Al Gore v. the media.
By on May 26th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Al Gore v. the media.
Al Gore:
“My position is that all television is bad except my network, Current TV, and The Daily Show, and whatever show I happen to be watching at the time,” Gore joked, before adding, “But in all seriousness, the television news programs have probably spent a lot more time on Britney Spears’ shaving her head, and Paris Hilton going to jail, and Anna-Nicole Smith’s estate lawyers and Joey Buttafuoco, and all this stuff, than they have spent giving us the facts — for example, telling us before the invasion of Iraq, that actually Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack of 9/11.”
Watch it:
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Okay, Al, time to stop pointing out the problems and instead do something about fixing them… Join the 2008 Presidential race as a candidate. Your country needs you.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:07 pmWell, the Red Khmers very much disliked all public broadcasting. It’s not a surprise that Gore and the lunatic left wouldnlike to see an uninformed public.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:09 pmWell, the Red Khmers very much disliked all public broadcasting. It’s not a surprise that Gore and the lunatic left wouldnlike to see an uninformed public.
Comment by MAF54 — May 26, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
We have an uniformed public, as is proven everytime you post using a pedophiles screen name, jake.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:11 pmJake (aka Mark Foley) – I’m not sure what you just read, but Al Gore is advocating education of all people – it’s why he has a problem wit the fact that the MSM ignores the truth. Clear now?
May 26th, 2007 at 4:12 pmAh. For a moment I forgot that I was posting on a moonbat site.
For me, uninformed means liberal. Hence, Gore would definitely like to see an uninformed public.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:14 pmSo the media should have blankly asserted something that they could not prove was true? The media should have told us that Saddam was not involved in 9/11 simply because we lacked evidence that this was the case? So that means that the media should tell us that God is real, even though we have no evidence that this is the case?
Liberals, you now find yourself in quite a pickle – I give the ball to you.
My take: the media should have done what it did, ask Dick Cheney on national television in September 2002 whether or not there was evidence that Iraq was involved, in which case Cheney replied, “No.”
May 26th, 2007 at 4:14 pmFor me, uninformed means liberal. Hence, Gore would definitely like to see an uninformed public.
Comment by MAF54 — May 26, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
For you, posting using a pedophiles screen name is okay right jake?
May 26th, 2007 at 4:15 pmHas anyone seen MAF and Jake posting in the same thread?
May 26th, 2007 at 4:15 pmhahaha, he isn’t criticizing public broadcasting, he is criticizing corporate broadcasting. If anyone has a problem with public broadcasting its the fascist republicans because public broadcasting tends to be liberal. They tried to destroy it, but it’s still alive and kicking.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:16 pmOh, and I might add, it’s a bit hypocritical for Gore to be criticizing the media. After all, when is the last time the media asked him a tough question? When he ran for president? I mean, has the media asked him a single tough question since 2000? Anyone?
How can Al Gore criticize the media when they suck his balls every single day?
May 26th, 2007 at 4:19 pmWhat could be more fascist than a public broadcasting service? It’s controlled by one government and will only air material that’s in agreement with official policies?
May 26th, 2007 at 4:19 pmWell, the Red Khmers very much disliked all public broadcasting -MAF
Naw thats the GOP that dislikes channel 13 public TV
GOP takes aim at PBS funding – The Boston Globe
May 26th, 2007 at 4:19 pmAt the time, Republicans attacked the PBS for programming they said represented … http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/08/gop_takes_aim_at_pbs_funding
Man I wish he would run for President again. He’d have my vote for sure.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:22 pmThe media should have told us that Saddam was not involved in 9/11 simply because we lacked evidence that this was the case?
Comment by DreamCrusher — May 26, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
The media should have told us Saddam was not involved in 9/11 because he was not involved and they had no evidence, whatsoever, that suggested he was. The media should present the facts, not the fiction the Bush propagandists would like us to hear.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:22 pmneat posted at 4:05 and was 10 minutes long. But several people posted before even watching it. I suppose they all saw it live though and knew the premise for TP’s article though.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:23 pmOh for the days of yellow journalism, when it was the media that goaded the people and the government into action!
May 26th, 2007 at 4:25 pmWhat could be more fascist than a public broadcasting service? It’s controlled by one government and will only air material that’s in agreement with official policies?
Comment by MAF54
Most of the money for new programming for PBS comes from subsribers, donations from the public, what do you think the fundraisers are all about?
May 26th, 2007 at 4:25 pmFor me, uninformed means liberal. Hence, Gore would definitely like to see an uninformed public. Comment by MAF54
Gonzales, uniformed forgetful ‘liberal’ [as MAF calls them] , he definitley got uninformed AGs with bad memories and an uninformed public
May 26th, 2007 at 4:25 pm#14: Who are you to say what media should have said. We’ve got free press and they’re free to decide what they report. It’s so typical of the lunatic left to form an opinion of a dogmatic “truth” that should be touted out in every newspaper and tv show. Let the reporters decide what’s newsworthy and what’s not.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:26 pm#17: Hahaha! You really believe that?
May 26th, 2007 at 4:27 pmSo does that mean it is perfectly fine for the ‘free’ press to lie to us if that is what they decide to do?
May 26th, 2007 at 4:31 pmshane,
The media should have told us Saddam was not involved in 9/11 because he was not involved and they had no evidence, whatsoever, that suggested he was. The media should present the facts, not the fiction the Bush propagandists would like us to hear.
