Senate Panel Says No Saddam-al-Qaida Tie

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 13 2006,18:24)
Can you read??? There was 1 claim in the Senate report, which I already cited. One meeting does NOT construct a relationship!

Can you think?? You claimed there were NO ties in the thread title yet you gave evidence of at least one. So which is it: some or none?? We have no authroritative indication whether this was the only meeting or attempt to form a coaltion. The fact they attempted to build a relationship at all presented an incalculable risk, especially after Al Qaeda showed they could successfully attack the United States in its own borders. If Saddam funded other terrorism, he might do it again with Al Qaeda.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 13 2006,18:24)
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Despite reports of repeated contacts between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, the committee said U.S. intelligence has been able to assemble evidence of only one meeting: a 1995 encounter in Sudan between bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officer Faruz Hijazi.

In postwar debriefings, Hijazi said Hussein had instructed him to “only listen” and not negotiate or offer support to bin Laden. He said bin Laden "requested an office in Iraq, military training for his followers, Chinese sea mines and the broadcast of speeches from an anti-Saudi cleric."


There was also stuff stating the Saddam didn’t trust Al Qaeda.

So?? Trust isn’t needed in order to form an alliance against a common enemy. Saddam could have easily exploited Al Qaeda and let them be sacrificed in order to meet his own agenda. We were never going to have any certainty about any of this until after we removed Saddam from power.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 13 2006,18:24)
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
``Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime,’’ one of the reports said. Hussein refused all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support, said the report issued in Washington today by the Senate Intelligence Committee.


The press got it right & the Democrat’s interpretation of this has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, so stop bringing it into the discussion.

Go back and read the first paragraph in the story you cited in the original post. The headline and premise of the story is BASED on the statements pushed by the Democrats.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
There’s no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts President Bush’s justification for going to war.


Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 13 2006,18:24)
Also, I love you right-wingers: you quote the 9/11 Commission when it supports your partisan views but you diss it when it doesn’t. It’s been referred to as the “Ommission Comission” by some right-wingers. Just the other night, a right-wing media guy dissed it. You’re too funny - Joe.

I quoted the 9/11 Commission chairs who spoke very clearly against the loony conspiracy agenda promoted by Democrats and the LMSM. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Kean and Hamilton.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 13 2006,18:24)
Hey phoo - great post!!! You’ve got that one right - we supported Saddam way back when he was killing Iranians.

And before he went wacky and started killing off his own people and invading neighboring countries who were friendly to America. This isn’t rocket science, although some of you folks seem like you’re lost in space.

Hey look, a Saddam-Rumsfeld tie is a tie. At least it’s a known fact and not some maybe-maybe-not-golly-knows-what-meeting. It was ok for Saddam to be killing his neighbors back then? Heck, why not let him kill his own people? That’s less enemies for the US to handle. The folks he was getting rid of aren’t exactly US allies. Would that be acceptble?

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
You claimed there were NO ties in the thread title yet you gave evidence of at least one. So which is it: some or none??

Read my licks - NO TIES. One meeting doesn’t constitute a tie. Cheney & Bush both knew that the information was sketchy. Now Cheney is forced to admit that we’ll never know about Atta, etc.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
We have no authroritative indication whether this was the only meeting or attempt to form a coaltion.

We had sketchy information on everything. Admit it. You don’t start a war on sketchy information. Even Bush appeared to have recognized this before we invaded Iraq (he apparently said Joe-public would accept the evidence they had), until Tennet said it was slam-dunk.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
The fact they attempted to build a relationship at all presented an incalculable risk, especially after Al Qaeda showed they could successfully attack the United States in its own borders.

You are comfortable with starting a war based on flimsy information & I am not. Again - my problem is Bush et al. cherry-picked information to justify the war. If there had been clear information that Saddam was involved with 9/11 or that had helped Al Quada, then I would have been to first to say invade. But I knew something about Saddam and I didn’t believe that he would ever trust Al Quada. Bush et al. should know more than I do.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
If Saddam funded other terrorism, he might do it again with Al Qaeda.

