You have proved nothing. You cite lies as truth, just like any other Marxist. You make no sense because you are the final arbitrer of all arguments, and you just pronounce your victories without building the case with TRUE facts.

Go read Rosie O’Donnell and her Trooofer friends. You’d be more comfortable there.

You are right. There is no common ground between an Abject Liar, like you and Madcow, and people who deal in facts and truth.

Again, it appears that name-calling is the MO for so many here.  Not worth my time or energy.

However, several of you continued to confirm stereotypes of the “right.”  I visit sites from “the other side” now and then to see if there’s any middle ground for discussion or reconciliation, or at least civil debate.  And to try to find out what folks outside my  liberal/moderate world are thinking.  This thread at  “Right Voices” proved disappointing.

Finally, getting back to the topic of this thread:  The evidence presented still fails to live up to the headline.  No proof that Maddow lied.  Frankly, she did a darned good job in her debut, especially against a smirking, deceptive Dick Armey — who couldn’t even make eye contact.  However, you can continue to call names and preserve your delusions.

Just a parting thought:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8

I doubt that Leopold bothers to visit this site.  You’ve wasted your time.
 Per your statement: “The previous administration had mostly ignored terrorism for years (except for making it more difficult to fight it, as in jJamie Gorelic’s “wall”), so it is not difficult to understand why the Bush admin was more focused on the economy.”

It makes no sense.

The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.
The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an “urgent” threat, while President Bush’s national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, “ignored” it.
The Clinton document, titled “A National Security Strategy for a Global Age,” is dated December 2000 and is the final official assessment of national security policy and strategy by the Clinton team. The document is publicly available, though no U.S. media outlets have examined it in the context of Mr. Clarke’s testimony and new book.

Clinton’s 45,000 word document makes no mention of Al Qaeda. It makes scarce references to the psychopath, himself – OBL.  OBL declared war on us in 1998….

Richard Clarke testified that the Clinton Administration considered terrorism the ‘highest priority’ – and yet the mastermind behind such terror acts as the 1993 WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the embassies in Tanzania and others made up about .03% of the document. All of those terror incidents happened under Clinton’s watch – – and yet his final document on the topic of terrorism barely even mentions the OBL terror network.

There were 70 investigations going on as of 9/11, and again, the only way to have stopped 9/11 was to just shut down the airlines so we would never have a hijacking…

Visit this link.  If nothing else, read the last paragraph.

http://www.truthout.org/article/jason-leopold-bush-ignored-911-warnings

But we digress… The title of this thread is “Maddow Lies Her Way Through Meet The Press Debut.”  Misleading.  It’s OK to be angry about the way she reports or the way she challenged Dick Armey, but lies?  You haven’t made the case.  Catchy headline, though.

Note:  I was speaking about Republicans’ lies (e.g., Armey, Coburn), not the folks at this site.  I’ve already visited the links provided above (e.g., to Huffington Post; to the video that was submitted to MoveOn’s contest – which they removed and for which they apologized, but which FreedomWorks/Armey tried falsely to claim as proof of MoveOn comparing Bush/Hitler; to Phil’s AFP video that doesn’t present anything new about MSNBC or other sites and spouts the usual stuff about Soros’ backing of Center for American Progress).  Nothing new. And note that Phil doesn’t offer any proof that Maddow lies, just an angry lecture about how he resents her attacks on front groups like AFP.  As a hardworking American myself, I appreciate when anyone calls out hypocrisy.  Seems the right likes to dish it out, but can’t take it.

Hopefully someone else at this site will engage in a more productive and civil exchange. I came to learn more about the right, and all you’ve done is confirm my stereotypes. Lost opportunity.

Said the person that opens with:

Oh, that’s right, Republicans are ALLOWED to use rumors and lies. Sore losers.