The media didn’t present any “fiction” in this case. The media did not say Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Neither did the Bush administration. As I said, Dick Cheney was asked on Meet the Press in September 2002 whether or not Iraq was involved, and Cheney answered flatly, “No.”
So…
Do you think the media should state things it cannot prove to be the case? Why should they make a blank assertion of a negative, that Saddam was not involved, when they could never be sure that this is the case?
Would it not be better to say that there exists no evidence that Saddam is involved, which is in fact what they did do? Shouldn’t they have asked the government whether they had evidence that Saddam was involved, which they did do, and to which the government said no?
Where’s the problem here? There is none. Gore is making it up for the simple fact that Americans have always believed, rightly or wrongly, that Saddam played a hand in 9/11.
For all we know, Saddam could have played a hand, and thus it is not wrong for any American to believe so. 90 % of Americans believe in God, so why can’t 50% believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11? After all, there exists evidence of neither.
Gore suggests that this is because someone fooled them to believe this – but is that actually true, or a convenient claim made for convenient political reasons to sell a conveniently timed book?
May 26th, 2007 at 4:33 pmNPR has a regular segment where they present CORRECTIONS to their stories. When’s the last time you saw that on FOX News.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:34 pm#21: Of course. They should be allowed to print anything they like and the markets will decide if they’ll float or not.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:35 pmAshen Shard,
So does that mean it is perfectly fine for the ‘free’ press to lie to us if that is what they decide to do?
No, but that is what they do every day, and have done for a long time. Think Progress, and you, have no problem with it as long as they lie “correctly”, so shut up or get called a hypocrite.
You can’t get mad when the media lies after you continually enable their lies when you like them.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:41 pm#21: Of course. They should be allowed to print anything they like and the markets will decide if they’ll float or not.
Comment by MAF54 — May 26, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Which proves my point about conservatives: They just positively love being lied to.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:43 pmOh, so you are saying that whatever the markets decide is fine is ok… so if someone starts going around saying, lets say for example, that Jews control world governments, banking, etc. etc., they must thusly be eliminated … and the market accepts this, then that is ok with you?
May 26th, 2007 at 4:44 pm#27: Heh. Knowing who owns the media, I’m not even going to bother replying to THAT hypothetical scenario…
May 26th, 2007 at 4:49 pmblah, blah, lunatic left…blah, blah, facists…blah, blah, uninformed…blah, blah, moonbats…blah, blah, ad nauseum…
May 26th, 2007 at 4:49 pmThey should be allowed to print anything they like and the markets will decide if they’ll float or not.
Comment by MAF54 — May 26, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
By that logic, any merchant should be allowed to swindle you out of your money by selling you items of lower quality than advertised. Or something completely different altogether. Same for banks and colleges. Then we should let “the markets” decide. I guess the word “fraud” hasn’t entered your lexicon yet.
Conservatives: Always looking for confirmation of their cherished beliefs, facts and reality be damned.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:49 pmSo you are saying that such would be ok if market forces allowed it. BTW, if you have a problem responding to it, replace ‘Jews’ with anything else you like … liberals, conservatives, Muslims, gays …. whichever … and tell me if market forces accept it, that it is ok with you.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:52 pmBruce Gorton,
Which proves my point about conservatives: They just positively love being lied to.
Oh please, Think Progress as an institution provides exactly the same example in the other direction. Partisans, left and right, love being lied to. Go to DailyKos, go to Power Line, get your daily BS and love it up.
Oh, did I forget to remind you that the majority of journalists in the media are Democrats or liberals, in fact, over 75%?
Let’s not get into a silly argument about the media lying – especially since Think Progress loves utilizes lies from the media on a continual basis.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:55 pm(Public service broadcasting
The BBC is a quasi-autonomous Public Corporation operating as a public service broadcaster. The Corporation is run by the BBC Trust; however, the BBC is, per its charter, to be “free from both political and commercial influence and answers only to its viewers and listeners”.
National Shall Speak Unto Nation
May 26th, 2007 at 4:55 pmAl Gore/ Ron Paul ‘08!
The New Progressive party!
May 26th, 2007 at 4:57 pmHe said it in 1785, but it pretty much sums up the danger of bogus media like FoxNews. Anyone suggesting that the “free market” (as if it existed) should control the dissemination of news about the government is either deluded or despotic.
May 26th, 2007 at 5:00 pmAl Gore is correct, but the press/media are controlled by Bush Regime now.
May 26th, 2007 at 5:03 pmDreamCrusher
The majority of journalists believe in journalistic ethics – which include not lying.
The majority of news outlets, are owned by conservative media companies.
Oh, and while we are at it, isn’t it funny how you bring up that the majority of a group who have to, in order to make their living, know the facts, are in fact liberals? Got to get you wondering why now doesn’t it?
May 26th, 2007 at 5:06 pmJay,
They aren’t controlled by Bush … just by a bunch of whores more interested in money than in morality and the public good.
May 26th, 2007 at 5:07 pmOh and while we are at it Dreamcrusher:
Before accusing a site of lying, it is best to provide an example. So here is your big chance: Think Progress, the first two pages point out one story which is a lie.
May 26th, 2007 at 5:08 pmThis suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper.†–Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785.
May 26th, 2007 at 5:08 pmWhile I agree that false stories in Newspapers are dangerous, this is not 1785. The internet and Blogs do a pretty good job of exposing bogus stories.
