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.

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.

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 Americans”,

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.

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.

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:

We are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion.

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.”

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.

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 “new”.

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…).

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.

Hmm, they didn’t know his name, or what he looked like?

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.
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq

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.

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:”

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.

Iraq and al Qaeda did have contacts, but were not “connected”, something people like you continually try to bait and switch… Cheney never states once in that interview that Zarqawi was in league with al Qaeda before the war… –DreamCrusher

Good 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:”

Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. –Cheney, October 19, 2006

And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam
Hussein. –Bush, 10/14/02.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021014-2.html

Next up:

Also, how does connecting Iraq to al Qaeda tie them to 9/11??…Sure, some people might have connected the two – but that’s because some people are ignorant morons who play guilt by association.

–DreamCrusher

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.

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.

…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.

–DreamCrusher

Are 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:

Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.

–Bush on February 8, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030208.html

This is before invading Iraq. Or how about this one:

The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. And there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material, could build one within a year. Iraq has already used weapons of mass death against — against other countries and against her own citizens.

–Bush, Sept 26, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-7.html

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.