Cheney: Lieberman Loss ‘Disturbing’ Because al Qaeda Is ‘Betting They Can Break The Will of The American People’
Cheney: Lieberman Loss ‘Disturbing’ Because al Qaeda Is ‘Betting They Can Break The Will of The American People’
As the Mideast sits on the brink of regional war, Vice President Dick Cheney spent his time yesterday holding a teleconference to discuss the outcome of the Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut.
Cheney said that to “purge a man like Joe Lieberman” was “of concern, especially over the issue of Joe’s support with respect to national efforts in the global war on terror.” He explained:
The thing that’s partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.
Cheney’s argument assumes that the war in Iraq is helping the United States defeat terrorists. He’s wrong. His own State Department found last April that Iraq had become a safe haven for terrorists and attracted a “foreign fighter pipeline” linked to terrorist plots, cells and attacks throughout the world. An overwhelming bipartisan majority (84%) of national security experts believe we are losing the war on terror, and 87 percent think Iraq has had a negative impact.
Cheney should spend less time analyzing the Democratic primary in Connecticut and more time acknowledging the administration’s critical policy failures and trying to fix them. (A good place to start is the American Progress plan, Strategic Redeployment 2.0.)
Read the full Cheney transcript HERE.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
And, there you go! Ha!
August 10th, 2006 at 10:14 amGee, Im good at this.
Did the reporter interviewing Cheney laugh in his face. If not, he or she should have. Absurdity squared. Unbelievable.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:17 amI think VPOTUS should go hunting with the Lieberman Campaign. And take them out of their misery.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:19 amCheney describes an election as a “purge”? No a purge is when fascists and authoritarians Hitler, Stalin Pinochet and Pol Pot send adversaries into a field to be machine-gunned. An election is when two opposing political parties debate and put the decision in the hands of the people.
No wonder the nation is in such a mess. Cheney thinks Iraq is a model of democracy and that Connecticut is totalitarian state.
Hey Dick, have a drink and a steak you callous ghoul. By the way, how are Mary Cheney’s book sales?
-GSD
August 10th, 2006 at 10:20 amOh sweet baby Jesus…
The neocon spin machine is operating at full tilt, I see…it’s too bad that this latest ‘terrorist incident will prove to be just as false as the rest of them.
But of course, by the time the truth starts to surface, we’ll have moved on to more pressing concerns…like the invasion of Iran and Syria.
Here’s my prediction: the United States will be entering this Israel/Hezbollah/Syria/Iran conflict by October at the latest. See if I’m wrong.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:20 amthey clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.
One question. What task?
August 10th, 2006 at 10:20 amP.S.: This is the first picture of a smiling Cheney I’ve ever seen….I think I prefer the scowl.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:21 amdiet sez:
One question. What task?
You know….freedom…and junk…
August 10th, 2006 at 10:21 amthis will be how they will try to spin out of this mess on november 9th ‘08 as well .
August 10th, 2006 at 10:23 amAgain, someone needs to take steps to squash this whole ‘election’ thing that we apparently do every 4 years… can’t people see that it’s impacting our national security to pull good people out of office and replace them with some new guy during a time of war?
Now that we are literally on red alert, hopefully BushCo will seize the opportunity to stop all this election nonsense and outlaw free speech and dissent, at least until we have completely eliminated all terrorists worldwide.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:24 amOne question about politics, guys? What the hell a member of the present government has to be talking about the other party elections?
August 10th, 2006 at 10:26 amWhy do people still give this paranoid man credence?
August 10th, 2006 at 10:27 amCheney has been persistently and consistently wrong over and over again for the last 6 years. Nothing has changed. He is simply wrong again. Besides, he doesn’t even understand the issue at hand so no wonder he is twisting out there in right field again.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:27 amhopefully BushCo will seize the opportunity to stop all this election nonsense and outlaw free speech and dissent, at least until we have completely eliminated all terrorists worldwide.
Comment by Buford — August 10, 2006 @ 10:24 am
Ha! Good one!
August 10th, 2006 at 10:27 amJust in time, al Qaeda comes through for Bush and Cheney. When the chips are down, the Big O is always there to help out his friends in the White House. The only thing going down in flames lately is Lieberman.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:27 amUntil people educate themselves , the GWOT will continue to live and the world will slowly die. The people of the US has followed without question a history based on lies for over 100 years. Presidential doctrines have been progressively more agressive since Monroe and there hasn’t been a peep from the public about America’s rush to the world wide empire with it’s tentacles wrapped around over 100 countries with several hundred standing military bases. Few if any people realize the slaughter of native people and degeneration of living conditions in countries that the US has imposed on most of the countries around the globe for cheap oil, electronics, clothes…
To learn about our real history and future, I highly recommend reading John Perkin’s “Confessions of and Economic Hit Man”, Stephen Kinser’s “Overthrow” and Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “The Grand Chessboard”.
Bill Moyers “The Secret Government” can be found at video.google.com/
videoplay?docid=2397496401234089687&q=secret
Created in 1987, it shows that the NSA has been used for the expansion of the American Empire, operating outside of the legitimate part of the US government.
The BBC has many documentaries on our behavior such as the four part documentary of US propaganda since WWI; The Century of the Self – How politicians and business learned to create and manipulate mass-consumer society.
Part 1 – Happiness Machines at informationclearinghouse.info/article12642.htm
Part 2 – The Engineering of Consent at informationclearinghouse.info/article12646.htm
Part 3 – There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads: He Must Be Destroyed at informationclearinghouse.info/article12669.htm
Part 4 – Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering at informationclearinghouse.info/article12698.htm
August 10th, 2006 at 10:28 amcan’t think of anyone more in favor of the al caca and hezbollah’s than ole’ dick. these are his personal friends, doing everything they can to make him what he is today.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:28 amwon’t someone ask mr. cheney to take his medication?
Comment by Just plain mad — August 10, 2006 @ 10:28 am
August 10th, 2006 at 10:31 amI wish you could see me applauding.
Why are they so obsessed with what’s going on in the minds of criminals and madmen? Whether their mad minds are “happy” with what’s going on in every newspaper headline or not? It’s bizarre.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:31 am#4 An election is when two opposing political parties debate and put the decision in the hands of the people
Right there is the problem…too many people elect parties and not the candidates. I think many elections also have more than two political parties represented, many of whom never get to debate their opposing candidates.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:31 amBut of course, by the time the truth starts to surface, we’ll have moved on to more pressing concerns…like the invasion of Iran and Syria.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:32 amThe Lieberman defeat wasn’t nearly as disturbing as the last two Bush victories.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:34 amOutlawing elections, free speech, and dissent is the best way to support our troops who are in Iraq defending our freedoms.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:35 amAnd so it begins…
BTW: Look at that shit-eating grin, Juan. Lordy…
August 10th, 2006 at 10:36 amthere’s that word “purge” again…
August 10th, 2006 at 10:36 amyou’ll be hearing it alot in months to come…
Why is the media paying so much attention to what Republicans think about this democratic primary. Who cares what they think. this isnt about them. Why are we letting the republicans tell the media what to say about this election. We should set the record straight.
1. Lamont won because he represents a new path for Dems
2. Lieberman lost becuase he insults dems. not because he votes against them. many dems vote against dems but they arent in trouble of losing their seats.
3. Lieberman has been bought by the lobbyists. thats why they stick up for him. theyve invested in him.
4. His independent run just shows his lack of commitment to Conn Dems and US dems. Hes selfish and used us.
5. Hes not a good bipartisin politician. He doesnt and has never created a compromise. He tries to convice dems by using repub words
6. Dems want a united party. they voted for a dem to represent Conn. We want a united party.
7. Dems are very excited to have a party to push for our ideas. Lieberman slowed us down and ripped us apart. We will no longer except the repubs to define us. We will let the media listen to Democrats define democratic ideas.
Contact your local News outlet and tell them to get the facts right.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:37 amCheney is just adding to the list of evidence against him.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:38 amMore rope sir?
VP “Chickenhawk”
Cheney FIVE DEFERMENTS:
1st deferment: Cheney enrolled in Casper Community College in January 1963 — he turned 22 that month — and sought his first student deferment on March 20.
2nd deferment: (student), after transferring to the University of Wyoming on July 23, 1963.
3rd deferment:(student)on Oct. 14, 1964.
4th deferment: attended graduate school at the University of Wyoming on Nov. 1, 1965.
5th deferment: On Oct. 6, 1965, the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Cheney had his first daughter. Cheney applied for 3-A status, the ”hardship”exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. It was granted.
Murtha on Cheney: “I like guys who’ve never been there that criticize us who’ve been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don’t like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.”
August 10th, 2006 at 10:39 amSweet jumpin Jeebus on a pogo-stick…
al Qaeda knows we won’t “complete the task” because we showed them we wouldn’t when Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld let their collective ADD kick in and they stopped focusing on Afghanistan and bin Laden.
This just shows that the American people, at least those who are in touch with reality, have realized we let the wrong people get a hold of our country.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:40 amJLi’s loss proves that the voters of Connecticut are willing to stand up against the wishes of BushCo….
August 10th, 2006 at 10:44 amOne question about politics, guys? What the hell a member of the present government has to be talking about the other party elections?
Comment by Juan C — August 10, 2006 @ 10:26 am
A very good question. The WH is throwing their support to Lieberman. No surprise there. Hell, last night Chris Matthews couldn’t even get Ken Mehlman, chairman of the RNC, to endorse the Republican candidate in Connecticut. Ken said they were going to leave everythng up to the state Repubs. Yeah, right. A Democrat who is a big supporter of the WH and its policies gets beat in a primary, decides to run as an Independent, and the Republican National Committe takes a hands-off approach. Betcha they’d be rallying around the Repub candidate had Lieberman bowed out of the race.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:45 amWho knew that the only thing standing between us and al qaeda was Joe Lieberman?
August 10th, 2006 at 10:45 amI can’t believe that he can get away with saying such preposterous shite. Only a scumbag Republican would try to link an insignificant election (only significant to the Republicans that are losing an ally in the Senate) to the threat of terror.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:46 ama vote for liberals is a vote to placate the terrorists. After the attempted attack in the UK yeasterday it’s scary that you libs actually want to seek peace with terrorists. you may win a few seats in the ‘06 elections but when America sees your dismal failure in fighting the war on terror you’ll be gone. You cannot trust liberals with national security all they are really concerned with is try to make peace withan enemy that does not understand peace. if you think Pat robertson is nuts you just love what the muslims have in mind
August 10th, 2006 at 10:46 amComment by g — August 10, 2006 @ 10:37 am
i find it interesting that he is referred to as “lamont, the millionaire“…
August 10th, 2006 at 10:47 amit’s a slam when it’s the opposition…
Face it, Cheney. America thinks you’re full of shit.
FIGHT TERRORISM WITH INTELLIGENCE. VOTE DEMOCRAT.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:47 amWhat I can’t understand is how the Brits were able to nab those people using (gasp)police methods!
I was under the impression that you had to send 130,000 troops into Iraq to combat the threat of Global Terrorism. Police methods are supposed to be for wimps who don’t understand the nature of the enemy.
I guess we’ll have to write off Scotland Yard–along with 146,000 voters in Connecticut–as just another bunch of Bush-bashing appeasers who Hate Our Freedom.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:47 amHow soon before Bush gives a speech linking 9/11 to this latest escapade? Get out your egg timers….
August 10th, 2006 at 10:48 amTerm limits.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:48 amLuckily for Joe, we’re ALL GONNA DIE!
This has been a Terrortainment Network Breaking News Update… Stay tuned for team talking head coverage!
(Bottom paragraph contains news round up links including coverage 1.3 Million people running for their lives from the most powerful typhoon to hit China in 50 years.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:48 amSo Tricky Dicky II knows what’s going on in Al Qaeda, eh? Must mean he chatted up Osama bin Looney at one of the Big Oil Man Hoedowns they both attend or somethin’. After all, there’s no way Cheney could know what Al Qaeda is “clearly” doing without getting some insight direct from the top.
So now Dicky is consorting with the enemy — sounds like treason to me…
August 10th, 2006 at 10:49 amTo Dick: Maybe you haven’t been keeping up on current events but we just got our asses kicked, pal! -Private Hudson in Aliens
August 10th, 2006 at 10:49 amThere will never be an end to this ‘task’ as Dick puts it, with toxic and naive rhetoric that spews from this administrations mouths. Does Dick think that extremists will just one day say, ‘OK we give up’? NO! BushCo’s words and actions are the reason we are in this situation.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:49 am#25 – That’s right! We’re going to “purge” the Regressives out of congress and put in some good American Progressives! Woo hooo!
Vote Progressive to save America from fiscal insanity and failed policies!
August 10th, 2006 at 10:49 amA vote for the Republican party is a vote for incompetence.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:50 amOne question about politics, guys? What the hell a member of the present government has to be talking about the other party elections?
Comment by Juan C — August 10, 2006 @ 10:26 am
Oh…and they are running scared. They know this was a referendum on The Decider and, horror of horrors, it might just start a trend. The people in this country may go purge crazy and turn control of Congress over to Democrats. And then the s*it will hit the fan.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:50 amWhen the vote goes against someone (JLi) who agrees with BushCo, it has international implications… when the vote goes against someone who disagrees with BushCo, it is insignificant.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:50 amIt’s against Al Queda’s religion to bet… Cheney is a dunce.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:50 amRight, I am positive that Akbar the Sunni and Abu the Shiite use both hours of their electricity to read about the election in CT. They then formulate their future policy based on whether we voted for Joe or Ned.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:51 amDick, get a clue or use your phone a friend lifeline. Your game is just about over.
The Nazis calling the Americans Nazis. Like saying the MSM is liberal bias. They have a way of taking their own evil ways a spinning them on the other party in order to justify themselves.
Maybe its just me?
I’m glad Lamont won it showed the people stood up. Now its time to start shouting!…
August 10th, 2006 at 10:51 amWho the HELL buys the tired argument that “if your not with us, your a terrorist sympathizer”? If your not breaking the law or if you don’t support breaking the law, YOUR the criminal? Big Brother is trying not to die a tragic death.
Cheney, your neocon dream is coming to an end, and you’re all running like cockroaches when the light is turned on.
Squish, stomp!
August 10th, 2006 at 10:52 amTo Dick: Maybe you haven’t been keeping up on current events but we just got our asses kicked, pal! -Private Hudson in Aliens
I say take off, nuke the neocons from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:52 amDude shows up just when we need to hear from him.
It’s . . . . un-canny!
Totally a coincedence and has no connection with the incumbents peeing their pants.
The thing that’s partly disturbing Mr. Cheney, is how you think your opinion actually matters.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:53 amYour approval rating is sub-zero, teflon dick . . . and falling fast.
Just like your credibiliy level.
Now go back to your underground blood transfusion bunker, where you belong, and quitely await the fate that you have brought upon yourself.
Dick, get a clue or use your phone a friend lifeline. Your game is just about over.
Comment by RUCerious — August 10, 2006 @ 10:51 am
Thanks…I finally laughed today!
August 10th, 2006 at 10:53 amImpeach Bush and Cheney…
August 10th, 2006 at 10:54 amWhat I can’t understand is how the Brits were able to nab those people using (gasp)police methods!
I was under the impression that you had to send 130,000 troops into Iraq to combat the threat of Global Terrorism. Police methods are supposed to be for wimps who don’t understand the nature of the enemy.
I guess we’ll have to write off Scotland Yard–along with 146,000 voters in Connecticut–as just another bunch of Bush-bashing appeasers who Hate Our Freedom.
Comment by Invisible Fist — August 10, 2006 @ 10:47 am
Excellent post!
So, what do you say, reddog? Are the Brits wimps?
August 10th, 2006 at 10:54 amTo Dick: Maybe you haven’t been keeping up on current events but we just got ourasses kicked, pal! -Private Hudson in Aliens
I say take off, nuke the neocons from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
Beautiful! Neocons in power has only gotten us on an express elevator to hell…going down!
August 10th, 2006 at 10:55 amDick Cheney is secretly having an affair with Leonid the Magnificent.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:57 amBeautiful! Neocons in power has only gotten us on an express elevator to hell…going down!
What One Says To Ann Coulter If One Sees Her Anywhere Near The Statue of Liberty:
Get Away From Her, You Bitch!!
August 10th, 2006 at 10:58 amWhat I can’t understand is how the Brits were able to nab those people using (gasp)police methods!
Police methods? That’s so pre-911, not enough money to be made.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:58 amAm I the only one who notices the intense, familial understanding Cheney has with Al Queda. I expect him to say at any minute, “We hate you for your freedom .. I mean THEY hate you for your freedom..”
I have no doubt that Bin Laden sleeps easy at night knowing the White House would sooner blow up the Empire State Building than go after him. Why is the cozy relationship between ALQueada and the Bush White House not seriously examined any more than Bush ignoring 9/11 warnings (particularly since Bush had been WARNED Al Queda should be considered the top threat facing the US by the Clinton administration)?.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:58 amFat, ugly, bastard with his failed neocon policies! Phony Joe is a loser neocon Democrat who consorts with murdering, conscienceless scum like this.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:01 amCheney’s latest ratings
CBS News/New York Times Poll. July 21-25, 2006. N=1,127 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. RV=registered voters
“Is your opinion of Dick Cheney favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven’t you heard enough about Dick Cheney yet to have an opinion?”
7/21-25/06 Favorable = %20
5/4-8/06 Favorable = %20
2/22-26/06 Favorable = %18
Wow, he’s experiencing a significant bump up from Feb!
August 10th, 2006 at 11:01 amWhat’s the difference between Ann Coulter and the Statue of Liberty?
August 10th, 2006 at 11:02 amThese attempted airline bombing terrorists were in Britain? We must bomb Britain with everthing we have!
August 10th, 2006 at 11:02 amBush admin. “WORSE_THAN_NOTHING” at protecting America’s vulnerable, hazardous CHEMICAL PLANTS. NY Times headline editorial:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/opinion/14wed2.html?ex=1307937600&en=b884cb3ce5e79af0&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Bush administration D’s and F’s – FAiLURES – at protecting America.
9-11 Commission Final Report, summary of FAILING and ‘D” grades:
http://www.9-11pdp.org/press/2005-12-05_summary.pdf
WashHoPo review of above:
August 10th, 2006 at 11:02 amhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/05/AR2005120500097.html
Jules — August 10, 2006 – At your service. It’s the only way I keep from crying for our battered nation.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:03 amWhat’s the difference between Ann Coulter and the Statue of Liberty?
Comment by Regis — August 10, 2006 @ 11:02 am
The Statute of Liberty has a personality?
Brains?
Compassion?
Wit?
August 10th, 2006 at 11:03 amWhich country gave us the Statue of Liberty?
August 10th, 2006 at 11:05 amSee even Cheney admits that Lieberman is a GOP agent and their loyal ass kisser > lol.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:05 amMostly the conservatives come at night.
Mostly.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:05 amCheney? I thought he was dead.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:06 amAfter all this, the biggest neocon failure has been distorting the real threat by fabricating others.
Since when do these assholes give a shit about Al Kayduh?
Well, if you dipshits weren’t in Iraq wasting time and money, Al Qaeda would be all but defeated, and now that really is disturbing.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:06 amIt is you the Neocons that intend to break the will of the American people for the purposes of individual greed. Sorry not buying and looks like I am not alone. Now go write the next plot for the future thwarted terra attack and get a bit more creative please,it’s getting a bit boring.
This makes me stop questioning the existence of God. There IS a God and that is why Cheney is still alive. God doesn’t want to take him home. No one wants him. Not even the devil.
Cheney’s comments are absurd and I’m frightened that the American people will buy it and not see today’s latest “Terror warning” as just an out and out lie.
All of this to distract that they probably have figured out how to rig the 2006 election anyway. There is no way they will sit back and let the country speak for itself.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:07 amAll the neocons condeming the electoral process, where the voters spoke?
All thre neocons coming to the defense of Joe-No-Mentun.
If there was any indicator of what party Joe was really working for, this is it.
Can you name one other Democrat the Repugs would come to the defense of if they lost the party nomination?
Joe is not a real democrat, and has not been for a while. He is republican in democrat clothing.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:10 amOn cue today a bogus terror plot is supposedly uncovered, and thwarted by Bush’s poodle pal Tony Blair, so it’s convenient for Cheney to say Osama already is taking advantage of Joseph Lieberman being defeated by Ned Lamont?!
August 10th, 2006 at 11:10 amThe arrogance of King George and his minions is staggering, any suggestion of their infaliability is considered treasonous. Well give me Liberty or give me Death, thats all that I can say. Let’s run the whole bunch out of town on a rail. Its the form of public transportation to which they are so deserving.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:10 amAl queda has already broken the will of the American people. This is exacerbated by the re-election of Dick Cheney. We’re just little scared people and we need Dick n George out there protecting us. What men!
August 10th, 2006 at 11:13 amWhat’s the difference between Ann Coulter and the Statue of Liberty?
Comment by Regis
The Statue of Liberty is only frigid in winter.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:16 am“Break our will in terms of the ability to stay, fight and complete the task”. That is the problem, the task will NEVER be completed whilst everything in this country that is worth fighting for goes to hell.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:16 amNo question, the exercising of our political process is a sign of weakness. If we really wanted to show al Qaeda, we would make Bush and Cheney co-dicatators for life. That’d show ‘em!
August 10th, 2006 at 11:18 amJen:
Here’s how it will go:
The MSM will be inundated by reichwingers prattling on about how this is a stark example that we can’t let our resolve slip on the War on Terror…not fo an instant (and, by the way, liberals are with the terrorists, and if you vote for a liberal, you’re asking the terrorists to kill your family). This assault will continue for about two to three weeks, while the situation in Israel/Lebanon continues to deterioriate.
About when the hysteria regarding this latest terrorist plot is winding down, Israel will uncover ‘evidence’ that Iran and/or Syria are actively aiding and abetting Hezbollah. The reighwingers will switch back to praattling why we need to be bombing Iran and Syria.
The U.S. will engage Iran and Syria sometime in October. Don’t ask me where they’re going to get the troops…I don’t know (I don’t think they do, either).
By the time November rolls around, we’ll be fully committed to fighting Iran and Syria. When the 2006 election is stolen (just as the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections were), neocons will claim that ‘America voted for security, strength, and honor’, despite the massive evidence to the contrary.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:18 amIt is you the Neocons that intend to break the will of the American people for the purposes of individual greed.
Not individual greed. Neocons somewhat resemble Noah Cross in the movie Chinatown. As when Jake Gittes asks him “what will you get that you don’t already have?” and Cross answers “The future, Mr. Gittes, the future!”.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:18 amFor Kristol, Krautspammer, the PNACers, and the disciples of Leo Strauss it’s always been about using 9/11 as a heaven-sent opportunity to create the dictatorship they’ve always dreamed of. 9/11 is to them what the German victory in 1940 was to the Right wingers in France, the “divine surprise” which enabled them to bring down what they had hated for decades–the Third Republic. Of course they then proceeded to make a complete mess of the sequel, but why is that not a surprise?
i can smell the stench of Zell Miller Sequel Part II – in the ‘08 Republican Presidential Convention… with Joe Loserman in the staring role. it’s a love story of 2 losers who deserve each other.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:20 amNo question, the exercising of our political process is a sign of weakness. If we really wanted to show al Qaeda, we would make Bush and Cheney co-dicatators for life. That’d show ‘em!
Bingo!
You dumbass libruls are finally getting with the program!
August 10th, 2006 at 11:21 amAmazing that this man has not been physically removed from office and strung to a tree. A traitor of the greatest magnitude.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:22 amI see all the moonbats and anti-semitic liberal trash have come out today. It is because of the liberal mentality that we are dealing with these islamic pieces of trash. Islam and the liberals were meant for each other. I wish all the liberals would move to the middle east, so we could take out two birds with one stone. By the way, if you are at the airport and are frustrated, then thank a Democrat. And by thanking them, I mean punch them in the face.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:23 amSnagged this from dailykos, taken from a phone interview:
Well he sure as hell wasn’t endorsing the Republican candidate, now was he?
August 10th, 2006 at 11:23 amBTW: Look at that shit-eating grin, Juan. Lordy…
Comment by Zooey — August 10, 2006 @ 10:36 am
So, thats what it looks like… :)
August 10th, 2006 at 11:28 amRedDogRocket!!! Joe Lieberman!!! HELP ME!!! the Al Kader is a-comin’ up the street , a-fixin t-chop my head off, and that gol-darned Lamont feller won’t help me!!! Help me Dick Cheney!!! grab yer shotgun and help me!!! Hurry!!! they’re a-choppin off the head of my neighbor lady right now – I don’t know what to do, I can’t get away rom them – there are so many swarming the streets in their nissan 4-by’s with their swords and AK’s……..I’m so afraid….If only those damned lib-ruls would’ve let us declare martial law back in 2000 like we should have……if nothing else, maybe my death will show them that it’s better to have a theocratic military junta run things than it is to maintain that damned old constitution….woe is me, they’re a-comin fer me now…help me Mama, help me Paul Wolfowitz!!!
