Cheney Chooses Chief Propagator of False Iraq-9/11 Link To Be Official Biographer
Cheney Chooses Chief Propagator of False Iraq-9/11 Link To Be Official Biographer
Vice President Cheney — “the man running the country” — is now working on an official biography.
But don’t hold out any hope that the biography will offer any revealing insight into “Dick Cheney’s dark, secretive mind-set.” The author of the book, according to U.S. News, will be Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes:
We hear that the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes is hot on the case and plans to publish a bio titled, naturally enough, Cheney as early as next spring. “I’m not a historian,” Hayes fesses up.
No, Hayes is not a historian. What are his qualifications? He’s a journalist who has cultivated close ties within the White House and has become the go-to source for insiders seeking to peddle false claims on Iraq. Here are some highlights of Hayes’ record:
1. This January, Cheney was asked by then-Fox News radio host Tony Snow, “Were there links to — between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?” Cheney answered, “Well, I think Steve Hayes has done an effective job in his article of laying out a lot of those connections.” Hayes wrote an article entitled “Dick Cheney Was Right” about the Vice President’s effort to connect Saddam to 9/11. But even President Bush said most recently that Iraq had “nothing” to do with 9/11.
2. In 2003, Hayes declared “case closed” in an article purporting to show the links between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Cheney recommeneded it to the Rocky Mountain news as the premier source of information on the issue. (”[Y]ou ought to go look is an article that Stephen Hayes did in the Weekly Standard here a few weeks ago…That’s your best source of information.”) Hayes relied on a classified Defense Department memo produced by Douglas Feith. The Defense Department shot down Hayes’ article, stating the Feith memo was “not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.”
Each and every one of Hayes’ attempts to link Iraq to 9/11 have been thoroughly discredited, but he continues to push the argument. It’s quite fitting that Cheney chose him to be his official biographer.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I’ll be on the lookout for it at the Dollar Store.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:07 pmWow…that’s gonna be a load of crap for sure.
I wonder if it will be revealed that GDUB is his puppet?
August 28th, 2006 at 3:08 pmI’d call it HARRY POTTER AND THE NON-EXISTENT WMDs.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:09 pmSo Cheney hired a fiction writer to do his autobiography. That was probably a wise choice.
I wonder if Stephen Hayes will collaborate at all with Michael Crichton…now there’s a match made in heaven. ^_^
August 28th, 2006 at 3:10 pmIt pays to be a delusional right-wing shill.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:11 pm“DICK” would be a more appropriate title or,”What a Dick”.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:12 pmI’d just like Hayes to be able to write the final chapter in the next pacemaking heartbeat.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:12 pm“Dickin’ Around” Bio-Fiction
August 28th, 2006 at 3:15 pmI wonder if he will sell more books than his daughter Mary did.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:18 pmStephen Hayes’ investigative work, looking into the now-proven ties between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda, has been superlative. He is a splended reporter, who has successfully dismantled the now-discredited myth that there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:18 pmIt’ll be a biography told from George Bush’s perspective.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:19 pmIt will called “My Dick and Me”.
Still drinking early, Exley?
August 28th, 2006 at 3:23 pm#11 Wayne….Another series win for the Blue and Orange.
Magic number is 18!
August 28th, 2006 at 3:25 pmTitles: Go F— Yourself
August 28th, 2006 at 3:26 pmShoot First, Ask No Questions
Presidential Puppetry Made Easy
Foolin’ With the Facts
A Tale of American Suckers
#13 Exley, I saw that! Yea!!!
Then I saw your post. Boooo!
I don’t have time to argue except to say that no one disputes that there were links between Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
It’s the idea that Saddam and al Qaeda were working closely together that has been thoroughly debunked. But I’ll let everyone else tell you why.
Go Mets! :)
August 28th, 2006 at 3:28 pmI am looking forward to listen to you later dear “DICK TRACY”.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:30 pmWhat if you wrote a book and no one read it?
August 28th, 2006 at 3:30 pmHow long before it hits the NYT Top Ten Best Seller List for Fiction?
August 28th, 2006 at 3:31 pmthe now-discredited myth that there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Comment by Exley — August 28, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
You know you are being misleading here, Exley.
When you say “links” you establish more than just a meeting here and there, that had no follow-up and lead to no collaboration between Hussein’s Iraq and AlQaeda. “Some talks with no consequences” is a more appropriate term, and you know it.
Moreoever, by repeating it, you seem bent on re-making the myth that Iraq was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks, something we all know didn’t happen, but served to sell the invasion and occupation of Iraq to the American public.
Why you insist on defending an administration that has ruined (almost) everything it has touched is beyond me.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:32 pmExley
August 28th, 2006 at 3:32 pmNo one disputes that Saddam Hussein had links with Iraq – he was the dictator of that country! :) Seriously, the U.S. had links with Iraq, too – that does not prove a causal or operational link to 911.
#15 … Oops, an embarassing mistake on my part. Obviously the last sentence of my posting should read: “He is a splended reporter, who has successfully dismantled the now-discredited myth that there were no links between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda.”
Thank you for catching that and giving me a chance to correct it.
I am VERY impressed with John Maine! Let’s go Mets!!!!
August 28th, 2006 at 3:32 pmGee golly n gosh durn Beave, lemme do some modern isopsephia here and look into the magik Kristol Baal….
AEI+Hayes+Standard Weakly+Cheney= Organ grinding sock monkey’s
Wow, this gematria stuff really, really works!
August 28th, 2006 at 3:33 pmThat should be: Seriously, the U.S. had links with Al Qaeda, too Shheezz
August 28th, 2006 at 3:34 pm#19 Gregor, I defend this administration when they are correct and I criticize them when they are wrong. In our discussion last evening regarding runaway federal domestic spending, I was QUITE harsh on the administration and the Republican Congress, as you recall.
But when it comes to the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the administration has been proven to be correct over and over again. Even the Chairman and Vice Chariman of the 9/11 Commission said the administration was correct when they said there were links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
I understand why so many people here want to close their eyes and stop their ears to the now-established link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. If they did otherwise, they would have to admit their opposition to the removal of Saddam Hussein was morally and intellectually indefensible.
But the facts are the facts — The link between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda has been verified and validated over and oevr again. Those who oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein are entitled to their opinion. But they have to explain why they believe it made sense to leave in power a dictator who was linked with the terrorist organization that killed nearly 3,000 innocents on 9/11. Those who claim to have supported military operations in Afghanistan but opposed military operations in Iraq need to explain their inconsistency.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:41 pmeverything I say is a lie
August 28th, 2006 at 3:42 pm#21 Yes, we liberal Mets fans find him impressive, too. He’s definitely a keeper.
Gotta run. Enjoy battling the good folks here who simply want to point you in the direction of the truth. Please don’t hate them for that. They just don’t like seeing people proudly say incorrect things. bin Laden and Hussein did not get along and would not have wanted to work together, even toward a common enemy like the US. But I’ll let the others tell you the rest.
Have fun.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:43 pm# 26 Wayne….Liberal, conservative..It doesn’t matter…As long as we are true to the orange and blue.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:46 pmOh boy is this going to be good. Exley, Rumsfeld has connections to Sadam. Is he a “link”. I mean there’s pictures and everything. Saudi Arabia has tons of links to Al Qiada. Shouldn’t we be carpet bombing them by now?
Are you also applying for the job of Dick’s Biographer?
August 28th, 2006 at 3:46 pm(in a solemn voice) Yes. The Orange and Blue.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:48 pmAre we gonna have to have clearance to read it?
Not that I’d spend money on a book about a Dick, or bother reading it.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:49 pmExley,
Given your logic we should have first invaded Saudi Arabia since they pretty much entirely finance al qaeda and since almost all of the 9/11 terrorists hail from there. So, how come we didn’t?
August 28th, 2006 at 3:51 pmhow will this great work of literature begin ? ” Once upon a time there was an evil empire……
August 28th, 2006 at 3:53 pmThe link between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda has been verified and validated over and oevr again.
Comment by Exley — August 28, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
And what I keep telling you is that, by using the word “link” you establish more than just a occasional contact, or talk. Someone else said that, from that perspective, even the US had “links” with AlQaeda, and Bin Laden. The word “link” implies some a connection, a working relationship -something Iraq did not have, anymore than the US did. We all know that now.
Pakistan has much stronger “links” than Hussein ever did. If that is the standard, I could say Pakistan has strong bonds to AlQaeda.
Also, “links” was the word the Bush administration used many times to imply Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Something we also know did not happen.
The use of that word is grossly misleading. You know that.
But they have to explain why they believe it made sense to leave in power a dictator who was linked with the terrorist organization that killed nearly 3,000 innocents on 9/11
Than I will have to ask you to justify the fact that Pakistan has been left alone, even though they also have links to AlQaeda.
Hussein is guilty of may things. 9/11 is not one of them.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:53 pmDID YOU HEAR???
Karr’s DNA not a match
August 28th, 2006 at 3:54 pmhttp://www.denverpost.com/jonbenet/ci_4250517
what a surprise!!!
Correction. My post should read “Then I will have to ask you…”
I hate making mistakes like that…
August 28th, 2006 at 3:55 pm#32, #29…While I hold no love for the Saudis and find their’s a despicable regime, the fact is that the Saudi government provided no support to Al Qaeda (Unquestionably, many individual Saudis supported Bin Laden). Bin Laden was expelled from Saudi Arabia and is a sworn enemy of the House of Saud. In fact, one of the joint operations between Iraq and Al Qaeda were efforts against Saudi Arabia. If there was any indication that the Saudi government was linked with Al Qaeda, I certainly would approve of military action against Saudi Arabia.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:57 pmApparently the VP & Mr. Hayers weren’t listening to the President in his press conference last week when he stated that Iraq had “nothing” to do with 911.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:02 pmStephen Hayes’ investigative work, looking into the now-proven ties between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda, has been superlative. He is a splended reporter, who has successfully dismantled the now-discredited myth that there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Comment by Exley — August 28, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
This post (even when the final reference to Iraq is changed to Al Qaida) seems like a joke. But apparently it isn’t. Some people simply can’t admit they were wrong about Bush, so they invent ever more twisted logic to feed their denial (think Friedman, Hitchens, and Exley).
August 28th, 2006 at 4:03 pm#34…Gregor…First of all, I agree…I too hate making mistakes like that.
As for Pakistan, I agree that before 9/11 Pakistani intelligence seemed to have their fingerprints all over Al Qaeda and the Taliban. However, after 9/11, whether through some epiphany by which they discovered the moral courage to oppose Al Qaeda (unlikely) OR because they were scared as Hell about what the U.S. would do to them should they fail to cooperate, the Pakistanis seem to have become valuable allies in the fight against Al Qaeda and Islamic extremism. They have been very cooperative in working with the U.S. to capture or kill Al Qaeda leaders (including Khalid Sheik Mohammad)….So, whatever their motives, the Pakistanis are now helping us. That is why they were spared the fate of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. If after 9/11 Saddam had turned over a new leaf like the Pakistanis, he almost certainly would still be in power. But he did not. He opted to continue to play games of hide-and-seek with his WMD activities and continued to sponsor terrorism. As a result, today he is sitting in a jail cell.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:04 pmWaaaaaaaa
Waaaaaaaa
Waaaaaaaa
Is what the title should be. Thought there is some dispute whether it is to be classified as Fiction or Horror.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:04 pmI seriously doubt Exley would be for military action against every nation with links to Bin Laden and Al-queda.
