Today's news will be brought to you by the Kool-Aid drinking nutjobs at freerepublic.com.
First off, the first SHOP image today. Feel free to manipulate this image and include captions for it. Readers, tip as necessary.
President George W. Bush talks with John and Agnes Jurek in front of Air Force One in Minneapolis Friday, June 17, 2005. The Jureks are volunteers with the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP). They each have logged more than 4,000 hours since volunteering at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Minneapolis 16 years ago. White House photo by Eric Draper.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/images/20050617-4_f1g3140jas-515h.html
More after this:
From freerepublic.com, the feeling that makes your skin crawl after you've worked all day in the sun and the mud:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1426549/posts#comment?q=1
How wrong can you be? No, we are not talking about the analogical genius, Senator Dick Durbin (D. al-Inois). We are talking about the great Mark Steyn, a genuine genius columnist who calls Dick Durbin unpatriotic. Come now, Mr. Steyn. Dick Durbin isn't unpatriotic. He is post-patriotic.
Among the many things that our American liberals ask us to swallow in our own best interest is the idea that it is an act of lèse majesté to call them unpatriotic even though they are utterly embarrassed by patriotism. Who has not heard the liberal across the dinner table dismissing nationalism as dangerous and aggressive? But we are not allowed to call them on it.
And some comments:
Durbin is a seditious, treasonous pile of manure. Call it "post-patriotic" or "un-patriotic," it's all the same: He deserves to be dancing at the end of a rope.
Bombardier also has this as a sig: (Scratch a Democrat, find a traitor. There are NO good Democrats. Period.)
And . . .
When academics call themselves "post modern," they claim (however foolishly) that they have thought their way through the logic of literature, art, history, whatever. Accusing Durbin of having thought his way through anything is a base canard. Durbin is a thinker to the same extent that Gitmo is a gulag -- or maybe a little less.
Now back to our regularly scheduled SHOPing:
President George W. Bush makes a point during a Conversation on Medicare in Maple Grove, Minn., Friday, June 17, 2005. White House photo by Eric Draper.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/images/20050617-4_g8o7317jas-766v.html
And back to freeperville, where hate and inciting assassination plots are "patriotic":
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1426457/posts
"Are Downing Street memos authentic or elaborate hoax?"
The eight memos - all labeled "secret" or "confidential" - were first obtained by Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told the Associated Press he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals. The AP showed the documents to an unnamed senior British official who said they "appeared authentic."
"Readers of this site should recall this set of circumstances from last year," reported CaptainsQuartersBlog. "The Killian memos at the center of CBS' 60 Minutes Wednesday report on George Bush' National Guard service supposedly went through the same laundry service as the Downing Street Memos. Bill Burkett, once he'd been outed as the source of the now-disgraced Killian memos, claimed that a woman named Lucy Ramirez provided them to him -- but that he made copies and burned the originals to protect her identity or that of her source."
The blog asked: Why would a reporter do such a thing?
While reporters need to protect their sources, at some point stories based on official documents will require authentication -- and as we have seen with the Killian memos, copies make that impossible.
"This, in fact, could very well be another case of 'fake but accurate.' where documents get created after the fact to support preconceived notions about what happened in the past," said the blog. "One fact certainly stands out -- Michael Smith cannot authenticate the copies. And absent that authentication, they lose their value as evidence of anything."
The blog goes on to suggest that even if the memos could be authenticated, "they're still meaningless." That they simply do not contain any smoking-gun evidence of lies by the Bush administration or the British government of Tony Blair.
With followup commentary by the baby-eating menaces:
Hopefully these fake memos will prove to be as bogus as GungaDan's "fake" anti-Bush Killian docs and thus show to the world exactly the leftist pro-islamofascists for the liars they are.
And . . .
There's no evidence any one lied or colluded in any wrong-doing. The moonbats appear to have led themselves out on a limb.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Then there's . . .
These lying scumbags will never learn.
So much for the "Downing Street Memos", lol.
With logic like . . .
No offense, but I think you got it backwards - - the memos are now a hoax until somebody comes up with evidence that they are NOT.
And when you need to go . . .
DSM now suitable as Koran wipe substitute.
Somehow I see this as why freepers love the war and want it to continue, to get rid of their opposition:
The MSM is ignoring something that the "Memos" prove. Dubya and Blair believed Saddam had WMDs before the war.
They discussed what would happen if Saddam used WMDs on the first day of the war.
Bush didn't lie, and liberals died.
And of course only liberals lie, so therefore the FBI memo must be fake:
More false charges from the Liberals. Makes you wonder about the Durbin memo doesn't it?
And the talking points return!
It is irrelevent whether the memo is real or a fake. I don't know why the idiots over there think it says anything particularly damning. It is an opinion of someone based on his observations. There are no facts in it at all.
Of course, if it is another TANG memo, it would be a little more delicious.
And when you can't rely on polls to prove your side is winning, and you can't even get the world to listen to you about your intelligence, point the finger elsewhere:
It's getting air time because the Dems and their allies in the MSM need an "issue". My guess is that they regularly makeup stuff. The good news is that they have no credibility left.
Now that you have to decontaminate yourself in the shower, feel free to post comments, photomanips and captions as you see fit, and tip the posters as you feel they deserve.