August 10th, 2006 at 11:29 amATTENTION ALL NED LAMONT SUPPORTERS You have been classified as terrorist supporters under Presidential Directive 06-106624. You are hereby ordered to report to your nearest FBI, DHS, or police station for internment and re-education. DHS-102412. END MESSAGE
August 10th, 2006 at 11:29 amI gotta ask; How much stock in Al Qaida does Cheney own?
August 10th, 2006 at 11:33 amModerated by Admin.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:33 am#87 – You are a dangerous freak – I’m glad NSA is monitoring all this stuff, ’cause it’ll make it a lot easier to track your ass down after you’ve gone postal and shot up the insurance office down the street……keep that hate simmerin, buddy, and if I can help tip you over the edge into complete insanity then I’d be happy to. Your children will hate you and be gay, your wife will leave you and marry a woman, and you’ll find out that your “best friend” (the only person that will talk to you at work) is a vegetarian that believes in gun control. Stew on that for a bit, then do something criminal that we can get you sent to prison for…..freak!
August 10th, 2006 at 11:34 amWell he sure as hell wasn’t endorsing the Republican candidate, now was he?
Speaking of endorsements, did anyone here catch Hardball last night? Chris Matthews was interviewing Ken Mehlman, and Ken steadfastly refused to endorse Alan Schlesinger. It’s looking more and more like the Repugs are going to throw their support behind Lieberman.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:34 amNo one here has discussed the substance of Cheney’s comment and their merits, which if one reads the 9/11 Commission Report, are considerable. The Commission found that the the United States’ withdrawal from Somalia in the 1990’s following the Al Qaeda-linked attack on U.S. forces in Mogadishu (and recorded in the book and film “Black Hawk Down”) emboldened Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and convinced them that the United States was essentially weak and lacked staying power should events become difficult (See pages 48 & 60 of the 9/11 Commission Report).
So, it seems only prudent to ask what message would the U.S. be sending Al Qaeda if we prematurely withdrew our forces from Iraq?
August 10th, 2006 at 11:34 amLooks like the crushing of Lieberman has got the rightard’s flowery panties in a twist. I love the emotional responses hahahahahahahahahahaha Enjoying myself tremendously. Hillary is next. Get the F out of Iraq or get the F out of office!
August 10th, 2006 at 11:35 amBushit and Chaney think the resisters would cut and run like they did in the 60’s. If they want to fight the terrorest then get serios about it and get enough troops to do the job.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:36 amWell gee, who’ let Osama go free in Bora Bora? The dems?
August 10th, 2006 at 11:37 amwoops! I spoke too soon – there is a greater freak afoot here than ol #87, and he is all the way ’round the bend – funny how it’s always those guys accusing us of being flaky. Flaky is as flaky rants, bro, and you done took allllll the cake with that G. Soros screed…..get a prescription and go ahead and pre-register as a sex offender now, cause it’s only a matter of time before you dress up like Dennis Miller and take a sack of candy down to the park to do some “hunting”
August 10th, 2006 at 11:38 amooops…Tora Bora. Eccuse me citizens of Bora Bora….lol
August 10th, 2006 at 11:40 amJoe Lieberman is/was a Democrat, correct? Ned Lamont is also a Democrat. Connecticut Democrats chose a Democratic candidate to represent them in November. That is all that happened. How is it that the Vice President thinks that what happened in a Democratic Primary, on a State level, can have such a major impact on the Terrorists? Is he serious? If he is, we have WAY bigger problems to deal with. Gawd, their crap is SO old. The ’cause’ of the danger is always changing, but the ‘result’ is always the same. Whatever, Dick.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:40 amTora Bora
August 10th, 2006 at 11:41 amI wish that dumbass would go stand next to a very, very high powered microwave.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:42 amModerated by Admin.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:42 amI swear that man is the penguin
August 10th, 2006 at 11:42 amthat is one diabolical and evil grin I have ever seen
August 10th, 2006 at 11:42 amSpeaking of endorsements, did anyone here catch Hardball last night? Chris Matthews was interviewing Ken Mehlman, and Ken steadfastly refused to endorse Alan Schlesinger. It’s looking more and more like the Repugs are going to throw their support behind Lieberman.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — August 10, 2006 @ 11:34 am
Yes. I also liked how Ken said they were leaving the decision regarding an endorsement up to the Republicans in the state.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:43 amExley sez:
…and you can stop right there. The 9/11 Commission Report contains literally hundreds of ommissions, distortions, and outright lies. Sorry, but you don’t get to use it as a justification.
So, it seems only prudent to ask what message would the U.S. be sending Al Qaeda if we prematurely withdrew our forces from Iraq?
Tell me, Exley, what message did we send Al Qaeda by sending forces into Iraq in the first place?
August 10th, 2006 at 11:43 amAt one time, I believed the United States a monolith, jammed-packed with gun-totin’, hummer drivin, stark raving lunatics. This site has shown me that there are still thinking human beings in the US. It seems the gun-totin’, hummer drivin’, stark raving lunatics are all in government. Boy! do I feel better!
August 10th, 2006 at 11:43 amAny GOP swine who mentions terrorism or al-Qaeda for their political campaign needs to explain just how Dear Leader W is keeping us safer from another al-Qaeda attack by shutting down the CIA unit devoted to catching or killing bin Laden
Sure sucks for the GOP that this latest BS had to take place now, as opposed to right before the November elections, but of course, the closer to the elections obvious PR stunts like todays supposed Terrorist attack occur, the more obvious it is a desperate stunt to stop the coming GOP ballot-box bloodbath in November
This will end up being yet another fizzled PR stunt, which will have NO bearing on the November elections, like the last batch of supposed major terrorist plots against US targets. In fact, just how many major terrorist plots have actually been disrupted here in the US? And Plots means something more than just talking and blathering, as in a large-scale operation that was past the initial planning stages?
BTW
China’s looking to Iran to help fuel it’s rapacious oil demand-does anyone think they’d really let Dear Leader W invade and occupy Iran with absolutely no major retaliation of any kind?
There will be NO invasion and occupation of Iran & Syria while we’re still bogged down in Iraq, and just for the sheer numbers of US troops needed to do just that, while still maintaining current troop levels in Iraq, there’s absolutely no way such an invasion & occupation can occur
And since China and Russia can rain down instant nuclear ruin on the US, then the radical neocons-who do NOT represent the US political or social mainstream-are SOL again to an unpleasant reality even they can’t spin away more to their liking
In short, there’s NO way for W to strike Iran & Syria in a way that’s consequence free, and that alone means the radical neocons will see their latest blood-fueled fantasies crumble into the rubbish heap of history
Besides, does anyone here really think the US public will go along with yet another massive military invasion & occupation-targeting Iran & Syria-with the current troop levels still occupied in Iraq?
This one’s a no brainer
As is the fact that Karl Rove’s an overestimated politcal hack-For God’s sake, you try and seize as much power as possible when the condititions for widespread resistance are lowest, not when opposition is much more widespread which makes the objective so much harder to accomplish
In short, right after September 11 would have been the time to change the laws in W’s favor regarding the recent US Supreme Court ruling that BitchSlapped the Administration over it’s deliberate ignoring of Geneva Convention protections for anyone under direct US military control, as opposed to now, when the majority of the US public is against this President and his policies
The GOP’s already collapsing from it’s numerous ethical scandals and legal woes, and come November, it’s going to be in even worse shape than it is now
MUCH worse
August 10th, 2006 at 11:44 amLet’s see, who supported Osama when he worked for the CIA in Afghanistan, supported Saudi Arabia where most of the hijackers come from and where this new muslim radicalism started?Hmmmm
August 10th, 2006 at 11:44 amDick Cheney, you neo-con, Zionist bastard programed clone. Did I say Clone? Yes, indeed. I know for fact that you were removed by the Glactic Federation over a year ago and judged by the Lighted Realms Tribunal! Wake-up Americans to the truth. Israel is the enemy! AIRPAC is the enemy! ADL is the enemy! Don’t you realize 30% of all we work for goes to Israel! I’m the GOD child Emphatic Heart. I come with the many millions of legions of the lighted realms at my beckoning! I am that that I am, of light and truth! Brothers and sisters Lucifer has been removed from this Earth plane. Now all his minnons run around like chickens with their heads cut off. It is time to use your own discernment concerning matters upon this Earth plane NOW!!! We will not let the NEW WORLD ORDER progress any futher. I petition you Americans to transmute all the negative karma you can. Come unto your power, awaken my beloved brothers and sisters! Creator GOD ATON of the Nebadon Universe (my father) is here! I petition you brothers and sisters to call upon your guardian angels, for they are many and await your calling for guidance and intervention. But you must ask, for they honor the law of freewill. I come to help bring Heaven to Earth, as all the lighted realms do so also. The one whom you call Jesus is actually Isu Emanuel SANANDA Kumura, my beloved brother. A very great warrior of Love and Peace. He to is spiritually with us at this time. However, no man knows when he will incarnate upon the earth plane. But I tell you it will be very soon. This current earth cycle is coming to a end for a new paradigm to emerge! I would request each of you americans to consider what congress has done for you…vote the bastards out!!!
Of the one Light of Creator GOD ATON of Nebadon Universe!
August 10th, 2006 at 11:45 amDick Cheney, paranoia’s undeterred champion.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:45 am#96. . . please connect the dots…. Iraq = Al Qaeda???????? If you remember, bush/cheney attacked Iraq because they had proof of WMD’s. Ops, no WMD’s, well, it’s about democracy and getting rid of an evil guy. So, just where does Al Qaeda fit in with Iraq?
August 10th, 2006 at 11:46 amSo, it seems only prudent to ask what message would the U.S. be sending Al Qaeda if we prematurely withdrew our forces from Iraq?
Comment by exley — August 10, 2006 @ 11:34 am
Are you willing to blame 9/11 on Reagan? Chris Matthews said that his pulling our troops out of Beirut in 1983 also emboldened al Qauea.
How about Bush Sr? Can we lay blame on him, too, by pulling out of Iraq in Gulf War I instead of going after Saddam? By the way, Cheney didn’t want to go into Baghdad either.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:47 amCheney is getting real nervous about the 2006 election… wonder why?
August 10th, 2006 at 11:47 amSo, it seems only prudent to ask what message would the U.S. be sending Al Qaeda if we prematurely withdrew our forces from Iraq?
Comment by exley
Well, they might become afraid that our resources were going to be redirected toward actually damaging al Qaeda rather than fomenting civil war in a country that posed no threat to the US. They’d also regret that we weren’t still there to stir up further hatred of the US in the region, further swelling their ranks with new recruits.
Mostly they’d just go about their business, secure in the knowledge that this administration never has and never will truly take them seriously.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:48 amAnd the answer to comment 96 is that terrorists will understand that there are enough Americans smart enough to want to get out of a senseless quagmire that the leaders will eventually follow them.
What bin Laden says he learned in 1991 is no longer the point. As the Repubs are proud of pointing out, 9/11 changed everything. The point is what did bin Laden learn from 9/11?
He learned that the American people will be so furious over an attack that they will rally around anyone, even bozo the clown, who is intent on hunting him down and killing him–unless they have put some cabal of neoconservative idiots in power who will let him escape while they chase pipe dreams of capatilist grandure in the oil fields of the mideast.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:48 amCheney knew about the terror plot that was unfolding in Britain when he made those comments. You can bet on it. It’s always about propaganda.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:51 amBig thanks to Think Progress for attracting the most colorful and wacky Trolls in the free world. I get no greater kick these days than stopping by to see what the “conservative intelligentsia” has to contribute to the threads. I especially enjoy taunting and goading them, which I’d never do to the random, mentally diseased homeless people I encounter. There are people to be appealed to, people to be pitied, and then there are these clowns – wish I had their addresses, so I could send them all a shiny new tinfoil hat to wear to their next civil defense meeting. My flipside to their oft-repeated laments about the degeneracy and decline of our society is this: How in the hell did the US manage to produce them??!! Where did all the woefully ignorant, proudly mis-informed, maniacally hateful people come from??? Who pissed in Rush’s corn flakes, that he would devote his entire career to exhorting and mobilizing a legion of hateful dummies?? Did any of our national heroes EVER do that? Yes is only an answer if you think McCarthy was a national hero, and not a national disgrace.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:52 amSo, it seems only prudent to ask what message would the U.S. be sending Al Qaeda if we prematurely withdrew our forces from Iraq?
Comment by exley
Also prudent…what message was Bush saying to al Qaeda when he said, “I don’t care where bin Laden is. I don’t think much about him.”
August 10th, 2006 at 11:52 amGuys, the neocons are starting to get desperate. The whole Iraq mess is falling apart and they are running out of reasons to make Americans scared as hell so that they will enable these right wing authoritarians and passively allow them to rule.
I don’t think that anyone in the Democratic Party is saying “let’s run and hide from Al Qaeda”. What most of us seem to be saying is that there are better ways of confronting Al Qaeda and clearly the direct military approach taken by Bush & Co. just doesn’t work. We are like the Redcoats fighting the American colonists; we are not innovating, we are following old styles of combat.
The best response to Al Qaeda and their ilk is to use intelligence agencies and police action to track them down and “bring them to justice”. It worked well for Clinton after the first Trade Center bombing and it could have worked for Bush had he the patience for such things. Of course, there is no money to be made if the police are on the task whereas sending the military creates opportunities for profiteering. THAT is the reason our men and women in uniform are dying every day in Iraq. THAT is why they are so dead set on keeping Americans scared. THAT is why they are so critical of Democrats who seek better solutions.
Always remember that fear is the autocrat’s best friend. In the immortal words of FDR, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” We can and will beat Al Qaeda; the only question is how much longer we will pursue the dead end military approach before we start making real progress.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:53 amwhat message would the U.S. be sending Al Qaeda if we prematurely withdrew our forces from Iraq?
Comment by exley — August 10, 2006 @ 11:34 am
This excuse was the same used to prolong the war in Vietnam. At the end, the US had to withdraw after losing a considerable amount of people, hardware, money, and international prestige.
Vietnam turned communist anyway and all the dire, doomsday, predictions about the whole region turning communist didn’t come true. I suspect the curent predictions about “terrorists” won’t come true either.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:55 amSo, it seems only prudent to ask what message would the U.S. be sending Al Qaeda if we prematurely withdrew our forces from Iraq?
Comment by exley
Or how about why we have been prematurely decreasing our troop strength in Afghanistan. You know where al Queda was and probably is.
And what does al Queda have to do with Iraq anyway?
August 10th, 2006 at 11:56 amThe real “will of the people,” as expressed in a little thing I like to call an “election,” is that Iraq is a mistake that needs to end.
Of course, Cheney doesn’t give a shit about the real “will of the people” is pretends to know what the terrorists are thinking.
Save it for the trailer park, Dick.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:57 am.
that is one diabolical and evil grin I have ever seen
Comment by madashell — August 10, 2006 @ 11:42 am
i dunno… this one always freaks me…
August 10th, 2006 at 11:57 amhttp://www.defensetech.org/archives/002546.html
what message would the U.S. be sending Al Qaeda if we prematurely withdrew our forces from Iraq?
That we’re turning our attention to fighting terrorism? That America is no longer playing into their hands?
August 10th, 2006 at 11:58 am.
Dear Cheney:
If you hate American democracy, then please leave. We need an administration that believes in the “will of the people”. Good-bye.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:59 amThat photo TP used here was obviously taken before the polls dropped him and his sock puppet into the 30/40 approval ratings.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:00 pmThis site has shown me that there are still thinking human beings in the US. It seems the gun-totin’, hummer drivin’, stark raving lunatics are all in government. Boy! do I feel better!
Comment by rgl — August 10, 2006 @ 11:43 am
imagine how WE feel…
August 10th, 2006 at 12:01 pmHERE’S news- Cheney is a coercive lying criminal treasonous FOOL. It’s so transparent is absurd- whenever the code word ‘Al Qaeda’ is invoked- i.e. “Al Qaeda is betting on….”- “Al Qaeda feels…” a certain way- he’s actually referring to himself & George! My god- it’s so simple- WHAT a strategy! It’s DaBUSHY Code!!!!- When the chips are down, and the obvious implosion of their administration becomes more and more evident- they constantly invoke how Al Qaeda “feels”?!!! Or the casual reminder of 9/11 of course- but I guess it turns out it’s not really heresay now is it??- their simply talkin bout themselves… YIPEEE I cracked it. Al Qaeda’s not even the biggest problem as we all know now- our own administration is a gigantic bully, and as we all know- the bully never wins in the end. Very sad.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:02 pmTo me at least, watching the nation shift in 40 years time from a nation of people who had some semblance of right and wrong and were willing to protest–sometimes violently–to one that just doesn’t want to be bothered is mind-boggling. So much has transpired unique to this administration’s tenure that we NEVER thought could happen in or to the U.S. that it is natural to wonder where the public outcry is. Complacent and apathetic, we have ourselves to blame for Bush, Cheney and the gang.
It’s beyond nauseating to think that people still support these traitors, believe their words and adhere to the lies which they spout.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:03 pmWes Clark on “Being Strong on National Security”
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/9/141354/8076
Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 11:13:54 AM PDT
Wesley Clark came out strongly for Ned Lamont today, but it’s this passage that particularly caught my attention:
You see, despite what Joe Lieberman believes, invading Iraq and diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not being strong on national security. Blind allegiance to George W. Bush and his failed “stay the course” strategy is not being strong on national security. And no, Senator Lieberman, no matter how you demonize your opponents, there is no “antisecurity wing” of the Democratic Party.
Well said. That’s the Democratic message on National Security this year, and it works. That’s why Republicans are freaking out.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:07 pmDid they catch Osama in Iraq yet? Anyone who supports the war in Iraq will be voted out of office. People aren’t as stupid as Cheney thinks they are. Iraqis and terrorists are not one and the same. The Lieberman election proved that. People are thinking now. Anyone in favor of this adminstration will be voted out of office. The Bush administration is a failed disaster. They world is as deadly as ever. Now we have even more hatred than ever before. However, Americans are finally waking up to the fact that the Bush Administration is what should be feared.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:07 pmIf you were on guard duty and your post was overrun by the enemy and after investigation it was found out that you were asleep on watch why would you expect to be promoted?
August 10th, 2006 at 12:09 pm911 was an act of TREASON or a failed watch I see no middle ground .
this sort of thing is all the rethugs have left… they have lost the debate because they are WRONG…
August 10th, 2006 at 12:11 pmJust think how much 300 billion dollars would buy in terms of border security,port and terminal package screening and security, upgraded spy networks,airport security,better treatment of our soldiers, REAL monitoring and prosecution of terrorists within the law throughout the world with international cooperation. We would all be much safer but the Oil Industry and Weapons Manufacturers poorer.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:13 pm#109 — Tell me, Exley, what message did we send Al Qaeda by sending forces into Iraq in the first place?
We were telling them that after 9/11 the U.S. would no longer tolerate regimes that aided and worked with Al Qaeda.
#116 — There is enough blame for 9/11 to go around. Yes, Reagan’s withdrawal from Beirut in 1983 also inspired the Islamists. In retrospect, it was a mistake. Of course, I never understood what we were doing in Beirut in the first place. And yes, if we had continued on to Baghdad in 1991, history would probably have been quite different.
#125 — I am not sure we HAVE in fact decreased our troop levels in Afghanistan. I actually don’t think we have. As for the second part of your question, see my answer to #109.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:14 pmHave the legs fallen off the ReichWing’s One Trick Pony called FEAR?
August 10th, 2006 at 12:16 pm109 — Tell me, Exley, what message did we send Al Qaeda by sending forces into Iraq in the first place?
We were telling them that after 9/11 the U.S. would no longer tolerate regimes that aided and worked with Al Qaeda.
Comment by exley
Still hanging on to the fantasy that al Queda was in Iraq before we invaded it. Let it go. The truth is so comfortable.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:19 pmVietnam turned communist anyway and all the dire, doomsday, predictions about the whole region turning communist didn’t come true. I suspect the curent predictions about “terrorists†won’t come true either.
Actually South Vietnam going communist did make a huge difference. Instead of making running shoes for 30 cents an hour in Saigon, the Vietnamese are making running shoes for 30 cents an hour in Ho Chi Minh City.
Damn you, Jane Fonda! Damn you!!
August 10th, 2006 at 12:19 pmPeople aren’t as stupid as Cheney thinks they are.
Comment by Heynow — August 10, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
The results of the last two elections would be evidence to the contrary… never underestimate the power of stupid people working in a group.
The only real hope that America and the world have for a peaceful future is to gradually reduce the minions of idiots through enhanced education initiatives… but as long as we spend most of our tax revenues on pretend wars and not on schools we will have little hope to deplete the dummies.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:20 pm#141:
“Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq”
August 10th, 2006 at 12:21 pmA newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein’s government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested “carrying out joint operations against foreign forces” in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam’s presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further “development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what’s open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation.” The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.
The report then states that “Saudi opposition figure” bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. “The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We’re currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location,” it states. ABC News.com
Yesterday the republican talking points was bashing Ned Lamont and scaring the hell out of the American people!! Tony Snow, Cheney, Fox “News”, etc. O’Reilly even said that voting in Lamont was giving way to nuclear blackmail!!!!???? Tony Snow that it would cause a new 9/11. And then suddenly today 21 terrorists (Islamic fascists, according to Bush – don’t know were he got that, he knows more than Scotland Yard!!) were captured in London. Oh yeah?? Good timing!! Forget that hundreds of innocent people are being killed every day!! Just be scared, reaaaally scared!! Am I being paranoid here??? It is so obvious that it slaps you in the face! Did GWB say: “Fool me once….”??? Well, he still thinks he can fool everyone… unfortunately, he is close to the truth here… Oh – my – God!!!
August 10th, 2006 at 12:21 pm#141
Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents ShowBY ELI LAKE – Staff Reporter of the Sun
August 10th, 2006 at 12:22 pmMarch 24, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/29746
CAIRO, Egypt – A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a “significant set of facts,” and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
In an interview yesterday, the current president of the New School University, Bob Kerrey, was careful to say that new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Nonetheless, the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that “Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States.” Mr. Kerrey said he believed America’s understanding of the deposed tyrant’s relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed.
Last night ABC News reported on five recently declassified documents captured in Iraq. One of these was a handwritten account of a February 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and Mr. bin Laden himself, where Mr. bin Laden broached the idea of “carrying out joint operations against foreign forces” in Saudi Arabia. The document, which has no official stamps or markers, reports that when Saddam was informed of the meeting on March 4, 1995 he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by Mr. bin Laden.
The question of future cooperation is left an open question. According to the ABC News translation, the captured document says, “development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what’s open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation.” ABC notes in their report that terrorists, believed to be Al Qaeda, attacked the Saudi National Guard headquarters on November 13, 1995.
The new documents suggest that the 9/11 commission’s final conclusion in 2004, that there were no “operational” ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, may need to be reexamined in light of the recently captured documents.
While the commission detailed some contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990s, in Sudan and Afghanistan, the newly declassified Iraqi documents provide more detail than the commission disclosed in its final conclusions. For example, the fact that Saddam broadcast the ser mons of al-Ouda at bin Laden’s request was previously unknown, as was a conversation about possible collaboration on attacks against Saudi Arabia.
“This is a very significant set of facts,” former 9/11 commissioner, Mr. Kerry said yesterday. “I personally and strongly believe you don’t have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm. This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States.”
Mr. Kerry also answered affirmatively when asked whether or not the release of more of the documents captured in Iraq could possibly shed further light on Iraq’s relationship with al Qaeda. The former senator was one of the staunchest supporters of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which made the policy of regime change U.S. law.
However, Mr. Kerry has also been a critic of how the administration has waged the campaign in Baghdad, which he calls the “third Iraq war,” meaning that the period between the invasions of 1991 and 2003 was a prolonged military engagement.
Here we have the perfect scenario to test your ridiculous hypothesis. Do you think that if a couple of hundred thousand registered Democrats in Connecticut had voted to nominate Lieberman instead, the terrorists in the UK would be so scared of the American resolve that they would swear off terrorism?
What does it mean to “win” the war on terror? If winning means a world with no terrorist attacks, we have to now admit that we haven’t won it. Actually, according to that definition, as long as there is one terrorist we will not win the GWOT. If winning means preventing terrorist attacks, then it looks like the UK is winning without putting 130,000 troops in a country unrelated to any who attacked us.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:26 pmexley, do you believe your own blather or are you just attempting to justify your flawed mindset at a time that most people are abandoning ship.
