are currently at basically full employment at 5%. (see bls.gov numbers, don’t believe the lies the liberals try to foist on us).
Sure, the housing market is going through a correction because some people tried to live beyond their means, and they foolishly took on more debt than they could afford. And some predatory lenders gave loans to people that could not afford them. So, yes, that is all being corrected by the market. But the fundamentals of the economy are strong, growth is up, unemployment is down, inflation is historically low. We do not want to go back to the high unemployment, high inflation and misery indexes of the failed Jimmy Carter years, but putting another Carter liberal in place like Clinton or Obama.
The U.S. economy shrank in the third quarter of 2000, the official figures showing America was in recession months earlier than previously thought. This was the start of the Clinton recession. President Bush took office in late January, 2001, and inherited the Clinton recession. Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis revealed a contraction in gross domestic product, or GDP, in the July-to-September quarter of 2000: GDP shrank 0.5 percent, which started the Clinton recession, the Commerce Department said. President Bush took office in late January, 2001, and inherited the Clinton recession.
January 19, 2008
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rocky writes:
Then in the last failed paragraph of “Bleaker”, he admits that he thinks its an “option” to kill or let die a baby that is born alive. This is sick and evil, Bleaker.
And yes, I think that tax cuts should go to people making less than $85,000 a year, and to those that make over $85,000 a year. The Bush tax relief was for all working Americans at every income level, which is fair and right. The end result of the Bush tax cuts are more money pouring into the US Treasury due to the increased economic activity, and in the end the so-called “rich” are now paying a higher percentage of the total tax bill. It is just that there are now more rich, more middle class and less poor than we had under the old, greedy liberal tax rates.
So yes, we should not elect Clinton or Obama due to their weakness and appeasement on War against radical Islamofascist extremists. This means they will go back to same old failed liberal policies of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter…that is: treating the global network of radical Islamist extremists like it is just a “crime” and putting just the actual people we catch planting bombs in jail. That would be like just capturing the Japanese pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor while letting the Nazis or the Emperial Japanese under Tojo take over the world. We cannot go back to the failed, 9-10-01 mentality of the liberal past.
January 19, 2008
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
cyre writes:
Tax cuts are not appropriate in a time of MASSIVE NATIONAL DEBT. Even if wages increase and taxes are lowered, the relative value of the dollar has plummeted because of our debt and the world boycotting US goods. I assume you are unfamiliar with history, because every single empire that has spent beyond its means has collapsed. The United States cannot avoid the inevitable unless we change our ways.
Furthermore, you forget that people like Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden were funded and trained by the US. We are their enablers. This only further incites the middle east and makes them resent us even more.
"It is not arguable that [WMDs] didn’t exist."
THEY DID NOT EXIST. END OF STORY. STOP TRYING TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE. GEORGE BUSH AND EVERY PERSON WHO VOTED FOR THE WAR WERE WRONG (DEMOCRATS INCLUDED) AND SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR INCOMPETENCE AND FAILING TO PROPERLY EVALUATE THE FACTS.
"Worldwide intelligence indicated that Saddam was building up WMD, and after 9/11 the chance could not be taken that he was lying or this was -- we had to go find out. It's a different world after 9/11."
An operative cooperating (codenamed Curveball) with the German Government said Saddam was producing biological and chemical weapons. The German government noted that Curveball was unreliable and his stories unconfirmed. The UN investigated Curveball's claims 3 DAYS LATER and found his story to be false and impossible as his story had been described. THE US INVADED ANYWAYS, KNOWING THE STORY WAS FABRICATED. 17 days later, the UN returned and tested for trace elements to be completely sure that Saddam didn't just pack up and leave, and confirmed their earlier findings - that the plant had never made biological or chemical weapons. Here are video links:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rwYj0...
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILALiv...
Most of your rantings are so wrong and filled with misinformation they aren't even worth responding to. Your vision of unending perpetual war is extremely worrisome and disconcerting.
January 19, 2008
11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
cyre writes:
Tax cuts are not appropriate in a time of MASSIVE NATIONAL DEBT. Even if wages increase and taxes are lowered, the relative value of the dollar has plummeted because of our debt and the world boycotting US goods. I assume you are unfamiliar with history, because every single empire that has spent beyond its means has collapsed. The United States cannot avoid the inevitable collapse unless we change our ways.
Furthermore, you forget that people like Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden were funded and trained by the US. We are their enablers. This only further incites the middle east and makes them resent us even more.
"It is not arguable that [WMDs] didn’t exist."
THEY DID NOT EXIST. END OF STORY. STOP TRYING TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE. GEORGE BUSH AND EVERY PERSON WHO VOTED FOR THE WAR WERE WRONG (DEMOCRATS INCLUDED) AND SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR INCOMPETENCE AND FAILING TO PROPERLY EVALUATE THE FACTS.
"Worldwide intelligence indicated that Saddam was building up WMD, and after 9/11 the chance could not be taken that he was lying or this was -- we had to go find out. It's a different world after 9/11."