OBL is a Frankenstein monster built by a joint USA/Saudi experiment to battle the evil of communism.
The Exleys who believe Saddam had any more culpability with Al-Queda then we did, are just deluding themselves.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:05 pmExley wrote
But when it comes to the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the administration has been proven to be correct over and over again.
My question to you is what do your small intestines look like today?
Stating lies and secretly subscribing to truthiness does not make a belief factual. I could do a dissertation on the BS your spewing. You are COMPLETELY wrong and wasting any time trying to educate you is clearly wasted…..your mind is already gone.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:09 pmExley –
Did you read the post? It has a link to the press conference where George Bush refutes your claims. You should check it out.
Sincerely,
bnye
August 28th, 2006 at 4:11 pmEven Democrat 9/11 Commissioner Lee Hamilton defended Vice President Cheney and said he was correct when he said Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked:
“The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government,†Democratic vice-chairman Lee Hamilton told reporters. “We don’t disagree with that.â€
August 28th, 2006 at 4:15 pmLet’s attack somalia and saudi Arabia!!!!!!! And why not the state of alabama as well? I don’t like crosses in front of my house, you hear me!!!! Bad Decoration……..but good if you wanna make smores.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:15 pmLies are all the GOP ever had and now all they have are old lies because someone forgot to tell Cheney and the rest of the GOP how to make new lies. I guess the one children’s book that Bush has never read is “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.”
Paul Krugman writes about Bush’s broken promises one year after Katrina.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:15 pmTom Kean: “Were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them are shadowy, but there’s no question they were there.â€
August 28th, 2006 at 4:18 pmHe opted to continue to play games of hide-and-seek with his WMD activities and continued to sponsor terrorism.
Comment by Exley — August 28, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
So now what you are saying is that he was a bad person and needed to be deposed, regardless of whether or not he was involved in the attack that justified the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
In other words, 9/11 was a convenient excuse. If only the American public had been told just that before going into Iraq, so they could decide if Iraq was worth all the death and devastation.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:18 pmLee Hamilton: “I must say I have trouble understanding the flap over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government. We don’t disagree with that … So it seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.â€
And here is 9/11 Commissioner Jim Lehman:
“The President’s correct. And the commission yesterday said exactly that. What the commission also said was there was no evidence of collaboration on any of the attacks against the United States. But we had previously pointed out that, particularly in Sudan, there is very hard evidence of collaboration on the X gas and other evidence, and additional contacts between Saddam’s intelligence service and al Qaeda in the assistance in training in weapons, chemical and biological weapons, anthrax manufacture, and that’s what we had in our report yesterday, but unfortunately, the New York Times sort of highlighted only one half of that.â€
August 28th, 2006 at 4:19 pmTom Kean: “Were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them are shadowy, but there’s no question they were there.â€
Comment by Exley — August 28, 2006
I put this in bold because jesus hates you.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:22 pmWhat are “shadowy” contacts? Sounds like doublespeak.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:24 pmok… we need a new thread, TP…
August 28th, 2006 at 4:25 pmthe “exley show” is on and it’s a re-run…
Exley is a Homo Ignoramus.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:25 pm#52, No, Gregor, that is not what I saying. You are missing my point. Pakistan, like Saddam Hussein, met with, supported, collaborated with Al Qaeda pre-9/11. AFTER 9/11, the Pakistanis, knowing full well that the military of the United States was going to come crashing down on any regime that supported international Islamist terrorism (Al Qaeda, specifically, although not exclusively), turned over a new leaf and began cooperating with the U.S. and the West in the fights agains Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Thus, the Pakistani regime was spared the fate of the Taliban. Saddam Hussein, conversely, did not turn over a new leaf, and continued to deceive the world about his WMD programs and continued to assist terrorist groups, like Al Qaeda. Therefore, his regime, unlike the Pakistanis, was overthrown.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:25 pmLosing is not appeasement
The neocons do not realize that force is a great weapon as long as it’s not used. They did not understand that once the U.S. embarked on a policy of force in Iraq, it risked more than its initial stake. Losing Iraq lost the U.S. prestige and credibility everywhere else in the region and wherever else it might be confronted. It strengthened Iran’s hand. It weakened Israel’s. Practically speaking, the American people and the military are much less likely and capable of underwriting another venture on the heels of a failed one.
Once an initial application of force goes wrong, as in Iraq, defeat and withdrawal begin to look like appeasement in the face of other threats, real or imagined. In other words, what seems like appeasement to the neocons now is a direct consequence of resorting to force in the first place and losing. A U.S. weakened by its missteps and unable to make good on its threats will indeed be more inclined to pull back. If it does, it won’t be appeasement. It will be the result of losses and seeking to stem further losses. This will not be the end of the world or Western civilization. It will, however, be attributable to the long-term (flawed) U.S. policy of trying to control the Middle East and to the specific neocon policies that included attacking Iraq, sanctions and threats against Iran, a diplomacy of pressure, and attacking Lebanon.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:26 pm“Saddam Hussein, conversely, did not turn over a new leaf, and continued to deceive the world about his WMD programs ‘
Weird how no programs turned up, huh?
August 28th, 2006 at 4:27 pmRegarding item #1 by Faiz above:
Tony Snow asked about the demonstrated Iraq-al Qaeda connection, and Cheney reponded to that. The president responded to a question about the 9/11 attack.
There is no contradiction saying that Iraq and al Qaeda were connected, but not regarding that particular attack.
Does Faiz not have the capacity to understand the obvious distinction, or is he being dishonest about it?
August 28th, 2006 at 4:27 pm59# It’s more like he’s trying to tell us that he’s mentally disabled in a subtle way…….
August 28th, 2006 at 4:27 pmGregor Samsa lying: “…whether or not he was involved in the attack that justified the invasion and occupation of Iraq.”
But no one ever justified the liberation of Iraq by claiming they were involved in the 9/11 attack.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:30 pm#65….That is not entirely accurate. While no newly manufactured WMDs were found, the Duelfer Report turned up many ongoing WMD research development projects and concluded that Saddam Hussein was simply waiting to ride out the UN’s economic sanctions in order to gear up his WMD production again.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:31 pmFun fact: Iraq was listed by the Clinton administration for eight years as a state sponsor of terrorism.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:31 pmThe facts that Saddam had links to terrorist groups and continued to pursue WMD apparently does’t matter to most on the left.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:33 pmI gave up trying to understand why Americans need to lie and distort for bush a long time ago.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:34 pmAgain, 9/11 Commissioner Jim Lehman:
“The President’s correct. And the commission yesterday said exactly that. What the commission also said was there was no evidence of collaboration on any of the attacks against the United States. But we had previously pointed out that, particularly in Sudan, there is very hard evidence of collaboration on the X gas and other evidence, and additional contacts between Saddam’s intelligence service and al Qaeda in the assistance in training in weapons, chemical and biological weapons, anthrax manufacture, and that’s what we had in our report yesterday, but unfortunately, the New York Times sort of highlighted only one half of that.â€
Clearly, after 9/11 and given this evidence, there was no way any responsible American leader — Democrat or Republican — could allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:34 pmGo find Osama “PATRIOT”…………..
August 28th, 2006 at 4:36 pmHey, works for me. Stephen Hayes has no credibility, and Dickweed Cheney doesn’t either. Don’t have to buy the book, don’t have to read the book!
August 28th, 2006 at 4:37 pmThere was a great Daily Show clip where John Stewart was interviewing Hayes about his Iraq/9-11 fiction. At the end Stewart asked Hayes if his book was pretty much bullshit and Hayes had to noddingly agree. Maybe we’ll finally learn of Cheney’s ties to Saddam and 9-11. Even I might buy that for $5 over at Drudge or Newsmax.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:37 pmIt is the Demcorats, not the Republicans, who are spreading lies about WMD. The Democratic party cares more about winning elections than defending America.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:39 pmIn the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) report, head inspector Charles Duelfer stated that, “there is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD production after sanctions were lifted by preserving assets and expertise. In addition to preserved capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted.”
August 28th, 2006 at 4:41 pm“pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD production after sanctions were lifted by preserving assets and expertise.”
LOL
I love convuluted bullshit that leads to war.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:43 pmBut no one ever justified the liberation of Iraq by claiming they were involved in the 9/11 attack.
w o w
that is an amazing piece of work, now…
when was that one invented? keep it in minds, folks…
August 28th, 2006 at 4:44 pmHey, where’s that troll list? Has someone added USA PATRIOT?
August 28th, 2006 at 4:47 pm9-11 was a Cheney/PNAC inside job and the #1 terrorist is
the fearmonger criminal regime in WashDC.
Clean up your own affairs at home before starting illegal wars and killing indiscriminately
August 28th, 2006 at 4:47 pminnocent people.
Wow, this is like H R Haldeman writing a biography of Nixon.
Talk about “fair and balanced”.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:48 pm#89 Nah, he wasn’t a very good troll, so he’ll be left off.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:48 pmExley and USA Patriot: you can spin and obfuscate all you want, but nothing will change the fact that this administration manipulated intelligence, wrongfully conflated Iraq with the 9-11 attack, lied to Congress and the american people and politicized foreign policy to wage a phony war of choice against a country which was no threat to us whatsoever. I don’t care what talking points you’ve gleaned from the RNC talking points factory. Most Americans understand what happened. We understand we’ve been lied to by deeply flawed people who have screwed things up horribly. We also understand that there is a minority of people in this country who must bow to authority no matter where it takes them. They must follow. They must defend power. 200 years ago people like you guys were called royalists.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:49 pmExley USA PATRIOT
August 28th, 2006 at 4:50 pmBy your warp logic the US should have invaded Reagan’s Pales Verde home he is the one that started the funding for mujahideen or even Bush I in Kennbunkport he is the guy who cut the funding of the rebuilding of Afghanistan after the Russians left.
Al-Qaeda did have a camp in Northern Iraq before the invasion. However, this camp was not in an area that Sadaam controlled since 1991. It was in an area protected by the coalition Air Force. WE PROTECTED Al-Qaeda from Sadaam.
Why would Sadaam have a relationship with Shiite Arabs (ne Al Qaeda), when he was a Sunni? The religious friction between the two elements is, and has existed for centuries.
Why does President Bush now admit that Sadaam had nothing to do with 9/11?
Because we were told lies over and over, some of us still believe them. Get the facts, we supported Sadaam until 1991, we sold him Helicopters with “crop dusting” attachments that were used to spray poisons, which we also supplied (Rumsfeld in ‘83). We played both sides of the Iran/Iraq war, selling missiles to Iran and poisonous gas to Iraq. We attacked a sovereign nation, Iraq, without provication, murdered over 100,000 innocent Iraqi’s. And we wonder why America is hated in the Middle East?
When Rumsfeld and Cheney ran out of targets to attack in Afghanistan, their thirst for blood led us into Iraq, a secular country where women had far more rights then than now.
Liberal or conservative, stop the name calling, we are Americans, and it is our obligation to fix what we have screwed up. We broke it, now we will pay for it. It is no wonder that Colin Powell wants nothing to do with this administration, he can see the legacy it will leave.
Anyone who thinks that the situation in the Middle East has improved and the war on terror is being won is DELUSIONAL. Every day in we create more terrorists, every day we ignore the plight of the Palestinians, we create more terrorists.