Your links prove nothing.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:26 pmOur VP is an Asshole saying its disturbing.. Hold on a sec..I thought Democracy is what they promote
August 10th, 2006 at 12:27 pmCaption Contest: “All your microphone are belong to me!”
August 10th, 2006 at 12:28 pmits always amazing how cheney speaks as if he’s a messenger from al qaeda, knowing what they think about, and how they interpret every big and small American development; like he was in the room when they were discussing the latest events from America.
Is there anyone left that is stupid enough to believe any word that comes out of cheney’s mouth? why is that sick, demented piece of shit still holding an important public position in America?
August 10th, 2006 at 12:28 pm.
want a little insight on how arms deals are made? Rent the flick Lord of War.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:28 pm#144
Please post a link.
And that is your mandate for invading a sovreign country? Someon in the government talked to al Queda and maybe they will have more discussions later. I heard South Korea is talking with North Korea about working together on beneficial issues. I wonder if al Queda has talked to any Saudi royals at all. Oh my god Chavez talked to Syria and Iran!!! Attack…attack…attack….kill…kill.kill
August 10th, 2006 at 12:28 pmreddog plays the fear card quite well, however hallucinogenic as that card might be to those not sniffing the glue. Like the neocons, he spins things quite admirably: a vote for anyone other than the maniacs we supports means a vote for terrorists. A comment against the war-mongering cowards means you are suddenly anti-American.
reddog and his people should be tarred and feathered….
August 10th, 2006 at 12:30 pmSo el Qaeda was based in Iraq before we moved in, right Ex?
Apples are oranges, too.
Using your “evidence” as the basis for the typical tortuous neocon argument, one could argue with equal plausibility that the US should have invaded the US in 2003 because of Osama’s previous “links” with the CIA.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:31 pmDecember 3, 2001 USA Today :
Saddam, under intense international scrutiny after the Gulf War, also had strong ties to Khartoum, and Iraqi intelligence was well represented in the stew of Islamic radicals, insurrectionists and foreign agents pouring through the city.
“We were convinced that money from Iraq was going to bin Laden, who was then sending it to places that Iraq wanted it to go,” says Stanley Bedlington, a senior analyst in the CIA’s counterterrorism center from 1986 until his retirement in 1994.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:33 pm“There certainly is no doubt that Saddam Hussein had pretty strong ties to bin Laden while he was in Sudan, whether it was directly or through (Sudanese) intermediaries. We traced considerable sums of money going from bin Laden to the GIA in Algeria. We believed some of the money came from Iraq.”
Exley,
The report then states that “Saudi opposition figure” bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. “The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We’re currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location,” it states.
I read the article and to say that having someone inthe Iraq government agree to run a radio program for al Queda in 1995 is justification for invading the country in 2003 is good policy is insane. But to each his own.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:34 pmCompliments on the paste jobs here. Of course the US was also providing aid to Saddam in the 1980s. Did that make us accomplices in 9/11?
Hmmmm.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:36 pmWe believed some of the money came from Iraq.â€
Comment by exley
Another slam dunk reason to invade a couontry huh? Keep em coming.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:36 pm9/11 Commission concluded:
• Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden “explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan.”
• “A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.”
• “Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan.”
Chairman Thomas Kean confirmed, saying : “There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there.”
Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said the commission does not disagree with the administration’s assertion that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government.
President Bush and members of his administration have said all along that there were contacts and that those contacts raised troubling questions.
For instance, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was the leader of a terrorist group that is responsible for a number of deadly attacks throughout Iraq. He and his men trained and fought with al-Qaeda for years. Zarqawi’s network helped establish and operate an explosives and poisons facility in northeast Iraq. Zarqawi and nearly two-dozen al-Qaeda associates were in Baghdad before the fall of Saddam’s regime. In 2002, one al-Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was “good” and that Baghdad could be transited quickly.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:37 pmExley’s obviously trying to make a case for American support for El Qaeda.
Why does Exley Hate Our Freedom?
August 10th, 2006 at 12:38 pmWhat is with that, “if you will” that he constantly puts into his ramblings? It is irritating beyond belief.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:38 pmRichard Clarke:
The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects,specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”109 This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the IraqÂAl Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.”…
Report of the 9/11 Commission
August 10th, 2006 at 12:39 pmRegarding the supposed anti-semitism of liberals: Does that include the majority of American Jews which vote Democrat? Does that include the majority of American people who voted for a ticket including Joe Lieberman in 2000?
And how exactly are the Democrats responsible for what happened in the UK? The War is being prosecuted by a Republican president, Republican Congress, Republican SecDef, all of which make no secrets about their disdain for advice from Democrats. The Democrats have no power in Washington to set a policy or even get a bill debated. But if a terror plot gets discovered it’s Democrats’ fault? Since it got thwarted, can Democrats take credit? Oh, it doesn’t work that way?
August 10th, 2006 at 12:40 pmMore Richard Clarke:
If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke,his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service,and it would be “virtually impossible” to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.134 Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight,but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and “Pak[istan's] intel[ligence service] is in bed with” Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: “Armed with that knowledge,old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.”135Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad,Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight.
Report of the 9/11 Commission
August 10th, 2006 at 12:40 pmexley…..
“I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.–George Galloway
August 10th, 2006 at 12:40 pmGive it up Dick, you don’t scare anybody any more.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:42 pmIt was the British police, and not the British military, that busted these alleged plotters. Guess that wrecks Dubbie and Dickie’s other big, stupid argument – that we can’t fight terrorism with police work, only with bombing missions. Don’t worry about the press catching on to that, though…..they’ll regurgitate everything those assholes defecate and twist it into a reaffirmation of the “success” of their murderous war crimes. Hey troll brigade – kiss my hairy, logical ass!!!!
August 10th, 2006 at 12:42 pmTIME MAGAZINE November 24, 1997: “America the Vulnerable; A disaster is just waiting to happen if Iraq unleashes its poison and germs,” November 24, 1997: Time wrote that “officials in Washington are deeply worried about what some of them call ’strategic crime.’ By that they mean the merging of the output from a government’s arsenals, like Saddam’s biological weapons, with a group of semi-independent terrorists, like radical Islamist groups, who might slip such bioweapons into the U.S. and use them.”
August 10th, 2006 at 12:42 pmWasn’t that just supposed to be an aspirin factory in Sudan?
Oh, I get it. It was only an aspirin factory when Clinton was President.
On January 20, 2001 it suddenly became a part of the Axis of Evil…
August 10th, 2006 at 12:43 pmExley,
You are justifying an invasion based on allegations and haf-truths with more allegations and half-truths.
Plus, the article you provided says: “This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11″, which happened to be the main rationale for the invasion and occupation in the first place.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:43 pmmore, exley….
“If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq’s wealth.
Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq’s wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Haliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq’s money, but the money of the American taxpayer.
Have a look at the oil that you didn’t even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.
Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government.”
But exley, what would Galloway know, right?
August 10th, 2006 at 12:43 pmHey, I remember reading that Al Quaeda was destroyed in Iraq with the killing of Zarquawi. The end of the war in Iraq is just around the corner. Hail the brilliance of Dick and George! they’re ALWAYS right!
August 10th, 2006 at 12:45 pmI guess it’ll only take about 30-40 years for righties to grasp the fact that terrorist groups are network-based, not country-based. Which is why they need to spend the next 30-40 years out of office doing a lot of outside reading.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:46 pmInvade Saudi Arabia; the home of modern Islamic radicalism and proven terrorists! A much stronger link than any fictitious or stretched Iraq/ Osama ties. We are in Iraq for the oil, and strategic bases to take over the middle east. PERIOD. NOW STOP IT WITH THE MORONIC LIES.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:47 pm“In March 1998, after bin Laden’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq Intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden.”
Report of the 9/11 Commission
August 10th, 2006 at 12:47 pmChairman Thomas Kean confirmed, saying : “There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there.â€
Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said the commission does not disagree with the administration’s assertion that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government.
So tell me what this means to you.
In 2002, one al-Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was “good†and that Baghdad could be transited quickly.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:49 pmSo al Queda talked about taking over Baghdad. THen the US invades Iraq and brings down the government of Iraq that although was tyrannical kept the religious zealot groups under control and opened the door wide open for the religious crazies to implement their plan of taking over Baghdad. And what is the situation today? Does this make any sense to you?
Newsweek magazine January 11, 1999, “Saddam + Bin Laden?” “Here’s what is known so far,” it read:
“Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas — assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.â€
August 10th, 2006 at 12:49 pmComment by exley — August 10, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
Since you are so fond of running to Richard Clark, I’m sure you’ll also believed him when he said that Bush wanted to invade Iraq in the hours and days after 9/11. Bush, of course, denied this.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:49 pmAn Associated Press dispatch that ran in the Washington Post in February 1999: “The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers.”
August 10th, 2006 at 12:51 pm#176- exley- You poor thing.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:54 pmIf we look at the most public of reason for invading Iraq, WMD and nuclear capability, we see the Bush Cabal was completely and utterly dishonest.
[from: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/145202 ]
…Look, let’s be honest. The Iraqis were obligated in 1991 to submit a full declaration listing the totality of their holdings of W.M.D., and they didn’t do this. They lied. They failed to declare a nuclear weapons program. They failed to declare a biological weapons program, and they under-declared their chemical and ballistic missile capabilities.
Saddam Hussein intended to retain a strategic deterrent capability, not only to take care of Iran, but also to focus on Israel. What he didn’t count on was the tenacity of the inspectors. And very rapidly by June 1991 we had compelled him into acknowledging that he had a nuclear weapons program, and we pushed him so hard that by the summer of 1991, in the same way that a drug dealer who has police knocking at his door flushes drugs down a toilet to get rid of his stash so that he can tell the cops, “I don’t have any drugs,†the Iraqis, not wanting to admit that they lied, flushed their stash down the toilet. They blew up all of their weapons and buried it in the desert, and then tried to maintain the fiction that they had told the truth.
And by 1992 they were compelled again because of the tenacity of inspectors to come clean. People say why didn’t Saddam Hussein admit being disarmed? In 1992 they submitted a declaration that said everything’s been destroyed, we have nothing left. In 1995 they turned over the totality of their document cache. Again, not willingly, it took years of inspections to pressure them. But the bottom line is by 1995 there were no more weapons in Iraq, there were no more documents in Iraq, there was no more production capability in Iraq, because we were monitoring the totality of Iraq’s industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control…
August 10th, 2006 at 12:54 pmLieberman campaign manager said (just prior to the election) Joe Lieberman had the endorsements of the 6 major newspaers in Connecticut.
What does that say of the Media vs Internet Blogs.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:55 pmIf Lieberman was really fighting terrorism he would have pledged to help have Cheney stand trial for waR CRIMES.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:56 pmExactly when did “al Qaeda” become the dominant force in Iraq?
I must have missed that news report.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:58 pm.
Hey, ex,
Let’s assume all of your assumptions are correct, that Al Quaeda was somehow connected with Iraq and that Osama is the evilest bastard in the world. Then please answer this question: since your boys Dick and George and Rummy apparently knew and believed this, why did they let Bin Laden escape? Did they think he was going to Baghdad? If al Quead was the big problem in Iraq, why did Dick George, and Rummy (hereinafter referred to as the Three Stooges) believe that we didn’t need sufficient forces to stabilize and control the country? Why did the Three Stooges believe the war would be over in 6 months? Certainly we wouldn’t be greeted as liberators if there were terrorist al queda cells throughout Iraq. Why did the Stooges believe that capturing Saddam would lead to peace if Bin Laden and al Quaeda were actually controlling the country?
Either you’re full of shit, or the Three stooges are, or you all are. Which is it?
August 10th, 2006 at 12:59 pmI think this is not just stupid and obnoxious, but not good politics. What are Cheney and Mehlman and co’s favorable ratings among centrists in CT? To have a chance, Lieberman wants to play up his liberal bona fides and portray Iraq as something he may disagree with the dems on, but which isn’t the be-all-and-end-all of why you’d vote for him. Instead of moving left, the praise from Cheney and Limbaugh make him seem like he’s moving right. The more praise they give, and the more praise popular-in-CT dems like Hillary and Dodd give to Ned, the more it seems like Lieberman would lose a 3-way race.
Presumably this talking point is an attempt to portray the Dems as outside of the mainstream on Iraq, etc. But that’s wrong for two reasons: (a) individual Senators are voted for as individuals, not by party and (b) the majority of the country – and a huge majority in states like CT – are with the dems on Iraq.
Maybe there would be some payoff if they’re thinking ahead to 2008. But Iraq won’t be anything except a massive debt for our grandkids and civil war by then; if Cheney and folks keep it up, maybe Lieberman too will just be something for the history books.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:01 pmEver wondered why Osama didn’t take Saddam’s offer of asylum?
Because the Islamist El Qaeda was always fundamentally opposed to the secular Ba’athist regime in Iraq. Temporary marriages of convenience, whether proven or unproven, don’t obscure the fact that Osama and Saddam were basically adversaries trying to outbid each for power and prestige in the Muslim world. If any factor pushed them together it was the US.
Need to stop now. don’t want to make Exley’s head hurt with all these gosh-dern complexities about Real Life Among Them Ragheads.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:04 pmDon’t feed the trolls!
If you are trying to “get through” to somebody that, three years later, STILL believes Saddam was involved with 9/11, they are beyond hope.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:05 pm.
keep wasting your time Exley.PURE FICTION You’ve managed to change,ummm,let’s see ,………….no one’s mind. Good job, now tell us all the one about how 2 Israeli soldiers trespassing in Lebanon were captured and managed to start a war(illegal invasion).
August 10th, 2006 at 1:06 pm“In March 1998, after bin Laden’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq Intelligence.
Comment by exley — August 10, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
They also went to Texas to meet with Tom Delay!
Should we have invaded Texas and put a bounty out on ol Tommy Boy’s head (I know for many this sounds like a pretty good idea but the correct response is no)?
August 10th, 2006 at 1:07 pmReichWingNuts beating the drum of Iraq/al Qaeda links as a reason to invade and occupy Iraq is pathetic.
[from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html ]
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq.
Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein’s government and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was “overwhelming.”
But the report of the commission’s staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday’s hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.
The staff report said that bin Laden “explored possible cooperation with Iraq” while in Sudan through 1996, but that “Iraq apparently never responded” to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, “but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.”
How can WingNuts claim what they do? Mass histeria? Fear mongering support of the Bush Cabal? Wishful thinking?
August 10th, 2006 at 1:07 pm“An overwhelming bipartisan majority (84%) of national security experts believe we are losing the war on terror, and 87 percent think Iraq has had a negative impact.”
Funny how these “bipartisan” experts are not identified in the article which were obviously cherry picked by The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. CEIP is bipartisan?….NOT!
August 10th, 2006 at 1:09 pm#197 – Why do we need to consult the results of the 9-11 commission when we’ve got Exley?
I can’t be that they’re so “good” at interpreting the data any way that suits them. Could it?
August 10th, 2006 at 1:11 pmBlueDog49….Setting aside your rather childish name-calling, the two messages are not inconsistent in any way. Quite the opposite.
Go on the offensive against terrorist organizations and the regimes that support them on their own territory greatly reduces the chances they will be able to carry out massive terrorist operations, such as 9/11, here in the United States. If we cease fighting the terrorists abroad, as the “cut and run,” “anti-war” Democrats advocate, the pressure is removed from the terrorists abroad and they can again plot and carry out 9/11-type attacks with no harassment from the U.S. and the West.
As I said, completely consistent messages. I am glad I was able to clarify this for you.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:12 pm#44
The would be liberal not progressive. Can’t change the name when the entity is still the same and expect people not to notice.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:13 pm198. ANTI PEACE, PRO WAR, sorry excuses for human beings.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:13 pm#68
An inanimate object has all of those traits?
August 10th, 2006 at 1:15 pmwhat gets me is these people actually BELIEVE that the arabs just out of the blue decided they hated our freedoms? These people are pathetic.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:16 pmWhither go WingNut claims of Iraq/al Qaeda claims now?
[from: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0803-04.htm ]
The administration does not contend it has evidence of ties between Zarqawi and the Iraqi government. Instead, Bush’s statement that Hussein ”aids and protects” known Al Qaeda operatives is based on the assumption that Hussein’s police would have to know the comings and goings of a terrorist, a point emphasized by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in the months leading up to the war.
But two senior intelligence officials who asked that their names not be used said they were never convinced that Hussein knew Zarqawi’s whereabouts, noting that some stretches of Iraq’s borders are notoriously porous. And they said other countries’ intelligence agencies have questioned the extent of the link between Zarqawi and Al Qaeda, suggesting he is an Al Qaeda associate but not a member.
Ten days ago, Cheney offered a forceful defense of the administration’s case for war, intended to quell growing criticism about the discredited uranium report. But he surprised many political leaders by making no mention of a link between Hussein and Al Qaeda.
Cheney’s office declined to explain the omission.
Sorry. We are watching people die in Iraq for all the wrong reasons.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:16 pmThe would be liberal not progressive. Can’t change the name when the entity is still the same and expect people not to notice.
Comment by Tracy — August 10, 2006 @ 1:13 pm
I guess that would mean that the “Conservatives” are actually the “Criminals.” The entity as well as many of its leaders are still the same as the Criminal Party of Nixon.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:19 pm#99
If bin Laden were to have been captured in Tora Bora would it really have made the big of difference in Al Qaeda’s strength? We killed al Zarqawi and it didn’t really make a difference in Iraq.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:19 pm#210 – If bin Laden were to have been captured in Tora Bora would it really have made the big of difference in Al Qaeda’s strength? We killed al Zarqawi and it didn’t really make a difference in Iraq.
Is this what ReichWingNuts are reduced to? What a pathetic argument! Nice try. Care to play again?
August 10th, 2006 at 1:21 pm#192…Poor Uncle Sam…When confronted with overwhelming facts and citations, such as the 9/11 Commission Report, media coverage going back to the 1990s (before Georeg W. Bush became president), a Clinton Administration Justice Department indictment of Bin Laden, alleging collaboration with Saddam Hussein, 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey (D) stating in March 2006 that new evidence shows that the collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda was likely even greater than the contacts discovered and reported, the best Uncle Sam can come up with is, “My mind won’t be changed!”
Uncle Sam’s motto is apparently: “Don’t bother me with the facts! My mind in made up.”
So, they were ALL lying, “Uncle?” The 9/11 Commission? The media in the 1990s? The Clinton Administration? Richard Clarke in the 1990s? (before he tried to sell books)
August 10th, 2006 at 1:22 pmFor the last five years since 9/11, it has been to this administration’s benefit to justify every egregious thing they’ve done with: “We are protecting the American people from terrorists.”
As we laud “democracy” in Iraq, Cheney denounces it in the United States. Does it really surprise him that the citizens of Connecticut voted for an anti-war candidate, in light of the quicksand Iraq is sinking into?
Cheney is chastising voters the way a father would wave a finger reproachfully at his son who wrecked his new Mustang and nearly got himself killed. For voting anti-war, the good people of the Free State of Connecticut have put themselves, and others, at risk for another terrorist attack.
Jumping Jesus, maybe he was right… Leiberman lost only yesterday, and we narrowly avoided a devastating attack today!
All joking aside, this is just another way for this corrupt administration of cronies to carry out agendas that benefit them, not the American people. How dare they criticize a free election, and how dare they stay along the course of asinine, failed policies in
Iraq?
Unfortunately, with today’s indeed terrifying events, the well-organized spin campaign of the Republican party may, again, be able to convince the ever-so-gullible American people that switching horses in the middle of a race could mean another day of exploding planes, falling buildings and dying Americans.
Jennifer Janisch
August 10th, 2006 at 1:23 pmhttp://unavocejjj.blogspot.com
#209 — BlueDog 49….Have there been any successful 9/11-style terrorist strikes in the U.S. since 2001?
August 10th, 2006 at 1:23 pmIf bin Laden were to have been captured in Tora Bora would it really have made the big of difference in Al Qaeda’s strength? We killed al Zarqawi and it didn’t really make a difference in Iraq.
Comment by Tracy — August 10, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
Therefore we should leave them all alone because there is really nothing we can do to slow their progress?
You better go reread your talking points… I think you might be misrepresenting papa bears message.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:25 pmmaybe they should kiss!
i take heart in the fact that the Bushites were unable to illegally determine this election… our perseverence in democracy is worth the effort!
August 10th, 2006 at 1:28 pmYep Dick
And we are coming for you too…..
August 10th, 2006 at 1:30 pmSo wipe that little smirk off your face you fascist bastard.
Not a word from The Dick until Joe falls on his ass…nothing about the slaughter in the Middle East, just more bullcrap from deathly dick.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:30 pmExley:
As I told you before, the 9/11 commission report is so full of ommissions, distortions, and outright lies that it cannot be used as a reliable reference.
Of course, you’re perfectly entitled to continue to refer to it in an attempt to bolster your arguments…just as we’re perfectly entitled to dismiss your arguments due to the inaccuracy of your references.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:30 pm[...] To my more relaxed readers who don’t pay a huge amount of attention to the news, I’m sure you think I’m exaggerating. For your benefit, I have collected a bunch of links that clearly show that Republicans are scared out of their wits to be losing Lieberman and will do whatever necessary to get him back in his seat come November. Consider it a public service from your good buddy, Nicho. I had originally wanted to split it up among those expressing their support and those utilizing the “fear terrorism” rhetoric, but as you may already know Republicans are unable to separate the two. This breed of conservatism is completely unable to express their own positions without denigrating the opposition. Anyway, first up is none other than Shotgun Cheney who more or less stated that a vote against Lieberman equals a vote to break the will of the American people. [Shotgun Cheney]: The thing that’s partly disturbing about [Lieberman’s loss] is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. [...]
August 10th, 2006 at 1:32 pmFor every action, Lieberman losing, there’s an equal and opposite reaction, Cheney crying wolf………
“The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” -Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichmarshall
August 10th, 2006 at 1:36 pmHow about nick-naming him ‘Dead-Eye Dick’?
August 10th, 2006 at 1:38 pmSeeing how he’s such a good domesticated bird hunter and all.
Who is trying to break the American people… Mission Accomplished – by our own administration and their 1.5 billion in spending each day for a war that has escalated beyond their control. Mission Accomplished – by a state influenced media. Mission Accomplished – with tactical propaganda intended to discredit those who disagree with their destructive policies. Mission Accomplished – in their effort to override and diminish the freedoms founded within the Declaration of Independence.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:39 pmThe “will” of the American people has already been broken by the miserable failures, incompetence, greed, war fever, and fear mongering of the Bush administration.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:44 pmDave R,
May I add one?
Mission Accomplished – in their effort to bilk the American taxpayer by transferring the contents of the U.S. the treasury into the private coffers of well-connected corporate enablers, contributors, and friends.
The Neoconservative movement is a business model, not a government model.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:45 pm#147
“…then it looks like the UK is winning without putting 130,000 troops in a country unrelated to any who attacked us.”
The British has a rather large number of troops in Iraq. If I am not mistaken today it’s over 10,000….about all they can as a military muster.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:50 pm#220 TripMasterMonkey: “Of course, you’re perfectly entitled to continue to refer to it in an attempt to bolster your arguments…just as we’re perfectly entitled to dismiss your arguments due to the inaccuracy of your references.”
Of course. No one disputes that. But if people are going to “dismiss” the 9/11 Commission Report (which I agree is not a perfect document, but IS the most complete and thorough review of the situation currently before us), one needs to point out the “inaccuracies” and cite facts, evidence, documents, etc. that demonstrate what and where the inaccuracies are.
It is not persuasive to simply take all the info I provided, such as such as the 9/11 Commission Report, media coverage going back to the 1990s (before George W. Bush became president), a Clinton Administration Justice Department indictment of Bin Laden, alleging collaboration with Saddam Hussein, 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey (D) stating in March 2006 that new evidence shows that the collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda was likely even greater than the contacts discovered and reported…
and dismiss it with a simple, “I don’t believe it!” That is not effective or persuasive debating. People need to explain their positions and back it up with some evidence.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:52 pmRepublicans are scared out of their wits to be losing Lieberman
It’s not just Joe for his own sweet self. It’s because Joe’s embodied success for the massive bluff the Republicans have been running on the Dems and on the country’s chattering classes for years now.
The bluff has amounted to this: if the Democrats move so much as one millimeter to the Left they’ll spend the next 30,000 years burning in Minority Party Status Hell.
