Cheney Biographer Launches Desperate Attack On Senate Intelligence Committee Report
Cheney Biographer Launches Desperate Attack On Senate Intelligence Committee Report
In the Weekly Standard, official Cheney biographer Stephen Hayes attacks the recently-released portion of the Senate Intelligence Committee report that documents the fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were enemies, not collaborators.
The report’s conclusion deals a devastating blow to Hayes, who has previously declared “case closed” on the connection between Hussein and bin Laden and has authored on a book on that sole issue. Unsurprisingly, he strikes back against the Senate report with more deception and spin:
1. Hayes’ sourcing for his information is unreliable; Senate sourcing is authoritative. Hayes pieces together unverified media reporting to develop his theory of a “connection.” He continues to rely on a discredited Defense Department intelligence memo. At one point, Hayes even sources his claims to the fact that Vice President Cheney repeated them. The Senate Intelligence Committee report relies on “documents uncovered in Iraq and new intelligence collected, including Intelligence Community debriefs of detained Iraqis and al Qa’ida members. … The Committee supplemented this effort by soliciting the Intelligence Community’s judgments of the accuracy of their own prewar assessments.”
2. Hayes ignores the conclusions of the intelligence community. The report notes that the CIA Inspector General has concluded: “The data reveal few indications of an established relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda. The DIA, which has reviewed more than 34 million pages of documents that were recovered from Iraq, “continues to maintain that there was no partnership between the two organizations.”
3. Hayes ignores the report’s conclusion on Zawahiri. He writes, “There is no mention of documents showing that the Iraqi regime cultivated a relationship with bin Laden’s chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, throughout the 1990s.” He ignores the report’s revelation that the former Iraqi Vice President said suggestions of a link between Zawahiri and Saddam were “completely false.”
4. Hayes ignores reports of Saddam’s refusal to partner with bin Laden. The Senate report documents Saddam’s rejection of bin Laden’s requests for assistance, his unwillingness to meet with al Qaeda officials, and his detentions of those he viewed as Islamist radicals. Abdul Rahman Yasin, a participant in the ‘93 World Trade Center bombings (whom Hayes cites as proof of a “connection”), is evidence of Saddam’s actions against al Qaeda because he was jailed by the Iraqi government in 1994 through at least 2002 when 60 Minutes interviewed him there. The Senate report concludes, “Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa’ida to provide material or operational support.”
In his conclusion, Hayes writes, “Some day there will be an authoritative and richly detailed history of the nature of the relationship between the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda and other Islamist terror groups.” That day has come, and it’s a shame Hayes won’t allow himself to accept it.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
why are these people still allowed to participate in public discussions about anything? is this a new phenomena or has it been happening throughout history but it’s just amplified in our current day and age?
September 18th, 2006 at 4:36 pmFacts? Facts? We don’t need no stinking facts!
September 18th, 2006 at 4:37 pmClassic: Anyone who doesn’t agree with his lies is a liar.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:37 pmI saw a documentary once about bin Laden that told about him volunteering his group of fighters that he was in charge of that pushed Russia out of Afghanistan. He offerred his services to the Saudis to get Saddam out of Kuwait, but the Saudis refused and instead let the Americans do the job. That made bin Laden very angry and that is the genisis of his campaign against America. Not that he hates our “freedoms”. It also proves that he and Saddam were mortal enemies. Why don’t those Sunday blabbermouth programs pull this little gem out of their hats while groveling at the Bush administrations flacks?
September 18th, 2006 at 4:45 pmI like that cover of The Weekly Standard with Saddam’s photo and the Fox-like caption “A Reliable Source?” They could have interchanged Cheney or any number of BushCo sycophants for Saddam and used the same caption.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:46 pmWhat is the official authority that was given bush to attack Iraq? If it’s only the AUMF then this administration has to keep pushing this lie. There is no ambiguious language in the AUMF to go attack any country, only those with direct ties to those responsible for 9/11.
I can’t recall any other passage in congress other than the AUMF.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:50 pmReminds me of that funny Seinfeld line:
“I work for the telephone company, so I’ve had a lot of experience with semantics — so don’t try to lure me into some web of circular logic.”
September 18th, 2006 at 4:50 pmExcellent article. Read it last night. A thorough, well-researched, heavily-cited dismantling of the Senate Committee Report. Well worth reading. Check it out.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:52 pmactually the article makes better toilet paper than reading material.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:56 pmUnlike last week when Cheney said he “hadn’t seen it [the report]” on Meet the Press.