Ashen > I said controlled by Bush Regime, not Bush himself. Corporate press works for Military Industrial Complex and the wealthy elite who are Bush’s support base.
May 26th, 2007 at 5:13 pmMore revisionist propaganda from the right. Here are two links that directly refute what you just posted:
AND
May 26th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
So many people seem to believe that PBS is somehow liberal! A recent survey of guests the result of which appeared on TP or Media Matters showed that on the News Hour with Jim Lerher, the number of guests advocating or supporting the invasion of Iraq versus those againsat was 5-1. The beauty of modern mass communications propaganda is that the New York Times and PBS and NPR have convinced most Americans that they are liberal or progressive! They are first and foremost ZIONIST-CAPITALIST, secondly liberal in that they occasionally report on global warming or gays and lesbians etc. But when it comes to the money and the war, they are very conservative. The NYT printed the lies of Judith Miller when they could do the most harm politically, then printed a tiny retraction long after the damage was done.
May 26th, 2007 at 5:18 pmIf you are looking for truly progressive liberal reporting try Democracy Now with Amy Goodman. If you think PBS is so liberal then why isn’t Noam Chomsky on more often if at all? How about Norman Finkelstein, whose tenure has been blocked by Allen Dershowitz because Finkelstein exposed the Holocaust frauds and Israeli culpability in Palestine abetted by a primarily Zionist American media…
And why haven’t the so-called liberal media outlets prominently displayed the fact that Israel announced 20,000 NEW HOMES FOR JEWS on Palestinian land on May 11th? exacerbating the suicidal anger of the Palestinians.
This is how the modern American fascist media distort your perceptions, negative associations, subliminal messaging, omissions, emphasis or de-emphasis. Here’s an example–the AP just reported this week about a leaked Clinton campaign memo claiming Clinton should avoid Iowa because she can’t win there, trailing Edwards in the Iowa Democratic caucus. But if you look at the poll of all likely Democratic voters done by Iowa University the first week of April you find Clinton leading statewide. AP failed to include that part of the story and made it sound as though Clinton was going to lose Iowa.
Always negative news or none at all on the candidates the Fascist Empire is really trying to destroy, positive news on those they want to succeed to the final election, such as Barack Obama, who the corporate masters are hoping to promote to candidate against Rotten Rudy Giuliani.
Not sure where my links went…ugh.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/20/cheney-lies/
and
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/20/cheney-lies/
May 26th, 2007 at 5:18 pmJay,
They are still whores. If Democratic policies and reporting facts made them more money than Bush Regime policies, you would see much of the remaining support for this failed administration ebb.
May 26th, 2007 at 5:20 pmhttp://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/27/wallace-never-linked/
Was the other link.
May 26th, 2007 at 5:22 pmWth happened to my previous posts??
Two links that refute what you just said:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/20/cheney-lies/
AND
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/27/wallace-never-linked/
May 26th, 2007 at 5:25 pmWhile I agree that false stories in Newspapers are dangerous, this is not 1785. The internet and Blogs do a pretty good job of exposing bogus stories.
Comment by Badger
“false stories in newspapers” translates, in current terms, to “false stories in newspapers, magazines, radio and television.” Blogs are a nice invention, but what percentage of Americans do you think actually read them on a regular basis? Jefferson’s point is that a press containing flacks that simply distribute the government’s party line is a great danger to democracy. In addition to outright propaganda organs like FoxNews, the media is full of flacks spinning the administration’s line of bullpucky.
May 26th, 2007 at 5:34 pmAshen > I agree, they are whores for Bush Regime policies.
May 26th, 2007 at 5:35 pmYou can all kiss the internet goodbye soon too when the Neo-Con Fascists eliminate net neutrality.
May 26th, 2007 at 5:38 pmAl Snore… no relation to Michael
May 26th, 2007 at 5:39 pmBruce,
The majority of journalists believe in journalistic ethics – which include not lying.
Yes, and the majority of politicians are honest, and most lawyers fight for the truth. Yada yada. Naive BS.
The majority of news outlets, are owned by conservative media companies.
I’m not sure how you can brand an entire company conservative or liberal, but hey, make it up as you go along, standard issue around here. Oh, and I might point out that the big bosses really don’t care about anything other than money – if Jon Stewart wants to liberal it up on Comedy Central, I’m not so sure the boss at Viacom cares since Stewart pulls in the ratings. You dig?
Oh, and while we are at it, isn’t it funny how you bring up that the majority of a group who have to, in order to make their living, know the facts, are in fact liberals? Got to get you wondering why now doesn’t it?
In the naive view of journalists, sure. In the not so naive view, we have a group of people who have chosen a job that gives them the power to influence vast amounts of people with their politics through subtle arrangements of facts or carefully crafted lies.
In the end, it’s a mixture of both, while you pretend that only journalists would care about knowing facts…
Before accusing a site of lying, it is best to provide an example. So here is your big chance: Think Progress, the first two pages point out one story which is a lie.
OK, how about this one. TP claims it’s an Arabic problem, although there is no actual way of knowing why Feith didn’t select Lang for the job. Not even Lang says what TP claims.
Or here, where TP projects actions done by Goodling onto Gonzales.
Or here, where TP talks about “restoration of rights” when foreign nationals have never had such rights previously, and the article they link make clear that the rights are “new”.
Or here, where TP places the blame on Bush for what is a manufacturing delay by the military industry.
Or here, where TP cherry-picks a few things from a larger report and presents it as if it is an exhaustive list claiming the intelligence foresaw a “fiasco” which it did not (I’ve actually read most of the report…).