It is quite obvious that we are not wanted in Iraq, in fact, 91% of Iraqi’s in the latest poll want us out. I would posit that the people who want us to stay have heavy ties to the Bush administration, i.e. the rulers that we hand-picked.
The problem is: We, and the government of Iraq do not have the balls to go after armed militias. These groups (al-Sadr) hold the real power in Iraq, and will after we finally leave. If (I guess I should say when) we or Isreal attack Iran, these groups will retaliate against the 138,000 troops we have in Iraq. If you think it is bad now, just wait. The majority of people in Iraq have extremely close ties to Iran through their religion. It is not going to change. Instead of establishing a “democracy” in Iraq, we have had a hand in establishing a religious based republic with strong ties to Iran.
Yeah, President Bush has done a great job. A leader who gets amusement by passing gas when he meets new staffers, a real class act. Out a classified CIA operative in a time of war, and worse yet, a the CIA operative whose job was to monitor WMD activity in Iran, and keep Iran from getting needed materials for nuclear weaponry. I can’t wait for the Democratic Congress to start the investigations. Impeach the Decider.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:51 pmExley is trying to parse away the truth. Like Lady Macbeth, he can’t, no matter how hard he tries, and it is driving him insane. Just like the rest of the neocons.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:56 pmIn February 1999, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, the CIA wanted to conduct U-2 surveillance missions over bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan.
But Richard Clarke worried that doing so might scare bin Laden into leaving the country — and going to Iraq.
If that happened, the report says, Clarke feared that bin Laden’s “entire network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service,†and the U.S. would never be able to find him.
So Clarke wrote an e-mail to then-national-security adviser Sandy Berger, saying that if bin Laden learned about the U-2 missions, then, “armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.â€
The report says another Clinton National Security Council aide also warned that “Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad.â€
August 28th, 2006 at 4:56 pmThe title of this book should be
TITLE: “Never Enough Wealth, Greed, Crime, Lies, and Death”.
SUBTITLE : “How to Bring About A New World Order And Profit By Overthrowing The United States Government”.
Cheney is a war criminal and a traitor who is most likely the ground zero mole who helped facilitate the 911 attacks for the Globalists. 911 was an inside job against our fellow countrymen.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:56 pmBill Irwin: “WE PROTECTED Al-Qaeda from Sadaam.”
Actually, it was the Bush administration alone which was responsible for this. The pentagon offered Bush three separate opportunities to kill al Zarqawi. Each time, the Bush administration turned them down because they thought killing him would undercut their political rational for invasion. This was reported in 2003 by the Washington Post, who had access to the Pentagon report.
Bottom line: the Bush administration refused to kill a terrorist for domestic political reasons. That terrorist went on to personally behead to Americans and kill hundreds of Iraqis.
Why hasn’t the Bush administration paid a political price for this disaster? I guess you’d have to ask the “liberal media.”
August 28th, 2006 at 4:57 pmThis 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 Iraq-Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.”
9/11 Commission Report
August 28th, 2006 at 4:59 pmI wonder if Hayes will have the sacrifices of young virgin children with the vice president rolling around on the floor in their blood and entrails in his book.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:01 pmExley, a hundred years from now, history books will still be referring to this fiasco in Iraq as one of the worst foreign policy blunders in American history. Watching people like you doctor quotes, selectively site incomplete passages, torture logic and examination in order to continue a painful defense of this debacle is getting more and more pathetic. Doesn’t there come a time for you to admit what most of us have known for a long time: the war in Iraq was a terrible, terrible mistake. It didn’t make us any safer. Indeed, it has made us more vulnerable. What exactly are you defending here?
August 28th, 2006 at 5:02 pmA thought just occurred to me – to bad that Dr. Seuss is no longer with us, that way Cheney could pick him to ghost it and W would be able to read it.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:02 pmI am really irritated at this whole link between Iraq and Al-Quaeda. There was no link. Saddam did everything he could to eradicate the very hint of Al-Quaeda ever getting a foothold. Why? Because dictators hate to share the power. Saddam was up there on Al-Quaeda’s list because he stomped on them with both feet. And yet, its out there that they were working together? Next thing your going to tell me is that Rove and Cheney were awarded the Medal of Honor for gallantry in Operation Anaconda. What’s arabic for fat chance?
August 28th, 2006 at 5:04 pmDarn,
Must be a slow news day for you guys to post this boring crap and attempt to scare the crap out of the poor people of New Orleans with that bogus “hurricane might hit New Orleans” even though we could go to any other site in the world and see it was heading toward Florida. Sadly, it is just a baby hurricane at best. Not even news IMO.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:05 pm“Sadly, it is just a baby hurricane at best.”
What an incredibly stupid thing to say.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:07 pmThis biography will be great. Especially the part where John Kerry storms into Cheney’s office demanding we surrender to al Qaeda. It was at that point when Cheney definitely did not try to link Iraq to 9/11.
Also the early chapters tell how Cheney got draft deferments so he could secretly fight behind enemy lines, single handedly taking out Mao, Stalin, and Hitler’s ghost in a dramatic bar fight.
The book will end with a triumphant Cheney as grand marshall in a ticker tape parade through Baghdad, waving to thousands of grateful Iraqis in a new dawn of freedom.
The bibliography and footnotes will disprove global warming.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:09 pm#105…All facts to the contrary, right?
August 28th, 2006 at 5:10 pm#106 – Roger_Roger,
August 28th, 2006 at 5:12 pmI live in Florida and people are buying bottled water and topping off their tanks like there is no tommorrow. I reved up my full house generator just to be sure that it was still in working order. It’s all relative. Sorry about this OT, but these dumb and insane Neocons get to me.
#110 You mean the fact that the only al Qaeda affiliated group in Iraq was fighting against Saddam, right?
August 28th, 2006 at 5:12 pmRoger_Roger
Not only was that stupid i think this is the wrong thread
August 28th, 2006 at 5:12 pmRoger,
I must disagree with you.
A slow news day is this heading I saw @ Raw Story:
Hitler and Stalin were possessed by the Devil, says Vatican exorcist
August 28th, 2006 at 5:13 pmRoger_Roger from the National Hurricane Center Advisory at 200 AM EDT SUN AUG 27 2006
AND THE SOUTHEASTERN GULF OF MEXICO…SHOULD
MONITOR THE PROGRESS OF ERNESTO.
Saddly, you have no clue as to facts and the timing of those facts.
Why don’t you call the National Hurricane Center and tell them to stop scaring the people of New Orleans.
Of course, Roger_Roger is a post and run NEOCON.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:14 pm105,
Saddam is a baathist- leader of a secular party, in other words. So, all things considered, the only thing he really had in common with Osama was a hatred of America. And there are a lot more useful people who hated America- like the Taliban for instance- than a deranged dictator who was effectively powerless on the international stage.
As it happens, I don’t think that the war would have been justified even if Saddam was supporting Osama. The only real grounds that offers are in terms of revenge, and for preventing more terrorist acts from occuring. Revenge is obviously a stupid motive for war- otherwise there would never be any peace full stop- while destroying Saddam to stop terrorist acts seems a little improbable. Is a full scale invasion of a country and destruction of its infrastructure really the best way to stop the government supplying terrorists with money? If it is the only way perhaps it would justify the war, but that does seem rather unlikely.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:14 pmI’m sure that it’ll be a real page-turner. I wonder on which page he’ll admit to outing Plame? Will there be a chapter where he talks about shooting a guy on the face?
August 28th, 2006 at 5:14 pmAmerica’s Least Wanted
FIELDING: This is before the U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa and the administration indicted Osama bin Laden. And the indictment, which was unsealed a few months later, reads, “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.”
So my question to you is what evidence was that indictment based upon and what was this understanding that’s referenced in it?
FITZGERALD: And the question of relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda is an interesting one. I don’t have information post-2001 when I got involved in a trial, and I don’t have information post-September 11th. I can tell you what led to that inclusion in that sealed indictment in May and then when we superseded, which meant we broadened the charges in the Fall, we dropped that language.
We understood there was a very, very intimate relationship between al Qaeda and the Sudan. They worked hand in hand. We understood there was a working relationship with Iran and Hezbollah, and they shared training. We also understood that there had been antipathy between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein because Saddam Hussein was not viewed as being religious.
We did understand from people, including al-Fadl — and my recollection is that he would have described this most likely in public at the trial that we had, but I can’t tell you that for sure; that was a few years ago — that at a certain point they decided that they wouldn’t work against each other and that we believed a fellow in al Qaeda named Mondu Saleem (ph), Abu Harzai (ph) the Iraqi, tried to reach a, sort of, understanding where they wouldn’t work against each other. Sort of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
And that there were indications that within Sudan when al Qaeda was there — which al Qaeda left in the summer of ‘96 or spring ‘96 — there were efforts to work on joint — you know, acquiring weapons.
FITZGERALD: Clearly, al Qaeda worked with the Sudan in getting those weapons in the national defense force there and the intelligence service. There were indications that al-Fadl had heard from others that Iran was involved. And they also had heard that Iraq was involved.
The clearest account from al-Fadl as a Sudanese was that he had dealt directly with the Sudanese intelligence service, so we had first-hand knowledge of that.
We corroborated the relationship with Iran to a lesser extent but to a solid extent. And then we had information from al-Fadl, who we believe was truthful, learning from others that there were also was efforts to try to work with Iraq. That was the basis for what we put in that indictment. Clearly, we put Sudan in the first order at that time as being the partner of al Qaeda.
We understood the relationship with Iran but Iraq, we understood, went from a position where they were working against each other to a standing down against each other. And we understood they were going to explore the possibility of working on weapons together.
That’s my piece of what I know. I don’t represent to know everything else, so I can’t tell you, well, what we’ve learned since then. But there was that relationship that went from opposing each other to not opposing each other to possibly working with each other.
Testimony of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald before 9/11 Commission — June 16, 2004.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:16 pm#100 How many American lives are worth ’speculation’ Exley? How many Iraqi’s?
August 28th, 2006 at 5:16 pmthe now-discredited myth that there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Comment by Exley — August 28, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
Well, of course there is: Saddam Hussein was Iraq´s dictator president.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:18 pmWe didn’t invade Sudan Exley, and perhaps you should look up the word ‘antipathy’.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:18 pmSo Exley, are you saying we should have invaded Sudan instead of Iraq?
Or not fighting each other is the same as working together? That puts many many countries on the to-invade list.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:19 pmYou should FEAR Nancy Pelosi!!!! She said so afterall. I know I get scared just looking at her. Honestly, is she even a real person? Her skin has to be fake. It looks like plastic!!!!
Just one more stupid boring storry since there isn’t any real news today.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1376213,00.html
August 28th, 2006 at 5:19 pmExley
You post states there was no connection. Another Troll contradicts themselves go figure.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:21 pmRoger_Roger
you have nothing to add so go away
August 28th, 2006 at 5:23 pmRoger_Roger, You need a brain implant.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:23 pmIn 1999, the Congressional Research Service published a report on the psychology of terrorism: “If Iraq’s Saddam Hussein decides to use terrorists to attack the continental United States, he would likely turn to bin Laden’s al Qaeda. al Qaeda is among the Islamic groups recruiting increasingly skilled professionals including Iraqi chemical groups, weapons experts, and others capable of helping to develop weapons of mass destruction. al Qaeda poses the most serious terrorist threat to U.S. security interests, for al Qaeda’s well-trained terrorists are engaged in a terrorist jihad against U.S. interests worldwide.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46525-2004Jun16.html
So, again. as we see, the U.S. government in 1999, during the Clinton administration, was concerned about cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
As stated earlier, after 9/11, no responsible American president — Republican or Democrat — could have allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:25 pmSudan does not have a lot of oil. Therefor they are safe from US invasion.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:25 pmHaven’t you damaged yourself enough Exley?