He might have but we knew of many other groups & country’s with direct ties to Al Quada then Saddam. We should have started with them first, like we did in Afphanistan.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
The headline and premise of the story is BASED on the statements pushed by the Democrats.

Bull - the Democrat’s didn’t start this story & you know it. You’ll never be able to back up this claim with any facts.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
I quoted the 9/11 Commission chairs who spoke very clearly against the loony conspiracy agenda promoted by Democrats and the LMSM.

Bull - the Democrat’s don’t have any loony conspiracy agenda. Again - you’ll never be able to back up this claim with any facts.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
And before he went wacky and started killing off his own people and invading neighboring countries who were friendly to America. This isn’t rocket science, although some of you folks seem like you’re lost in space.

You’re right - it isn’t rocket science. He was wacky when Rumsfeld met with him in the 80’s, but the only difference was he was killing people we didn’t like.

Joe - you are a blind partisan.

The ironic thing is that if Clinton (or Gore) had done exactly what Bush did in Iraq, the Republicans would be all over him - calling him a liar, etc., etc. They would have called for investigations, etc., etc.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
The ironic thing is that if Clinton (or Gore) had done exactly what Bush did in Iraq, the Republicans would be all over him - calling him a liar, etc., etc. They would have called for investigations, etc., etc.


Geez man… wake-up! There’s nothing ironic about it! It’s the normal modus operandi of your typical a-hole American politician. Each with his/her own agenda once he/she is elected. Screw the constituents. :(

D

We all know Bush went in there to finish what daddy didn’t in Gulf Storm.
That attack on Kuwait was all the reason any major power needed to show that Saddam was a dangerous leader. If taking over another country in this day and age for the soul purpose of killing the people and taking the money and oil isn’t terrorism, than what is it?
We didn’t need any “ties” here people if where gonna make that a contingency, the guy was wearing his own suite.
That whole “we need to have a good reason”, propaganda was just bad PR on the part of the Prez.


War is wrong. Niether side is right, regardless essay.

keep shinin’

jerm


:cool:

Jerm - for once I agree with you (almost)! :laugh:

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 14 2006,15:51)
Read my licks - NO TIES. One meeting doesn’t constitute a tie. Cheney & Bush both knew that the information was sketchy. Now Cheney is forced to admit that we’ll never know about Atta, etc.

Holy shit, is this serious?? One meeting doesn’t constitute a tie?? LOL.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 14 2006,15:51)

We had sketchy information on everything. Admit it. You don’t start a war on sketchy information. Even Bush appeared to have recognized this before we invaded Iraq (he apparently said Joe-public would accept the evidence they had), until Tennet said it was slam-dunk.


Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 14 2006,15:51)

You are comfortable with starting a war based on flimsy information & I am not. Again - my problem is Bush et al. cherry-picked information to justify the war. If there had been clear information that Saddam was involved with 9/11 or that had helped Al Quada, then I would have been to first to say invade. But I knew something about Saddam and I didn’t believe that he would ever trust Al Quada. Bush et al. should know more than I do.

Would you have turned down so-called “flimsy information” to prevent 9/11 from happening?? “It’s too flimsy, we better wait until we actually get attacked to do anything about it.” Saddam had had WMD, he had used them before, he had ties to terrorists, he had contacts with Al Qaeda, he had refused to cooperate fully with the UN. Saddam represented a high risk that had to be conclusively dealt with. He could have surrendered or exiled himself, but since he didn’t, we couldn’t rely on being a paper tiger and base on our national security solely on hopeful wishes.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 14 2006,15:51)

He might have but we knew of many other groups & country’s with direct ties to Al Quada then Saddam. We should have started with them first, like we did in Afphanistan.

How many of those countries fit the profile I listed above?? It’s easy to see why Saddam was considered a higher priority.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 14 2006,15:51)

Bull - the Democrat’s didn’t start this story & you know it. You’ll never be able to back up this claim with any facts.