And that is just from today. Puh.
May 26th, 2007 at 5:43 pmSpudd,
Your link from October 20, 2006 is incorrect. Cheney was speaking about the current situation in Iraq, where Zarqawi was operating on behalf of al Qaeda, and he said other things about Zarqawi that were true, that he fled to Iraq, and that he was there before we went in. He never says in the interview that Zarqawi was working for al Qaeda before the invasion of Iraq, although that’s what Think Progress insinuates.
And of course, this has nothing to do with discussions about 9/11, and this interview takes place long after the invasion of Iraq. Which makes it completely irrelevant to this thread and what Al Gore was talking about. Go fish.
May 26th, 2007 at 5:48 pmthe lunatic left wouldnlike to see an uninformed public.
Comment by MAF54 — May 26, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
I nominate this comment for the “most extreme projection” award.
May 26th, 2007 at 5:48 pmWhere are the video clips of Al Gore pointing out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, before the invasion?
Is this another name we can add to the list that believe hindsight and monday morning quarterbacking pass for leadership?
May 26th, 2007 at 6:00 pmGore and Jon both were awesome during that entire interview.
Jon asked some GREAT serious questions while still being funny as hell.
Daily show all the way.
May 26th, 2007 at 6:12 pm‘For me, uninformed means liberal. Hence, Gore would definitely like to see an uninformed public.’
You have no idea how asinine you are; the uninformed masses are clearly drawn to the party of incompetents, miscreants, liars and war profiteers, otherwise known as the Republican party.
Even your single cell brain stem should be able to grasp that obvious fact, but then it must be hard for you to grasp anything with your knuckles dragging across the floor as they do.
Get bent Bushbot lickspittle; you’re nothing more than an amorphous barge floating on the sea of ignorance.
May 26th, 2007 at 6:39 pm‘Let the reporters decide what’s newsworthy and what’s not.’
Reality check genius; facts are newsworthy and fiction is entertainment.
I know it flies in the face of your obvious eagerness to follow your fellow Bushbot ignoramuses off the cliff, but not everyone is willing to drink the Jim Jones coolaid your snake oil government is doling out.
Some of us prefer the truth; why are you so comfortable with lies and duplicity?
Oh right; it’s so much easier than actually having to think and reason for yourself. Welcome to the GOP, the Get Our Profits party.
May 26th, 2007 at 6:52 pmAre you serious? That’s what TP insinuates? And not Cheney, right? ROFLMAO…
This interview is completely relevant because it shows the administration continuing to push the idea that Al Qaeda and Iraq were connected– in other words, confusing the American people into thinking Saddam = responsible for 9/11.
I find it particularly funny that you completely ignored the other link as well. Some key quotes from my second link:
This is before invading Iraq. Or how about this one:
These are just a few of the many times that the administration has tried to link al Qaeda and Saddam as one of the justifications for the invasion. So, DreamCrusher, go spin yourself dizzy somewhere else in your attempts to clean up the crap the administration has left behind for history.
May 26th, 2007 at 7:00 pmSpudd,
This interview is completely relevant because it shows the administration continuing to push the idea that Al Qaeda and Iraq were connected– in other words, confusing the American people into thinking Saddam = responsible for 9/11.
Iraq and al Qaeda did have contacts, but were not “connected”, something people like you continually try to bait and switch. Cheney did not say anything incorrect in that link you posted, Zarqawi did flee to Iraq from Afghanistan, he was there before the war, and was al Qaeda’s top terrorist in Iraq “the last three years” when spoken in 2006. Cheney never states once in that interview that Zarqawi was in league with al Qaeda before the war, but that’s exactly what TP insinuates he claimed, although he did not.
Also, how does connecting Iraq to al Qaeda tie them to 9/11?? There are many who have been connected to al Qaeda, does mentioning that they are all implicate them in 9/11? If your neighbor commits a crime, am I connecting you to the crime by mentioning that you are his neighbor?
Ehm, no. Sure, some people might have connected the two – but that’s because some people are ignorant morons who play guilt by association, just like TP does every single day.
These are just a few of the many times that the administration has tried to link al Qaeda and Saddam as one of the justifications for the invasion. So, DreamCrusher, go spin yourself dizzy somewhere else in your attempts to clean up the crap the administration has left behind for history.
First of all, we are talking about connecting Saddam to 9/11, not to al Qaeda. Gore was talking about connecting Iraq to 9/11, not al Qaeda. If you cannot distinguish between the two, you are a moron.
Second of all, the things Bush said, which you quoted, were supported by intelligence information at the time he said them. Hell, even Hillary Clinton said some of the things you just quoted Bush as saying.
But the most important point: Bush never states anywhere that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Which is the entire point we are discussing, the entire point Al Gore was talking about, which I have yet again shown to be utterly false and an invention of the Democrats to smear Bush as a liar with.
In fact, in a Daily Show episode, Richard Clarke appeared on the program, and they were discussing how the administration allegedly connected Iraq to 9/11. Jon Stewart came with the illuminating quote, “We tried to find video of him saying it, but we couldn’t find anything of him saying it directly.”
Wow, I wonder why.
May 26th, 2007 at 7:17 pmGood lord, you’re all over the place man. Your argument gets narrower and narrower. Now you’re arguing that no one used the term “connected” and that Cheney never says Zarqawi was with Al Qaeda before the war. What was Zarqawi doing in Afghanistan that
would make him flee as the VP said? He was in fact training militants alongside al Qaeda with Bin Laden. Cheney said, “He was there before we ever went into Iraq.” “There” meaning Iraq
you tool. Reading comprehension for the lose you Bush Bot.