August 28th, 2006 at 5:26 pm“administration was concerned” does not equate to full blown “cooperation.” Do you not understand that?
August 28th, 2006 at 5:27 pmExley, You should get in line with Roger_Roger. (see my post 127)
August 28th, 2006 at 5:27 pmBut they have to explain why they believe it made sense to leave in power a dictator who was linked with the terrorist organization that killed nearly 3,000 innocents on 9/11.
Comment by exley
There is proven links between CIA and AlQaeda. Why the US hasnt bombed the CIA quarters, exley? Why the US hasnt bombed Rumsfeld for shaking hands with a deplorable, nefarious dictator as Saddam, exley? Because, at that time, they (Saddam and Alqaeda) were buying weapons from US. Again, I think you are a well-spirited guy but, as usual you speak out of emotion and patriotism.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:27 pmPlease explain why our government officials stopped flying commercial in August of 2001?
Please explain why nothing was done to increase airport security after the memo “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US” was given to the President.
Please explain why when President Bush was told that “We are under attack” by Andrew Card in a classroom of children that he sat there for another 6 minutes and did NOTHING?
Please explain why, when we had a chance to attack and kill Zarqwawi (in a camp we protected from Sadaam) in 2001-2003 that we did not because it would undermine the plans to attack Iraq?
Please explain why there were NO WMD’s, just as we were told by Scott Ritter, and by the UN Inspectors? There were no active WMD programs since 1991, to say that Sadaam was waiting for the UN sanctions to expire before re-constituting his WMD programs is supposition. Did this information come from our great pool of exiles supplied by Chalabi?
Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. On 9/11 15 of the radical Wahabbiist Muslim hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, where Wahabbi Muslimism is still taught.
Why do we not prosecute those in the Saudi Royal Family that provided partial funding for the 9/11 attack?
When GW Bush was President of the Texas Rangers his drinking and drug escapades were well known to the players (i.e. Raphael Palmiero quote: “Am I worried about my drug use? Hell, our President (GWB President of the Rangers) does more than all of us.” Bush is a recovering alcoholic and drug user, and his actions and decisions reflect his past lifestyle. To blindly back him and not question his administration is an insult to your intelligence.
Learn the facts, if Clinton was impeached for lying about fellatio in a deposition, then certainly Bush deserves the same treatment for what he has done.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:29 pmBut no one ever justified the liberation of Iraq by claiming they were involved in the 9/11 attack.
Comment by USA PATRIOT — August 28, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
Wrong. Here is an excerpt from the authorisation for use of military force against Iraq of 2002:
acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
The invasion was justified because Hussein’s regime was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The resolution mentions exactly that. The Wikipedia has a very concise entry that explains it all: Iraq Resolution
Here is an article from the Christian Science Monitor from 2003, about a week before the invasion:
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was “personally involved” in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
And I am the one who is lying?
It must really hurt you to realise all the things you were told were not true. So much that you have to blame me of lying when I point that out.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:29 pmWasn’t Saddams Iraq a secular state? I just can’t see how Osama and Saddam could have got it together considering how different their world views are.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:30 pm#10 “…there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Iraq.” Comment by Exley…ROFLMAO!
August 28th, 2006 at 5:30 pmmujahideen changed there name to Alqaeda.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:30 pm#134 – Juan C,
August 28th, 2006 at 5:32 pm“out of emotion and patriotism” is a double inuendo. By “out” did you mean “empty” or “full”?
A 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.
(Editor’s Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states “Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.
It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.)
ABC News March 23, 2006
August 28th, 2006 at 5:32 pmHow appropriate for the cheif author of Iraq misinformation to write of the magnificence of Cheney. The joke will ultimately be on Cheney–just like the disaster that is Iraq.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:33 pmpossible title:
“I SUCK, DICK”
August 28th, 2006 at 5:36 pmThis document is handwritten and has no official seal
Good one Exley I think you need to move to the front on the line for that brain implant.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:37 pmBy “out†did you mean “empty†or “full�
Comment by WaltTheMan — August 28, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
As far as I know, Walt, speak out is a phrasal verb. And I tried to say that he was speaking out…and then…with emotion oh…was that wrong? What I meant is that Exley´s bottomline argument is USA is the greatest country in the world. Good. As if 95.5% of the rest of the world cares.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:40 pmSaddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents ShowBY ELI LAKE – Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 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. Kerrey 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.”
August 28th, 2006 at 5:41 pmMr. 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.”
Brain implant?
Will stem cell research do that to?
August 28th, 2006 at 5:42 pmExley
the NYSUN
What a hoot. Stop now I’m lauphing so hard at you its not healthy
August 28th, 2006 at 5:43 pmWhat will it take to cause the liberal-progressive advocates and politicians to recognize that by focusing on their favorite issues, they are only stirring around the symptoms. The foundation threat to the United States is due to an underlying corporate government. That secret government’s survival is their only goal that depends on corporate MSM support, and public apathy and ignorance to continue to erode our remaining freedoms.
Because of the corporocracy under which we now writhe, the capitalist myths are dead. It is just that the public can’t figure out where the stench is coming from.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:43 pmWho will dare say it?
…if Clinton was impeached for lying about fellatio in a deposition, then certainly Bush deserves the same treatment for what he has done.
Comment by Bill Irwin — August 28, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
except dubya hasn’t been asked, so he hasn’t had to lie about how he’s screwing us all…
August 28th, 2006 at 5:47 pmBob Kerry? The one who allowed both Bush and Cheney to testify without being under oath? That Bob Kerry? Ha, Ha, Ha, . . .
August 28th, 2006 at 5:49 pmWell, now that I have once again shown that the myth held by so many of the left that Saddam and Al Qaeda had no connections with eachother has been thoroughly discredited through my rather impressive recitation of the facts, news articles, the 9/11 Commission Report, testimony before the 9/11 Commission, the Congressional Research Service, and interviews with 9/11 Commissioners, I bid you all a good evening…and I accept your retraction of your new-disproven canards.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:49 pmExley,
Evidentally you do not believe your Supreme Ruler
Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on 9/11.
The unprovoked attack on Iraq was a disaster. We took a country that had no ties to Iran, killed over 100,000 innocents, installed a government to our liking, which now has closer ties to Iran than the U.S. Yeah, we’ve done a good thing.
Debate all you want about your claims of al-Qaeda and Sadaam. The relationship makes no sense, Sadaam is a secular Baathist Sunni, Osama is a ultra-religious Wahabbist Shiite, the two do not mix.
Move on to an argument where you have concrete proof, suppositions and guesses do not make a very solid backing.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:54 pmExley,
I never promised they would be nice to you about it, Exley, but they did tell you where you went wrong. As for the Saudis and their possible sponsorship of al Qaeda, I seem to recall that the Senate investigated this and then redacted 28 pages mentioning the Royal Saudi Family.
Help me out, friends. Am I confusing that report with something else? The one with the 28-pages about the Saudis redacted at the WH’s request. Wasn’t that a report about the 9-11 attacks, or was that report something else? If something else, then please accept my apologies for the error.
In either case, Exley, the Mets Magic Number is down to 18, and that’s all that matters for the next few weeks. Then the election. That’s important, too.
August 28th, 2006 at 5:59 pmDid anyone else notice that Feith leaked a classified document to another Bushista? Will the Prez be enraged by this leak, and order in the FBI? I would hate to think that the endless hypocrisy/duplicity has resulted in apathy. Feith should be prosecuted; unless, of course, the CIC “declassified” it retroactively, again.
August 28th, 2006 at 6:03 pmpossible title: A DICK WITHOUT BALLS.
August 28th, 2006 at 6:08 pmWayne,
August 28th, 2006 at 6:11 pmYou are correct. The Bush family does not want the American public to realize that there are those in the Saudi Royal Family affiliated with Osama, so close that they provided monetary assistance to 9/11 highjackers. The problem is that Presidents GWB and GHWB are very close to the royal family, and do not want to embarrass them.
All this over our military base in Saudi Arabia, which Bin-laden sees as implicent support for the Hard-line monarchy. When will we learn, treat others as you would want to be treated.
#166 and the follow-up for when the Dems take back the WH:
August 28th, 2006 at 6:12 pmA Ball Without Dick
#167 Bill Irwin,
Even I, an avowed atheist, try to live by the motto “Treat others as you would like them to treat you.” It’s such a good motto that maybe that’s why it’s known as “The Golden Rule”. For someone who claims to have accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior, our President sure doesn’t seem to care for this motto.
August 28th, 2006 at 6:14 pmHow about:
August 28th, 2006 at 6:17 pmDICK, It’s Not Just My Name
thoroughly discredited through my rather impressive recitation of the facts,
Comment by Exley — August 28, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
You are having a debate with no opponents. In other words, you debunked a strawman of your own making. Those connections and links you speak of were known.
What is being disputed -and this is how you set up your strawman- is whether those links and connections between Iraq and AlQaeda translated into a working, collaborative relationship leading up to the 9/11 attacks. You know they did not. Those they never went beyond fleeting contacts and talks. All your quotes show exactly that, and do not amount to a solid casus belli against Hussein’s regime. Iraq did not pose an imminent threat.
If you really wanted to have an honest debate, you’d drop the words “links” and “connections” and use better expressions like “talks with no consequences”, or “discussions that did not evolve into coordination”. You know that the Bush administration used those words to mean collaboration and complicity in 9/11 to sell the invasion to the American public. Stop setting up a strawman.
August 28th, 2006 at 6:18 pmHow about:
DICK, It’s Not Just My Name
Comment by Bill Irwin — August 28, 2006 @ 6:17 pm
I like that. How about:
August 28th, 2006 at 6:20 pmDICK, It’s Not Just My Name, It’s What I Do
Wrong. Here is an excerpt from the authorisation for use of military force against Iraq of 2002:
acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
The invasion was justified because Hussein’s regime was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The resolution mentions exactly that.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — August 28, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
Gregor – I agree that the administration did everything possible to create the impression that Iraq was involved in 911… but they did it in such a way that they could not be technically called out for having said they were.
Take for instance the statement above… they are very careful to parse apart international terrorists and those that attacked us on 911. Technically they classify the 911 highjackers as a subset of the international terrorist community separate from the larger community that Saddam belongs to.
To me this very careful parsing is even more incriminating… it shows that they never really believed that there was a connection and that is why they so carefully crafted their wording.
If they really thought there was a connection they wouldn’t have so intentionally vague.
August 28th, 2006 at 6:34 pmA better title would be: How I Made George My Bitch
August 28th, 2006 at 6:40 pm#150 – Juan C,
August 28th, 2006 at 6:53 pmThe word “out” has nuances in the English langunge. “out of fuel” means you are running on empty. “out of Africa” explains an origin. “out of pity” describes an emotion. “out of patriotism” can mean either the lack of patriotism of the support of patriotism. “out of emotion” is less ambigious but can be construed either way.
If they really thought there was a connection they wouldn’t have so intentionally vague.