The punditocracy bought it. The DLC bought it. Joe Lieberman bought it. So they all kept edging over to the “center”–even as the “center” kept getting shifted to the Right. The reward? Getting tagged as “slick”, “unprincipled”, “wishy-washy” opportunists who “flip-flopped” on everything and lacked the stern stuff necessary to stand up to Islamofascism, etc.. The campaign against Kerry was classic and unfortunately Kerry’s record was made to order for it.
Lamont’s win on Tuesday essentially called the bluff. It said in effect that the Dems are going to move to the Left and challenge the Right wing premises of Republican policies instead of accepting them as the natural order of things. Of course the GOP’s all a-flutter right now. You would be too if you were presiding over bankrupt policies and actually had to defend them on their merits without the cover provided by the likes of Joe Lieberman.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:53 pmEveryone brace for the ole september/october surprise.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:00 pmand ever sense your guys have been shamelessly using that hit for political advantage.
Comment by Bluedog49 — August 10, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
which makes you think bad stuff.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:01 pmI agree, Ex.
#220 TripMasterMonkey badly needs to brush up on his debating skills. Or rather, he badly needs a nice thick file of cherry-picked out-of-context talking points he can call up at a moment’s notice.
When will these Osama-loving lefties ever learn(sighs, rolls eyes at ceiling)?
August 10th, 2006 at 2:02 pm#159
So as long as the person(s) you are after, like bin Laden, aren’t actually in your country, you (the government) can give all the money and support you want to his terrorist organization?
August 10th, 2006 at 2:02 pm>> “Have there been any successful 9/11-style terrorist strikes in the U.S. since 2001?â€
No. But then 85+% of security and anti-terrorism experts view us as in graver danger as a result of the invasion of Iraq. What’s the point?
Bottom line is… Bush has almost robotically executed according to the wishes of bin Laden.
bin Laden wanted gas prices higher. DONE!
bin Laden wanted US forces out of Saudi Arabia. DONE!
bin Laden wanted Saddam Hussein’s regime toppled. DONE!
bin Laden wanted the US drawn into an extended war in the Mddle East, enflaming and destabilizing the region (facilitating the rise of a larger Islamic state) and bankrupting the US and precluding its “intervention” around the world (getting there! $8 trillion in debt and counting)
Direct military overthrow of the US has never been al Qaeda’s goal. They simply wanted to provoke us into an overreaction and a prolonged, costly war in the Middle East. The sad thing is, the original ‘93 WTC bombing and even 9/11 had initially been failures, since we didn’t overreact to either. However, Bush’s invasion of Iraq was just what bin Laden had long been awaiting, and he’s been doing everything in his power to keep his virtual automatons in power from that point onward.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:02 pmHe’s just shocked that they weren’t able to rig that election.
On the thwarting of the UK plot using “police methods,” that was obviously a screw up. The police weren’t informed that this plot was supposed to be successful in order to secure the neocon agenda.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:03 pmHey, WingNuts. Got Osama?
Oh. That’s right. He doesn’t matter to you since he had everything directly to do with the events of 9/11…
August 10th, 2006 at 2:04 pm#193
“They also went to Texas to meet with Tom Delay!”
That’s in not true though. I guess you are trying to be funny.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:05 pm#203
Just to other side the the liberal media refuses to report on.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:06 pmFirst, Canada foils a plot.
Then the US foils a ‘plot’ that’s nothing more than a bunch of disgruntled people in FL.
Then the UK foils a plot.
Notice any pattern here? No plots worth investigating in the US.
Now, Cheney tells people PUBLICALLY, that he knows what evil lurks in the hearts of Al Qaeda.
When did telepathy become a attribute of the Vice Presidential Gunner in Charge.
The VP tells us that a democratic election is a purge. Sorry, VP, that’s called an ‘election’. Look it up, you shithead.
He’s pathetic.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:08 pm“…and we all know,” the vice-president continued “that breaking the will of the American people is the job of its leaders in Government. That’s why I support Joe and his disregard for the will of his consituents. I mean, c’mon! Its not like we would stoop to calling people sore losers… where would that get us?”
Bonus Math Question: What is doublespeak squared?
August 10th, 2006 at 2:08 pmBlueDog49,
That is inaccurate. The 9/11 Commission reports that the Bush Administration was fully engaged on the issue of terrorism from very early one.
During the short transition, Rice and Hadley concentrated on staffing and organizing the NSC.163 … Generally aware that terrorism had changed since the first Bush administration, they paid particular attention to the question of how counterterrorism policy should be coordinated.
Rice and others recalled the President saying, “I’m tired of swatting at flies.”185 The President reportedly also said, “I’m tired of playing defense. I want to play offense. I want to take the fight to the terrorists.”186 President Bush explained to us that he had become impatient. He apparently had heard proposals for rolling back al Qaeda but felt that catching terrorists one by one or even cell by cell was not an approach likely to succeed in the long run. At the same time, he said, he understood that policy had to be developed slowly so that diplomacy and financial and military measures could mesh with one another.187
Hadley convened an informal Deputies Committee meeting on March 7, when some of the deputies had not yet been confirmed. For the first time, Clarke’s various proposals-for aid to the Northern Alliance and the Uzbeks and for Predator missions-went before the group that, in the Bush NSC, would do most of the policy work
At the meeting, the deputies endorsed covert aid to Uzbekistan. Regarding the Northern Alliance, they “agreed to make no major commitment at this time.” Washington would first consider options for aiding other anti-Taliban groups.191 Meanwhile, the administration would “initiate a comprehensive review of U.S. policy on Pakistan” and explore policy options on Afghanistan, “including the option of supporting regime change.”192
You are entitled to your own opinion, BlueDog. You are not entitled to your own facts.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:10 pmConservatives don’t change THEIR name in order to make people think they are something that they aren’t. Changing liberal to progressive is contradictory in and of itself. Elitist would have been better, but strictly when it comes to politics and government.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:12 pm#208
Conservatives don’t change THEIR name in order to make people think they are something that they aren’t. Changing liberal to progressive is contradictory in and of itself. Elitist would have been better, but strictly when it comes to politics and government.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:14 pmExley: “Have there been any successful 9/11-style terrorist strikes in the U.S. since 2001?â€
I’ve said it before. I’ve got my tiger whistle right here. I blow on it and no tigers appear. Its an amazing tool for keeping away tigers…
Or to use terminology that the right can more closely associate with, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:14 pm#211
Would it really have made a difference?
August 10th, 2006 at 2:14 pm[...] Cheney: Lieberman Loss ‘Disturbing’ Because al Qaeda Is ‘Betting They Can Break The Will of The American People’. Cheney said that to “purge a man like Joe Lieberman†was “of concern, especially over the issue of Joe’s support with respect to national efforts in the global war on terror.†[...]
August 10th, 2006 at 2:17 pmYou are entitled to your own opinion, BlueDog. You are not entitled to your own facts.
That’s right BlueDog. Only the Bush Administration is entitled to its own facts.
Of course that August PDB did manage to escape the attention of our eagle-eyed Defenders of Freedom who were on the case from Day One, so that didn’t qualify as a fact.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:17 pmsomeone should take a giant condom, slide it over The VP’s head & torso and loudly say “there you go a real DIck!
August 10th, 2006 at 2:17 pm#215
Many here think that we should concentrate ALL of our anti-terrorism efforts on finding and killing ONE man. Of course we should be able to concentrate on more the than on man/organization at time, but the “progressives” seem to think that “one at a time” is a winning strategy.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:18 pm[...] read more | digg story [link] [...]
August 10th, 2006 at 2:18 pm“They also went to Texas to meet with Tom Delay!â€
That’s in not true though. I guess you are trying to be funny.
Comment by Tracy — August 10, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
“A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company’s headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.†“Taleban in Texas for talks on Gas Pipeline,†BBC News, December 4, 1997 (Sugarland (Tom Delays home district) is 22 miles outside of Houston.)
August 10th, 2006 at 2:19 pmInvisible Fist…Thank you. But I was not singling out TripMaster. There have been others who have far more dismissive and insubstantial, like Horseman, Cyra Brown, and Uncle Sam, who in response to all the info provided, simply said “These links proves nothing” and “I don’t believe this information” respectively…Fine. But WHY do you think these large number of links from various sources prove nothing and WHY don’t you believe it? What is your evidence? What is the source of your disbelief? They provide nothing.
I mean, look at this post by me and the juvenile and insubstantial response to this posting from “Cyra Brown:”
#176: “In March 1998, after bin Laden’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq Intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden.â€
Report of the 9/11 Commission
Comment by exley — August 10, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
#176- exley- You poor thing.
Comment by Cyra Brown — August 10, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
That’s quite a comeback by CB, isn’t it? Chock full of facts, citations, and analysis.
There are many people here who debate substantively — Wayne Schneider, Gregor Samsa, Juan C, Krazny and others. But the comments of most others are very shallow and lack elucidation.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:25 pmNed Lamont’s a millionaire!
A traitor to his class!
But I thought we didn’t have such nasty Marxist things as classes in these here United States.
Whatever…
August 10th, 2006 at 2:26 pm” …Have there been any successful 9/11-style terrorist strikes in the U.S. since 2001?”
No, there haven’t been any successful 9/11-style terrorist strikes in the U.S. for 5 years. This is a record unbroken since the 5 years before 9/11. In case some people here are unimpressed, they should look at it from some other Republican angles.
“No terrorist attacks since the last one!” reenforces our confidence in the Republicans on national security. Or,
“Bush: For a Generally Safe America”
“No catastrophic terrorist attacks in the U.S. since the first year in office.” demonstrates why we should feel secure under Bush.
“The first 8 months under ANY administration are rough. Give the guy a break.” tells us that, truly, the adults are in charge.
“In 2001, Al Gore probably would have done just as bad.”
“If Al Gore had been President, the hijackers in the 4th plane would definately have hit their target.”
“Yes, we were in charge, but that’s not the same as saying it’s our fault, now is it?”
To what do I attribute the lack of terrorist attacks since 9/11? Possibly the same reasons that there weren’t any attacks in the months prior to 9/11. But, if we say Bush is responsible for the lack of terrorist attacks since 9/11, then why shouldn’t we hold him responsible for the attacks on 9/11? No attacks since then? Of course that’s a good thing, but even if it IS due to the Administration’s efforts, it only means that recently Bush has been doing WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING ALL ALONG.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:26 pmIf a Democrat had been president on that day, his head would be on display in Ken Mehlman’s office. Why is the party of national security willing to let 9/11 go as a fluke, except that one of its own was President at the time?
The only disturbing thing here is that Cheney, Bush, and Co. are not in jail.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:29 pmExley is just cutting and pasting without reading. None of what the troll links to backs up his statement.
Exley is just mindless trash being used against his country.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:29 pm.
Tracy – Now that you know that your boy Tom Delay and many Current Bush administration officials were actually in bed with the terrorists prior to 911 – I guess you will take back everything that you have said to date and come over to the true American Party… The Democrats.
It’s all right to admit you were wrong… we won’t look down on you… we have accepted many of your kind since the last election… be a good lad now and face reality… it’s rather liberating you know:)
August 10th, 2006 at 2:31 pmRepublican Jewish Coalition Launches Ad Campaign on Lieberman Loss
August 10th, 2006 at 2:32 pmhttp://www.rjchq.org/news.asp?FormMode=Detail&id=1128
Someone might want to tell Exley that Iraq wasn’t even on the US govt’s list of countries that sponsored terrorist groups until AFTER the push to invade Iraq began. It’s like the lies about WMD. It’s like arguing with a creationist.
Pathetic.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:33 pm.
#217
“The thug was killing too many Shiites and al Qaeda wanted him gone. They turned him over.”
Yes I am sure people in Iraq got their orders from bin Laden to squeel on al Zarqawi because he was cutting in on their action and/or made a decision that he was actually hurting their cause. However, please explain how killing bin Laden is going to weaken al Qaeda anymore or less than killing al Zarqawi weakened his organization or others that STILL carry out daily suicide missions in Iraq? I am not saying that we shouldn’t still hunt for bin Laden but al Qaeda is not going to dissolve if he or his side kick Ayman al-Zawahiri (the true mastermind in al Qaeda BTW) is killed.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:35 pmIt’s like arguing with a creationist.
I resent that invidious comparison.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:35 pm“If you don’t let me shovel every last cent out of the treasury and into my bank account, it will embolden our enemies.”
August 10th, 2006 at 2:36 pmI’m Sorry. If I’d known, I would have spent more time ignoring NSA warnings about Osama Bin laden and less time voting for Lamont.
This Administration has to do a better job of explaining the consequences of our actions before they happen. Then we could have avoided the 9/11 attacks (I was busy working on a Habitat for Humanity House), or kept the levees from breaking in New Orleans (I was frittering my day away at a Breast cancer Walk-athon), and if I hadn’t wasted all that effort campaigning for Democrats the whole Iraq “problems” would have been over in less than six months and would have only cost a few hundred million dollars, and the Iraqis would have paid it all back with the oil they’d sell us at $45 a barrel.
To quote the great philosopher Homer:
“Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.”
Simpson, that is.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:37 pm#242
As far as any of us know the Saudi GOVERNMENT didn’t give money to al Qaeda.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:40 pmAmerica Struggles With Its Own Evangelical Taliban
by Pierre Tristam
At this late stage of the Bush rapture, American evangelism is a lot like the Exxon Valdez: Massive, sloshing with oily energy and not a little drunk on its power as it steers through hazards of its own designs. The moment evangelicals began tearing down the church-state wall, the rubble became their shoals. The wreck will be ugly. It will take years to mend because, as one of their own, Minnesota’s Rev. Gregory Boyd, recently put it: “Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn’t bloody and barbaric. That’s why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state.” Meanwhile, too much damage is being done by policies keyed to the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” not to have lasting consequences abroad and at home.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:42 pmExley,
In a 7 month timeframe prior to 9/11, both Colin Powell and Condi Rice said that Iraq was not a threat.
On 9/12, Bush and Rumsfeld were just itching to invade Iraq. This from Richard Clarke, who you referenced in an earlier post to make a point you were presenting.
Source.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:42 pmSomebody want to tell Tracy what form of government of the “Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” has? This should be good.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:43 pm.
#247
The false point was made the two al Qaeda operatives went to Texas….which is false. You do know the difference between al Qaeda and the Taliban don’t you?
August 10th, 2006 at 2:44 pm#266 Exley is just mindless trash being used against his country.
Heh! Now THERE is the kind of intelligent, substantive debate that I was talking about!
Well done, Grand Moff Texan! A truly intelligent and well-thought out response!
Heh!
August 10th, 2006 at 2:44 pmWhat else don’t you know, Tracy?
Uh, that people smarter than her (which isn’t saying much) are just using her against her country?
Weak link.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:44 pm.
But WHY do you think these large number of links from various sources prove nothing and WHY don’t you believe it? What is your evidence? What is the source of your disbelief? They provide nothing.
Comment by exley — August 10, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
Exley – My poor foolish boy… the debate over links between Al Qeada and Iraq was settled years ago.
The 911 commission (whose report you seem to like to reference) concluded no cooperative links between the two… so did the Republican majority Senate Intelligence Committee, and the Army War College.
No reputable study that was privy to all the facts as these three sources were has concluded otherwise!
So there you have it… that is why no one takes your comments seriously.
Come up with something new or accept the old yet still relevant conclusions!
August 10th, 2006 at 2:45 pmHeh! Now THERE is the kind of intelligent, substantive debate that I was talking about!
“Debate”? We already had this debate three years ago, you lost. What’s the matter, were you traumatized by your loss? Trying to pretend you didn’t get taken?
This is why you’re just shit on my shoe, so excuse me for treating you like what you are.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:46 pm.
Thousands of people are dead because people like Tracy and Exley are stupid and easy to use against their country.
Why do we allow these inferior people to live and breed among us? You are inferior and a demonstrable threat to America.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:50 pm.
Aw, where’d you go, Exley? Come back and get some more!
Bitch-slapping is the only thing you’re good for. The Republicans just used you and threw you away, so we have to find another use for you.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:51 pm.
these freaks are planning their next false flag op this weekend . cheney has 16 % approval according to polls , i seriously doubt you could find 16 people including his relatives who approve of him much less 16 %
August 10th, 2006 at 2:53 pmThe false point was made the two al Qaeda operatives went to Texas….which is false. You do know the difference between al Qaeda and the Taliban don’t you?
Comment by Tracy — August 10, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
Sorry Tracy… I guess I don’t know the difference?
Maybe you can help me out here?
Is the Taliban the good guys and Al Qaeda the bad guys?
Should we welcome members of the Taliban with open arms… allowing them to move freely about America?
I honestly don’t know the difference so if you could… please enlighten me.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:53 pmAs usual, BlueDog, you did not present any link or citation to your claims about the Hart-Rudman Commission so I had to do some checking for myself (Please be kind enough to provide links and/or quotes in the future, as I do).
You are correct that the new Bush administration did want to conduct its own terrorism policy review upon coming into office (as any new administration would) and did charge VP Cheney with this task.
Now, what would have happened had the administration immediately and unquestioningly took all the Hart-Rudman Commission’s findings and recommendations and immediately implemented them????
Let’s ask former Sens. Hart and Rudman:
“We predicted it” | 1, 2, 3
On April 3, before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Terrorism and Technology, Hart sounded a call of alarm, saying that an “urgent” need existed for a new national security strategy, with an emphasis on intelligence gathering.
“Good intelligence is the key to preventing attacks on the homeland,” Hart said, arguing that the commission “urges that homeland security become one of the intelligence community’s most important missions.” The nation needed to embrace “homeland security as a primary national security mission.” The Defense Department, for instance, “has placed its highest priority on preparing for major theater war” where it “should pay far more attention to the homeland security mission.” Homeland security would be the main purpose of beefed-up National Guard units throughout the country.
——————————————————————————–
Print story
E-mail story
——————————————————————————–
A new strategy, new organizations like the National Homeland Security Agency — which would pointedly “not be heavily centered in the Washington, D.C. area” — would be formed to fulfill this mission, as well with the fallout should that mission fail. As the U.S. is now, the Phase III report stated, “its structures and strategies are fragmented and inadequate.” Diplomacy was to be refocused on intelligence sharing about terrorist groups. Allies were to have their military, intelligence and law enforcement agencies work more closely with ours. Border security was to be beefed up.
More resources needed to be devoted to the new mission. “The Customs Service, the Border Patrol, and the Coast Guard are all on the verge of being overwhelmed by the mismatch between their growing duties and their mostly static resources,” the report stated. Intelligence needed to focus not only on electronic surveillance but a renewed emphasis on human surveillance — informants and spies — “especially on terrorist groups covertly supported by states.” As the threat was imminent, Congress and the president were urged to “start right away on implementing the recommendations put forth here.”
Congress seemed interested in enacting many of the commission’s recommendations. “We had a very good response from the Hill,” Rudman says.
In March, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, introduced the National Homeland Security Agency Act. Other members of Congress — Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md., John Kyl, R-Ariz., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. — talked about the issue, and these three and others began drafting legislation to enact some of the recommendations into law.
But in May, Bush announced his plan almost as if the Hart-Rudman Commission never existed, as if it hadn’t spent millions of dollars, “consulting with experts, visiting 25 countries worldwide, really deliberating long and hard,” as Hart describes it. Bush said in a statement that “numerous federal departments and agencies have programs to deal with the consequences of a potential use of a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapon in the United States. But to maximize their effectiveness, these efforts need to be seamlessly integrated, harmonious and comprehensive.” That, according to the president, should be done through FEMA, headed by Allbaugh, formerly Bush’s gubernatorial chief of staff.
Bush also directed Cheney — a man with a full plate, including supervision of the administration’s energy plans and its dealings with Congress — to supervise the development of a national counter-terrorism plan. Bush announced that Cheney and Allbaugh would review the issues and have recommendations for him by Oct. 1. The commission’s report was seemingly put on the shelf.
Just last Thursday, Hart spoke with Rice again. “I told her that I and the others on the commission would do whatever we could to work with the vice president to move on this,” Hart said. “She said she would pass on the message.”
On Tuesday, Hart says he spent much of his time on the phone with the commission’s executive director, Gen. Charles G. Boyd. “We agreed the thing we should not do is say, ‘We told you so,’” Hart says. “And that’s not what I’m trying to do here. Our focus needs to be: What do we do now?”
Of course, as a former senator, Hart well knows what happens to the recommendations of blue-chip panels. But he says he thought that the gravity of the issue — and the comprehensiveness of the commission’s task — would prevent its reports from being ignored. After all, when then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen signed the charter for the 21st Century National Security Strategy Study, he charged its members to engage in “the most comprehensive security analysis” since the groundbreaking National Security Act of 1947, which created the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Office of Secretary of Defense, among other organizations.
Neither Hart nor Rudman claim that their recommendations, if enacted, would have necessarily prevented Tuesday’s tragedy. “Had they adopted every recommendation we had put forward at that time I don’t think it would have changed what happened,” Rudman says. “There wasn’t enough time to enact everything. But certainly I would hope they pay more attention now.”
“Could this have been prevented?” Hart asks. “The answer is, ‘We’ll never know.’ Possibly not.” It was a struggle to convince President Clinton of the need for such a commission, Hart says. He urged Clinton to address this problem in ‘94 and ‘95, but Clinton didn’t act until 1998, prompted by politics. “He saw Gingrich was about to do it, so he moved to collaborate,” Hart says. “Seven years had gone by since the end of the Cold War. It could have been much sooner.”
August 10th, 2006 at 2:54 pmhttp://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/index2.html
#284, You are quite incorrect. I would refer you to the 9/11 Commission Report, as well as the other information I provided. The links and contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda were substantial. I will wait as you review the information provided. You may also find the full 9/11 Commission Report on-line for your review.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:57 pmLet’s see, the reason we are in Iraq, or at least this month’s reason, is to bring democracy to the people of Iraq. Thousands of American soldiers have been killed in doing so. Democracy took place in Connecticut the other day, yet Lieberman, Cheney and the Bush machine rather than accepting the choice of the people of Connecticut, decide that the people were wrong, so Joe’s going to run in November as an Independent and the neo-cons are going to support him.
Does anyone seen the irony in this?
So when does Dubya send the troops to Connecticut to bring the Republican version of democracy to Connecticut?
Of course, the Republicans are in their glory thanks to today’s terror alert, now they can use this and Lieberman’s loss to push the whole “Democrats want to coddle our enemies” bulls**t.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:58 pm#289″… i seriously doubt you could find 16 people including his relatives who approve of him much less 16 %…”
I have it on the best authority that each and every one of Dick Cheney’s relatives give him a 16% approval rating. His mom gives him as much as 19%, sometimes.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:59 pmMy God, these people are EVIL!!!
August 10th, 2006 at 3:00 pm#261- exley- Actually, my comment reflected my feelings about all of your posts. I was not opining on the specific contents of any of them, that would require reading all of them. I just hate to see you being used like you are. It is getting really sad to see. That’s all. Sorry to have upset you.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:00 pm#292, Yes, that was an error. I only meant to cut and paste the bolded section. Maybe the TP administrator can cut it down.
But yes, if you read the bolded text, you will see it utterly undermines your intimation that the Bush administration’s alleged lack of attention to the terrorism issue in its first seven months in office led to 9/11 (A point made by the 9/11 Commission, as well).
August 10th, 2006 at 3:01 pmYou are correct that the new Bush administration did want to conduct its own terrorism policy review upon coming into office (as any new administration would) and did charge VP Cheney with this task.
The Cheney group never met before 9/11. It replaced the previous apparatus, but then did nothing. Hence: 9/11.
I’m sorry, you were saying? You always post huge chunks of other people’s writings when you get into a bind (like you are now), but you don’t seem to read any of it.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:01 pm.
#258
“Evidently “compassionate conservative†doesn’t count as a name change.”
Not really when you are only adding an adjective and not trying to change the entire meaning.
“The other side thinks Paris Hilton should give a little back to society for the good of everyone. Which side is “elitist?—
Liberals, because they think they know better that by taking that money, putting it into some social program would make a less fortunate’s life better. Wouldn’t it be less “elitist” for them to take that money and give it back to the people in the form of a tax cut? This is why I limited their elitism to politics and government.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:01 pmUh… “last throes,” anyone?