I already did. The lead paragraph to the story is based on comments provided Democrats. The actual report (as you have helped illustrate) belies the headline to the story.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 14 2006,15:51)

Bull - the Democrat’s don’t have any loony conspiracy agenda. Again - you’ll never be able to back up this claim with any facts.

I already showed you direct proof and quotes. Kean and Hamilton were responding to loony conspiracy theories in the media which were prompted by Democrats.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 14 2006,15:51)

You’re right - it isn’t rocket science. He was wacky when Rumsfeld met with him in the 80’s, but the only difference was he was killing people we didn’t like.

It’s called a mutual enemy. When Saddam went wacko, we had to change our stance. Don’t forget that the U.S. was at one time an ally of Stalin, among others who turned out to be bad guys.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 14 2006,15:51)
Joe - you are a blind partisan.

As you like to say - “Bull.” You need to take a good look in the mirror. You are what you claim me to be. Don’t project yourself onto me.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 14 2006,15:51)
The ironic thing is that if Clinton (or Gore) had done exactly what Bush did in Iraq, the Republicans would be all over him - calling him a liar, etc., etc. They would have called for investigations, etc., etc.

Nonsense. You’re doing exactly what you accused me of a few paragraphs ago. This, like every other time, the facts are against you:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
REP. TRENT LOTT: And Let me make one thing perfectly clear tonight to Saddam Hussein or anyone else who needs to be told. Despite any current controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the President in full defense of America’s interest throughout the world.


The above quote was from Jan. 30, 1998, when IFP Clinton confronted Iraq.

Quote (ksdb @ Sep. 16 2006,03:15)
Holy shit, is this serious?? One meeting doesn’t constitute a tie?? LOL.

Just started reading this thread.

Hmmm… seems to me that in the Eighties Ronald Reagan had several meetings with Premier Gorbachev. I guess despite all evidence to the contrary the Gipper was really a Communist; who’da thunk it?

Wait a minute! Quite some time ago, when my daughter was a little girl, Queen Elizabeth made a visit to Stratford and my daughter got to meet her. There was video coverage and it was reported in the national media, so the deniability factor is zero. I never realized before now that my daughter has (and, by extension, I have) ties to the British Royal Family! Boy, I gotta start making better use of my influence.

Lesser matters aside, I do think that a scoreless game constitutes a tie.

As does a Windsor Knot in a strip of cloth worn around the neck.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Holy shit, is this serious?? One meeting doesn’t constitute a tie?? LOL.

Of course it does in your mind, and with your attitude.

A tie is a tie…One meeting constitutes a tie according to Joe Montgomery…therefore…



And, here is a tie to a US ally…an ally that I’m sure Mr. Montgomery would love to start bombing. Thay didn’t agree with starting the war so they were one of them. No more French Fries. Maybe this explains a lot…

A tie is a tie…even is it’s just one meeting, right Joe.



When does the bombing start?




What? Him too? Gee, I guess we might as well just bomb everybody including ourselves.
Quote (ksdb @ Sep. 16 2006,02:15)
Saddam had had WMD, he had used them before, he had ties to terrorists, he had contacts with Al Qaeda, he had refused to cooperate fully with the UN.

Hmmm... read this again & try substituting "Saddam" with something else.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Would you have turned down so-called “flimsy information” to prevent 9/11 from happening??

Stop changing the subject. We’re talking about Saddam not 9/11. If you want to start a separate thread on that, then please do it. My only comment on this is that there was lots of “flimsy” information in the August 6th PDB but they didn’t help us much.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Saddam had had WMD, he had used them before,

And that’s why he was sanctioned & we had inspectors in there.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
he had ties to terrorists, he had contacts with Al Qaeda

Nope - none that have been substantiated.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
he had refused to cooperate fully with the UN.

First thing you’ve said that I agree with.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Saddam represented a high risk that had to be conclusively dealt with.