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — August 28, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
I agree. Absolutely. Nobody in the Bush administration (that I can recall) came out and said “Hussein was involved knee-deep in 9/11″ or anything like that. They were always very careful with their wording. But they invariably had the words “9/11″, “Iraq”, and “terrorism” strung together in the same sentences. See my link to the Christian Science Monitor article.
After months of hearing statements like those, the only conclusion anyone could draw is that Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Why mention him at all if not? Same for the resolution, why bring up 9/11 in a resolution about Iraq if the two events were unrelated?
Pres Bush et al relentessly insinuated a relationhsip. They put all the words together and left it up to the American public to make the inference. It worked.
August 28th, 2006 at 6:57 pmWe know that there won’t be any truths written in that biography. Maybe Dick’s book will have the same success as his daughter’s book.
August 28th, 2006 at 7:00 pmYeah – there was a link between AlQaeda and Saddam… Saddam HATED AlQaeda. It’s the same link between myself and traitor Rove. I hate traitor Rove.
August 28th, 2006 at 7:05 pmAugust 28th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
link to above
August 28th, 2006 at 7:11 pmhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202271,00.html
Exley is going to vote a straight Democratic ticket in November. I know this for certain. After all he has “links” to this progressive blog site and all its Democratic constituents. He has had numerous conversations about the election on this site. His numerous posts on this site have advanced the progressive conversation and highlighted the Republican, especially neocon, incompetence and lack of integrity. Thus, Exley, as a solid benefactor of the progressive movement is proving an asset campaign for a Democratic victory in November.
I preemptively accept your accolades for my superior intelligence and reasoning power in proving the above thesis. I owe it all to Exley and his demonstrations.
OK, it’s time for me to go barf.
August 28th, 2006 at 7:21 pmDear Progressive Whiners – Here’s an original thought. STOP whining about a book which may portray Vice President Cheney in a less-than Satanic light and have some well-known liberal historian, (i.e.Doris Kearns Goodwin) write a blazing expose sure to be a liberal hit. Of course, it might suffer the fate of many liberal screeds and not recoup it’s advance…. or it may be a runaway bestseller.
August 28th, 2006 at 7:24 pm178 Gregor – I think they call it classical conditioning… Pavlov had his dogs and Bush has his dumbasses.
There is actually a neurological rewiring of the brain when things continually occur together. After a while the mentioning of one brings up a blended response to both.
Just ask exley… on post 10 he states that there were links “between Saddam Hussein and Iraq”… I think he meant Saddam and Al Qaeda… but he has drunk so much of the Kool-Aid that he has lost the ability to easily discriminate between the two.
As the Presnut says… you can not make a distinction between Saddam and OBL… not anymore I guess?
August 28th, 2006 at 7:24 pmNorth Korea has a nuclear arsenal………………!!!!!!!!!???????????
August 28th, 2006 at 7:24 pma book of fairy tales and fables… and tall tall tales
August 28th, 2006 at 7:27 pmTo all you kind souls that responded to Jeff, provide one piece of evidence that the referenced article is wrong…
August 28th, 2006 at 7:28 pmDear Pretend Liberal Christian – Conservatives despise the societal retardation imposed by socialism – that’s why we vote for few Dems. The extreme “Christian Left” play the semantics game with the “Social justice” craze… It reminds me of the few socialists I actually admire – they call themselves SOCIALISTS and they explain their platform succinctly. The wimps of the progressive movement hijacked the term “progressive” so as not to refer to themselves as “socialists” – dishonest cowards….
August 28th, 2006 at 7:30 pmExley is going to vote a straight Democratic ticket in November.
Comment by PLC (PatrioticLiberalChristian) — August 28, 2006 @ 7:21 pm
They all should!!!
Their starting to look pretty crazy blaming everything on Clinton.
Also – if the Democrats pull the troops out of Iraq they can always make the case that if only they had one more year things would have really turned around… the raging civil war is all the fault of the Dems.
They need to be partially out of power to continue to propagate the fantasy that it’s not their fault.
August 28th, 2006 at 7:32 pm“socialism”- Mighty right wing talking point
August 28th, 2006 at 7:39 pmThe amish are communists, damn anabaptists!!!!!!
Didn’t the Republican Congress play host to, and give, the Taliban $42 Million taxpayer dollars in spring of 2001 for their drug eradication efforts, at which time we knew that the Taliban also supported al-Qaeda? Since the Taliban backed Bin Laden and no doubt that some of that taxpayer money eventually made its’ way to him, could we make a point that our Republican Congress supports Islamic terrorists.
August 28th, 2006 at 7:46 pmI would be very careful using a “Fair and Balanced” Fox news as a reference. If you knew what goes on behind the scene in the Fox Newsrooms, such as the anti-Democratic ranting of Brit Hulme, you might realize that things are not Fair and Balanced. Why is it that Fox News has the most access to the White House, it is because they cater to them.
Mighty Mouth
August 28th, 2006 at 7:49 pmJust where do you get the nerve to call me “pretend” or “phony” Christian? Social justice is no semantic game or craze, as you so callously label it. It is the cornerstone of Jesus talked about, thus should be a cornerstone of Christianity. It is fundamental to the checks and balances of power in our government as conceived by our founding fathers, so it should be a cornerstone of our democracy. Pray tell, Mighty, just what American value have your precious conservatives actually “conserved” in the last 50 years? As an economic system, socialism is usually associated with state or collective ownership of the means of production (Wikipedia). As such, I do believe in some socialist programs: the military, law enforcement, intelligence gathering, fire protection, schools, and maybe healthcare to produce benefits for citizens.
And Jimmy Carter began the US policy of support to Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Does the fact that a Nobel prize winning president worked with Islamic Jihad groups in Afghanistan make it more or less likely that Saddam would?
August 28th, 2006 at 7:50 pmHere is a comment I lifted from Huffpo on the John Karr/Jon Benet oops-the-Dna-didn’t-match-story….hope it ads a little levity to this serious discussion
Business-class flight from Thailand … $3100
Lobster in flight … Complimentary
Two-week stay in “custody” … $10,000
The look on their face after you cum in the cup … PRICELESS
Alternate ending:
Providing a needed distraction for governmental malfeasance … PRICELESS
Peace to you and yours.
August 28th, 2006 at 7:55 pmBy: happystead on August 28, 2006 at 04:19pm
Jeff,
You neglected to mention that American administrations continued their support of the Taliban until 1998.
Your Supreme Decider states that Sadamm and Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11, what part of your ears don’t work?
August 28th, 2006 at 8:00 pmDear Phony Liberal Christian – “Where do I get the nerve…?” From the same place you get the nerve, the US Constitution….
“social justice…..It is fundamental to the checks and balances of power in our government as conceived by our founding fathers, so it should be a cornerstone of our democracy.” Comment by PLC
*******Where did you go to school? You must have been absent the day they taught American History in History class. THERE is NOTHING in the US Constitution to guarantee economic equality or parity…..Now maybe they throw that out from the pulpit at “Church of Liberation Theology” but your historical assumption does not hold up.
You ask what have conservatives conserved? Answer – The nation.
But how about this suggestion: why don’t you and your liberal friends and fellow congregants stop talking so much about helping the poor and dig into your own pockets.Conservatives could bankroll the military and liberals could bankroll the dead beats. When is the last time you cracked open the Book of Proverbs? You don’t get a free heaven upgrade being generous with other people’s money.
Thanks for the laughs here in the sandbox…..
August 28th, 2006 at 8:04 pmThe title should be “Dickguzinya – How Cheney Hid the Bananna in the U.S. Citizenery”
August 28th, 2006 at 8:11 pmWill
Bill said “Your Supreme Decider states that Sadamm and Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11, what part of your ears don’t work?”
Bush always said that there is no direct evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11, only that Saddam provided support to alQaeda. Dont you hear well? No? Then prove me wrong by providing the link in which Bush said Saddam was behind 9/11.
The discussion here in this thread is the claim that al Qaeda ad Saddam worked together. You guys are saying they did not. Usually, this argument falls upon the idealogical divide between Saddam and UBL. The point I have made is that you guys are in effect saying Jimmy Carter would support Islamic Jihad elements in Afghanistan, but Saddam would not. That is the ridiculous line of reasoning the liberals have staked out. Explain that to me please.
August 28th, 2006 at 8:13 pmSome people actually do dig into their pockets and help others. Some people actually spend time mentoring children with one parent. Some people go to the mail collection centers, collect letters to Santa, and fulfill Christmas wishes. Going to a private school and a Catholic Seminary made me what I am today, a liberal atheist who helps others because I can, not because I expect any future reward.
August 28th, 2006 at 8:13 pmBy the way Bill, not that I doubt your veracity, but please provide me a link to the article that states the US was sponsoring the Taliban in 2001 for my edification.
August 28th, 2006 at 8:16 pmSo let’s throw this open to the audience. Can anybody give me a logical argument why Jimmy Carter would work with Islamic Jihadists elements in Afghanistan but Saddam wouldn’t?
August 28th, 2006 at 8:20 pmMighty Mouth
The Constitution gives you the “right” to express your views, not the “nerve” to do so in a disrespectful manner, counselor.
The term you used originally was “Social justice†and here’s a founding father’s quote on that: Morality refers to conduct that is proper between members of society. Respect for the equal rights of every citizen becomes the foundation of morality and justice in a free society. Rightful government necessarily reflects this proper relationship in its policies and in its dealings with its own citizens and with other nations. Thomas Jefferson (I never said it was in the Constitution, counselor) Then you change it to “economic parity” as if that’s the only social justice there is. Oh wait, maybe for you it is.
And I do help the poor through my charitable donations. Yeah, I can see you there in the sandbox – what the feral cat left last night.
August 28th, 2006 at 8:22 pmJeff,
You are basing your arguments on a notebook of what origin?
Who found it, who wrote it, who translated it?
Was it a plant? Was Chalabi involved?
How many translators, who hired them, what was their affiliation?
There are too many questions you cannot answer regarding authenticity, plus your source…
You ask for words that the Decider stated that linked Sadaam to 9/11.
How about this
” The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. “[Bush’s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]
Hmmmm, sounds like he is
August 28th, 2006 at 8:23 pm#21 Exley:
It’s “s-p-l-e-n-d-i-d.”
August 28th, 2006 at 8:25 pm“US Constitution to guarantee economic equality or parity”
Yes, remember all men were suppossed to be free. But slavery was too profitable for them to give up…..
August 28th, 2006 at 8:25 pmYou ask what have conservatives conserved? Answer – The nation.
But how about this suggestion: why don’t you and your liberal friends and fellow congregants stop talking so much about helping the poor and dig into your own pockets.Conservatives could bankroll the military and liberals could bankroll the dead beats. When is the last time you cracked open the Book of Proverbs? You don’t get a free heaven upgrade being generous with other people’s money.
Thanks for the laughs here in the sandbox…..
Comment by mighty aphrodite — August 28, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
MA first, you are not a conservative. You are a partisian rethug. George Will is a conservative. Second, I am sure you could not bank roll anything. You support a “Bankrupt” administration that is corrupt and headed by what history will record as the worst American president in history. Lastly, you are a complete fraud and most who read your crap know that. You are a joke and a very sick person. You have alot of repressed hate just like Ann Coulter(a very sick person). However, a fat bald sweaty loser that pretends to be happy and have a life we can expect that from. Now, go back to drowning cats or as Herr Frist did just torture the shit out of them.