BTW, GWSC (#259), THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU for the bitchslap on Tracy about the Taliban in Texas. Being an actual Texan (unlike ol’ Howdy Doody Connecticut-born preznit Cokehead), I remember when Taliban representatives were invited to Texas “to establish better relationships.” Ol’ Cokie sure let them in without protest to get cozy with his oil buddies. Then after September 11thâ„¢, when it became a little too obvious that the Taliban were “cold-blooded killers,”â„¢ oh, then Cokie had to pretend like he knew any of this “world politics” stuff all along. That’s what you get when stupid, totally ignorant Repugnantcans insist on putting an alcoholic spoiled bitch into the White House by any means necessary simply because of his last name. Do any of you GOP pussies know anything about the Texas political structure? Of course you don’t. Even though employment histories are researched and verified for anyone else seeking any job, you pussies just started wanking off at the sound of his name alone. Let me spell it out for you: the Texas governorship is one of the absolute weakest (in power) offices in the entire nation. Virtually no power, no responsibilities. The most power and responsibility is concentrated in the Texas Legislature and the Lieutenant Governor. Why? Because of historical instances of corruption in the governor’s office (how ironic). So what does this mean? You laughable pathetic pussies worshipped this pathetic bitch as such a “leader,” when there are literally more city dog catchers in this state with more political experience than Cokie. It’s not much of a stretch to say that all Dipshit Dubya did as governor as Texas was SIGN bills (NOT initiate, NOT debate, NOT write) that were already completely finished (process-wise), and gleefully deny clemency appeals. That’s it. Period. End of story. So the global clusterfu¢k otherwise known as the global state of affairs that exists today is what happens when you put an absolute incompetent, ignorant, inexperienced spoiled bitch in the White House when he has no idea what he’s supposed to do.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:03 pmBTW, I’ll nip all of you predictable douchebag trolls in the bud: I’m a lifelong Republican (and I’m still registered as such), and I’ve never voted for a Democrat. I skipped over the last two national elections because I knew that Cokie’s Croniesâ„¢ would, yes, STEAL their way into office; I refused to vote for a Democrat; and there’s no way in Hell that I would vote for that incompetent lying $hitbag Duh-Buh-Yuh. So fu¢k you Repugantcans. Blame “lefties” and “libruls” all you want; the disgrace bearing the name of the GOP today is purely the result of political leg-humpers like yourself. And do you have any fu¢king idea of how idiotic you sound when you STILL constantly bring up Clinton? HE’S BEEN OUT OF OFFICE OVER FIVE FU¢KING YEARS! CHRIST, YOU ARE PATHETIC!
Those are a lot of words, Exley. Do any of them contradict anything I posted? No.
Comment by Bluedog49
As usual.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:03 pm.
#299 Cyra, No apologies necessary. You didn’t upset me. Rather, you amused me. Your posting was so emblematic of the type of insubstantial, shallow, factually-deficient postings I see so often on this site that I highlighted it for the rest of the group to share a chuckle.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:03 pmI can see it now, inside the Whitehouse briefing room Rove and the gang figuring out what to do re the Liberman defeat. Rove- “We need somebody high level to say that the vote for Lamont is proof that democrats capitulate to terrorists.” Rove flunky- ” Cheney will say it. He’ll say anything. He still wants to talk about weapons of mass destruction.” Rove- “Ok get Cheney to say it. But for Christ’s sake tell him to shut up for now about weapons of mass destruction. We need to save that for October when we send troops to Lebanon. Then he can say that Hezbollah has weapons of mass destruction.”
August 10th, 2006 at 3:04 pmWouldn’t it be less “elitist†for them to take that money and give it back to the people in the form of a tax cut?
Apparently, Tracy has never heard of economies of scale. This makes it easy to get her to vote against her own interests.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:04 pm.
#
Conservatives don’t change THEIR name in order to make people think they are something that they aren’t. Changing liberal to progressive is contradictory in and of itself. Elitist would have been better, but strictly when it comes to politics and government.
Comment by Tracy — August 10, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
“When you label me, you limit me.” Kirkegaard
It appears to me that those you appear to represent are hung up on labeling (and there by limiting and/or demonizing) those they disagree with. Try discussing issues instead of distracting with arbitrary tems. Food for thought.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:04 pmQuit jumping on the VP. His comments are reasonable.
Clearly, Al Q has been completely ineffective during the 18 years of Liberman’s tenure, so of course Bin Laden was hoping, praying, for a Lamont victory. Now that Joe is out of the way, Al Q can finally organize itself and attack targets, rather than just talking about it.
Joe was out there, every day, foiling OBL’s plans, personally. He often removed fuses from bombs, charged into terrorist camps with guns blazing, destroying dozens of terrorists in training.
Of course, all of this was top secret and Joe was unable to discuss it during the campaign. But DC knew. He knows a lot of things you pathetic left wing commies don’t have a clue about. So just shut up and enjoy the ride.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:05 pm#298…Jim, I don’t think that’s fair. I don’t believe the liberal posters on this site are “evil.” They are just naive, confused, and a tad ignorant of the facts.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:05 pmemblematic of the type of insubstantial, shallow, factually-deficient postings
Why bother? We have plenty of your own. CTRL-V until the cows come home, it can’t hide your vacuousness.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:06 pm.
Can you say ‘duplicitous, lying bastard’?
August 10th, 2006 at 3:08 pmFolks, you don’t understand! Cheney is making perfect sense here. He understands that if we’re going to be exporting democracy to the rest of the world, obviously we’re going to end up having less to go around over here! We have to conserve democracy and only vote when it is absolutely necessary to keep the Reich wing in power.
That is why the Bush administration is proud to announce the “Democracy Conversation Movement”, a series of initiatives designed to eliminate precious elections and other aspects of the democratic process here in the United States, so that they may be shipped overseas and put to better use. The movement is primarily in the planning and testing stages now, but look for it to be fully implemented by Fall 2008!
August 10th, 2006 at 3:09 pmDick Cheney and his co-president Jorge Bush are stark raving mad!
Cheney is so relieved after pulling off 911 that Americans didn’t revolt and kill him, his pig heart fluttered and gave him a blood clot in the brain. Causing his massive right-wing beyond evangelical thought processes of a New World Order.
Then their is Bush who now speaks only through the Snowjob. This guy is marching America to a New World Order with his Free Trade Agreements, pushing a North American Government with no Mexico or Canadian border, and Super Nafta highways.
What is in it for you? If you are not the ultra rich and their idea of the elite, then you are on your own, as in Katrina. As in Lebanon.
These sub-humans simply do not care about humanity. The NeoCon manifesto: Seek maximum profit for the elite no matter who dies.
Whooliebacon
August 10th, 2006 at 3:10 pmTracy, are you really Ann Coulter? Your commentaries read just like her ridiculous prose. In this, the information age, it is somewhat ironic to me that gasbags like yourself use the oldest tricks in the book in an attempt to win points. Liberals? Conservatives? Are you joking? This has to do with the future of the nation, which currently has been hijacked by neo-cons. Ask John McCain. Pathetic that he has decided to warm up to this slime in an effort to win support of the entire party.
What have you to say about Galloway’s comments? What about the connection between the Bush and bin Laden families? Stick to the issues that are specific to THIS administration instead of being an apologist. This has nothing to do with Clinton, and has everything to do with the three headed dog of political incompetence, greed and power lust.
There is no doubt—this is the worst administration in modern American history. How long will it be before you wake up, smell the napalm and abandon ship?
August 10th, 2006 at 3:13 pm#305- exley- Whatever you say.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:15 pm#
#247
The false point was made the two al Qaeda operatives went to Texas….which is false. You do know the difference between al Qaeda and the Taliban don’t you?
Comment by Tracy — August 10, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
Prince Abdullah’s entourage included somone listed on the “terrorist no-fly list” during his last visit. So stop pretending Saudi Arabia is beyond reproach and suspicion. Borders and nationality mean little to those where family, tribe, and ethnicity have been represented the border for milennia…
August 10th, 2006 at 3:16 pmAnd, why on earth should anyone supply a link to you, Exley. You’ve proven that you don’t accept the most basic facts about this administration and it’s non-progress against terrorism. I provide links when I like the person I’m engaging, for their benefit. I don’t like you
How very immature of you, BlueDog. Supplying a link would help bolster your case. However, as clearly evidenced by the fact that I have taken you to the proverbial cleaners today with my rather impressive and unassailable listing of documents, cites, links, and other evidence, you have no case to bolster. I imagine that is why you “don’t like” me (By the way, I’m crushed!); because I have exposed the flaws and lack of factual basis for your rather discredited world-view. Right now, you find it hard to accept that you have been wrong all this time and you naturally resent the person who showed you that you are wrong (namely, me)…Like I said, it is a natural feeling. I don’t mind it. Indeed, I feel great satisfaction at knowing that I have opened your eyes and that in the coming weeks, months, and years, you will mature and learn to coverse in a civil tone and that the world is how it is, not how you wish it to be.
I wish you luck in your journey of discovery, junior.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:16 pmDamn SteveSOD that’s some rant!
I too am from Texas and can confirm everything that you have said. The governor is an impotent figurehead (kinda like the Queen of England)… I guess we should have explained that to the rest of the country before we put monkey boy out as a presidential candidate?
August 10th, 2006 at 3:17 pmExley,
Take a deep breath, sit back, relax… exhale… think happy thoughts… relaxed? yes? ok…
Let’s agree the 9/11 Commission Report is a valid source. You have your reasons to not like it, I have mine, but we can agree it’s the best (albeit imperfect) document we have so far.
With that in mind, all the excerpts you took out of it seem to show that Hussein was an AlQaeda enabler, and held talks with members of that organisation. But far more important is what’s missing: An instance of Hussein’s regime actively involved in activities that would have led, or led to the damage of US interest abroad, or -more fatally- the 9/11 attacks. I bring up this fact because it was an essential component for the invasion of Iraq.
In that sense, the 2006 article you mention does not contradict the 9/11 report. In fact, it adds to it. To wit: The main rationale for the invasion has been proven wrong, non-factual, and flat out misleading (Hussein-AlQaeda-9/11 link, WMD). I think we can agree on this.
Now stay with me on this one: Staying in Iraq, bogged down in a conflict with no end in sight, hemorraging the military, the treasury, without capturing the masterminds of 9/11, makes AlQaeda afraid of the US exactly how?
If you think dropping 500lbs cluster bombs on the wrong target will make a terrorist organisation fear the US, you’d be sorely wrong. Say what you will about AlQaeda, they are not stupid. The US has its hands full in Iraq, don’t you think AlQaeda has noticed?
I would contend that this is exactly “playing into the hands of the terrorists”: Allowing them to get the US distracted in a country where they are not. AlZarqawi moved into Iraq after the invasion, not before. It has been repeatedly pointed out how it is Pakistan the country to offer safe haven to both the Taliban and AlQaeda.
Do you think have escaped the leaders of AlQaeda? Don’t you think it would be wiser to move to a position of strength (wherever it is, it’s not in Iraq) and start actively targetting AlQaeda, shifting resources towards that end?
August 10th, 2006 at 3:18 pmExley keeps asking for links, nevermind that his don’t prove his point. It’s just an extended case of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Like I said, it’s like arguing with a creationist. They just can’t get over the fact that they lost and want to pretend that the jury’s still out.
Sad, really.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:19 pm.
#
#147
“…then it looks like the UK is winning without putting 130,000 troops in a country unrelated to any who attacked us.â€
The British has a rather large number of troops in Iraq. If I am not mistaken today it’s over 10,000….about all they can as a military muster.
Comment by Tracy — August 10, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
LOL – and you being the (foreign) military policy expert you are… So tell me how the rest of the British Army is distrubuted around the world? I mean, there’s only 100,000+ listed…
August 10th, 2006 at 3:20 pm#268
Again, the Taliban representatives is not the same thing as al Qaeda operatives.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:21 pmOh, TripMaster…You disappoint me so. I had been under the impression that you were a reasonable liberal with whom I could disagree but hold a reasonable discussion. Are you a “The U.S. government (or Israel) carried out 9/11″ conspiracy believers?
By the way, from where have pulled this “blockbuster” revelations? You provide no citation.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:22 pmLOL exley, You were given testimony from George Galloway, which you ignored. Let me guess, like Richard Clarke, he has some axe to grind, too, correct? So did Paul O’Neill. There are myriad more, all deserving of the Valerie Plame treatment, right?
You are a hypnotized mouthpiece, sir.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:24 pm43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds — testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).
Sible is MORE THAN WILLING to talk. She has been GAGGED by our JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:25 pmCheney slithers out of his bunker long enough to deliver some crackpot spin worthy of a patient at Bellevue. After no doubt catching up on his Stalin, Cheney, his glasses surely misting over at that moment, hisses that Lieberman was “purged.” This from the man who wants to junk the Geneva Convention and revisit the Grand Inquisition. Using the same turning-in-circles logic that has gone over so well in Iraq, he goes on to suggest that democrats can’t be trusted to vote for the ‘right’ person without sending those Al-Qaeda types the message that Americans are weak. Again, this from the man whose ‘weak’ knowledge of the Middle East has paved the way for destabilization throughout the region and has turned Iraq into a charnel house. It’s just only now that I’m understanding why some people consider Cheney “scary.”
August 10th, 2006 at 3:27 pmLOL exley, You were given testimony from George Galloway, which you ignored. Let me guess, like Richard Clarke, he has some axe to grind, too, correct? So did Paul O’Neill. There are myriad more, all deserving of the Valerie Plame treatment, right?
You are a hypnotized mouthpiece, sir.
Comment by Horseman — August 10, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
Exley quoted Richard Clarke in an earlier post. I quoted him in #278 but have yet to get a response from ol’ Ex.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:27 pmThe Bush Administration will NOT be supporting Lieberman in the fall election. He’s a DEMOCRAT. He votes with his party over 90% of the time. They will obviously support the REPUBLICAN!!
August 10th, 2006 at 3:29 pmAgain, the Taliban representatives is not the same thing as al Qaeda operatives.
Comment by Tracy — August 10, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
I don’t disagree with you here… I simply asked if you – with all your wisdom – could explan to me how they are different.
What makes the Taliban okay and Al Qaeda not?
August 10th, 2006 at 3:29 pmExley quoted Richard Clarke in an earlier post. I quoted him in #278 but have yet to get a response from ol’ Ex.
Comment by WC
Exley is running from at least four authoritative refutations of his al Qaeda/Iraq connection conspiracy theory. This is why he’s turned to condescension. He’s got nothing.
A real dead-ender.
If that’s the conservatives’ argument these days then it’s no wonder that more Americans trust Democrats on national security.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:32 pm.
Gregor…First of all, thank God a mature and intelligent opponent has arrived! While it has beeb most amusing seeing BlueDog and Grand Moff Texan (By the way, “Grand Moff,” I think it is just so adorable that you gave yourself a name from “Star Wars!”) huff and puff in frustration at their inability to muster even the weakest of evidence or arguments that contradict the rather impressive bundle of evidence I have amassed and presented here today, it is far more enjoyable to discuss these matters with an individual who actually endeavors to present logical arguments.
Having said that, I respectfully disagree with the premise that the Al Qaeda-Saddam link has been shown to be false. As you yourself acknowledge, the evidence indicates Saddam was an Al Qaeda-enabler. In my opinion, that alone was sufficient to justify the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime. As Richard Clarke himself (no fan of the Bush administration) indicated while working for the Clinton administration, if Al Qaeda and OBL were uprooted from Afghanistan, they would most likely re-locate to Iraq, where Saddam had offered Bin Laden asylum. For me, the most important objective of deposing Saddam was to deny Bin Laden and Al Qaeda another sanctuary.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:32 pmSpoken like a true neo-conservative fascist: “WE are the ONLY ones who can PROTECT you.”
August 10th, 2006 at 3:33 pmGrand Moff, I would rather trust the local school crossing guard than trust Dub-ya and the gang. At least I know she’d do what was right.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:34 pmI do not believe anything anyone is saying if there are no supporting links. I use this argument to help protect me from the fact that I have no supporting research, and the references I use are simple cut-and-pastes I may or may not have manipulated. You cannot tell though, because I do not use any links in my own arguments, thus fulfilling the Neo-Con trifecta:
Ignorance
Plagiarism
Hipocrisy
I am secure with the triangle of denial. None can penetrate my defenses. My arguments are ironclad, and as such cannot be examined…
Liberal fools…
August 10th, 2006 at 3:34 pmhuff and puff in frustration at their inability to muster even the weakest of evidence…
Like I said: argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Exley has no evidence, but he wants US to produce evidence of there being no evidence. See? That’s why it’s a logical fallacy.
And that’s why Exley is an idiot.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:36 pm.
Sorry to bust some W apologist’s bubble here, but there was another terrorist attack on US soil after 9-11, remember the anthrax sent through the mail?
Two died as a result
Looks like “fighting them over there so we don’t fight them here” was a bunch of BS even before we left to “fight them over there”
The conservatards always like to play the “personal accountability” card, well at least as long as it’s applied to others and not themselves anyways, but now we’ve come full circle
Usama bin Laden gives the go ahead for the worst terrorist strike in history, and at least one W lackey is reduced to bleating “well, getting one guy won’t make any difference” in terms of stopping terrorism
Try telling that to those who lost family & friends on September 11, Tracy
You DO remember what happened on September 11, don’t you?
You DO remember who gave the go ahead for the deadliest terrorist strike in history, don’t you?
Of course, it doesn’t matter if anyone other than W remembers September 11, seeing as how W decided that the best way to stave off another al-Qaeda attack was to shut down the CIA unit devoted to catching/killing Usama bin Laden
Now there’s an interesting question for some good reporter to ask the President, “Do you believe al-Qaeda is still a threat to the US, and if so, how do you convince the US public that stopping another al-Qaeda attack is your top priority when you shut down the CIA unit devoted to catching or killing Usama bin Laden?”
Even better, ask the US public if it thinks shutting down the CIA unit devoted to catching or killing Usama bin Laden makes the US safer from another al-Qaeda attack
Leave it to the trolls to so blindly adore anything W says that one day the message is “bin Laden, dead or alive”, the next, “I just don’t spend that much time thinking about him”
Thankfully, the W supporters do NOT represent the political or social mainstream in this country, as No-mentum found out earlier this week
August 10th, 2006 at 3:37 pmAs Richard Clarke himself (no fan of the Bush administration) indicated while working for the Clinton administration, if Al Qaeda and OBL were uprooted from Afghanistan, they would most likely re-locate to Iraq …
You’ve obviously never read the actual quote. The language makes it perfectly clear that Clarke was being facetious.
Speculation about where OBL might go cannot justify the invasion.
Again: you lose.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:38 pm.
Galloway link—please read it and try to comprehend. Sorry, he speaks on more than just the 8th grade level we see coming out of D.C. these days….
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0517-35.htm
August 10th, 2006 at 3:39 pm#278, WC…A couple of points:
Assuming Clarke’s recount is correct:
I think most people would agree that is perfectly understanable that less than one day after the 9/11 atrocity, the President of the United States would demand that his staff investigate every possible scenario and perpetrator of the attack. This is especially true when there is a country out there with proven links to Al Qaeda (as Richard Clarke himself ackowledged while with the Clinton Administration) with whom the U.S. has had an on-going military and diplomatic confrontation over the previous decade. There were millions upon millions of people on 9/11 and shortly thereafter who were openly wondering if Saddam had a hand in the attack. Such questions were only natural given Saddam’s links with Al Qaeda and the adversarial relationship between the U.S. and Iraq.
As for Clarke himself, his post-Bush administration tales are subject to serious question. As the 9/11 Commission reported (as well as contemporary news accounts), during his days with the Clinton administration, Clarke was convinced and believed that Saddam and Al Qaeda were working together.
It was only AFTER he left the Bush administration, began trying to sell his book, and after his best friend Rand Beers became candidate John Kerry’s NSA did Clarke do a complete 180 and start contradicting his own earlier statements that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked.
Now, I ask you: When would Clarke be more likely to be telling the truth: When he was an official during the Clinton administration working in a counter-terrorism capacity OR when, years later, he is trying to sell a book and angling to get his old job back with a Kerry administration and his good friend Rand Beers?
August 10th, 2006 at 3:44 pmhuff and puff in frustration at their inability to muster even the weakest of evidence or arguments that contradict the rather impressive bundle of evidence I have amassed and presented here today
Comment by exley — August 10, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
Exley – According to my count you have had your clock repeatedly cleaned by indisputable evidence that you simply refused to address.
Why don’t we all play like big boys and girls?
How about instead of pasting phonebooks into the thread you:
1) Make one point that your opponent will promise to respond to
2) They in turn they will make a single point of their own that you will promise to respond to
3) One last rule… If the point is indisputably true… then you must acknowledge this fact before you move on to making your own point.
Doesn’t this sound much more fair and productive?
You in Exley?
August 10th, 2006 at 3:46 pmThis from a UK Guardian article in 2003:
Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil
George Wright
Wednesday June 4, 2003
Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.
The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz – who has already undermined Tony Blair’s position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a “bureaucratic” excuse for war – has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is “swimming” in oil.
The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.
Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: “Let’s look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil.”
August 10th, 2006 at 3:48 pmNow, I ask you: When would Clarke be more likely to be telling the truth: When he was an official during the Clinton administration working in a counter-terrorism capacity OR when, years later, he is trying to sell a book and angling to get his old job back with a Kerry administration and his good friend Rand Beers?
Comment by exley — August 10, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
Explain to me why he wasn’t telling the truth both times… unless you’re saying Clarke has stated Al-Qaida was in Iraq… or don’t you have a direct link instead of a cut-n-paste? Remember, you can type the entire URL out if the “link feature isn’t working”…
And why would Richard Clarke reference himself in the third person in his “recount” you so helpfully posted sans links.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:50 pmThat tired, old line about the terrorists. Yeah, right. Sorry, that won’t work anymore. Americans have got this administration’s number. The more they rant and rave about terrorists and “breaking the will of the American people,” the more the American people will know exactly who the terrorists are and who is out to break the will of the American people — George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Rethuglican band of fools, every last one of them.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:55 pm#342, That is how I have always operated. I applaud your efforts to get others in line and have them discuss matters intelligently and maturely.
Let’s start with you:
According to my count you have had your clock repeatedly cleaned by indisputable evidence that you simply refused to address.
What is this “indisputable evidence” that I have allegedly “refused to address?”
And while you answer that, I would also ask you address the information I provided in postings # 144, 146, 156, 160, 163, 165, 169, 176, 178, 180, 246, 261, 291, and 333.
You may address those one at a time.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:57 pmProceed.
Idiot. More like you are trying to break the will and you see you all are LOSING ANY AND ALL POSSIBLE INFLUENCE WITH YOUR LIES AND FEAR TACTICS.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:58 pmIraq is a safe haven for terrorists. ?????
I think the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would disagree with that assertion, but he can’t since he’s dead.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:59 pmExley sez:
Oh, TripMaster…You disappoint me so.
I’m crushed. No, really.
I had been under the impression that you were a reasonable liberal with whom I could disagree but hold a reasonable discussion
I’d like to say the same about you, but I’d be lying. No matter…my goal here isn’t to convince you of the truth…only to prevent the more gullible readers here from being swayed by your poisonous lies.
Are you a “The U.S. government (or Israel) carried out 9/11″ conspiracy believers?
And there it is. Question the ‘official version of events’ too closely, and the government shills immediately lump you into the ‘conspiracy theorist’ barrel, whose other inhabitants range from those who merely believe that the government was complicit in the 9/11 tragedy to those who believe that the jets that impacted the WTC towers were gigantic holograms. It’s so much easier to debate your opponent after you’ve mangled his position, isn’t it, exley?
To answer your question, I’m a member of the 9/11 Tuth community. Most of us will readily admit that we’re not sure what happened on 9/11…but we’re absolutely certain that the administration’s ‘official version of events’ is a lie. One needs only to look at the facts to come to this conclusion.
By the way, from where have pulled this “blockbuster†revelations? You provide no citation.
Marvelous, Exley. You chide me for my refusal to accept the 9/11 commission report as gospel, characterizing my refusal as ‘I don’t believe it!’. But when I provide substantiation for my refusal, ‘I don’t believe it!’ is the first thing to escape your lips. Typical reichwingnut double standard.
As for your citation:here you go. Happy reading.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:59 pmNow this is the second time they want to refer to Osama Bin Laden as our policy. Who is President of this country, Bush, Cheney or Osaa bin Laden?
Mehlman: Osama Bin Laden dictates our Foreign Policy
I almost choked when I was watching Hardball lastnight (I promise, no pretzel) when Ken Mehlman stated we couldn’t leave Iraq, because that would create another 9 11. Then he let the cat out of the bag, that we apparently are following Osama Bin Laden’s guidelines to dictate our response.
Ken Mehlman said that Osama bin Laden stated by pulling out of Beirut, etc, he was able to pull off 9 11. Isn’t that astounding?