How much can change in a week. Let the predictable vicious attacks begin!
September 18th, 2006 at 4:59 pmThe Senate intelligence report concluded that “Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa’ida to provide material or operational support.”
What did Cheney tell Russert? Saddam, he insisted, “had a relationship with al Qaeda.” When Russert pointed out that the intelligence committee “said that there was no relationship,” Cheney interrupted and commented, “I haven’t had a chance to read it.”
Perhaps he should before he talks about 9/11 and Iraq again.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:04 pmHey, hey, hey…I bet his source was Disney, and we all know how acurate their info. is. How dare we question that paragon of truth that is the Reality Based White House. If its’ OK with Goofy and Co. it must be on the level.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:05 pmThank God that the truth is finally coming out; albeit slowly, but it is coming. The american people deserve to be made aware of the truth and not some twisted, bogus version of the facts & details.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:07 pm#15
Couldn’t agree more, sunshine. The myth that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda needs to be shown as the canard that it is. The 9/11 Commission Report and Hayes’ excellent article are good starts.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:11 pmExley,
You are absolutely right. With the preponderance of evidence that Iraq was a crucial operating partner of al Qaeda, and in possession of massive stock piles of WMD’s, it is the solemn duty of any true patriot to shed the comforts of their material lifestyle and join the armed forces immediately. Specifically, of course, to go over to Iraq and defeat the overwhelmingly dangerous heathens that are there and pose such a dire threat to the United States of America.
Only a pure coward and traitor would not do so, especially in light of such damning and irrefutable evidence. In fact, if your sons and daughters are not joining the fight immediately then they would be traitorous cowards as well.
So, Private Exley, please inform immediately of your enlistment schedule and duties. I am certain that you will receive every once of support that you deserve.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:11 pmIf I speak can I be my own source too?
September 18th, 2006 at 5:14 pmHayes is just exemplative of republican lies, when reality interferes with the propoganda just make shit up. Unfortunately we have all learned what happens when you ignore facts and “make shit up” thousands die and the world gets a lot less safe. And yet they persist lying to themselves and the rest of the country in the with the futile faith only a zealot could have.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:15 pm“Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa’ida to provide material or operational support.â€
Just like pre war findings by anyone who didn’t think they were the messiah.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:16 pmExley,
Where did you go? The time for action is now. God knows that you are about to lose (already lost?) Iraq. Are you going to give up now when the stakes are this high? Speak man or forever lose your credibility.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:22 pmExley,
Sorry pal, but it seems like Hayes’s article relies heavily (if not solely) on a memo written by Douglas Feith (a member of PNAC, BTW). I do not consider him a reliable source of information, especially where Iraq is concerned. Do I think he would send a memo to a congressional committee that contained false information? I absolutely believe he would, in a second! And, according to what I saw in the article, it was Feith’s memo that had the sources of the information. hayes didn’t get his information from the other sources directly. So I do not consider this particular person (Feith) or any administration personnel to be reliable sources of facts.
If this memo was at all reliable or taken seriously, then why did that committee reject it and claim that the opposite of what Hayes said was true?
September 18th, 2006 at 5:24 pmA Cheney biographer?
September 18th, 2006 at 5:27 pmUntil this one, I thought Tony Blow had the impossible job……..
There is no connection but the neocons are making it their own little big horn because all the other fallacies are hinging on this.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:29 pmThe only reason Saddam is still alive is he’s still on the Bush pay role.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:34 pm“If this memo was at all reliable or taken seriously, then why did that committee reject it and claim that the opposite of what Hayes said was true?”
Because the committee is part of a vast left wing conspiracy concocted by Saddam.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:34 pmOf course Joe citizen I’m writing a book I want to sell has better intelligence information than the U.S. congress. What a moron.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:36 pmFeith, who is also being probed by the FBI for his role in an Israeli spy case
September 18th, 2006 at 5:36 pmSnow White and the Seven Dwarves has more reality to it that this piece of tripe.
I makes me laugh how Bush apologists are so desperate… what a bunch of wafflers… no one takes them seriously anymore.