Oh, and here’s your magical freaking word “connection:”
Next up:
Wait, you just finished saying they weren’t “connected.” Now you say even if they are, how does that tie them to 9/11? The Bush administration has pushed for years before Iraq War 2 and since, that Al Qaeda and Saddam were working together. Since 9/11 was
perpetrated by Al Qaeda, and the administration claimed Saddam had helped Al Qaeda prior to 9/11, the conclusion they wanted Americans to draw was that Saddam = responsible for 9/11.
As for your statement about guilt by association, it’s utterly moronic. You dumb bastards are the ones who kept pushing the pre-9/11 link between al Qaeda and Iraq. You fools are the ones making the claim of guilt by association. Thus, you are calling yourself and the rest of the Bush Bots morons.
It is because the Bush administration continued to push that connection, that the American people overwhelmingly believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. This is a classic case of misleading (he has not made an outright lie, but rather a statement
intended to make people believe in something that is not true.) Misleading is a form of lying. Thus, he is a liar.
And as for your claim that the intelligence was what made him say those things, now you are also a liar. We have learned and continue to find out, that the intelligence said otherwise: that there was never a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, that there were no WMDs, that the intelligence community told the president this but he IGNORED them. Hell, he even included the piece about yellow-cake in his state of the union address, AFTER he was told it was not credible.
And if you believe Hillary Clinton had access to the same intelligence briefings the President did, then you truly are a fool.
May 26th, 2007 at 8:45 pmSpudd,
What was Zarqawi doing in Afghanistan that would make him flee as the VP said?
The VP never said what he was doing in Iraq, only that he fled there, which he did. As I said, TP, now you, were trying to put words in his mouth.
“There†meaning Iraq you tool. Reading comprehension for the lose you Bush Bot.
Yes, I know, in Iraq, but that’s true, as I already pointed out to you. Zarqawi did go to Iraq before the Iraq war. Which is what Cheney said. He never says what Zarqawi was doing there. So what is wrong with anything Cheney said in that interview?
Oh, and here’s your magical freaking word “connection:â€
Depends on what you mean by connection. This is all a huge tangent from what we were discussing, which is that Al Gore contents that the administration fooled Americans into believing that Iraq was involved with 9/11. They never stated that, and Americans believed this right after 9/11 happened, before Osama bin Laden was even announced as the perp.
Wait, you just finished saying they weren’t “connected.†Now you say even if they are, how does that tie them to 9/11? The Bush administration has pushed for years before Iraq War 2 and since, that Al Qaeda and Saddam were working together. Since 9/11 was
perpetrated by Al Qaeda, and the administration claimed Saddam had helped Al Qaeda prior to 9/11, the conclusion they wanted Americans to draw was that Saddam = responsible for 9/11.
Yet, it is true that Saddam and al Qaeda had many contacts throughout the 1990s, with Saddam reportedly offering bin Laden asylum, which he appears to have rejected since he went to Afghanistan instead. Did you want the Bush administration to not let Americans know this, simply because they might make the mistake of thinking Iraq + al Qaeda = Iraq + 9/11?
In other words, in your messed up world, the Bush administration could not mention anyone who had contacts with al Qaeda, because then people might connect them to 9/11. That makes no sense and is completely ludicrous.
You basically wanted the Bush administration to suppress facts so that they didn’t get any crazy ideas, even though the Bush administration answered many times in 2002 that Iraq WAS NOT INVOLVED in 9/11. Cheney said it several times, that they had no evidence that Iraq was involved. Yet that isn’t enough for you, because you want to believe Al Gore’s revisionist history.
As for your statement about guilt by association, it’s utterly moronic. You dumb bastards are the ones who kept pushing the pre-9/11 link between al Qaeda and Iraq. You fools are the ones making the claim of guilt by association. Thus, you are calling yourself and the rest of the Bush Bots morons.
Iraq and al Qaeda DID have contacts before 9/11, you god damn moron. Read any of the intelligence reports. I mean god damn, Bill Clinton bombed a factory in Sudan because they thought Iraq and al Qaeda were teaming up to make chemical weapons there.
YOU are the ones alleging that Bush & Co made the guilt by association, while it was in fact Americans who would have done this on their own, if that is why some Americans believed in this.
Dick Cheney goes on Meet the Press, September 2002. Tim Russert asks him “Do you have any evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11?” Dick Cheney says NO. NO. N. Fuggin. O.
Now if that wasn’t clear enough for some retard Americans, fine, but it sure as hell isn’t Cheney or Bush’s fault.
As I already stated, 90% of Americans believe in God. I don’t think believing that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 is even halfway as ludicrous as believing in God. Saddam didn’t like us. We bombed Saddam all through the 1990s. He was a natural person for Americans to believe exacted revenge on us.
Is that so god damn hard for you to understand?
It is because the Bush administration continued to push that connection, that the American people overwhelmingly believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
This is complete horse dung. 78% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein played a role. On September 13. 2001. Where did they get that belief from?????? The Bush administration hadn’t even made a statement about who was behind 9/11 yet. How could the Bush administration possibly have misled 78% of Americans without even saying anything about it?????
Because Americans, from the history of Iraqi-US relations, made a logical deduction that he wanted revenge on us and thus was involved. Simple. As. That.