I’ve been trying to wait for MSNBC to put up the transcripts, but in light of this newest threat (and the increasing threats) I had to show how this policy is NOT WORKING and MSNBC ACCIDENTALLY duplicated the 1:00am transcripts instead of lastnights show. I’ve written to them twice, but they still have not corrected it. Please feel free to join in on emailing them to request the correct transcript for lastnights show so you too can be equally shocked. No doubt this answers the questions of why and how our foreign policy could be so inept.
viewerservices@msnbc.com
After all, Ken Mehlman wouldn’t even answer how he was going to run the upcoming elections, how much he was spending and where “because he didn’t want to disclose his strategy”. But heck, National Security, no problem, this administration follows the advice of Osama Bin Laden according to Ken Mehlman.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:00 pm#344 — “Explain to me why he wasn’t telling the truth both times”
Because his position now and what he was saying while with the Clinton Administration are diametrically opposed.
He now claims there was never evidence of any link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
But back in the 1990s when he was with the Clinton Administration, as reported by the 9/11 Commission (and I did provide that citation), Clarke most certainly believed there was a link. Moreover, there is this account:
Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear
that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible.He wrote Deputy
National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin
Ladin’s having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.†9/11 Commission Report
Additionally, in 1998 Clarke was quoted in The Washington Post, saying:
“intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.”
August 10th, 2006 at 4:06 pmLet me get this straight: quotes and links are requested to refute ridiculous factoids that defend a tyrant. They are provided, and then some. In true childlike-manner, the quotes and links are ignored, and the person making the request thumbs his nose and says, ‘nyah, nyah, I win.”
Wow, exley. Usually I have to go to the local bowling alley to find such intellect.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:06 pm347 – Exley – You have already broken the rules… one question only!
As far as the “indisputable evidence†that you have allegedly “refused to address goes – I will reference one of my old posts that you simply ignored:
Exley – My poor foolish boy… the debate over links between Al Qeada and Iraq was settled years ago.
The 911 commission (whose report you seem to like to reference) concluded no cooperative links between the two… so did the Republican majority Senate Intelligence Committee, and the Army War College.
No reputable study that was privy to all the facts as these three sources were has concluded otherwise!
So there you have it… that is why no one takes your comments seriously.
Come up with something new or accept the old yet still relevant conclusions!
Now to my question: what credible source do you know of that concluded that there were operational links between Al Quaeda and Iraq?
August 10th, 2006 at 4:11 pmArrgghhh, my post disappeared!
::sigh::
August 10th, 2006 at 4:14 pmI respectfully disagree with the premise that the Al Qaeda-Saddam link has been shown to be false.
Comment by exley — August 10, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
I was referring to the AlQaeda-Hussein-9/11 connection. That has been shown to be false. I will quote your article again: “This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. ”
Trying to prove that Hussein and AlQaeda had no contacts at all is, I think, next to impossible.
As you yourself acknowledge, the evidence indicates Saddam was an Al Qaeda-enabler. In my opinion, that alone was sufficient to justify the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime.
If that is reason enough to get caught in a costly occupation with no end in sight, I have to question the wisdom of that decision.
Also, several other countries has closer, nmore extensive ties to AlQaeda and Bin Laden. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, to name two.
As Richard Clarke himself [...] indicated [...] if Al Qaeda and OBL were uprooted from Afghanistan, they would most likely re-locate to Iraq, where Saddam had offered Bin Laden asylum.
Funny how this prediction did not come true. Bin Laden bolted to Paksitan instead. Logically, since his entourage has/had family, religious, linguistic, and ethnic ties there.
After the invasion, US forces surrounded Tora Bora, but failed to capture Bin Laden who slipped into Pakistan, along with the higher-ups of the Taliban.
A few months later, the US is preparing for an invasion of Iraq. Does this make sense?
For me, the most important objective of deposing Saddam was to deny Bin Laden and Al Qaeda another sanctuary.
Then you better get ready to invade a lot of countries in the MiddleEast, beginning with bin Laden’s home country: Saudi Arabia.
Bottom line is, the invasion of Iraq is not part of the “war on terror” if you look at it closely. It is a distraction. The wrong resources are being used in the wrong place.
Withdrawing from Iraq and refocusing those resources can only be an improvement.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:15 pmAs did mine, Gregor…
August 10th, 2006 at 4:16 pm[...] Please the entire article here. [...]
August 10th, 2006 at 4:16 pmTripMaster, Actually, if you read posts # 231 and 261, you’ll see I was not referring to you when I mentioned those posters who simply respond to citations from the 9/11 Commission and other pieces of evidence with a simple (and I do mean simple) “I don’t believe it!”
And I don’t see how asking you where you got your information is tantamount to me dismissing your points or saying “I don’t believe them.” Where did I say that? I always provide links or citations to my evidentiary postings. How can I respond to your points if I do not have an opportunity to read them?
August 10th, 2006 at 4:16 pmCLEARLY, huh Dick? Just like the Iraqis would clearly view us as liberators?
August 10th, 2006 at 4:18 pm# 342, Horseman,
Oh how I hate to do this (Actually, I don’t! I take great pleasure in this!)
You DO know The Guardian retracted that story and posted a correction two days later admitting Wolfowitz was misquoted???? You did know that, didn’t you?
Well, if you didn’t, it just shows that you do not keep up with events very well. If you did know it, your posting of a retraced article shows dishonesty on your part:
Here ya go:
Corrections and clarifications
Friday June 6, 2003
A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading “Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil” misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the Department of Defence website, “The … difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq.” The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,971436,00.html
We will accept your retraction now, Horseman.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:24 pm“The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war.”
The retraction was peppered with this comment, which I would believe to be rather troubling where the administration’s previously-stated rationale was concerned.
Sorry to burst your bubble, friend.
Now about the Galloway comments and Bin Laden tape….
August 10th, 2006 at 4:31 pmGregor…Thank you for a civil and THOUGHTFUL response:
1) The Bush administration was always quite clear in saying that there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11. What they DID say — and which has been validated over and over — is that there was evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked and had worked together….Again, to me, that is more than sufficient reason to depose Saddam’s regime.
2) Yes, OBL went to Pakistan right off the bat because it was right next door. But he cannot set up training camps and plan operations there with impunity as he was doing in Afghanistan and as he would have had he had the opportunity to go to Iraq. He is currently hiding in Pakistan. He would have been a guest with all types of resources and assistance available to him in Iraq. If Saddam’s regime had remained in place, he most likely would have gone to Iraq to take up Saddam’s offer of asylum.
3) (More of a philosophical question, I suppose — Think about that for a moment. Saddam Hussein offered this monster who would kill 3,000 innocent people on 9/11 safe haven! Can we really seriously argue that the world is not better off without a regime in power that would offer asylum and assistance to Osama Bin Laden???)
4) No one is more livid than me over reports that the U.S. plan was to use Afghan fighters at Tora Bora to get Bin Laden instead of U.S. forces and that resulted in OBL getting away…If that is true, it is unforgivably stupid. But we don’t know yet if that is accurate. Some say it is. Some say it isn’t (Like Gen. Tommy Franks)…So, all I can say at this point again is that if true, it is outrageous.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:35 pm“Snow said Bush first learned in detail about the plot on Friday, and received two detailed briefings on it on Saturday and Sunday, as well as had two conversations about it with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
But a senior White House official said that the British government had not launched its raid until well after Cheney held a highly unusual conference call with reporters to attack the Democrats as weak against terrorism.” -quote from an AFP story today.
It’s just a game to these clowns.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:35 pmif you think Pat robertson is nuts you just love what the muslims have in mind
Comment by return of reddog
If this terror crap was real then we have to get the Neo-cons out of power because they are incompetent.
If this terror crap is falseflag then we got to get the Neo-cons out of power because they are involved.
I will even hug a liberal Muslim to achieve this.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:36 pmExley,
Read James Bamford’s “Pretext for War.” Most of you points are false.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:37 pmExley – I am still waiting…
You said you wanted to debated like a big boy so where is it at?
I answered your questiion from 346 now it is your turn to answer mine from 353.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:38 pm#360….Horseman, a tortured and begrudging admission on your part that you were wrong, but an admission nonetheless. I accept your retraction.
Now, if you would be so kind as to reference with the posting numbers for your references to the criminal Galloway and the Bin Laden tape, I’d appreciate it. I have been peppered with a lot of questions and comments today which I have successfully addressed and some get lost in the deluge. If you could provide me with the numbers, I will respond (Although I can’t imagine that anything Saddam-collaborator Galloway has to say would be pertinent)
August 10th, 2006 at 4:39 pmexley, I will re-post the highlights momentarily.
JPottle, I was reminded of Bamford’s comments at Counterpunch.org recently along those lines:
“Bamford: Intelligence was manipulated, mangled, ignored, and analysts were harassed and bullied to present the false picture that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. In talking with intelligence analysts and case officers, in the months leading up to the war none believed that Iraq posed a threat to the U.S. The most basic evidence was the fact that Iraq had never begun work on a long-range missile system (unlike Iran and North Korea), something that can be easily seen by imaging satellites space with a resolution down to the centimeter. And no country has ever built a warhead without simultaneously building a delivery system.
One CIA analyst from the Iraq Non-Proliferation section told me that his boss once called his office together (about fifty people) and said, “You know what  if Bush wants to go to war, it’s your job to give him a reason to do so.” The former analyst added, “And I said, ‘All right, it’s time, it’s time to go . . . And I just remember saying, ‘This is something that the American public, if they ever knew, they would be outraged.”
Congress was also lied to. Because Iraq had no long-range missiles, they were told in secret session that Iraq was planning to launch a series of unmanned drones loaded with chemical and biological agents against the East Coast of the U.S. Many members of Congress voted for the resolution exclusively because of that warning. It later turned out that not only did Iraq not have such warheads, the few drones they had were rudimentary, short range, and there was no way to launch them from sea off the East Coast in the first place. There were many such falsehoods.”
August 10th, 2006 at 4:46 pm#352….Sorry for the delay. Like I said, I have had MANY questions and comments to address. I mean, give me a break! It’s 10 against 1!
As for an operational link between Iraq and Al Qaeda….Let me start off by saying that Iraq War opponents have constantly moved the bar on this issue. They used to argue there was absolutely NO LINK between Al Qaeda and Iraq! Then when that was shown to be false, they changed position and said, “Well, sure there was contacts and meetings and connections….But they never amounted to anything!” And THEN when THAT was shown to be correct, (URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/29746) they changed direction AGAIN and said, “Okay, sure, well maybe they cooperarated on some operations but never against the United States.”
And on that point, I agree. As far as I know, there so far has been no direct evidence of a joint Iraq-Al Qaeda operation against the U.S. But that to me seems a pretty slender reed on which to rest opposition to deposing Saddam. I mean, we now know that Saddam’s agents and Al Qaeda met, consulted, and worked together on certain operations…After 9/11, I think the fact that these two enemies of the U.S. had a relationship more than justified taking out Saddam. I mean, what we think these two groups were meeting about???? Exchanging meatloaf recipes!
August 10th, 2006 at 4:49 pmExley, here is the highlight quote:
“Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life’s blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.
“I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.
“Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq’s wealth.
“Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq’s wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Halliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq’s money, but the money of the American taxpayer.
“Have a look at the oil that you didn’t even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.
“Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government.”
and here is the link to the entire commentary…
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0517-35.htm
He addresses your “criminal” comments, as well, and talks about having won libel cases in court.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:49 pm#276
“OK, Tracy, it’s been established above that you didn’t know republicans met with the Taliban and you still don’t know that al Qeada leadership was uncomfortable with Zarqawi.”
How has it been established? I knew it before you did.
“I’m going to guess that you also don’t know that the Bush administration was offered three separate chances to kill Zarqawi before the invasion”
Yes I did but, al Zarqawi was not a member and didn’t publically acknowledge his affiliation and loyalty to al Qaeda untill October 2004. His local group was not a priority at the time because he and his group were not associated with al Qaeda. BTW former US spy Mike Scheuer said the the Bush administration was given information about the camp NOT about where al Zarqawi was specifically.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:54 pm#279
monarchy
August 10th, 2006 at 4:56 pm#281
We didn’t invade Iraq to get rid of al Qaeda. Again, do you have proof that money came from the Saudi government?
August 10th, 2006 at 4:58 pm#283
But you aren’t one of them.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:59 pm#285
What is the difference between that Taliban and al Qaeda?
August 10th, 2006 at 5:01 pmWell, Horseman, he is incorrect when he says he was right when he claimed there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. That link has been proven by every investigation into that question. This topic has been discussed at length above.
We now also know he was taking bribes from Saddam in the Oil-for-Food scandal.
See: United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Report Concerning the Testimony of George Galloway Before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, October 25, 2005.
The only thing he was right about is when he said that the fall of Baghdad was the “end of the beginning.” Sadly, he was correct.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:01 pmI respectfully disagree with the premise that the Al Qaeda-Saddam link has been shown to be false. As you yourself acknowledge, the evidence indicates Saddam was an Al Qaeda-enabler. In my opinion, that alone was sufficient to justify the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Comment by exley
Then, shouldnt the US also be punished for supporting Saddam back in the ol Reagan days or Osama Bin Laden or the Talibans? Exley, no one here defends terrorists, not a single person has said that. What we are saying is that the reasons they told us about going into war were fiction. And 2592 soldiers are paying for that. I wont mention thousands of iraqi civilians cause you dont seem too fond of arabs, otherwise you would be horrified by whats happening in ME.
Also, about the 9/11, which is the main reason this whole thing started. Ok, maybe Im wrong to think US did that to itself, and a lot of people here dont think like me, but whats the problem in asking all evidence into public scrutiny? Why dont they release what cameras around the Pentagon captured? We ask for the truth, just that. You should ask for that also, is your country after all. You have to defend it from the thugs in the government.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:04 pm1) The Bush administration was always quite clear in saying that there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11. What they DID say — and which has been validated over and over — is that there was evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked and had worked together….Again, to me, that is more than sufficient reason to depose Saddam’s regime.
There is no GOOD evidence that Saddam and OBL were doing lunch or talking projects. There is BAD information, information that does not stand up under examination.
2) Yes, OBL went to Pakistan right off the bat because it was right next door. But he cannot set up training camps and plan operations there with impunity as he was doing in Afghanistan and as he would have had he had the opportunity to go to Iraq. He is currently hiding in Pakistan. He would have been a guest with all types of resources and assistance available to him in Iraq. If Saddam’s regime had remained in place, he most likely would have gone to Iraq to take up Saddam’s offer of asylum.
Lot of assumptions here, and hypotheticals. You KNOW where OBL is? Please notify the Pentagon. Iraq would have welcomed and succored him? A hypothetical, a guess. He would have successfully found refuge with Saddam, under the noses of Bush Administration? Another hypothetical, and one which doesn’t make your boys look too good.
3) (More of a philosophical question, I suppose — Think about that for a moment. Saddam Hussein offered this monster who would kill 3,000 innocent people on 9/11 safe haven! Can we really seriously argue that the world is not better off without a regime in power that would offer asylum and assistance to Osama Bin Laden???)
Let’s see, HOW many Iraqi civilians are too dead and gone to be grateful to the Bush Administration? How many American soldiers’ families who are too grief-stricken to be grateful?
4) No one is more livid than me over reports that the U.S. plan was to use Afghan fighters at Tora Bora to get Bin Laden instead of U.S. forces and that resulted in OBL getting away
Oh, Mr. Exley, you’re such a man.
…If that is true, it is unforgivably stupid. But we don’t know yet if that is accurate.
What you mean “we,” Bush Man?
Some say it is. Some say it isn’t (Like Gen. Tommy Franks)…So, all I can say at this point again is that if true, it is outrageous.
Oh, of course, Tommy Franks isn’t compromised one bit.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:05 pm#287
“Why do we allow these inferior people to live and breed among us? You are inferior and a demonstrable threat to America.”
Why are you allowed to live in Texas?…or do you?
August 10th, 2006 at 5:08 pmWell stated, Juan. My problem with exley’s dismissal of Galloway is of course that he was a marked man for breaking company ranks in his testimony. My problem with the Saddam-al qaeda link that exley provides is rather simple: it paints the picture that Saddam had a legitimate tie to 9/11 where none has ever been found. It disavows the notion that bin Laden had a profound dislike for Hussein and that cooperation between the two was hihgly unlikely, at best. exley provides an “if you are an enemy of my enemy, you are my friend” scenario. Unfortunately, the proof he speaks of is really no proof at all, rather commentary designed by the government to turn the page on dissent, and quickly.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:09 pmWhy are you allowed to live in Texas?…or do you?
Comment by Tracy — August 10, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
Same reason you are allowed to hide under your bed in fear of boogeymen, and support the idea of killing innocent people to make YOU feel better about the afore-mentioned boogeymen. Freedom of speech, thought, opinion, etc.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:12 pmComment by unbelievable — August 10, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
August 10th, 2006 at 5:18 pmBy the way, Tracy writes, she must be 2 years from Prom, now.
Horseman,
I do not deny that there were conflicts and differences between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden.
What I do say, as you allude to, that they decided to put aside their differences in order to work against the mutual enemies, the Americans and the Saudis. This is evidenced by the numerous links, meetings, and operations.
You know who else said they put aside their differences? Not just me. Not the Bush administration. But the Clinton administration. In it’s 1998 indictment of Bin Laden, the Justice Department wrote:
The Clinton administration’s indictment read unequivocally:
“Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq”
August 10th, 2006 at 5:19 pmSorry…it was: By the way Tracy writes…
August 10th, 2006 at 5:19 pm1) The Bush administration was always quite clear in saying that there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11.
Comment by exley — August 10, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
This is not quite true. While they never did openly implicate Hussein, with AlQaeda in the 9/11 attacks, they did put the three names in the same sentence together many times during the run-up to the invasion. Here is an article from the Christian Science Monitor about that:
“The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein],” says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
Had the Bush administration not insinuated so many times that Hussein was implicated in 9/11, the commission would not have focused on that, its findings would not have made any waves, and the public would never have believed that such ties existed (they didn’t come about this idea by themselves).
Again, to me, that is more than sufficient reason to depose Saddam’s regime.
Also sufficient reason to waste 2,500+ American lives and 50,000+ Iraqis lives -and counting?
If Saddam’s regime had remained in place, he most likely would have gone to Iraq to take up Saddam’s offer of asylum.
This is 100% speculation. Fact is that in the months after the invasion of Afghanistan, Bin Laden was either there or in Pakistan. The logical place to look for him was in either country. The invasion of a third country in the general area is ludicrous. Continuing the occupation is terminal foolishness.
Can we really seriously argue that the world is not better off without a regime in power that would offer asylum and assistance to Osama Bin Laden???
More speculation. Now I will ask you back: Is the world better off with a regime in power that is not putting all the resources into finding Bin Laden, knowing fully well he is in their land? I am talking about Pakistan, of course.
I am not advocating an invasion of Pakistan, but merely pointing out the irrationality of your argument.
So, all I can say at this point again is that if true, it is outrageous.
Whatever the ultimate reason, fact remains Bin Laden slipped away into Pakistan (Iraq is on the opposite side). Where he would have gone from there is speculation. The rational thing to do was to focus on finding him where he was.
Instead the focus was changed and now the US is in the middle of a hugely costly was of attrition. It is time to withdraw and refocus on the original goal. Iraq is a distraction.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:23 pm#372 – We didn’t invade Iraq to get rid of al Qaeda. Again, do you have proof that money came from the Saudi government?
Comment by Tracy — August 10, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
Tracy, you’ve got the argument all backwards. We no longer have to show proof that something is true, the person accused has to show proof that what we say is NOT true!
We had no proof that Iraq had WMD’s, but they still had to prove they didn’t or else we would attack. Of course, we still haven’t found one WMD that we claimed they had, and we attacked them like we promised because they did not prove they did not have what we said they did. Simple, see!
You have to prove that the Saudi Government didn’t give money to alQuida. It’s the new paradigm, all thanks to Pres. Bush.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:24 pmexley, we can agree to disagree. The link I posted earlier, that concerned a thorough, actual translation of a Bin Laden tape to the Iraqi people (after a quick skim-oriented translation had been given to network news) would cast doubt on your comments–which as you know is old news. In that tape, Bin Laden completely scoffs at the removal of Saddam and states–almost unbelievably–that shedding his blood is alright. I would tend to disagree with the thought that problems were put aside.
At the same time, you sidestep the issue that Bush and company knew all too well that they were inheriting a possible terror strike via al qaeda. You may not want to admit it, but the event gave Bush what he wanted–an excuse for invasion.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:25 pmOh, come on, Juan C….This is a cheap shot:
I wont mention thousands of iraqi civilians cause you dont seem too fond of arabs, otherwise you would be horrified by whats happening in ME.
Because I support strong measures against Al Qaeda and its allies in order to protect the U.S. from another 9/11 doesn’t make me anti-Arab. I am anti-Islamic fundamentalists.
The person who set off a sucide bomb inside a crowded Shiite mosque today — Yes, I hate.
The 35 or so innocent Iraqi worshippers he slaughtered — I feel great sadness and sympathy for.
As I have said on numerous previous threads, I had hoped (and still hope, although I am increasingly pessimistic) that the Iraqi people will seize this golden opportunity we have handed them in deposing Saddam and establish a peaceful, stable, civilized society. It would be good for us. And it would be good for them.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:26 pmThis sob needs to stop attacking Americans just because he can’t control everyone. We pay taxes and so his paycheck is depended upon us so he should just shut up his big fat mouth. Since when did he have the correct solutions. NEVER. Cheney is nothing but a traitor to the Constitution of the US.
Frankly, I’m getting sick and tired of coffins coming back to this country draped with flags. If Cheney had all the answers, then we would have caught Osama by now and would not have invaded Iraq. Stop lying Cheney… we all know its about your profits, oil, Halliburton and has nothing to do with the security of the US.
How long will it take before the Republicans claim that they stopped the terrorist attack in the UK?
August 10th, 2006 at 5:26 pmYou mean the coffins we aren’t allowed to see.
And Cheney…nor anyone else in this administration…wants Bin Laden caught. As long as he is out there (and he is likely dead, anyway), he is a reason for middle America to hold onto Uncle Georgie’s hand.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:31 pm369 – Exley – Thanks for the response and the link… I know that you have you hands full here today.
Unfortunately you fell short of naming a study that concluded that there was an operational relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq… all you gave me was tacit evidence of some meeting in 1995. Rumsfeld met with OBL long age as well. You’re not going to try to convince me that America had an on going operational relationship with Alqaeda are you?
A couple of quick points.
1) The letter says that they met to mount an attack against “foreign forces” in Saudi Arabia and then later says that an attack by what was “believed to be Al Qaeda” was launched on the Saudi National Guard… not foreign fighters.
2) Even this article admits that this evidence is in no way conclusive of an ongoing operational relationship between the two parties
“The question of future cooperation is left an open question”
“It is possible that documents will emerge later that suggest skepticism on the part of Iraqis to working with bin Ladenâ€
Is that is all you have? If it is than I am afraid that you might have to concede that there was no definitive evidence to conclude an ongoing operation relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq… Certainly not enough evidence to go to war over!
August 10th, 2006 at 5:31 pmGregor, Horseman…I would love to respond at length to your last two respective postings right now…But, it is almost 6:00 and it is time for Thursday night Happy Hour…Arguing foreign policy is thirsty work.
Maybe we can pick this up later.
Until the, good evening all.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:34 pmI didn’t write the quote, Exley, but someone once said that the iraqis would be glad and grateful to the US, if only the US would get its boot off their necks.
Nothing like destroying a country’s economy and infrastructure in the name of “shock and awe,” refusing to protect anything but the oil industry, and Bremer’s Rules of Economic Order for creating opportunities to seize, right? Why, those ungrateful Iraqis just don’t know a good thing, do they?
August 10th, 2006 at 5:34 pm#390, GW…I’ll have to go back and look at what I sent you. I will reply later. It’s bad enough I got absolutely NO work done today, but I can’t be late for after-work drinks!
August 10th, 2006 at 5:38 pm#290
“I honestly don’t know the difference so if you could… please enlighten me.”
al Qaeda operatives are trained to carry out terrorist attacks and Taliban representatives aren’t.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:39 pmI would love to respond at length to your last two respective postings right now…But, it is almost 6:00 and it is time for Thursday night Happy Hour…Arguing foreign policy is thirsty work.
Maybe we can pick this up later.
Until the, good evening all.
——————
I do believe this is called Doing A Hitchens.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:39 pmVLaRoche….You are not arguing the benefits of a cold beer, are you? On THAT, sir (or madam), I WILL fight you!
August 10th, 2006 at 5:41 pmTracy – if you are a female, I suggest that you go live with the taliban representatives. They love to inflict terror on women. That would make the Taliban terrorists, dumkoft.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:45 pmExley – I too did very little work today and am also looking forward to a cold beer.