It it the end for the GOP, and sympathizers like the one on this board are just driving the lat nails in the coffin.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:38 pmYou know these guys launder millions of dollars on Biographies
Nobody buys them they just burn millions of copies in a furnace and steal taxpayers money pretending they sold millions
What did Cheney tell Russert? Saddam, he insisted, “had a relationship with al Qaeda.†When Russert pointed out that the intelligence committee “said that there was no relationship,†Cheney interrupted and commented, “I haven’t had a chance to read it.â€
Perhaps he should before he talks about 9/11 and Iraq again.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:38 pmFBI PROTECTS OSAMA BIN LADEN’S “RIGHT TO PRIVACY” IN DOCUMENT RELEASE
Judicial Watch Investigation Uncovers FBI Documents Concerning Bin Laden Family and Post-9/11 Flights
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that fights government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act (”FOIA”) in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (”FBI”) has invoked privacy right protections on behalf of al Qaeda terror leader Osama bin Laden.
In a September 24, 2003 declassified “Secret” FBI report obtained by Judicial Watch, the FBI invoked Exemption 6 under FOIA law on behalf of bin Laden, which permits the government to withhold all information about U.S. persons in “personnel and medical files and similar files” when the disclosure of such information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) (2000))
Before invoking privacy protections for Osama bin Laden under Exemption 6, the FBI should have conducted a balancing “test” of the public’s right to disclosure against the individual’s right to privacy. Many of the references in the redacted documents cite publicly available news articles from sources such as The Washington Post and Associated Press. Based on its analysis of the news stories cited in the FBI report, Judicial Watch was able to determine that bin Laden’s name was redacted from the document, including newspaper headlines in the footnoted citations.
“It is dumbfounding that the United States government has placed a higher priority on the supposed privacy rights of Osama bin Laden than the public’s right to know what happened in the days following the September 11 terrorist attacks,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is difficult for me to imagine a greater insult to the American people, especially those whose loved ones were murdered by bin Laden on that day.”
The redacted documents were obtained by Judicial Watch under the provisions of the FOIA and through ongoing litigation (Judicial Watch v. Department of Homeland Security & Federal Bureau of Investigation, No. 04-1643 (RWR)). Among the documents was a declassified “Secret” FBI report, dated September 24, 2003, entitled: “Response to October 2003 Vanity Fair Article (Re: [Redacted] Family Departures After 9/11/2001).” Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request on October 7, 2003. The full text of the report and related documents are available on the Internet by clicking here (Adobe Acrobat Reader required).
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5286.shtml…
September 18th, 2006 at 5:39 pmHayes is deluded. He has refused to surrender the connection between Hussein and 9/11 – hence, he was granted the privilege of writing Cheney’s biography – who is also a deluded warmonger.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:42 pmThe WS is read mostly by the Bush-lovers and they will use this article to further their own false argument — that is the shame of it.
The denial of the investigation that doesn’t agree with his foregone conclusions is a sign of desperation of character. He can’t admit he was wrong.
That seems to be a prevalent fault in the Republican party and the White House – they believe they are infallible. They said it, they believe it, therefore it must be right.
#22….Wayne,
Good to hear from you.
Wayne, when I read the Senate Intelligence Committee Report, I was just about ready to admit that I may have indeed been wrong and that claims of Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda (as described by the 9/11 Commission) may have been premature and overstated.
However, the fact is that Hayes’ article raises some very real questions about the Senate Report and points out some glaring omissions. I am certainly more than willing to concede the point when the facts are there (For example, it is pretty much beyond dispute now that there were no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq pre-liberation and that Presidents Clinton and Bush were wrong when they claimed otherwise).
But given the 9/11 Commission Report and Hayes’ excellent reporting on the topic, the question of Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda and otehr radical Islamist groups is still very much open to debate.
On to more important things, Wayne….They were just waiting to clinch at Shea. It happens TONIGHT!
September 18th, 2006 at 5:44 pmYou all are missing the big picture. The US involvement in Iraq can, and will, be argued back and forth on the “factsâ€, yet in the end neither is proved right or wrong.
Yet, for the supporters of the US involvement in Iraq, a picture is painted that is so bleak, so dire, and so incredibly dangerous that, if true, to not take immediate and enormous action would be a contradiction of a magnitude never seen in world history. Any individual who believes the rhetoric and reasoning behind the US involvement in Iraq should not only be joining the armed services to fight the ordained war, but they should be screaming from the rooftops that each and every available soldier, national guard unit, and reserve unit should be activated and sent to the front right now. In reality, they should also be screaming for an immediate draft.
Argue semantics all day if you like. However, demanding that someone back up their claims with appropriate actions is something that cannot be dismissed or hidden from. In poker it is termed as “calling the bluffâ€, in life it is called defending one’s honor. And, as everyone knows, a person without honor is neither seen nor heard.