And as for your claim that the intelligence was what made him say those things, now you are also a liar. We have learned and continue to find out, that the intelligence said otherwise: that there was never a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, that there were no WMDs, that the intelligence community told the president this but he IGNORED them.
Yes, that’s what Think Progress tells you, I’m sure, but go read the intelligence reports from before the war, and they all say all this stuff. The WMDs. The terrorism. About al Qaeda. Hillary Clinton was even saying it on the Senate floor!! Where do you think it came from? Was Hillary God Damn Clinton taking orders from the Bush administration?
When in the hell are you going to realize that the CIA screwed everyone???
And if you believe Hillary Clinton had access to the same intelligence briefings the President did, then you truly are a fool.
How does that even matter when you have Clinton up there saying that al Qaeda and Iraq were aiding each other??? Do you think the CIA put out one set of intelligence for Hillary, and another set of intelligence for the president that said directly the opposite?
Is that what it takes for you to believe all the god damn mumbo jumbo at Think Progress and their extension Al Gore?
You’re basically ignoring all the documentary evidence in existence. Read the October 2002 NIE.
Stop gurgling up what Think Progress shoves in your brain and try and actually go out there and try to verify what they say next time. You’re a god damn dupe that lets these charlatans walk all over your brain.
May 26th, 2007 at 9:32 pmSo, DreamCrusher, why again did we invade Iraq? And, btw, why haven’t we caught OBL?
May 26th, 2007 at 10:58 pmWe invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, and we did that for an array of geopolitical reasons. As to why we haven’t caught OBL, you might have asked the Washington State Police why it took them almost 20 years to get the Green River Killer, in a peaceful average-sized state in the US, or the great many other criminals who have been wanted for far longer than OBL within the United States.
But I guess we should invade Pakistan with 1 million troops to corner every part of the country and find him, eh? Or maybe he’s in Saudi Arabia. Maybe he’s in Iran. Maybe he’s in Afghanistan. Oh, and then there’s the little problem with all the mountainous regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Then again, I don’t think you can deal with reality, so whatever I say is just going to be ignored anyways. I’m sure Al Gore could have found OBL years ago, because he’s psychic, and he’d send millions of troops all over the region without anyone ever knowing about it. Like ghosts. Or whatever fantasy you concoct in your head to make it seem that catching OBL is a piece of cake.
May 26th, 2007 at 11:19 pmThis is complete horse dung. 78% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein played a role. On September 13. 2001.
Comment by DreamCrusher — May 26, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
No, your post is what is complete horse manure. That percentage was for Bin Laden. The people who picked Hussein as an answer to that question were 34%. It’s right there, in the link you provided.
Overall, 92% of those polled suspected Bin Laden was “likely” to be involved.
Your contention that Bush had nothing to do with Americans linking Hussein to the 9/11 attacks is even more hogwash. That the Bush administration time and again mentioned 9/11 and Iraq in the same breath -thus establishing a link between the two- is well documented. Here is an article by the Christian Science Monitor from 2003:
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.
May 27th, 2007 at 2:00 amThe impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
you might have asked the Washington State Police why it took them almost 20 years to get the Green River Killer
Hmm, they didn’t know his name, or what he looked like?
May 27th, 2007 at 3:20 amOK, how about this one. TP claims it’s an Arabic problem, although there is no actual way of knowing why Feith didn’t select Lang for the job. Not even Lang says what TP claims.
TP correctly quoted Lang as telling him it was “Too bad” that he was so profecient when it came to Arabic language and culture. TP’s interpretation is perfectly reasonable. So, first example: No lie.
Or here, where TP projects actions done by Goodling onto Gonzales.
Gonzales is the boss. Goodling’s recomendations could have and should have been ignored by Gonzales. When an employee screws up, that employees superior is responsible. So, no lie, particularly in view of how Gonzo turned a blind eye to it. Next…
Or here, where TP talks about “restoration of rights†when foreign nationals have never had such rights previously, and the article they link make clear that the rights are “newâ€.
Read the US constitution. Pay particular attention to articles 4 and 5. They did have a lot of those rights previously. Plus they are getting a new one, the right to access to a lawyer even without being criminally charged.
Or here, where TP places the blame on Bush for what is a manufacturing delay by the military industry.
Actually they were quoting CBS quoting an internal memo saying it was due to bueracratic fumbling within the Bush Admin. The title of the story quite clearly states “Bush Admin.”
Or here, where TP cherry-picks a few things from a larger report and presents it as if it is an exhaustive list claiming the intelligence foresaw a “fiasco†which it did not (I’ve actually read most of the report…).
Read it again. The whole thing. The report contained those words, it was cautionary, it did predict those problems. I do not see how you crying “Cherry Picking” helps your case.
And that is just from today. Puh.
Puh indeed, it certainly lacks the lies you are so fond of. Oh, and while we are at it: You only despise intellectuals, such as university professors and reporters, because the abundance of factual evidence at their disposal leads them to conclude that your ideology formed of stupidity and trying to avoid the truth leads them towards being liberal.
Having seen what qualifies as a lie under your criterion, I have to say, you appear to me to be either totally stupid, or just plain dishonest.
May 27th, 2007 at 3:32 amSorry, Amendments 4 and 5.
May 27th, 2007 at 3:35 amWhy do you guys waste time and space to even have a discourse with these dunderheads that are still trying to get intelligent human beings to believe the lying thieves that taking up space in our WH? Turn your energies to help begin the process of healing this very ill country.