Enjoy the drinks… we’ll pick this up later.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:48 pmReddog is a fool! The facts of the matter is that 9-11 happened when Bush was president. “protecting the American people”
August 10th, 2006 at 5:51 pmWe are smart people. Americans and people in other countries also know that the war in Iraq is not the same thing as the War on Terror. If removing our troops from Iraq means we “Lose face”, so be it. Pride is not the number one motivation here. We want to save lives. If some of our hubris has to be sacrified to save lives, then we can take the “better part of valour” and use our discretion to end the war in Iraq. Then we can concentrate on resolving the terrorist situation
August 10th, 2006 at 5:52 pmCold beer, warm beer. I prefer the “hot bosky bite” of whiskey.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:52 pm#294
“Democracy took place in Connecticut the other day, yet Lieberman, Cheney and the Bush machine rather than accepting the choice of the people of Connecticut, decide that the people were wrong, so Joe’s going to run in November as an Independent and the neo-cons are going to support him.”
They did accept the vote of FEW thousand people, who BTW don’t represent all of Connecticut. Why do you think the Bush administration is trying to supress democracy by possibly supporting Lieberman as an independent? Sounds like you are afraid more choice which is definately very un-Democratic.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:58 pmTracy – Al Quaeda – Taliban… what’s the difference?
August 10th, 2006 at 6:03 pmTracy – the electrical impulses are not connecting in your brains. You state that a few thousand people don’t speak for all of CT, just lilke the people that voted for the drunken frat boy Bush don’t speak for all the American people. Keep it up… you are way too easy. You should stick with your neocon sites.
August 10th, 2006 at 6:14 pmWhat amazes me is that the GOP claim that we should be in Iraq to fight the terrorists – what good is it doing if the perpetrators are in other countries such as Britain. Bush is breading terrorists much faster than he is killing them and the ones who are likely to attack us are probably not in Iraq. We should be spending part of the $250m/day we are pouring into Iraq on implemnting the 911 commission proposals.
August 10th, 2006 at 6:21 pm“Darth Cheney” is spewing twisted facts again – when will this man learn that honesty is the best policy? The american people are definitely “onto” these bogus connect-the-dots of the Repugs – the adage applies: you can fool some of the people SOME of the time……. – it’s great to see that at least the consciousness of the people in Ct. sees right through a wool in sheep’s clothing. Hooray for them in ousting Lieberman (Dubya’s other “poodle”?). It’s time for all the deceitful republicans to Go!!!!
August 10th, 2006 at 6:33 pmAs for the terrorism comments above, just go to 911.truth.org and see the footage for yourself. Then treat yourself to the Huffington Post’s video today on “how to hack a Diebold Machine” in 5 minutes and tell me that we have a democracy – hah! The neocons are the true terrorists as I see it.
Does anyone believe anything that guy says anyway? He is a known LIAR
August 10th, 2006 at 6:38 pmAn objective observer would think that Mr. Cheney has it backward.
Al Qaeda LOVE to have us in Iraq. It confirms their propaganda that we want to invade Arab countries. The more we fight in Iraq, the easier it is for Al Qaeda to recruit young foolish men with nothing better to do … or angry family members of accidentally killed civilians.
The puzzle is … why is Cheney so eager to continue giving Al Qaeda such great recruiting opportunities? It’s almost like the British in 1798 using Irish atrocities to justify British atrocities … or was it the other way around? Anyway, the Irish resisted occupation for centuries; what makes Cheney think the Iraqis will do any less?
August 10th, 2006 at 6:38 pmKirk -
- it’s not a question of BELIEF. It’s a question of not having the guts to admit Cheney fooled America.
Some people have the balls to admit Bush & Cheney fooled them. Some don’t … and are perfectly willing to continue sending OTHER people to their deaths, just so they don’t have to admit a mistake.
August 10th, 2006 at 6:40 pmCheney reminds me of a quote by the Irish/American lawyer William Sampson, writing in 1804 about the British occupation:
“There are men of ambition so depraved, who would rejoice to be called WICKED, if with that they could appear what the corruptions of the world and the servility of historians have denominated GREAT.
“… But these same men would never have courage to consummate their crimes, were they taught that these crimes would render them contemptible, and still more, ridiculous.”
Memoirs of William Sampson (2d. ed, 1804)
August 10th, 2006 at 6:45 pmhttp://rewinn.com/8032.html
#305
I think it’s less “elitist” when you enact LESS policies against the people. Enacting a policy, i.e. writing new laws many times is the same thing as saying that “I know what is best for you, better than you do yourself”. Many of the policies actually end up hurting or hampering people and their lives rather than helping them.
August 10th, 2006 at 7:02 pm#307
Economics of scale has alot to do with the government giving money back to the people that could use it to buy more good and services therefore reducing cost. Thanks for the tip. Governement doesn’t produce consumer goods.
August 10th, 2006 at 7:06 pm#308
The liberals change their OWN name. LOL!
August 10th, 2006 at 7:07 pm#315
“…it is somewhat ironic to me that gasbags like yourself use the oldest tricks in the book in an attempt to win points.”
Win points? Pointing out the fact that the liberals changed their name to “progressives” SPECIFICALLY to try and get away from the liberal label is a nothing but a TRICK and a lame one at that.
“What have you to say about Galloway’s comments?”
I must have missed his comments. Point me to them and I will put my two cents in.
“This has to do with the future of the nation, which currently has been hijacked by neo-cons.”
Hijacked? Those who are in office today were elected not appointed. Considering the U.S. was held hostage by the libs in congress for 30 years, it was time for a change, although I am all for throwing out the current lot of Republicans and replacing them with REAL conservatives.
“There is no doubt—this is the worst administration in modern American history.”
Each is entitled to his or her own opinion.
August 10th, 2006 at 7:19 pmFrom CNN:
Terrorists were in the “final stages” of a plot to blow up trans-Atlantic jets
Sports drink, peroxide-based substance was to be part of “explosive cocktail,” U.S. officials say
Two of 24 arrested in UK allegedly received money from Pakistan where more arrests were made
So, Tracy, point to the word ‘Iraq’ or ‘Saddam’ in this equation… You know the two things you blame for terrorism, even though Saddam is in captivity and Iraq is amid a civil war.
I kept telling you, you have the wrong people. It’s Osama. Who lives in Pakistan. You know, the guy GW doesn’t think about that much…
August 10th, 2006 at 7:22 pm#323
According to your link the ENTIRE U.K. infantry is only about 25,000….relatively very small compared to the U.S.
August 10th, 2006 at 7:24 pm#331
Read post #395 again.
“I simply asked if you – with all your wisdom – could explan to me how they are different.”
I asked you first…didn’t I?
August 10th, 2006 at 7:30 pmOMFG!!! The trollshit is so thick here today I need to grab my hip waders.
August 10th, 2006 at 7:32 pm#381
Let the man or woman speak for themselves please. Is that too much to ask?
August 10th, 2006 at 7:40 pm#382
How long have you been posting here?…because it’s obvious you aren’t paying attention and haven’t been for quite some time.
August 10th, 2006 at 7:41 pm#386
“We no longer have to show proof that something is true, the person accused has to show proof that what we say is NOT true!”
Oh, I see you are all for the guilty untill proven innocent train of thought. My bad.
“You have to prove that the Saudi Government didn’t give money to alQuida. It’s the new paradigm, all thanks to Pres. Bush.”
That’s hilarious because it was the U.N. who passed R1441! LOL!
August 10th, 2006 at 7:45 pm#398
Since you are new here. I am not a woman. Assuming one’s sex by their name is very bigoted.
August 10th, 2006 at 7:48 pm#399
Now that’s not suprising!
August 10th, 2006 at 7:49 pm#404
Not again!
August 10th, 2006 at 7:50 pm#405
So the few thousand that vote in a candidate of ONE party during a primary is the same as a general election? LOL! You are too funny.
August 10th, 2006 at 7:52 pm#416
Taking out Saddam was part a of bigger picture that YOU will apparently never understand. Please attempt, with effort BTW, to explain WHY we are even attempting to get Iraq to go democratic? If we saw Saddam as just a threat to the U.S. then why didn’t we just install our own dictator after him that would not be a threat, i.e. be friendly to the U.S.?
August 10th, 2006 at 7:57 pmboy, tracy – enjoying talking to yourself? playing catch-up?
i’ll play a little while… very curious about an answer to this:
…Many of the policies actually end up hurting or hampering people and their lives rather than helping them.
Comment by Tracy — August 10, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
i’d love to hear your examples of this, really…
August 10th, 2006 at 7:59 pm418 – Tracy – You said that I made a false point and that Al Qaeda was different from the Taliban (#281)… I said that I did not know the difference and aked you to explain how Al Qaede was bad and the Taliban was good (#291)… if you can not explain the differences then I will asume there are none worth mentioning and that you would proudly have the Taliban meet with Delay or even Bush today.
August 10th, 2006 at 8:03 pmWhy does Cheney always say “if you will”? If you will what? Believe his BS? No, I won’t.
August 10th, 2006 at 9:15 pm“…the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.”
Uhm. That either means that Cheney, like “the al Qaeda types” (whatever that means), is betting he can break the will of “those types”, or that he accepts that we can’t break their will and must continue fighting them forever. It’s a stand-off between various “al Qaeda types”! Both have iron wills, and would rather die (in proxy, for Cheney’s case, and I guess that’s his main difference from other “al Qaeda types”) than show a bendable will.
August 10th, 2006 at 9:33 pmFunniest thing, how The Evil One timed his unconsciounalbe, distorting remarks perfectly to anticipate the latest, attempted terror threat in Britain, which, to be sure, he knew was coming through the British along with his Bush pupped. Think about it. Scotland Yard now says it keep George Gush apprised of its investigation of the Pakistani-British terror ring. , and that something was up — but not excactly when the Brits would move in to bust it up. That means Dick Cheney, Bush had started their exploitation of the “security” issue, accusting Democrats of being soft on terror before the White House really knew if the plot would or would not succeed. In other words, they were poised to take political advantage of the favor from el-Queda whether or not these thugs killed thousands of people…Anything goes becuase “we’re at war,” says Bush, even taking credit for British polic work and tragedy while they the Bushies bumble and bleed the country. They don’t protecgt America, but their own backsides with passion. Criminals —
August 10th, 2006 at 9:40 pmTaking out Saddam was part a of bigger picture that YOU will apparently never understand.
Probably because it’s not logical, and unlike you, I do not repsond to fear tactics.
Saddam was not part of the big picture, but Osama sure is. And he’s as free as he was 5 years ago when he was getting ready to attack.
Please attempt, with effort BTW, to explain WHY we are even attempting to get Iraq to go democratic?
We aren’t. If you believe that you are even more gullable that I already knew. They were already voting, same as now. And their choices were not choices at all, just as now. You really will believe anything to feel better about blowing up innocent people in Iraq, huh?
Do you also support forcing women to have sex when they don’t want to? Because really, forced pseudo-democracy isn’t any less criminal.
If we saw Saddam as just a threat to the U.S. then why didn’t we just install our own dictator after him that would not be a threat, i.e. be friendly to the U.S.?
Comment by Tracy — August 10, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
Now you’re catching on. We did. Karzai. Don’t you remember Bush trying to nullify the elections when Karzai wasn’t ‘elected’? Is logic really that impossible for you? It’s pretty obvious… Crawl out from under your bed, there’s a better view of things when you do…
August 10th, 2006 at 9:56 pmGW … # 390 & 398…Hope you enjoyed your beers tonight, G.W. Lord knows I did.
I think what we have here is a failure to agree on justification…What I mean by that is that while we both accept the factual underpinnings (or at least do so for the purposes of this discussion) of the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, what we disagree on is whether the established links (which we both accept) were sufficient to justify the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam. And that is a difference of opinion, which I respect.
I think the evidence, as it stands now, in the wake of 9/11, justified taking Saddam out. You, and many others here, believe the extent of an acknowledged Al Qaeda-Saddam relationship were not enough to justify the toppling of Saddam. Okay, fine. Like I said, that is a matter of opinion to which each of us is entitled.
But what drives me up the proverbial wall is when I see people here and in the mainstream media say that there were absolutely no links and contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda. That is quite simply false!
August 10th, 2006 at 9:59 pmIf Cheney really believes this nonsense, he belongs in a sanatarium. He’s certifiably insane. If he doesn’t, he’s a ruthless manipulator and a traitor. Either way, it goes to show you how this Administration uses fear and terrorism to keep themselves in power.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:08 pm#384…Gregor…My response to you pretty much mirrors my response to GW above. We differ on whether the extent of established contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq justified the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein. I think we agree that such contacts and relationships existed. The difference of opinion comes on whether those contacts justified the invasion. Personally, I do. On 9/11, nearly 3,000 innocent people in New York City, Virginia, and Pennsylvania were slaughtered over a span of about an hour without the use of any major weapons. In the wake of 9/11, we had evidence — going back to the 1990s — that the same organization that perpetrated 9/11 had contacts and meetings with Iraq, a nation with which we had had a decades-long military and diplomatic confrontation and which every major Western intelligence agency AND the United Nations (as well as the Clinton administration) sincerely believed had WMDs. WMDs, which if used, could kill hundreds of thousands of innocents. Given those facts and beliefs, I cannot say that the toppling of Saddam Hussein was not justified in 2003.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:09 pm#401 VLaRouche…I too love a drink of whiskey (scotch, bourbon) but they strike me as more of an autumn/winter drink. Summer in the hot and humid East calls for a cold beer or gin and tonic.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:14 pmWhat I find disturbing is the Vice President being disturbed by democracy. It cofirms my worst fears.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:17 pmJustification problems? Most certainly. How is it that everyone–O’Neill, Clarke, Galloway and many, many others can all be wrong and that an administration that tripped over itself and had previously respected individuals like Colin Powell sell his soul for all to see with regards to WMD’s not be taken to task?
O’Neill’s comments in this vein are most striking. His report that Bush eagerly was looking for the trigger mechanism to go into Iraq has to be troubling to even the most staunch supporter. Unless I am mistaken, there was no axe to grind and there is no history of flip-flopping or mental malady but rather, a man who had some serious reservations as to what was going on in the White House.
My problem is not so much in the justification, it should be noted. It is more in this administration’s many failures and it’s scapegoating of those who question. It’s in the many inconsistencies it has where committing our kids is concerned. It’s in the many conflicts of interest we read about where the inner circle is concerned, and of course, it’s in the neo-conservative policy which has been enacted.
Saddam was a maniac, but he was no fool. I would guess Bin Laden is not only a maniac, but more intellectually-oriented than what we currently have calling the shots. And that said, there continue to be a multitude of questions surrounding 9/11–who knew what beforehand, who failed to act (just where was our Air Force, anyway?) and who was really behind the acts. But to intimate that 9/11 in and of itself lends the credence to the notion to remove Saddam immediately was and continues to be fallacious.
August 10th, 2006 at 10:20 pm#
#308
The liberals change their OWN name. LOL!
Comment by Tracy — August 10, 2006 @ 7:07 pm
All things change. That’s why I said food for thought. But let’s check just to be sure…
Conservative. Republican. Neo-con. Compassionate Conservative. Reaganite.
Education President. Science President. War President.
Nope. No name changing there…
I do admit that the Democrats did change there name in the past… from Republican. Think on that.
Try the thinking AFTER you LOL but BEFORE you type. Then you wouldn’t get labeled “reactionary”.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:15 pmHey how’d you get such a good picture of the Devil?….oh that’s Dick Cheney.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:17 pm#420 #382
How long have you been posting here?…because it’s obvious you aren’t paying attention and haven’t been for quite some time.
Comment by Tracy — August 10, 2006 @ 7:41 pm
Heh… I’d pay money to watch a Tracy / Exley flamewar rightaboutnow… THAT’s entertainment!
August 10th, 2006 at 11:27 pm#441…What the heck is a “flamewar?”
August 10th, 2006 at 11:33 pmWhat a cretin! The only way to understand Cheney is to read Calvin Trillin’s poem about Cheney. When his head is cocked, he’s lying. Actually you know he is lying when his lips are moving.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:11 amLol Cheney has NOT been seen or heard in public in for several months, so was he in hibernation in his underground bunker?
August 11th, 2006 at 1:10 amLol Cheney has NOT been seen or heard in public for several months, so was he in hibernation in his underground bunker?
Or was Count Cheney just resting in his crypt?
August 11th, 2006 at 1:12 am[...] This play comes at the same time as Cheney talking about Lieberman and declaring: “The thing that’s partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.” [...]
August 11th, 2006 at 1:16 am#422-Tracy- It’s sexist, not bigoted.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:23 am[...] Cheney said that to “purge a man like Joe Lieberman†was “of concern, especially over the issue of Joe’s support with respect to national efforts in the global war on terror.†…” – Think Progress [...]
August 11th, 2006 at 2:18 am[...] The day after Connecticut democrats (not a very indicative slice of the American public, mind you) voted against Joe Lieberman and blind support for the war in Iraq, the White House is already spinning the blow to their agenda into a political victory … I just hope you democratic strategists are taking notes!!! [...]
August 11th, 2006 at 2:32 am[...] And if this doesn’t convince you that the two-party system is up just for the show, I don’t know what will. [...]
August 11th, 2006 at 3:59 amQuote from earlier poster…
probably because their law allows them to search anyone’s house and get out without ever telling anyone.
There are certain people who don’t want that here because it’s an invasion of privacy, lol. That’s why. Oh, and they used their MI6 operatives to penetrate Al Queda and gather intelligence, so I think that statement is false in the sense that they were able to nab them because of a secret service. You’re right that a police officer probably arrested them.
Really I wouldn’t want to ruffle anyone’s feathers if we thought they might be involved with terrorist organizations to go and search their house without their permission.
August 11th, 2006 at 4:42 amAll Liberals are gay.
August 11th, 2006 at 7:28 am9/11 was an inside job…………and Mr. Cheney was at the helm of the evil Sith Lords who perpetrated it.
August 11th, 2006 at 8:43 am
[...] Cheney: Lieberman Loss ‘Disturbing,’ A Victory For Al-Qaeda Think Progress » Cheney: Lieberman Loss ‘Disturbing’ Because al Qaeda Is ‘Betting They Can Break The Will of The American People’ Cheney: Lieberman Loss ‘Disturbing’ Because al Qaeda Is ‘Betting They Can Break The Will of The American People’ As the Mideast sits on the brink of regional war, Vice President Dick Cheney spent his time yesterday holding a teleconference to discuss the outcome of the Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut. Cheney said that to “purge a man like Joe Lieberman” was “of concern, especially over the issue of Joe’s support with respect to national efforts in the global war on terror.” He explained: The thing that’s partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. Cheney’s argument assumes that the war in Iraq is helping the United States defeat terrorists. He’s wrong. His own State Department found last April that Iraq had become a safe haven for terrorists and attracted a “foreign fighter pipeline” linked to terrorist plots, cells and attacks throughout the world. An overwhelming bipartisan majority (84%) of national security experts believe we are losing the war on terror, and 87 percent think Iraq has had a negative impact. Cheney should spend less time analyzing the Democratic primary in Connecticut and more time acknowledging the administration’s critical policy failures and trying to fix them. (A good place to start is the American Progress plan, Strategic Redeployment 2.0.) Read the full Cheney transcript HERE. Yes, democracy lets Al Qaeda win! [...]
August 11th, 2006 at 8:45 am[...] So, while you go on your next flight, and have to throw away your water bottle, hair gel and perfume. Ask yourself this. Are they making the illegal aliens (or terrorist for that matter) crossing the borders every day to do the same? What a crock of shit. — Remember, you can’t trust a Dick with a gun (or at all for that matter). http://www.democratgiftshop.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi/571511948/angryintheusa/369032read more | digg story [...]
August 11th, 2006 at 9:22 am#427
Do you remember that little thing called welfare reform that was passed back in the 1990s? The policies were actually hurting people rather than helping.
Do you know about that little thing called the the BS progressive U.S. tax code that is over 6 millions words in length?
Do you know the little thing called Social Security the was suppose to be phased out after the Great Depression but now is the single largest albatross around the neck of the U.S. economy? The fact that the government doesn’t give you the option not to pay in is total BS. It should be YOUR choice. The fact that less people will soon be paying in relative to benefits being paid out doesn’t bother you?
August 11th, 2006 at 9:24 am#428
“I said that I did not know the difference and aked you to explain how Al Qaede was bad and the Taliban was good (#291)… ”
You made that assumption the the Taliban was good and that Al Qaeda was bad on your own so your question is based on a false premise to beging with. I said, and this will be the 3rd time, that the difference is that Al Qaeda operatives are trained to carry out terrorist attacks and that Taliban representatives are not. Clear enough?
I don’t like that fact that U.S. companies deal with dictators or regimes like the Taliban but the pipeline they were proposing had to go thru Afghanistan which the Taliban ruled. We also deal with countries like Venezuala that is run by a communist name Chaves (he’s no socialist BTW) that says some pretty bad things about the U.S. on a constant basis and we also deal with China, another communist country that continues to be a thorn in the side of the U.S. when it comes to foreign policy.
BTW Clinton dealt with a Palestinian terrorist named Yasser Arafat for the entire time he was in office, but I suspect you didn’t have a problem with that, did you?
August 11th, 2006 at 9:45 amTracy, do you believe your own bile? It’s scary to think that you have allowed your brain to become so indoctrinated with revisionism. Seek help, friend.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:16 am#432
“Probably because it’s not logical, and unlike you, I do not repsond to fear tactics.”
No, it’s because you still don’t understand it.
“They were already voting, same as now…”
If you are attempt to insinuate that the voting that is going on in Iraq now is the SAME as it was under Sadamm’s rule then you are dumber than I thought.
“And their choices were not choices at all, just as now.”
Please explain.
“Saddam was not part of the big picture…”
If the big picture included making sure that ANY WMDs stayed out of the hands of terrorists then he absolutely was and for you to think otherwise is once again very ignorant on your part. Saddam himself was not plotting with terrorists, I agree and he was smarter than that; however, to say that his regime had no contact with al Qaeda is false…if that is what you believe.
http://www.nysun.com/article/29746?page_no=2
“Do you also support forcing women to have sex when they don’t want to? Because really, forced pseudo-democracy isn’t any less criminal.”
Of course not, but you just said that were aren’t attempting to get Iraq to go democratic, so your question is based on your own false premise.
“Now you’re catching on. We did. Karzai.”
That’s Afghanistan not Iraq. Are you paying attention or not?
“Don’t you remember Bush trying to nullify the elections when Karzai wasn’t ‘elected’?”
You will have to provide a news story about that one.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:16 am#439
I was laughing, and still am, about the following statement of yours eventhough the “labeling” was done themselves, i.e. those that conservatives disagree with.
“It appears to me that those you appear to represent are hung up on labeling (and there by limiting and/or demonizing) those they disagree with.”
August 11th, 2006 at 10:35 am#458
Specifics?
August 11th, 2006 at 10:38 amWhat a dickweed. Cheney needs to go do something less harmful, like shoot someone in the face. Quail season in south Texas starts up in another 6 weeks. Problem is, I don’t know if we have six weeks before Dick “Shooter” Cheney further trashes the joint. What happened to the war tribunals for the Nzis? I believe they dis-assembled too soon.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:38 am[...] Cheney:Â “A vote against Lieberman is a vote for Al Queda”. [...]
August 11th, 2006 at 10:45 amCHENNEY,ONCE AGAIN,A GIANT A**HOLE!!!,yep,even now a civil war rages between religious sunni,shiite,shia,i iraq,as men die for haliburton oil in the middle of a civil war,”where is al-quida guys”,YES,THE REPIGLCANS ARE AFRAID,SO THEY DO WHAT THEY DO BEST,SLING MUD AND LIES.here is what will happen,ANYONE IN AMERCA IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WHO VOTES FOR A REPIGLICAN OR A LIBERMAN VOTES FOR THE MURDER OF INNOCENT AMERICANS,AND DOESN’T HAVE A DAMN THING TO DO WITH WHAT HAPPENED IN ENGLAND WITH “PAKISTANI’S”,stupid fearfull americans,STILL BELIEVING IN THE “WEAPONS AND IMMINENT SADDAM THREAT”,try to connect this to a repulsive “bush light” traitor like lieberman,IT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN SUCKERS,AMERICA WANTS OUT OF THIS NIGHTMARE,REPUBLICANS WANT TO CONTINUE BECAUSE THEY HAVE “LOST”,THE VIETNAM,AND CAN’T FACE DEFEAT.all democrats should wake up and see ,WE HAVE THE POWER TO END THE WAR,THE REPUBLICANS WILL INDEED “STAY THE COURSE”,TO DISASTER,no relation to the london incident whatever,but i am sure bush is TRYING REAL HARD TO GET OSAMA INVOLVED,YET WE STILL HAVEN’T GOT HIM,AFTER ALL THESE DAMN YEARS.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:15 am[...] Prior to the release of the plot, Cheney made it a point to link Lieberman's defeat over Iraq to a Democratic softness on the Great War on Terror. [...]