Your choice.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:50 pmHowever, the fact is that Hayes’ article raises some very real questions about the Senate Report and points out some glaring omissions.
Comment by Exley
Conclusion 5:… Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.
How is this for a glaring inclusion.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:50 pmExley,
You and your country are about to lose to the islamofacists and your big concern of the day is BASEBALL?!? I see now how you are getting your asses kicked now that I understand the commitment of your “patriots”.
(In light of Exley’s display, I feel compelled to point out that I’m not talking about the football team).
September 18th, 2006 at 5:53 pmWhy does the Senate Intelligence Committee hate our freedom?
September 18th, 2006 at 5:53 pmLike a child, Hayes puts his fingers in his ears to keep from hearing that which he doesn’t want to hear. That way he can keep running his mouth and his brain won’t explode from the conflicting realities.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:54 pm#9: I once used the Weakly Standardas toilet paper, it gave me a rash.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Hayes is just trying to protect the profits on his now-useless-waste-of-time book…. too late!
The American People have decded to called “BULL” on the sympathizers who only *wish* there was a connection between Saddam & Bin Laden.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:06 pmThe Weekly Standard is a GOP affiliated rag magazine, so who cares what one of their bogus articles claims or tries to do! Propaganda is sludge!
September 18th, 2006 at 6:07 pm#40 Stating the Obvious,
Chill out. Exley and I just want to celebrate one of the few things on which we agree: That the New York Mets kick ass!
There is very little else on which we will agree, but at least we have that. And he and I (and Jane) have been waiting for about a week for them to clinch the damn thing. At least they’ll be able to do it at home tonight, which would have much better anyway. The next comment I post here will be why I think he’s wrong.
You should rejoice that a liberal and a conservative can find something they won’t fight constantly about. Now, on the other hand, if he was an American League fan who liked the Designated Hitter rule…
September 18th, 2006 at 6:08 pmExley is like the wife of a child molester who abuses their daughter. She (he) will support her man no matter what the evidence.
Cheney and Chimp and the whole slimy pack are raping America, defiling our honor as a country, but these apologists will hang in there until the last rat is hung.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:10 pmExley,
Twice you referrred to his reporting as “excellent”. Again, he seems to rely almost entirely on a memo written by someone who cannot realistically be considered “reliable” on this subject, Douglas Feith. Feith, like Dick Cheney (who once, after drinking at lunchtime, shot a 78-year-old man in the face and then sent his friend out to lie about it), wanted to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power even before he was given his adminstration job, probably because of those beliefs. Again, if what he said in that memo was true, then why did the Senate committee reject it?
Go Mets!
September 18th, 2006 at 6:28 pmHey, Exley, hope you’re right – about the Mets, I mean! They sure have been looking like losers for the last week. They’re making me nervous.
Sorry everyone, I’ll let Wayne tell Exley why the rest of his comments are wrong :D. I’m heading home to watch the game/Keith/TDS/CR.
Exley, keep your fingers crossed! Bye!
September 18th, 2006 at 6:31 pmWayne,
I remember something about major league baseball being cancelled during WWII so that everyone could contribute to, and sacrifice for, the war effort.
It seems that the US has figured out how to make war less hellish and even palletable. Good for you, I guess.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:36 pm#50 STO,
It’s not like we think the Mets are THE most important thing going on in the world right now. It’s just that with our troops forced to fight a militarily unwinnable war, without the proper body and vehicle armor they need, without an exit strategy, without competent civilian leadership, without the proper legal justification, and without the support of the international community in general, it’s just nice to find at least ONE positive thing we can look to for hope.
I’m sorry you’re not a Mets fan, or you would be happy for them and the distraction they temporarily provide, too.
And Jane’s right. Time to leave to catch the game. Sorry, Exley, I’ll have to read your explanation of why Douglas Feith is so much more reliable than the rest of the intelligence community tomorrow.
Good night all.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:46 pmWayne,
No worries, I’m happy for you that you can enjoy such pleasant distractions during such difficult times. I was merely pointing out the irony, which seems to have been a lost cause anyway.
Enjoy.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:56 pmFor those of you who had to endure my relentless, meaningless posting lastnight, let me first apologize, and second, be frank:
Beer goes much better with football than it does politics. I did not draw the line. I am punishing myself by staying away from TP for a bit, and hopefully you will forget what an a-hole I am after a while.