May 27th, 2007 at 10:40 amGregor,
No, your post is what is complete horse manure. That percentage was for Bin Laden. The people who picked Hussein as an answer to that question were 34%. It’s right there, in the link you provided.
I included those who said it was likely, and some what likely, but I guess in your black/white world, only one of them counts.
Overall, 92% of those polled suspected Bin Laden was “likely†to be involved.
Yes, quite correct, which isn’t all that odd since bin Laden was announced to be the mastermind that same day, but that still doesn’t negate the fact that 78% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was at least some what likely to be involved.
Your contention that Bush had nothing to do with Americans linking Hussein to the 9/11 attacks is even more hogwash. That the Bush administration time and again mentioned 9/11 and Iraq in the same breath -thus establishing a link between the two- is well documented.
So did Al Gore. So did Hillary Clinton. So did John Kerry. So did every god damn politician in the United States. Here’s one example from Al Gore, September 23, 2002:
Oh no, he mentioned Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the same sentence! He must have been linking the two!!! You’re an idiot. If you actually read what Bush said about 9/11, Iraq, and al Qaeda, there would be no mistake that he never said Iraq had anything to do with it.
In other words, you’re basically arguing that for Bush to not be guilty of “fooling Americans”, he was to not ever mention 9/11 and Iraq in the same speech or paragraph. If that’s your standard, then I’m afraid a good deal of Democrats are also guilty of precisely the same thing, which therefore gets you nowhere except Hypocrisy Valley.
Ytterbius,
Hmm, they didn’t know his name, or what he looked like?
Yes they did, he was a suspect since 1987 and they didn’t manage to arrest him until 2001. The situations aren’t exactly the same, of course, but it’s an example that even a low life criminal like him, hiding out in an average sized US state, among 5 million people, can stay hidden away for years and years. When you factor in all the other difficulties presented with finding OBL, you’re begging to be called retarded for wondering why we haven’t caught him.
Bruce,
TP correctly quoted Lang as telling him it was “Too bad†that he was so profecient when it came to Arabic language and culture. TP’s interpretation is perfectly reasonable. So, first example: No lie.
1. What if Feith was joking?
2. What if, hold on to your hat, Lang is not telling the truth?
But I guess single source reporting is fine and dandy at TP…
Gonzales is the boss. Goodling’s recomendations could have and should have been ignored by Gonzales. When an employee screws up, that employees superior is responsible. So, no lie, particularly in view of how Gonzo turned a blind eye to it. Next…
How would Gonzales even know what Goodling did? She gives him a list of people she has interviewed that she deems good for hiring, and…? How does he know if she did anything inappropriate? He would have no way of knowing. Without any evidence that Gonzales told her to do things the way she did, you’re just blaming him for her actions, that he would not necessarily have known about.
TP doesn’t care about the facts, they want to smear Gonzales. They have nothing to support what they wrote, other than suspicion and rank speculation.
Read the US constitution. Pay particular attention to articles 4 and 5. They did have a lot of those rights previously. Plus they are getting a new one, the right to access to a lawyer even without being criminally charged.
The US constitution is for American citizens, so how does reading it have anything to do with the rights of foreign nationals? I have read the constitution and I don’t see anything about rights for foreign nationals. Want to point it out?
Actually they were quoting CBS quoting an internal memo saying it was due to bueracratic fumbling within the Bush Admin. The title of the story quite clearly states “Bush Admin.â€
Within the Bush admin, or the government? There’s a bit of a distinction there.
Puh indeed, it certainly lacks the lies you are so fond of. Oh, and while we are at it: You only despise intellectuals, such as university professors and reporters, because the abundance of factual evidence at their disposal leads them to conclude that your ideology formed of stupidity and trying to avoid the truth leads them towards being liberal.
Sure, they aren’t very simple lies, they are subtle lies, such as playing guilt by association. Those are the most effective lies, because people like you will try to argue your way out of the dishonesty being perpetrated. Michael Moore uses the same technique in his movies with great success, although he has been caught in some outright lies as well.
I despise intellectuals such as professors and reporters? What in the hell? No, I do not, I respect honest professors and reporters, but I certainly do not respect professors and reporters who use their position in society to brainwash and fool the public they are supposed to be serving.
My ideology is formed of stupidity? What do you base that on? You don’t know me. You don’t know my positions on many issues. You don’t even know my ideology. Yet here you are, making crass statements about me, a person who you don’t know.
An ideology formed of stupidity is one that slanders and smears other persons whom they disagree with on one or a very limited few issues.
The truth leads them to being liberal? I’m sorry, I thought being moderate would be a more logical choice, since liberal and conservative are at the ends of the political spectrum, both fighting against certain truths in order to hold their ideology alive. This while moderates respect the truth as it is, because they take sides with both liberals and conservatives whenever logic prevails.
Having seen what qualifies as a lie under your criterion, I have to say, you appear to me to be either totally stupid, or just plain dishonest.
Ah yes. Bush says 9/11 and Iraq in the same paragraph, and he’s a liar. Yet when TP implies that Gonzales was guilty of Goodling’s actions, without providing any evidence that he had any knowledge thereof, it’s not a lie at all, it’s just honest to goodness reporting.
That is so fundamentally dishonest, as is this web site, a web site I might remind you is run by conspicuous partisans aligned with Bill Clinton, with good help from George Soros.