August 11th, 2006 at 12:26 pm[...] I mean, seriously. Do they really think that’s going to accomplish anything? I mean besides raise the level of fear and anxiety through-out the country just in time for a much-needed poll boost in time for mid-term elections? Joe Lieberman has already used it as a soundbite to try to justify America’s failed policy in Iraq, and Cheney is pulling out his tried and true argument that voting for democrats is voting for Al-Qaeda. This whole thing smacks of McCarthyistic scare tactics designed to frighten voters into continuing the legislative dominance of the Bush regime. [...]
August 11th, 2006 at 12:47 pm[...] Full article here… [...]
August 11th, 2006 at 12:50 pmFace the facts. The Democratic Party is on the wrong side of the war on terror. They are against the Patriot Act. They are against NSA wire tapping. They don’t want us fighting terrorists in Iraq. They don’t want Israel to wipe out Hezbollah, instead they want a cease fire. The Democrats are in denial about the war on terror. This fall most Americans will vote for candidates that will do everything in their power to protect them. They won’t vote for the party that cares more about terrorists rights then defeating them… which is the Democratic Party.
August 11th, 2006 at 12:52 pmActually, the Democratic party is on the right side of a lot of things. If we had stayed out of Iraq and tended to business in Afighanistan, we might actually have accomplished something in regard to terror. As it is, all we have done is created more terrorists while diverting hundreds of billions of dollars from protecting the homeland and fighting the real fight in Afghanastan.
August 11th, 2006 at 1:01 pmthese wars have nothing to do with the US. muslim countries have no ability to harm US interests except inasmuch as we allow ourselves to be dependent upon their natural resources.
the solution is to return to ‘the american way’, which means minding our own business, working on our own country and commerce, guarding our own borders, and defending our own country should anyone be silly enough to attack it.
people scoff at ‘alternative energy’ but the hundreds of billions we’re pissing away on foreign entanglements to protect our *current* energy sources would’ve built enough nuke plants to start a full-scale hydrogen economy. wouldn’t the money be better spent that way?
9-11 was an inside job – if the islamists were even involved they pulled it off with neocon and/or israeli complicity and aid. yes some islamic idealists hate us, but they’d forget about us real quick if we stopped meddling in their affairs, controlling their governments, and trying to divvy up their natural resources.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:07 pm[...] Meanwhile, when I wasn’t paying attention, Cheney comes out with this analysis of the recent Democratic primary in Connecticut: (Think Progress) The thing that’s partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. [...]
August 11th, 2006 at 2:07 pmNo, it’s because you still don’t understand it.
I understand. I’m just not manipulated by it the way that you are. Fear doesn’t cause me to compromise my morals as it does you.
If you are attempt to insinuate that the voting that is going on in Iraq now is the SAME as it was under Sadamm’s rule then you are dumber than I thought.
No, I’m much smarter. But it’s why you are naive. You believe what they SAY when everyone with half a brain knows that ACTIONS apeak louder…
Please explain.
Why? You can’t handle the truth.
And the truth is that politicians are bought and paid and not true repesentatives of teh people.
If the big picture included making sure that ANY WMDs stayed out of the hands of terrorists then he absolutely was and for you to think otherwise is once again very ignorant on your part.
No, not ignorant, I’m not gulliable – as you are to believe such a thing.
Saddam himself was not plotting with terrorists, I agree and he was smarter than that; however, to say that his regime had no contact with al Qaeda is false…if that is what you believe.
What I believe is that you have no right to kill people because of what they might do. It’s why you are a coward.
Of course not, but you just said that were aren’t attempting to get Iraq to go democratic, so your question is based on your own false premise.
Not at all. It was very legit. But as you claerly had no valid response, you write this illogical nonsense trying to distract from teh fact that you can’t answer the question.
That’s Afghanistan not Iraq. Are you paying attention or not?
So? It’s Bush interfering the Democratic process which is what we were talking about.
You will have to provide a news story about that one.
Comment by Tracy — August 11, 2006 @ 10:16 am
Alzheimers or denial your problem?
August 11th, 2006 at 3:26 pmQuote:
“I’m still free . . . how about you?”
August 11th, 2006 at 4:31 pmOsama
I hope Cheney drops dead from a heart attack. He’s the most dangerous man in the history of America. I despise him. If I had Bin Laden and Cheney standing right in front of me, I would take out cheney first. He’s a war criminal and is responsible for 25 times as many innocent civillians dying then Bin Laden is. I hope he burns in hell.
August 11th, 2006 at 5:32 pm[...] According to Think Progress, Dick Cheney has already used the terror plot for political reasons. As have Tony Snow, Bush, and even Joe Lieberman, fresh off his huge and humiliating Connecticut primary loss. Cheney said the Democrats were encouraging “the Al Qaeda types.†. . . and the vice president added, “there’s a significant body of opinion that wants to go back — I guess the way I would describe it is sort of the pre-9/11 mind-set, in terms of how we deal with the world we live in.†(Why do the media continue to quote this? He says it at least once a month. Boooooring!) From the Center for American Progress: President Bush seized on the foiled London airline bomb plot yesterday “to hammer unnamed critics he accused of having all but forgotten the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” [He also said, “The London conspiracy is “a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation,” the president said on a day trip to Wisconsin. “It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America,” he said. He’s right - his administration is a HUGE threat to the United States.] His remarks came “one day after the White House orchestrated an exceptionally aggressive campaign” to tar opponents of the Iraq war as “weak on terrorism.” Publicly, Bush aides “fought the notion that they had exploited their knowledge of the coming British raid” for political advantage. Privately, they expressed a different sentiment. “Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big,” one unnamed White House official said, expressing hope that the foiled plot “would yield political gains.” Another Iraq war supporter, Sen. Joe Lieberman, said yesterday as he kicked off his “Lonely Joe” campaign, that setting a timeline for U.S. troop redeployment (backed by 57% of Americans) “will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again.” Previously, Lieberman has called using national security issues for political purposes “just unacceptable and in my opinion un-American.” [...]
August 11th, 2006 at 5:33 pmTHE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR! THE SKY IS FALLING! TERROR!
August 12th, 2006 at 9:20 amWhen was the last terror bombing in the U.S.? If Bushco is doing so badly and not protecting us then why hasnt there been a bombing in the U.S.? If we leave Iraq where are all the ragheads that are fighting our soldiers over there going to go home???? They are going to try and get into the U.S. and start bombing here so if you all want to get out of Iraq i suggest you get your black dresses and suits out because there are going to be a lot of funerals to attend after we do and dont start crying about OHH why are they coming over here to bomb us now we left Iraq you all are just asking to watch your mothers and fathers sisters, brothers and children get blown up here.
August 12th, 2006 at 12:29 pmLieberman Refuses To Cut and Run After Primary Loss …
When Joe Lieberman lost the Connecticut primary last week, he didn’t cut and run as Ned Lamont and other Democrats might have done….
August 14th, 2006 at 5:09 am#472
“I understand.”
Uh, no you don’t.
“No, I’m much smarter.”
Not about the way voting occured when Saddam was in power. LOL!
“What I believe is that you have no right to kill people because of what they might do.”
You don’t bestow rights to yourself much less anyone else. I you think that pre-emptive action is wrong then, that’s too bad….you are in the minority.
“It was very legit.”
You said that we aren’t attempting to get Iraq to go democratic…it’s not legit.
“Alzheimers or denial your problem?”
That would be your problem or it was a lie considering you can’t or won’t provide some evidence.
“And their choices were not choices at all, just as now.â€
Please explain….your second chance.
“Why? You can’t handle the truth.”
Which is?…regarding the voting situation during Saddam’s. If you don’t know just say so.
August 14th, 2006 at 12:01 pmSomebody please take a shit in his stupid mouth. 5 deferments you have credibility
August 14th, 2006 at 3:36 pmSomebody please take a shit in his stupid mouth. 5 deferments you have no credibility
August 14th, 2006 at 3:36 pmYou don’t bestow rights to yourself much less anyone else. I you think that pre-emptive action is wrong then, that’s too bad….you are in the minority.
I’m very much in the majority. It is you who is the minority. Telling yourself otherwise might make you feel better, but it is a bold face lie.
That would be your problem or it was a lie considering you can’t or won’t provide some evidence.
I always provide evidence. You are the one who avoids providing facts to support your case. Typical…
Which is?…regarding the voting situation during Saddam’s. If you don’t know just say so.
Comment by Tracy — August 14, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
I’ve already explained this. I thought you were smart enough to catch it the first time. Sheesh Tracy, no wonder you do government work… Corporate America would eat you alive.
Though, as an aside from this sparring, I will be teaching my students how the Trade Towers fell… the real story.
August 14th, 2006 at 5:51 pm#482
That is not what the majority said in Congress…oh but you don’t believe in that the U.S. engaged representative democracy after 9/11. We will just have to disagree.
“I always provide evidence.”
Where is your evidence then in regards to this:
…and this will be the 3rd time I have had to ask…
“Don’t you remember Bush trying to nullify the elections when Karzai wasn’t ‘elected’?â€
You will have to provide a news story about that one.
“I’ve already explained this.”
Right you said it’s no different and the reality regarding the voting situation currently in Iraq are vastly different than when Saddam was in power.
“Sheesh Tracy, no wonder you do government work… Corporate America would eat you alive.”
I do both and have done FAR more architectural work in both private and government relms than you ever have. Do you really want to compare portfollios?
“I will be teaching my students how the Trade Towers fell… the real story.”
Well at least we are both not loon conspiracy theorists on this event. BTW (you)teaching architecture vs. (me)practicing…very telling.
August 14th, 2006 at 8:11 pmSee this from FOX!!!!?
Voters Must Beware of Republicans’ Terrorism Trap
Sunday, August 13, 2006
By Susan Estrich
This is not about the war in Iraq.
It has nothing to do with Joe Lieberman.
This is the Republican trap.
Don’t fall in.
“They have tried to keep it together — they have to make it one in people’s minds in order to cover the strategic error of Iraq,†says James Webb, Democratic Senate candidate from Virginia, and former member of the Reagan administration.
From the very beginning, the Republican slip of hand has been to convince people that the war in Iraq was the answer to 9/11.
It wasn’t. It isn’t. It never was.
It isn’t the answer to British hijackers either.
This really has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. It needs to be said over and over.
It’s the distraction from focusing on airline safety, on Usama bin Laden, on America’s true enemies. It’s one of the reasons we are so hated around the world.
“The war in Iraq had nothing to do with the war against international terrorism, or very little to do with the war on terrorism,†Webb says in interviews. “It has distracted our attention, it has pulled our forces in, and we are now in a situation where we have 135,000 on the ground, which affects our ability to do a lot of things that we would be able to do otherwise.â€
Being anti-war has nothing to do with being soft-on-terrorism or ready to lead the world in dangerous times.
Being anti-war means having the resources we need to fight terrorism effectively.
No party is in favor of taking bombs on airplanes. As to whether either party is better at keeping them off, we are likely to hear more about that than we care to.
The Republicans have only one minor advantage left in the polls. They are now trailing on everything – starting with the war in Iraq, and then continuing on with the economy, the environment, health care, foreign policy– in some cases well into the double digits– with the only exception being terrorism. And their lead on terrorism is quite small.
So what do you do when you’re leading on exactly one issue?
What do you do when you have a slight winner and a loser. The loser, of course, the big loser, is the war in Iraq. You marry them, of course.
This is the August surprise. It’s what they have to work with, and they will try to milk it for all it’s worth.
They will try to connect Lieberman’s defeat with the attempted hijackings and say that the Democratic Party is being hijacked by the anti-war, anti-defense (pro-terrorism) crowd. Have you ever heard of anyone who was pro-terrorism? Who wanted to spend less on airport security? Who thought planes were too safe? What could be more ridiculous? But that will be the line.
What Dick Cheney started on Wednesday, saying that Lieberman’s defeat suggested the Democratic Party was not prepared to lead in dangerous times, was just the beginning.
Who is going to let them get away with it?
Say it ain’t so, Joe. Wouldn’t that be a classy gesture? You know it’s not true. They’re saying this about your colleagues of decades standing. Joe Lieberman himself should stand up to that kind of talk. If he fails to, he will continue to lose the respect of his former colleagues and supporters, voters included.
This is what happens when you turn your back on your party. Then others attack your party and they come to you and ask you what you think. And moments like these will define Joe Lieberman as much as his run for the vice presidency did.
His decency is on the line now as much as it has ever been. He knows better. This is another occasion for Lieberman to distance himself from his fellow Democrats, another step in his losing his Senate seat.
August 14th, 2006 at 11:18 pmRather than laughing at Dick, I would suggest clicking the heels together and doing a full Nazi salute. Be interesting to see if Dick laughed then. Or maybe even returned it.
August 15th, 2006 at 12:44 pmI think we all should be very careful about saying things like Dick Cheny says that voters are supporting Al Queda as did Tom Mazzie with the e-mail I just received from Move – On. He did not say that exactly. True he is an idiot. But if we want to sway the voters that are unswayed as of yet we need to keep the facts straight. Otherwise wwe all look like a bunch of hysterical “left wing nuts” and the Neo Cons will win again.
August 15th, 2006 at 1:02 pmRe-elect…..NO ONE!
August 15th, 2006 at 1:21 pmWhen reading these post there seems to be so much hate like a I am better than you attitude towards people whether it be the vice, saddam, al q, pres, who are doing things wrong. That really doesn’t help to sit and put down others but is a waste of time. Better is educating people on what wisdoms people can learn not creating hate towards anyone no matter how bad, that never resolves anything and is how wars are created by hate, by decisions to find something wrong with a person, not helping them to see their ignorance but using it to create hate and an excuse to murder them-WAR:POLITICALLY APPROVED MURDER. Zero tolerance for pollution.
August 15th, 2006 at 1:55 pmAugust 15th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Most of all, this should make the voters in Connecticut feel even more proud of themselves. They’ve obviously driven a hard blow to the Republican party if THIS is the most important topic for our Vice President to discuss. They are scrambling to see if there is some OTHER way they can keep their pal working closely with them without ACTUALLY calling him a Republican. Could it be that the Democratic voters are turning out to not be as stupid and docile as the Republicans counted on??
August 15th, 2006 at 2:48 pmLittle Annie Coultergeist is afraid of that liberal hussy, aka, the Statue of Liberty and anyone/anything else reaching out to the poor and oppressed who have no natural resources worth stealing. Coulter is nothing more than a Dick (cheney) in drag. You’d think with her money she’d be able to have that adam’s apple better concealed.
August 15th, 2006 at 3:09 pmPlease, Please, please guys. Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Could you please stop referring to Dick Cheney ASSUMING the war in Iraq is going to help the war on terror. That the Bush Administration is INCOMPETENT. Please!!!!!!!!!! Cheney KNOWS that the war in Iraq is full of shi*. He KNOWs that the 9/11 was orchestrated by his team of neo-conserves to get backing for the war. He know all of this and is complicit in all of it!!!!!!!!! Please stop referring to Cheney and Bush as incompetent and making mistakes. These are NOT MISTAKES. THIS IS INTENTIONAL!!!!!! For Chris*’s sake guys. THIS IS INTENTIONAL. ALL OF IT!!!!! They are NOT assuming the wrong things. They are NOT incompetent. They are LYING about things THEY have SET UP and caused. They ARE CRIMINALS. They ARE SOCIOPATHS. This is PLANNED. All of it. 9/11. Afghanistan. Iraq. PLANNED so that you will support the global war on other countries owning any resources. THEY WANT you to think they are incompetent. Criminal NEGLIGENCE is way LESS of a crime than PREMEDITATED MURDER and they KNOW THIS. They want you to think that they are incompetent. PLEASE STOP. They are LYING. Replace the word ASSUMING with LYING. “Dick Cheney is LYING about the war in Iraq is helping the US defeat terror.” Please, please go to http://www.video.google.ca and search the term 911 and watch ALL the videos of the first two pages. Then you will understand. But in the meantime, stop assuming Cheney is incompetent. Start saying out loud that he is lying.
August 15th, 2006 at 3:39 pmMaking the same mistakes again….are we?! Yes the republicans make a remark about us…and what do we do? we continue to talk about it, while they spread their nonesense even more. Stop discussing things with no merit, and discuss how to defeat these bozzos!
August 15th, 2006 at 3:58 pmlater!
Here, I’ve made it easy for you. The ideas are entering the mainstream very slowly but surely. Comprising normal people who have nothing to gain except the truth, broadcasters, researchers, physicists, engineers, ex-police officers, and family members of victims, these people lay out the foundation of why 9/11 was not carried out by arab terrorists, the fact that arab terrorists probably don’t even exist at all, that they are mercenaries that work for the CIA, and the motivation for destroying the world trade centers were 1: to galvinize US support for a war in Asia to solidify presence there for a New World Order of US big business control of world assets and resources, 2. to make billions of dollars selling weapons, 3. to gain control over the drug production of Afghanistan for import to the US, 4. to gain control over oil fields, 5. to steal the billions of dollars of gold beneath the world trade centers, 6. insurance money recovery for the trade towers.
Everyone’s Gotta Learn Sometime: Bush and team dirty from the very beginning.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688&q=911
Bush’s Response to 911: Minute by minute summary of initial 911 events
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5752277067931547109&q=911
9/11 Forgotten Heros
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6606909833563454569&q=911
The Secret Evil of 911
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6714356054823827684&q=911
Take Back 911: A great introduction to the 911 mass murder and coverup
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-2924848130992296779&q=911
Morgan Reynolds at Chicago 911 Conference June 06: Even Bush’s appointees knows he’s a crook. A very intelligent briefing.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8180123292618944278&q=911
Loose Change, Edition 2: How can we poosibly believe what the US governement tells us?
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386&q=911
David Shayler (ex-MI5 agent) on 911 and how the US governemnent intentionally caused it all.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974&q=911
911: The Greatest Lie Ever Sold
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6952102263921897950&q=911
In Plane Site: Evidence against what the US governement wants us to believe.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5239334224660559722&q =911
The Road To Tyranny: Alex Jones’ WHY and WHO will gain from 911 and intentionally causing war.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6517776133137328105&q=911
Terrorstorm: Ales Jones’ history of US government manipulation of world affairs and intentional destruction and murder of US citicens and property to declare illegal war as a pretext to worl domination.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7516705476148472744&q=911
911 Commission Distortions And Ommisions(David Ray Griffin): Over view of the truth about what the governemnt has done.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6837001821567284154&q =911
Compilation Exposing 911 Truth
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4429289437231286745&q=911
Perspective on 911 Collection
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7677940272773278216&q=911
911: Rise of the Police State (Alex Jones). This is no joke.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661&q=911
The Truth and Lies of 911
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145&q=911
Why George Herbert Walker Bush is the brain behind J.F.K.’s murder.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4315024059102108031&q=911
Theres so many more on video.google.ca under search term 911. Hope you enjoy and are edjucated.
August 15th, 2006 at 4:04 pmPlease continue with your name-calling and liberal bias. Don’t think for yourselves. And whatever you do, don’t read anything that you don’t agree with. Meanwhile we Republicans will keep you safe.
Don’t enlist in the armed forces. Don’t support the troops who take the fight to the enemy instead of allowing them to find you in the mall. Don’t embrace diversity unless it’s in your favor. Welcome the terrorists with open arms lest you offend them as they bomb your children.
Keep it up. The more time you waste blogging, the better off we all will be. The Republicans and Libertarians will do all the heavy lifting. Just sit back and complain. :)
August 15th, 2006 at 4:17 pmCHANEY IS RIGHT, YOU PEOPLE ARE WRONG,
August 15th, 2006 at 4:30 pmI see a lot of statements here, made by idiots.
August 15th, 2006 at 4:32 pmThe simple fact is that we have mobilized and unified the radical Muslems into Iraq, we lost the balance of power that kept Iran from dominating the region with unprecedented terroist support [hezellah and hamas] and we are now seen in the Moslem world as weak and defeated.
The pople of Conecticut did not do all that.
Leon I. Hammer, M.D.
August 15th, 2006 at 5:03 pmBush and Cheney are war criminals. They went against the UN and lied to kill and maim tens of thousands of innocent American and Iraqi children, women and men all in the name of 9-11. Hello!!! Wasn’t 9-11 supposed to be about Osama Bin Laden??? I quess Bush is just finishing Bush daddy’s agenda. Most of the Bush administration is old Bush daddy cronies. Let’s call the good ole boys back together. Let’s make more money for Cheney and our oil family. Remember the Savings and Loan deal? If I recall, that was another son of a Bush. Nixon made tapes and Bush made war. Who should be impeached!!!! I cannot understand why there hasn’t been more of a cry for impeachment. My favorite new bumper sticker… My honor student is smarter than my President. Send a message to the terrorists… IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!
August 15th, 2006 at 5:15 pmi think the thing to do is to hire some poor woman to give Dick Cheney and Bush blowjobs. then we can impeach them right????? because apparently straying outside marriage is worse than grevious war crimes and endangering/lying to the public.
August 15th, 2006 at 5:38 pmthese comments by Cheney are no suprise to me and he’s going to keep this up unless we decide to actually do something.
[...] Cheney: Lieberman Loss ‘Disturbing’ Because al Qaeda Is ‘Betting They Can Break The Will of The American People’  [...]
August 15th, 2006 at 7:26 pm[...] In the wake of the code brown alert, it helps to remind certain people with a knee-jerk habit of accusing Democrats of politicizing the war on terror (or is it just a jerk habit?) that The Most Holy George W. Christ is not above politicizing national security. In fact, he does it on a regular basis. But when even your most dutiful shill suggests, in so many words, that "’Hulk Smash!’ is not a foreign policy," perhaps it’s time to seriously rethink both the current political and military strategery. [...]
August 15th, 2006 at 11:22 pmHey dick if you beleive we should stay in the fight, get your fat ass over to Iraq instead of sending our boys to do so, let’s see how long you talk big.
August 16th, 2006 at 1:10 pmi’m madd as hell and i’m not going to take it anymore…
August 16th, 2006 at 3:43 pmThis article is a bunch of bunk! The logic put forth by the author rivals that of my 4 yr old!
August 16th, 2006 at 8:45 pmIt’s not surprising that those responsible for the inside job on the World Trade center would try to smear persons that actually see through their evil sham. It’s easy to tear down those that threaten the lies that are framed so well by greed and war mongering individuals soaked in their oil addictions. Here here for enough common sense to see through the pawl of death spread by those so blinded by illusions of power that in their myopia they could care less about the survival of the species.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:17 amKing George the now reining emperor of the corporatacracy, falsely elected thanks to Diebold and the racist tactics of his band of pirates. All could indeed confess as well, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz and Condi queen of the oil tankers.
I had a dream that they all took sodium pentothal and publicly told all. Alas it was but a dream, not the nightmare we are presently living due to the consequences of their actions.
August 17th, 2006 at 10:28 amCheap advertising?
August 18th, 2006 at 12:42 am[...] In a Teleconference released by the White House August 9, 2006, Cheney said that what he found “partly disturbing†about Lieberman’s loss, was how it would affect the war in Iraq and the war on terror: “From the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will–the al Qaeda types–they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.†[...]
August 18th, 2006 at 5:59 pm[...] In a Teleconference released by the White House August 9, 2006, Cheney said that what he found “partly disturbing†about Lieberman’s loss, was how it would affect the war in Iraq and the war on terror: “From the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will–the al Qaeda types–they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.†[...]
August 18th, 2006 at 7:44 pmWell, I think the NeoCons are going to get what they want anyway. Loserman is running as an independant and will take votes away from Lamont. And then with broken/rigged voting machines helping, the Republicans will win the seat. What we need is a way of having people sit and watch the WHOLE election process, and audit EVERYTHING. And realize that Republican’t backed companies who make the electronic voting machines are going to rig elections.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:32 pm[...] Cheney told reporters yesterday, “The thing that �s partly disturbing about it [Lieberman’s loss] is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, the they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people.”read more | digg story Digg this [...]
August 26th, 2006 at 6:44 am9/11 Conspiracy
Here are some 9/11 conspiracy videos. The first is a link to a full-length documentary called “Loose Change” (click on the link and follow the link to the video):
http://www.loosechange911.com/
Other shorter 9/11 conspiracy stuff I also found interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc2lih2qjEg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXpcnhwFlIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF8-8Kaa8jo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBVVs9hcmRY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmvGFVr6KNk
September 6th, 2006 at 12:49 pm[...] fearmongering is a common right-wing tactic. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and the White House all suggested al Qaeda was rooting for Democrats in 2006 and [...]
March 14th, 2008 at 1:19 pm