Be safe~
September 18th, 2006 at 7:55 pmKeeping the SouthPaw off the keyboard a while!
Uh-oh…..just saw Exley on this post….he’s going to run with this, isn’t he?
Another smackdown by Stephen Hayes!!!
September 18th, 2006 at 7:59 pmYou need a biographer for EVIL MURDERING ASSHOLE?
September 18th, 2006 at 7:59 pmThe refreshing thing about Exely and his support of Mr. Hayes’ arguments is his consistency. Remember this folks , carry your argument out to the nth degree with the same level of commitment to your sources and most people who follow your line of thinking will just naturally agree with you. People like consistent behavior, how can you argue with Sen. Robert’s logic regarding civil liberties, you know the one’s that do you no good if your dead. It’s right up there with the meme “The Bible says it is true therefor it is”. I reply with that’s nice , here are my facts. It’s all about presentation, not content.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:32 pmLets not forget, this is the first in a series, its seriously flawed as everyone knows. The next will not be any better, but the third report will get rid of most of the murnisha. Dont get your panties in a wad, there are more serious things going on.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:33 pm#50, Stating+the+Obvious
Actuallly, FDR during World War II said that baseball MUST go on, even during war-time, for the sake of the American people, and more importantly, the American fighting men and women…Baseball most certainly was not cancelled or suspended during WWII. The seasons went on, even during WWII, because to cancel baseball is to cancel America. Check your history, STO. Baseball is forever.
Wayne, Jane…LET’S GO METS!!!!!!!!!!
September 18th, 2006 at 8:56 pm#50
STO…FDR’s famed “green light” letter to the Commissioner of Major League Baseball:
My dear Judge:
Thank you for yours of January fourteenth. As you will, of course, realize the final decision about the baseball season must rest with you and the Baseball club owners – so what I am going to say is solely a personal and not an official point of view.
I honestly feel that it would be best for the country to keep baseball going. There will be fewer people unemployed and everybody will work longer hours and harder than ever before.
And that means that they ought to have a chance for recreation and for taking their minds off their work even more than before.
Baseball provides a recreation which does not last over two hours or two hours and a half, and which can be got for very little cost. And, incidentally, I hope that night games can be extended because it gives an opportunity to the day shift to see a game occasionally.
As to the players themselves, I know you agree with me that the individual players who are active military or naval age should go, without question, into the services. Even if the actual quality to the teams is lowered by the greater use of older players, this will not dampen the popularity of the sport. Of course, if an individual has some particular aptitude in a trade or profession, he ought to serve the Government. That, however, is a matter which I know you can handle with complete justice.
Here is another way of looking at it – if 300 teams use 5,000 or 6,000 players, these players are a definite recreational asset to at least 20,000,000 of the fellow citizens – and that in my judgment is thoroughly worthwhile.
With every best wish,
Very sincerely yours,
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Hon. Kenesaw M. Landis
September 18th, 2006 at 9:01 pm333 North Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois
Hayes literally sold his soul to the devil, and now he’s feeling a bit hot under the collar.
I love the smell of flop sweat in the morning….evening, any time will do, actually.
September 18th, 2006 at 9:14 pmTHE METS WIN THE PENNANT!!!!! THE METS WIN THE PENNANT!!!! THE METS WIN THE PENNANT!!!!
September 18th, 2006 at 9:42 pmWhy are you so stupid Exley?
September 18th, 2006 at 9:51 pmExley,
GO FIND A BASEBALL BLOG!! GO FIND A BASEBALL BLOG!!
GO FIND A BASEBALL BLOG!! GO FIND A BASEBALL BLOG!!
I better not catch any sh*t for commenting off topic anymore…
September 18th, 2006 at 10:14 pm#64 JPark
THE METS WIN THE PENNANT!!!!! THE METS WIN THE PENNANT!!!! THE METS WIN THE PENNANT!!!!
September 18th, 2006 at 10:19 pmThanks for explaining that, Ex. *yawn*
Heads up everyone, baseball analogies might get through to Exley, or they will at least distract him from his lunacy.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:22 pmOops, #65 (Fetus in a Jar) is me. I was playing around on another thread. :P
September 18th, 2006 at 11:23 pmZooey,
I was simply sharing my joy with Wayne and Jane….
September 18th, 2006 at 11:33 pmoh come on Hayes plans on writing docudramas for a living after Bushco, he’s just practicing ’sexing’ up the facts to make them fit the actual factual undeniable gripping inspiring cutting edge truth that’s required of docudrama screenwriters and investigative pundit sleuths!