August 28th, 2006 at 8:27 pmJeff,
August 28th, 2006 at 8:28 pmI can’t believe you don’t know about the $42 Million given to the Taliban in the spring of 2001.
Check it out yourself, it is an very easy find, and I don’t want to waste my time….Monday night football
Was there contact between Hussein and Al Qaeda? Yes. Here is the substance of the contact:
Al Qaeda, circa 1992: Hey, infidel – I despise you, but since you hate America like I do, wanna work together?
Hussein: Drop dead.
August 28th, 2006 at 8:31 pmMighty Mouth,
August 28th, 2006 at 8:34 pmGot anything more specific than “the nation” for what American “values” (my original request) conservatives have conserved? And don’t give me that “crack open the Book of Proverbs” garbage. My political views are NOT derived from my faith – I expect ALL American laws to be religion-neutral. Social justice is a secular concept, not just a religious one. Helping the poor makes economic sense, just as Henry Ford said he wanted to pay his workers enough so they could afford to buy one of the cars they made. Our whole nation is enriched when the poorest are lifted up economically. And contrary to your bigoted tripe, not all poor are “dead beats”.
Bill, the document was captured in Iraq. The contents have been matched to another document captured in Afghanistan. It is pretty clear it is real, but nobody can prove anything to someone who refuses to acknowledge the truth.
you said: †The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. “[Bush’s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]
Hmmmm, sounds like he is ”
Sounds like? It says “or aided the terrorist attacks”. Thus, the Saddam regime, as a supporter of al Qaeda and the taliban, did aid the terror attacks indirectly. That is not the same as direct involvement. That is not parsing words either. It is a logical distinction between direct and indirect support.
You can try to muddle the arguments together if you want, but a reasonable person knows the difference between direct involvement with 9/11 and indirect involvement by general support to those that attacked us. And 64% of Americans know that Saddam was involved with al Qaeda.
August 28th, 2006 at 8:36 pmDoug, that’s real cute, but here is an excerpt from the real conversation
“Fazlur Rahman: I am the one who started with this issue, the relation between Taliban and Iraq, and it is our idea. The brothers in Afghanistan are facing the pressure of America, and are struggling against America and aim to have some connections between Afghanistan and Iraq, and it is a good start to establish the relations with Iraq and Libya and our association has taken this responsibility upon her. I already met with Mr. the Vice-President and the previous head of the directorate, may God rest his soul (translator’s note: apparently the head of the directorate passed away) and both proposed that Hekmatyar and the Taliban should get to an agreement. I spoke with the Taliban about this issue and they started meeting with delegations from the Islamic Party, and I met Mullah Omar and his reply was positive.”
“And he (Mullah Omar) desires to get closer relations with Iraq and that Iraq may help us in reducing our problems. Now we are facing America and Russia. He requested the possibility of Iraq intervening to build a friendship with Russia since Russia is no more the number one enemy. And we request Iraq’s help from a brotherly point of view. They are ready for this matter and they prefer that the relation between Iraq and Taliban be an independent relation from Hekmatyar’s relation with the Taliban. We want practical steps concerning this issue and especially the relationship with the Taliban and (not clear, but could be Iraq).”
August 28th, 2006 at 8:41 pmAnd 64% of Americans know that Saddam was involved with al Qaeda.
Comment by jeff — August 28, 2006 @ 8:36 pm
After the invasion, close to 70% of Americans thought Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks:
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it’s likely Saddam was involved.
Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
I wonder where they got the idea. Unless a full 69% of Americans are not reasonable… hmm..
August 28th, 2006 at 8:43 pmBill, did a quick search on the 42million number, only found it on communist websites. Can you provide a link to a more respectable news source, like NYT, AP, CNN?
August 28th, 2006 at 8:44 pmGregor, again, somebody please provide the link in which President Bush stated that Saddam was directly behind 9/11, Again, he dd not, he argued that they provided support to terrorists, including al Qaeda. This should not even be a debate any more that Saddam dod provide support.
August 28th, 2006 at 8:47 pmGregor, by the way, it is not unreasonable to consider that Saddam had a hand in 9/11. Not saying he did, just saying it is reasonable to suspect he did.
August 28th, 2006 at 8:49 pmSo anyway, I know there is no reason to argue the point here any further as no one can show me where Bush said Saddam was behind 9/11, or why Carter would work with Jihadists in Afghanistan but Saddam wouldn’t, or point out the factual inaccuracies of the IIS agent notebook article from Foxnews. Dinner time, cheers.
August 28th, 2006 at 8:52 pmJoeFriday
No fear involved, only courtesy. MA has a tendency to “hit and run”, kind of like tonight. I am not going to do that. I appreciate the support behind your post, however.
However, He will check with his leaders and return with more bull $hit. and my comment in 231 = great minds understand much!
August 28th, 2006 at 8:55 pmMighty, you were quoted several times, good job. I would have to say my favorite is the one about who is going to fund military vs. the deadbeats.
August 28th, 2006 at 9:02 pmGregor, again, somebody please provide the link in which President Bush stated that Saddam was directly behind 9/11,
Comment by jeff — August 28, 2006 @ 8:47 pm
Jeff, you know you are being disingenuous. You and I know Pres Bush never uttered those words. What you and I know, and what you are skirting, are the endless streams of insinuations that Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, by putting the words “9/11″, “Hussein”, “AlQaeda”, and “terrorism” in the same sentence over and over again.
I am not breaking new terrain here, this has been covered and analysed. I my response to another commenter, I provided a link to an article in the Christian Science Monitor that talks about that. Here is another article:
[...]administration officials began to hint about a Sept. 11-Hussein link soon after the attacks. In late 2001, Vice President Cheney said it was “pretty well confirmed” that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official.[...] But [Pres Bush] frequently juxtaposed Iraq and al Qaeda in ways that hinted at a link.[...]A number of nongovernment officials close to the Bush administration have made the link more directly. Richard N. Perle, who until recently was chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, long argued that there was Iraqi involvement, calling the evidence “overwhelming.”
Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds
This is where 70% of Americans got the idea that Hussein was personally involved in planning 9/11. The same one you said no reasonable people could have because “a reasonable person knows the difference between direct involvement and indirect involvement by general support”.
August 28th, 2006 at 9:13 pmhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200820,00.htm
transcript of the “father of the Taliban” meeting with the Iraqi VP from the IIS agent’s notebook.
“For the future we think that we will arrange relations between us, as an intelligence service, and them in a secret way to establish the strong base of this relation.”
August 28th, 2006 at 9:17 pmWell jeff, I looked at the documents you mention:
http://rayrobison.typepad.com/ray_robison/2006/03/saddam_wmd_and_.html
And for the life of me I don`t see any connection between Saddam Hussain and Al Qaeda. There may be evidence between someone in the Iraqi intelligence forces (or someone using the letterhead, or someone imitating the letterhead etc.) being in connection with Al-Quds (the reference followed by “Open Source” and “Impaired Broadcast” meaning perhaps they got it from Al Quds daily newspaper perhaps? There is an Al-Quds, but as we all know (yes?) Al Quds is not Al Qaeda.
It gets stranger. The general military intelligence directorate is told by Al Quds about their own military situation, giving advice like “Dig trenches around the city of Baghdad”. Why would Al-Quds be telling Iraqi intelligence about what the Iraqis were doing? Better yet, the part about Iraqis importing US Military uniforms “for the purpose of killing Iraqi citizens” – we know Saddam had no problem murdering his people, but seems like a strategy of killing them while at war seems a bit wasteful.
OK but who knows. Let’s suppose the document is on the up-and-up. The document outlines how Iraqi intelligence and Al-Quds (an Iraqi army subdivision) are working together. Working together to spread leaflets to Iraqis that “contain anthrax” and to kill Iraqi citizens. Not much of a plan, but hey, we all know that crazy Saddam!
So, what was your point again jeff? That Saddam and Al-Qaeda were in a collaborative relationship? Don’t see any evidence of that in these pages. You seem to be trying to make some convoluted argument that because someone in Saddam’s regime had been in contact with someone in Afghanistan, and that someone else in Afghanistan was planning the 9/11 bombings, that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11. But the documents you cite don’t support that conclusion. And this theory of using Iraqi-born Palestinian-loving people to spread anthrax to other Iraqis is pretty thin. What the document (if genuine) seems to indicate is that some public knowledge was passed to Iraqi intelligence, and they’re sending it along for review.
August 28th, 2006 at 9:23 pmYou didn’t realize those are commie websites?
Comment by jeff — August 28, 2006 @ 9:20 pm
CNN communist?
wow… I have fallen in a time warp… how do I get out?
August 28th, 2006 at 9:26 pmIn February 1999, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, the CIA wanted to conduct U-2 surveillance missions over bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan.
But Richard Clarke worried that doing so might scare bin Laden into leaving the country — and going to Iraq.
If that happened, the report says, Clarke feared that bin Laden’s “entire network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service,†and the U.S. would never be able to find him.
So Clarke wrote an e-mail to then-national-security adviser Sandy Berger, saying that if bin Laden learned about the U-2 missions, then, “armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.â€
The report says another Clinton National Security Council aide also warned that “Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad.â€
Comment by Exley — August 28, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
>
>
>
You need to get up to speed on your fact-checking exley dear boy…
Clarke has been criticized by conservatives for suggesting the possibility of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda and after investigation concluding that no link had been established. Regarding Saddam’s offer of safehaven in Iraq, Clarke wrote in a January 1999 memo to Sandy Berger that he was concerned that “old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.†(p. 134)[9] Clarke also made statements that year to the press linking Saddam and al-Qaeda and an alleged joint chemical weapons development effort at the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.[10]
Since 1999, however, the United States government has admitted that its evidence regarding Al Shifa is inconclusive, and Clarke has changed his view about an Iraq-Al Qaeda link. In Against All Enemies he writes that “[i]t is certainly possible that Iraqi agents dangled the possibility of asylum in Iraq before bin Laden at some point when everyone knew that the U.S. was pressuring the Taliban to arrest him. If that dangle happened, bin Laden’s accepting asylum clearly did not,” (p. 270). In an interview on March 21, 2004, Clarke made the statement: “There’s absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever.” This change in point of view has brought Clarke criticism from Christopher Hitchens [11] and the Weekly Standard’s Stephen F. Hayes.[12] Clarke makes clear in his book that he came to his more recent conclusion as a result of several investigations, prompted by the Bush Administration, specifically into the possibility of an Iraqi connection to September 11th.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke
August 28th, 2006 at 9:26 pmThe question is for environmentally conscious folks is” Will the paper it be printed on be soft enough to wipe our asses with?” I only have so many old issues of the Weekly Double Standard lying around for back up. I heard Mr. Hayes is going to write Katherine Harris’s “success” story too.
August 28th, 2006 at 9:27 pmJeff is trying to have it both ways: On the one hand he says that the Bush adminsitration never claimed Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, at the same time that he tries to convince us that evidence of such link exists.
Pure sophistry.
August 28th, 2006 at 9:28 pmAdolf Hitler and Russian leader Stalin were possessed by the Devil, the Vatican’s chief exorcist has claimed.
Father Gabriele Amorth who is Pope Benedict XVI’s ‘caster out of demons’ made his comments during an interview with Vatican Radio.
Father Amorth said: “Of course the Devil exists and he can not only possess a single person but also groups and entire populations.