I can throw up all the facts in the world, and you won’t care because you’d rather believe The Message that is being promoted.
I mean, I tried it in the global warming thread, I was the only one to point out that the noted melting on Greenland was only resulting in 0.3mm yearly sea level rise, I was the only one to point out that it would take thousands of years for the sea level to rise to the point that Al Gore and others have promoted, I was the only one to point out that Al Gore’s numbers are based on a SINGLE study, which is not supported by any other science, or even the IPCC.
These are all facts, and no one here wanted to have any part of them, because they all defeated The Message.
Bruce, I’m sure you’re a bright guy, but I’m also sure that you have let politics take control of your head and you’ve become more of a True Believer dependent on politics rather than using rational or logical thinking.
I’ve seen it many times before, and it’s a tragedy each time I see it.
May 27th, 2007 at 4:17 pmThat has to be one of the longest posts I’ve seenzzzzz
May 27th, 2007 at 7:55 pmIt’s important to be thorough. ;)
May 27th, 2007 at 10:01 pm“What could be more fascist than a public broadcasting service? It’s controlled by one government and will only air material that’s in agreement with official policies?”
Comment by MAF54 — May 26, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
On 2 October 2003, the independent polling group World Public Opinion posted the results of its survey of people who got their news from the MSM plus Fox, NPR/PBS and print sources. (It’s posted on their website, worldpublicopinion.org, under the title “Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War.”)
Viewers of Fox News were shockingly misinformed, believing for instance that weapons of mass destruction had actually been found in Iraq. Even the White House never attempted to trot out that fallacy as fact.
By an devastating margin, the listeners and viewers of NPR/PBS demonstrated the best hold on reality, but then Fox viewers are largely fanatics and NPR/PBS audiences do seek sycophantic shock jocks who spout their flavor of propaganda.
Stupid people should surround themselves with smart people, and smart people should surround themselves with smarter people who disagree with them. You, my questionably named friend, seem unable to grasp this advice.
May 27th, 2007 at 10:56 pmSo did Al Gore. So did Hillary Clinton. So did John Kerry. So did every god damn politician in the United States. Here’s one example from Al Gore, September 23, 2002:
Comment by DreamCrusher — May 27, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Ah, so now Pres Bush did try to establish a link between the 9/11 attacks and Hussein?
Which is it? Did the Bush administration push that belief or didn’t they? You better make up your mind.
Oh no, he mentioned Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the same sentence! He must have been linking the two!!! You’re an idiot.
What an idiotic comment -specially coming in the wake of the article I linked to that shows how Pres Bush’s pushing for a link between 9/11 and Hussein is well documented.
If you actually read what Bush said about 9/11, Iraq, and al Qaeda, there would be no mistake that he never said Iraq had anything to do with it.
And if you had read anything he said, you would have realized he was being deceptive: If there was no link between 9/11 and Hussein, there was no reason to mention them in the same breath, speech after speech.
In other words, you’re basically arguing that for Bush to not be guilty of “fooling Americansâ€,
Read the article in the Christian Science Monitor. Even they noticed the effect of Pres Bush’s speeches in shaping public opinion towards believing in a relationship between Hussein, AlQaeda and 9/11.
If that’s your standard, then I’m afraid a good deal of Democrats are also guilty of precisely the same thing,
You are responding to a statement I have not made.
If you are going to set up strawmen arguments, you better save yourself the trouble of typing all that tripe.
May 28th, 2007 at 12:19 amMr. Gore, this nation needs you. The time for talk has ended, and the time to enter this race has arrived.
May 28th, 2007 at 2:12 amI’d like to see him run again, but the GOP/Media Complex would smear and trash him as they did all during the 1990s and the 2000 election. The only reason they’re covering his book is because they think he’s running for president.
May 28th, 2007 at 12:43 pmDreamCrusher
I have read your arguments, and found nothing there. You claim this site is partisan well, look at the name. It makes no secret of being a liberal blog. In fact it is a liberal opinion blog.
You claim it lies, and you are talking total kack. It is in fact you, who lies, and we have noticed it. You are a bullshitter, and it doesn’t take much to figure it out.
May 28th, 2007 at 2:24 pmOh, and before you accuse me of being blinded by politics:
Al Gore isn’t running for president and it is my personal opinion that he isn’t going to run for president. I feel that he feels he is achieving much more in his private capacity then he would as president.
On the thread where you were going on about the biologist, you were point blank wrong on that issue and you know it. I know something of the history of the guy from NASA. He was the chap that turned around and told Bill Clinton not to exagerate the effects of Global Warming.
While I don’t actually forsee 20 foot seas any time soon, the likelyhood would be that even a “small” rise in sea levels would be catastrophic for low lying areas, and rising sea levels even if they hit fifty feet wouldn’t be a match for the effects of changing weather patterns, a mass die off in global fish stocks and possibly another great freeze (Due to the currents being a major reason why a lot of temperate regions aren’t frozen rocks.)
In short, I fully believe global warming is happening, I don’t think we understand the full consequences of it, and I would rather it was taken seriously. There is a point of no return at which point it will become self-sustaining, lets not push it to that point.
As to politics, I don’t support either the Democrats nor the Republicans, they are largely just as bad as each other. Instead I support a Green/Libertarian balance of Congress and Senate, with an independent as president. Sharply diverging views often produce a desirable synthesis in government, where one view “Centrism” tends to produce degeneration.
May 28th, 2007 at 2:44 pm