Nope - absolutely false. Saddam was not an immediate danger to us or anyone. The UN sanctions had done there job.

I fully supported the war in Afghanistan & I would have fully supported the war in Iraq if I had thought that Iraq was a danger to us but it was NOT.

Listen - it’s no coincidence that every piece of information that has come out since the war has started has backed my position & thwarted yours. You just won’t admit it.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
I already did. The lead paragraph to the story is based on comments provided Democrats.

Nope - you don’t nothing of the kind.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
I already showed you direct proof and quotes. Kean and Hamilton were responding to loony conspiracy theories in the media which were prompted by Democrats.

Nope. Prove this claim. No Democrat I know has presented any “loony conspiracy” theory (and don’t cite Randy Rhodes on Air America because she is looney).

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Don’t project yourself onto me.

You can dish it out but you can’t take it. I deal with a lot of right-wingers & trust me, you are one of most extreme cases I’ve ever met.

Saddam became the enemy of OPEC. He sold outside OPEC (this is where we got our oil from during the OPEC oil embargo ala Nixon era). That made him our friend and OPEC’s enemy.

Fast forward to the crooks. Did you ever wonder how a guy who used whiskey and cocaine ended up holding hands with the Saudi king? This is about running up the price of crude and making OPEC and Our Crooks richer. Like Al Capone, they paid off everyone in site…Christians sold their votes for Faith Based Money, Greedy Corporations wanted a piece of the action (look at the reports on where the reconstruction monies went), Greedy private citizens collected money for the cause and got good paying jobs with no experience needed. Tjeir flock, Republicans, don’t think individually. They have a herd mentality. What better group to use! This is a conspiracy plain and simple. Their thinking was…Conspiracy theories abound and those that believe them can be made to look crazy so therefore it is a excellent time to have a conspiracy.

George Patton said (paraphrasing) The Germans haven’t held a winter offensive since Fredrick The Great, therefore, that’s exactly what they’ll do. And they did.

KF

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 18 2006,12:55)

Stop changing the subject. We’re talking about Saddam not 9/11. If you want to start a separate thread on that, then please do it. My only comment on this is that there was lots of “flimsy” information in the August 6th PDB but they didn’t help us much.

I didn’t change the subject. I put the situation in its proper perspective. When you have evidence that presents a threat to national security, you either take action or suffer the consequences from indecisiveness.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 18 2006,12:55)

And that’s why he was sanctioned & we had inspectors in there.

With no real certainty that anything was being accomplished. Saddam’s lack of cooperation presented an unacceptable risk.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 18 2006,12:55)

Nope - none that have been substantiated.

You already gave substantiation to at least one. Both 9/11 commissioners admit there were contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 18 2006,12:55)

First thing you’ve said that I agree with.

It’s progress.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 18 2006,12:55)

Nope - absolutely false. Saddam was not an immediate danger to us or anyone. The UN sanctions had done there job.

I fully supported the war in Afghanistan & I would have fully supported the war in Iraq if I had thought that Iraq was a danger to us but it was NOT.

Listen - it’s no coincidence that every piece of information that has come out since the war has started has backed my position & thwarted yours. You just won’t admit it.

Any information that has come out since the war was BECAUSE we went to war and removed an obstacle named Saddam.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 18 2006,12:55)

Nope - you don’t nothing of the kind.

It’s quoted in the story. What part of “Demorats said” do you not understand??

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 18 2006,12:55)

Nope. Prove this claim. No Democrat I know has presented any “loony conspiracy” theory (and don’t cite Randy Rhodes on Air America because she is looney).

When Lee Hamilton said he couldn’t understand the “flap” in the media, he was referring to the LMSM and other Democrats who used the report to make it look like Bush had lied.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 18 2006,12:55)

You can dish it out but you can’t take it. I deal with a lot of right-wingers & trust me, you are one of most extreme cases I’ve ever met.