September 18th, 2006 at 11:46 pmEx,
Wayne & Jane do not have a computer at home.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:46 pmOops, #65 (Fetus in a Jar) is me. I was playing around on another thread. :P
Comment by Zooey
Doh! 8^X
I hate it when my sockpuppet does that..
September 18th, 2006 at 11:49 pm#71,
Thanks for the info, Zooey….Oh well. I guess they will check in tomorrow. I am sure they are celebrating right now. Good night.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:56 pmI hate it when my sockpuppet does that..
Comment by Dick
Heh.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:14 amThanks for the info, Zooey….
Comment by Exley
You are quite welcome, Ex.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:15 amIn case anyone didn’t hear the good news:
THE METS WIN THE PENNANT!!!!! THE METS WIN THE PENNANT!!!! THE METS WIN THE PENNANT!!!!
What? You mean the Yankees haven’t clinched their division yet? HA-HA-HA-HA!
Okay, I’ll be good until the playoffs. I will avoid the temptation to give in and hijack any more threads with this. Instead, I’ll go back to making snide jokes and pointing out the silliness of the arguments I hear from the conservatives who, I honestly believe, are merely misinformed and not evil. The neo-cpns are pure evil, but they are not true conservatives. They may not even be human beings. They lack vital body parts like a heart and a brain.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:24 am#76
Wayne, Jane…Congratulations. It was a beautiful night last evening!
LET’S GO METS!
(To all others here, we apologize…No more Mets talk).
September 19th, 2006 at 10:45 amBush approval rating rebounds in new poll
Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:43 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President George W. Bush’s approval rating has rebounded to 44 percent, the highest level in a year, in the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, the newspaper reported on Tuesday.
Bush’s approval rating jumped five points from 39 percent in the previous poll conducted earlier this month.
The bounce comes with seven weeks before elections to deicide control of Congress amid falling gas prices and a renewed campaign by Bush to boost support for the Iraq war and to portray Republicans as more competent than Democrats on security, the newspaper said.
Bush’s approval rating edged up largely on the strength of Republicans coming back to the fold with 86 percent saying they support him now, compared to 70 percent in May, USA Today said.
For the first time since December 2005, a majority of people polled did not say the war in Iraq was a mistake. The respondents were evenly split at 49 percent to 49 percent, the report said.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:18 amI don’t know, Exley, I’d love to see how the poll questions were phrased. I find it very hard to believe that, within a week or so, the percentage of people who think that the Iraq war was a mistake went from 60%+ to 49%. Seriously, do you really think that Bush’s latest “anyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi appeaser” speeches could convince any of those 60% to say, “Oh, he’s right, I don’t want to be a Nazi appeaser!” I think it’s more likely that those 60%, after hearing the recent speeches, would say “F*ck that noise!” (as I did.)
And I really don’t understand how anyone can connect falling gas prices to anything that Bush has done. That’s just dumb.
(very quietly: Mets win!)
September 19th, 2006 at 1:00 pmbLiar/Ryanne – YAWWWWNNNN……zzzzzzz…………Aren’t you due from some new material from the talking points “authors”? You COULDN’T refute one of my assertions if you tried -so ….. you repeat, ad nauseum the same OLDDDDDD lines…Do you think the US Constitution implies national suicide to maintain free and unfettered rights?
Back in session…..
September 19th, 2006 at 2:29 pmAphrodite, I didn’t say that market forces are behind gasoline prices [falling], I just said that Bush didn’t do anything to make gas/oil prices fall, so he shouldn’t be credited with that happening. IMO, gas/oil prices are completely at the whim of the oil companies. Hope you and yours are well
September 19th, 2006 at 2:48 pmMajor leage baseball did continue throughout World War II – but it did so without many of its stars, who joined the armed forces.
The playing field was leveled so drastically that the 1944 AL pennant was won by the previously woeful St. Louis Browns. (They lost the World Series to their crosstown rivals, the Cardinals – I think that was the only time there was an all-St. Louis series.)
As for the present hair-splitting, truth-twisting Administraton – well, trying to capture somebody could be construed as “a relationship” by the totally desperate.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:28 amRorie
Good work.
March 28th, 2008 at 4:19 amFreddie
I think you hit the nail on the head with this.
March 28th, 2008 at 4:12 pmJessie
Great post, very informative. Have learned a lot from your site.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:21 am