Ok there you have it, the “official explanation” for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the republican party today.
August 28th, 2006 at 9:29 pmRE: #248
CNN Communist? Not with Lou Dobbs on there it ain’t! ROTFL!
August 28th, 2006 at 9:40 pmrayrobison… i remember negative things about that name…
August 28th, 2006 at 9:41 pmwacko, maybe? …bad vibes, anyway…
Well, Jeff, it seems like I have to take back my comment on time warps, then.
That aside, you still are a sophist.
August 28th, 2006 at 9:42 pmJeff is trying to have it both ways: On the one hand he says that the Bush adminsitration never claimed Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, at the same time that he tries to convince us that evidence of such link exists.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — August 28, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
Yeah – there’s a link but Bush has to much respect and concern for the American People to scare them out of their wits with that info… he’d rather just keep it under his hat and deal with the problem quietly… HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH… Oh shit that’s a good one!!!
August 28th, 2006 at 9:45 pmJeff is trying to have it both ways: On the one hand he says that the Bush adminsitration never claimed Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, at the same time that he tries to convince us that evidence of such link exists.
Pure sophistry.
Comment by Gregor Samsa
Again, there is a logical distinctin between providing direct support for 9/11 and providing direct support to al Qaeda. You can muddle the waters all day, but people get that. Bush argued Saddam provided support to al Qaeda. He did not say he was directly involved with 9/11. He was right on both counts.
August 28th, 2006 at 9:47 pmrayrobison… i remember negative things about that name…
wacko, maybe? …bad vibes, anyway…
Comment by katy — August 28, 2006 @ 9:41 pm
So you defame somebody with no evidence? I guess that is what you do when you can’t argue the facts. Classy…
August 28th, 2006 at 9:50 pmWell jeff, when are you going to argue with the facts then? Still waiting for you to explain what this supposed “notebook” was that you linked to earlier. having read the documents, I’m still waiting to hear what it was you were trying to say….
August 28th, 2006 at 9:54 pmBush argued Saddam provided support to al Qaeda. He did not say he was directly involved with 9/11. He was right on both counts.
Comment by jeff — August 28, 2006 @ 9:47 pm
Ah, so now I am the one muddying the waters?
If Pres Bush hadn’t muddied the waters to begin with, the idea that Hussein was involved in 9/11 would not be so firmly embeded in the minds of so many Americans -no, I am not claimnig that there was, or that Pres Bush said it. I am saying that he insinuated it many, many times, and he never corrected the record or explained exactly what was being said.
If Pres Bush hadn’t muddied the waters in the first place, the 9/11 commission wouldn’t have even looked into the possible connection of Hussein to the attacks, and so many people wouldn’t believe that there was such a link, even to this day. I provided two links already. Here is another one from 2005:
About 22% of U.S. adults believe Mr. Hussein helped plan 9/11, the poll shows, and 26% believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded. Another 24% believe several of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis, according to the online poll of 1,961 adults.
Many Americans Still Believe Hussein Had Links to al Qaeda
Lest you forget: “A reasonable person knows the difference between direct involvement and indirect involvement by general supportâ€. Did these people get that idea from thin air?
August 28th, 2006 at 10:02 pmJeff,
I almost forgot: If Pres Bush hadn’t muddied the waters in the first place, you and I wouldn’t even have this debate right now.
August 28th, 2006 at 10:06 pmAnd BTW Katy (#260), Ray Robison, among other things, disputes the US military use of Phosphorus on civilians in Fallujah (despite military officials admitting to it), has a posting about poor George Bush and how deputy secretary of state/former Contra scandal-ee Richard Armitage is the real culprit behind Plame’s outing (ah yes, and who does Armitage work for? Oh yeah, Dick Cheney), and lists Fox, Drudge and Instapundit as some of his “favorite sites”.
Biased? Naaah….
August 28th, 2006 at 10:10 pmI can’t wait to see what pack of lies that tome will include. Maybe will have the missing photos of Iraqis throwing candy and fl;owers at US troops in Iraq? You know, those pics are out there; it’s just because of that darn liberal media that they’ve been suppressed…
http://www.polibuzz.blogspot.com
August 28th, 2006 at 10:14 pmDaily political news and analysis from a progressive perspective
Political Buzz
Plus a daily email update.
http://www.polibuzz.blogspot.com
JefF,
I don’t have your list of communist websites…..
Unless you consider Newsday a communist publication
May 2001: US Gives Taliban Millions
Secretary of State Powell announces that the US is granting $43 million in aid to the Taliban government, purportedly to assist hungry farmers who are starving since the destruction of their opium crop occurred in January on orders of the Taliban. [Los Angeles Times, 5/22/2001] This follows $113 million given by the US in 2000 for humanitarian aid. [US Department of State, 12/11/2001] A Newsday editorial notes that the Taliban “are a decidedly odd choice for an outright gift … Why are we sending these people money—so much that Washington is, in effect, the biggest donor of aid to the Taliban regime?†[Newsday, 5/29/2001]
Entity Tags: Taliban, Colin Powell
August 28th, 2006 at 10:19 pmRegarding Hayes’ bio of Cheney, all I can say is, “PULL!”
August 28th, 2006 at 10:26 pmI suggest the following titiles.
1) DICK AND HIS PUPPET GWB
2) THE DICK NEVER LIES
3) THE WORLD’S MOST POWERFUL DICK
4) DICK THE GREATEST PUPPET MASTER\
5) THE DICK THAT PROTECTS YOU FROM TERRORISTS
August 28th, 2006 at 10:40 pm#267 – trippin,
August 28th, 2006 at 10:44 pmDid you mean “BULL” as in shit?
Washington Post June 17, 2004
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.
August 28th, 2006 at 11:11 pmI’ve seen this clown before on shows. He’s delusional. He’ll spin issues that have been thoroughly disavowed, yet attempt to speak convincingly on them. He a kissass.
August 28th, 2006 at 11:14 pmDigg it? Hey think progress where’s the Reddit link.
Reddit is the better service by far. Make your article’s redditable.
http://www.reddit.com
August 28th, 2006 at 11:51 pmSo Jeff has become a translator for the notebook he claims makes the association between al-Qaeda and Sadamm, but the notebook does not mention al-Qaeda, but al-Quds. Hmmm, I guess Jeff should get his facts straight…
August 28th, 2006 at 11:53 pmI wonder how much time it took Hayes to get his hair to look tousled just so…?
August 28th, 2006 at 11:56 pmdoes that make you crazy, zooey? makes me crazy…
August 29th, 2006 at 12:20 amwhat is that!?! seems a comb would take half the time!
hell, finger comb it! am i getting too old?!? :]
[...] Cheney Chooses Chief Propagator of False Iraq-9/11 Link To Be …Think Progress, DC - 9 hours ago… 1. This January, Cheney was asked by then-Fox News radio host Tony Snow, Were there links to between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda? Cheney answered … [...]
August 29th, 2006 at 12:43 amToday’s brain implant candidates are:
August 29th, 2006 at 1:13 amjeff
exley
Roger-Roger
These are trolls without an ounce of common sense, basically, planerians with but 28 nerve cells.
Simple, because Carter, as well as Reagan and Bush 1 had no reason to recognize the rebels in Afghanistan as a threat to the US in any way. Unfortunately, those same rebel forces morphed into an entity that became a danger to the USA. Hussein, on the other hand recognized the danger to his regime from the likes of Al Qaeda that saw his secular regime as antithetical to their vision of the world in general, and the middle east in particular.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:26 amSaddam cared only about himself, and he recognized the danger of helping a group that strived for a worldwide theocracy, and a Shiite based theocracy to boot. You really needed that explained to you?
sorry that was in response to Jeffs query
August 29th, 2006 at 1:31 amSo let’s throw this open to the audience. Can anybody give me a logical argument why Jimmy Carter would work with Islamic Jihadists elements in Afghanistan but Saddam wouldn’t?
For all who are interested! Last week George W Bush stated to the world, Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on the world trade center, 000000000000000 NOTHING!
August 29th, 2006 at 1:52 amCan anybody give me a logical argument why Jimmy Carter would work with Islamic Jihadists elements in Afghanistan but Saddam wouldn’t?
Comment by Moderate-Independent — August 29, 2006 @ 1:31 am
Carter diverted funds to the Taliban (then part of the Afghan Mujahideen) back in the 1980s. when the US was bent on giving the USSR her own Vietnam. To show you how things change, back then jihad was good because it was directed at the Soviet evil empire, and the US did negotiate with terrorists because they were “freedom fighters”. But I digress. The Mujahideen took the money because, although they were not in love with Americans, they liked the Soviets even less. Once the Soviets were kicked out, the Taliban set out to make their dream come true: A true Islamic Republic. A theocracy. Too bad for them American money stopped flowing.
Saddam on the other hand, had no such use for a bunch of Afghan country bumpkins, who were not half a world away (unlike the US) but in his own back yard, and were religious fanatics to boot. From all the things I’ve read, the Taliban (and their proteges AlQaeda) had a political/religious goal completely incompatible with Hussein’s -whom they despised for being secular. Exactly why they wouldn’t cooperate is still a matter of speculation. I suspect geographic proximity might have had played a role. but whatever the ultimate reason, fact remains they didn’t. And that’s what counts.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:22 amJeff,
August 29th, 2006 at 4:30 amYou rather offhandly mentioned in an earlier post that ” It originated from Robert Scheer who was fired for his shody journalism.” Now, you know that the LA Times (Jerrery M. Johnson, who assumed his post, Publisher President and CEO, 5 months previous to the firing) never said publicly why he removed Robert Scheer’s column, nor did they say why he pulled Michael Ramirez’ satirical cartoons 2 days later. In your mind you may want to think that he was let go because of “shoddy journalism”, but that is not the truth. The truth is you don’t know why he was let go, and you decide to smear his professional skills.
Sad, sad, sad…
9/11 was an inside Job everyone knows that and there is no difference between the republicans and democrats its all the same thing some people on here are clearly so brainwashed or to stupid to see it
August 29th, 2006 at 5:25 amI this exley guy a government shill? There must be some higher motivation behind someone who can consistently be rebutted at every turn and still not see the light.
August 29th, 2006 at 7:31 amExley…………..
1) Grab thighs tightly
2) pull with neck and upper back muscles
3) Ease your head out of your sphincter
911 was an inside Job, orchestrated by the PNAC Cabal. The new Pearl Harbor.
WTC 7 collapsed, perfectly, minimal fires, no structural damage, yet it collapses perfectly. Bombs brought down 1 and 2, news reports, fire and police official reported this. watch Loose Change, or many other documentaries, on our self inflicted wound.
911 was so tied to Iraq, the sheeple that love Lord Bush, actually think Saddam was flying the planes.
Colin Powell in March 2001, said saddam was no threat at all, Condi Rice in April 2001, echoed the same sentiment…..
Iraq is a mistake and its time for the administrations apologists to open their eyes, and see that.
A FACT, the FBI hasnt updated Usama’s wanted poster to include 911, why? THEY HAVE NO PROOF that ties him to the attacks, weird huh
We need to wake up, 911 was an attack on us, by our government…
August 29th, 2006 at 9:16 amWhen America wakes up the shit will hit the fan, as we will really see that our government is the biggest terrorist organization on the face of the earth. We have attacked more countries, toppled more democratically elected governments than any country over the past 100 years. We are the firefighter who lights the fire, then tries to save the old lady from the burning building, the world see’s this, yet we dont, we have enough crap ( American Idol, etc) to keep our minds away from the facts that our government is corrupt, and has killed over 100 thousand INNOCENT lives based on nothing but lies, and twisted double speak……… the alarm has gone off, time to wake up.. the title of the book should be…..