An operative cooperating (codenamed Curveball) with the German Government said Saddam was producing biological and chemical weapons. The German government noted that Curveball was unreliable and his stories unconfirmed. The UN investigated Curveball's claims 3 DAYS LATER and found his story to be false and impossible as his story had been described. THE US INVADED ANYWAYS, KNOWING THE STORY WAS FABRICATED. 17 days later, the UN returned and tested for trace elements to be completely sure that Saddam didn't just pack up and leave, and confirmed their earlier findings - that the plant had never made biological or chemical weapons. Here are video links:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rwYj0...
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILALiv...
Most of your rantings are so wrong and filled with misinformation they aren't even worth responding to. Your vision of unending perpetual war is extremely worrisome and disconcerting.
January 19, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
KC writes:
You know what's fun on these links with 20 or 30 comments?
Read the article at the top of the comments, then read the first few comments, then scroll down to the bottom of the page, and see what they are talking about.
Usually, what people are posting about at the end has nothing to do with what the article was about.
Take for instance this article. It's about a bad joke at the Citizen of the West Award banquet.
The last comments are about WMDs, budget deficits, Germans, and 9/11.
But always, Bush and Cheney. Everything comes back to Bush and Cheney.
Wow.
January 19, 2008
2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
mudslinger writes:
Wow, quite a reaction for a bad joke..
I'm guessing those boys probably don't put much stock in a fancy Ivy-league lawyer to begin with - especially a slick talkin' one like Obama - white or black....
January 20, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
snowbelly writes:
the reason every politico is not screaming about WMDs anymore is because they found thousands and thousands of pounds of sarin , mycin and rycin along with the warheads , scrubbed and the delivery systems.Millions and millions of pounds of conventional weapons have been destroyed in iraq.Get your news from other places than CNN and fox, which are virtually identical.Just look at the success of public education at teaching gang fashion and mentality.The literacy rate in the US was higher in 1850 than it is today. Yes 1850, not 1950.
January 20, 2008
10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
TimO writes:
I have some really great whore jokes about KC's mom. Nobody will mind right? They're just jokes. I'm sure no one will get worked up about it, right?
As far as Ham's point about Chris Rock. I've never heard Rock make jokes about whites that make them out to be sub-human or animal-like. His jokes are pretty much about the racist tendencies, and hypocrisy of whites while black jokes are about, criminality, sub-humanism, animal like tendencies, stupidity. You know the things Nazi's like to say about everyone not white.
January 20, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
TimO writes:
I have some really great wh*re jokes about KC's mom. Nobody will mind right? They're just jokes. I'm sure no one will get worked up about it, right?
As far as Ham's point about Chris Rock. I've never heard Rock make jokes about whites that make them out to be sub-human or animal-like. His jokes are pretty much about the racist tendencies, and hypocrisy of whites while black jokes are about, criminality, sub-humanism, animal like tendencies, stupidity. You know the things Nazi's like to say about everyone not white.
January 20, 2008
10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
TimO writes:
Snowbelly, could you post links to this evidence you're proposing on WMD? Why wouldn't the White House shout it to the heavens to vindicate themselves and the neocon agenda? Where is the logic in your statement and the evidence? Your messiah W even admitted that their is no evidence. Get back on the meds man!
The only evidence I see of anything you posted is illiteracy, pas evidenced by your spelling and punctuation.
January 21, 2008
5:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Houstongolfnut writes:
Now what were we talking about when this started?
January 22, 2008
11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rocky writes:
cyre missed the point on the WMD again:
On the WMD stockpiles...where are they? What happened to them? It is not arguable that they didn’t exist. Clinton, the UN, Kerry, France and all the Democrats and the UN always knew they existed. We found the evidence that Saddam was building WMD, just not the stockpiles that the UN and the french and kerry and clinton said he had.
We know Saddam had them because the UN documented he had used WMD on his own people, killing hundreds of thousands…
The liberation of Iraq and the disarming of Saddam was justified over 14 years, 17 UN resolutions, 2 bipartisan and bicameral overwhelming resolutions, and the overwhelming support of the American people. We were further justified by the David Kay and Duelfer report detailing the WMD and the linkages found between Saddam and al qaeda.
If President Bush is capable, as you say, of lying to send Americans to their deaths for some nebulous petro-oedipal conspiracy no intelligent person has bothered to make even credible, why on earth didn't he just plant some WMDs on the victim after the fact? If you're willing to kill Americans for a lie, surely you'd be willing to plant some anthrax to keep your job.
You see? Your position doesn’t make logical sense…
And if it's in fact true that Bush offered no rationale for the war other than WMDs, why didn’t we simply let Saddam out of his cage and put him back in office? We could have even use some of the extra money from the Oil-for-Food program to compensate him for the damage to his palaces and prisons. Heck, if John Edwards weren't busy, he could represent him.