Dick, once a dick, always a dick..
August 29th, 2006 at 9:24 amThe mind of the schizophrenic mass murderer
The important matters with regards to Cheney’s biography written by Hayes are:
1. Don’t buy the book.
August 29th, 2006 at 9:33 am2. Extensively blog both Cheney & Hayes vis-a-vis their denials of truth.
What does any of this incessant babbling mean? Nearly 300 posts from those just willing enough to spat 50 treasonous thought bubbles out onto the World Wide Web. We are a country of blood-thirsty murders run by the extreme right, because they’re motivated enough to get off their asses and generate millions in soulless cash rather than whimper under a jargon-soaked moniker. Money controls the people and until we, the free-thinking utopian hopefuls, actually take action to hinder such monstrosities, we are nothing more than a tax-paying zombie contributing to the compiling wrongful deaths on foreign soil. Cheney is a cog, his novel will be widely discredited, but his legacy will be that of a gleaming patriot, unless anything is done. Oct. 5 – http://worldcantwait.net
August 29th, 2006 at 11:09 amI wouldn’t pay even half a cent to read about Cheney. His actions speak so much louder than words. Look at the country, look at the world.
August 29th, 2006 at 12:05 pmNotice how Exley commented on #26 but not #27, and STILL has nothing to say on how the CHIMPEROR sez there was NUTTN’ to connect Saddam, Iraq and 9/11.
Anyhoo, I hope the butt-puppet “biographer” includes how a DRUNK Cheney blasted his elderly friend in the face because he is so inept with a gun…and is such a DEPENDS-wearing wuss he didn’t allow Iraqis to even hold empty guns during the photo op lie on how Iraqis are ready to take ov er their own security. He had them hold their arms out as if holding guns, but it was all just pretend because they don’t make the Depends absorbent enough to hold Dick’s chicken hawk piss in his pants.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:11 pmLet’s ignore the Exleys of this world, brazen nattering nabobs of disinformation that they are. Ignore them, and concentrate on getting our like-minded friends and colleagues to the voting booth. If we had done so in 2000, 2002 or 2004, Exley might be Cheney’s valet at Halliburton right now.
August 29th, 2006 at 1:28 pmImadine for a moment that the everything you hear and see is simply theater that uses the lives of innocent people as their pawns to make it reality to all the observers. You are all pawns controlled by fear and media manipulation guided by your emotions and trust that the people writing the scrpt have your best interest in mind.
Your government has had a leash on Saddam since he was put into office…. he was rewarded for his loyalty with power and wealth…. but it was your government and London pulling the strings.
Watch the documentary…. “Iran, the next Iraq?” and you tell me what Saddam was doing pulling his forces out of Iran in 1979 after it was evident that he had won the war… tell me why England did not send forces to Iran to help protect the oil fields that Saddam was trying to take over…. oil fields that were owned by England.
Think about what happened to oil prices during that period….. Revelation…. it wasn’t about taking the oil fields…. it was about creating scarcity….. raising prices that would never return to pre-scarcity levels…. Think about who would benefit from these elevated oil prices and who it would hurt….
it’s a very easy play and it can be done over and over because we never question the perpetraitors. And the people who manipulate these events make money on the way in and the way out.
We are going to send Saddam into Iran…. buy oil futures and military stock…. we are going to send Saddam out…. buy put options.
Every country that profits from oil is a player…. the people are of little consequence.
Have you ever thought about the key things you would need to control the world…..
I’ll start you off…… 1. Controlled Media
August 29th, 2006 at 2:17 pmThis is a long list of comments, but only two commentors have actually seen the truth.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:30 pmThat Bush, Chenny et al are traitors working for a foreign “Government” (the house of Saud) and other interest (Secret corporate Government).
Judging their performance only on the War, is diverting attention from the overall removal of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, honor, human decency, etc. What they have done during their reign has always been serious & intentional, using & accepting or even concidering as valid, the concepts of mistake, wrong decision, misguided, is a way of excusing their actions & our own inactions & deniel of personal reponsibility.
This Nation is only the product of our collective actions & in actions, each of us is guilty of allowing this real tragedy to occur.
We should have done MORE!
Living in a blue state is frustrating, it’s the RED states that we failed because it’s taken so long for them to see what we knew. Let us get them to see how to bring this ship of state back closer to what we could have been.
Impeach the whole vile Administration, then put them all on trial for being traitors, coconspirators & foreign agents.
They planned & allowed 9/11 as a sideshow for their circus of mis direction & deception.
That is the revolution we are due.
I wouldn’t pay even half a cent to read about Cheney. His actions speak so much louder than words. Look at the country, look at the world.
Comment by Druthers
You don’t have to. Just go to your local library and check the book out. Hayes won’t get a penny of your money, and if the library gets an NSA letter, the records will show that you check out books by “good conservatives”.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:53 pmI thought you said, “Scotter“, not “shooter“.
August 30th, 2006 at 1:22 amCorrection:
I thought you said, “Scooter”, not “shooter”.
August 30th, 2006 at 1:45 amTitle suggestion:
DICK DRILLS (only for oil)
Anyway if you stab a neoCON don’t ya know they do not bleed? Oil runs in them there veins. And Cheneys pacemaker looks like an oil derrick. To keep that black oily heart a pumpin.
Pity Cheney will not be close to their next synthetic terror. Otherwise maybe the EMP would finally put an end to that pacemaker.
And no doubt this work of fiction will be filled with official lies about 911. I will not buy this load of BS lies. Neither will I waste a moment of mt life reading it. I hope no does. It should flop like every other PR that has fallen apart at the seams. Lies are no foundation to construct anything.
Liars all serve only the father of all lies. No NeoCON serves God. They are todays Pharisees.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:37 amI’ll wait for the mini-series (hopefully by Mitchell Hurwitz “Arrested Development). I sure hope it includes a full list of characters…making a mockery of the country…you know…a reality based dark comedy. I just hope they will have it produced illegally out of China…with subtitles in every middle easter language, and spanish! Maybe the royalties could be waived by the politicians in effort to rebuild thier biggest “backyard” disgrace…Katrina.
One thing for sure…we’re gonna have a bumper crop of Opium on the streets by Christmas!
Cynical and tired,
September 4th, 2006 at 6:20 pmj
Comrades,
Forget about this Chief Propagator! We must focus on ABC’s “The Path to 9/11â€
These traitors at ABC are betrayers of our new mother land. Where I come from, this Robert A. Iger would be dragged through the streets in front of the tomb of our glorious leader Vladimir Lenin and shot in public. The producers, directors, writers and anyone associated with this propaganda would be picked up in the early hours of the morning by our State Security Chief Lavrenty Beria (The Black Hand) and taken to a Siberian labor camp never too be heard from again.
For many years I have been loyal to ABC and the Pravda (truth) that our Socialist Liberal ally has put forth in order to progress our ultimate goal; the decline and absolute destruction of America and the capitalist traitorous pig’s like ABC.
I ask you Mr. Robert A. Iger, “Have you no shame Sir�
Comrades, we must not give up the fight. It has taken us many years to groom you and your elected leaders.
Remember what our great leader Nikita Khrushchev said:
“ We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism ”
It’s more important now then ever before that we stand together and stay focused! We can not allow this abomination of propaganda to go forward.
We must do whatever it takes to keep this film from airing on Sunday the 10th, 2006, we only have a few hours left.
It is your duty as loyal Liberal Socialist Democrats to rise up in solidarity and put a stop to this immediately!
Senator Harry Reid, one of our courageous and distinguished Senatorial leaders from the state of Nevada, reminded the capitalist traitorous pigs at ABC of their license from the FCC. Please Senator Reid, we’re your loyal comrades in arms and begging you to use all the glorious power you possess. You must stop this film! You must push forward with an iron fist and crush this despicable display of propaganda.
If this film isn’t stopped from airing on ABC, Sunday night, I’m afraid all our efforts since the cold war and the aspirations of our great leaders from glorious years past and Nikita Khrushchev’s dreams and predictions will have been lost.
If we loose now, the great Liberal Socialist Democratic Party, we have nurtured, will decline into the ash heaps of history never too be heard from again.
You must!…. I repeat, you must contact our comrades in arms at their offices in Washington.
Now I’ve done all the work all you have to do is contact our comrades below by e-mail or call:
Clinton, Hillary Rodham- (D – NY) Class I
476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4451
Web Form: clinton.senate.gov/contact
Reid, Harry- (D – NV) Class III
528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3542
Web Form: reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm
Kerry, John F.- (D – MA) Class II
304 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2742
Web Form: kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.html
Landrieu, Mary L.- (D – LA) Class II
724 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5824
Web Form: landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Levin, Carl- (D – MI) Class II
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6221
Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D – WV) Class II
531 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6472
Web Form: rockefeller.senate.gov/services/email.cfm
Schumer, Charles E.- (D – NY) Class III
313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6542
Web Form: schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/webform.cfm
Kennedy, Edward M.- (D – MA) Class I
317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4543
Web Form: kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm
Feinstein, Dianne- (D – CA) Class I
331 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3841
Web Form: feinstein.senate.gov/email.html
Leahy, Patrick J.- (D – VT) Class III
433 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4242
E-mail: senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
Stabenow, Debbie- (D – MI) Class I
133 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4822
Web Form: stabenow.senate.gov/email.htm
Durbin, Richard- (D – IL) Class II
332 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2152
Web Form: durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Lincoln, Blanche L.- (D – AR) Class III
355 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4843
Web Form: lincoln.senate.gov/webform.html
Feingold, Russell D.- (D – WI) Class III
506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5323
E-mail: russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
Harkin, Tom- (D – IA) Class II
731 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3254
Web Form: harkin.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Bayh, Evan- (D – IN) Class III
463 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5623
Web Form: bayh.senate.gov/WebMail1.htm
Biden, Joseph R., Jr.- (D – DE) Class II
201 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5042
E-mail: senator@biden.senate.gov
Boxer, Barbara- (D – CA) Class III
112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3553
Web Form: boxer.senate.gov/contact
Menendez, Robert- (D – NJ) Class I
502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4744
Web Form: menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Nelson, Bill- (D – FL) Class I
716 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5274
Web Form: billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Obama, Barack- (D – IL) Class III
713 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2854
Web Form: obama.senate.gov/contact/
Byrd, Robert C.- (D – WV) Class I
311 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3954
Web Form: byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html
Cantwell, Maria- (D – WA) Class I
717 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3441
Web Form: cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html
Conrad, Kent- (D – ND) Class I
530 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2043
Web Form: conrad.senate.gov/webform.html
Dayton, Mark- (D – MN) Class I
123 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3244
Web Form: dayton.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Dodd, Christopher J.- (D – CT) Class III
September 10th, 2006 at 6:56 pm448 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2823
Web Form: dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3130
[...] the press conference, Cheney again cited a throughly-debunked Weekly Standard article written by his own biographer Stephen Hayes as laying out the best case of an Iraq/al Qaeda connection. “It was the Weekly [...]
March 17th, 2008 at 3:53 pm