There’s nothing extreme about common sense. Maybe you just bully these others into not arguing with you or perhaps they just avoid you as much as possible.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
and other Democrats who used the report to make it look like Bush had lied.

It’s difficult to prove that Bush actually lied pre-war. What he did was to cherry-pick intel, regardless of accuracy, to justify going to war. The only time that I know he difinitely lied was in one of his speeches when he was talking about wiretap & court orders.

People have been saying that Bush lied about the war since 2002/2003, but I’m not aware of the press or any elected Democrat making that claim. The recent Democrat’s were correct in making the statements they made about Bush with the 2nd report. The public was very misinformed about the Iraq war and has the right to know the truth. The Democrat’s have been trying to get the truth out for a long time. Is there something about the truth that you don’t like Joe? It appears so.

Levin Says Newly Declassified Information Indicates Bush Administration’s Use of Pre-War Intelligence Was Misleading

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
WASHINGTON – Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) said today that newly declassified information indicates the Bush Administration’s use of pre-war intelligence was misleading.

Specifically, newly declassified information from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) from February 2002 shows that, at the same time the Administration was making its case for attacking Iraq, the DIA did not trust or believe the source of the Administration’s repeated assertions that Iraq had provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. Additional newly declassified information from the DIA also undermines the Administration’s broader claim that there were strong links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

No Chemical and Biological Weapons Training

The Administration made repeated assertions that Iraq had provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. For example, President Bush said in a speech in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002, “We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.” In February 2003, the President said, “Iraq has provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.”

Those assertions were based on the claims of a detainee, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a long-time jihadist and senior military trainer for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. However, as revealed by this newly declassified information, the DIA did not believe al-Libi’s claims at the time the Administration was making its assertions. Specifically, the DIA concluded the following in February 2002, which has never previously been publicly disclosed:

“This is the first report from Ibn al-Shaykh in which he claims Iraq assisted al-Qaida’s CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear] efforts. However, he lacks specific details on the Iraqis involved, the CBRN materials associated with the assistance, and the location where training occurred. It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers (emphasis added). Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.”

“This newly declassified information provides additional, dramatic evidence that the Administration’s pre-war statements were deceptive,” Levin said. “The underlying DIA intelligence simply did not support the Administration’s repeated assertions that Iraq had provided chemical and biological weapons training to al-Qaeda. More than a year before Secretary Powell included that charge in his presentation to the United Nations, the DIA had said it believed the detainee’s claims were bogus. The Administration’s use of this intelligence was disingenuous and misleading.”

The CIA also had reservations about the source. The CIA’s unclassified statement at the time was that the reporting was “credible,” a statement the Administration used repeatedly. However, what was selectively omitted was the CIA’s view at the time that the source was not in a position to know whether any training had taken place.

According to press reporting, al-Libi recanted his claims in January 2004.

The recent DIA declassification demonstrates a critical fact: at the very time the Administration was making these unqualified assertions, the DIA believed it was “more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers” and the CIA believed he was not in a position to know.

No Close Relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

The Administration’s claim that Iraq had provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training was part of its larger effort to assert a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. For example, President Bush said on September 25, 2002, “You can’t distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.”

The DIA, however, had concluded otherwise. The Administration omitted in its public statements the DIA’s pre-war conclusion about the likelihood of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. In February 2002, the DIA stated the following, which has remained classified until now:

“Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”

“That DIA finding is stunningly different from repeated Administration claims of a close relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda,” Levin said. “Just imagine the impact if that DIA conclusion had been disclosed at the time. It surely could have made a difference in the congressional vote authorizing the war.”
Quote (KingFish @ Sep. 18 2006,15:11)
Christians sold their votes for Faith Based Money,

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say some Christians. I have plenty of friends calling themselves Christians who haven't voted since the 70's.
I myself am 32 years old and have never stepped inside a ballot box. I've made my voice known locally at town meetings where signatures decided the direction of a given course of action but never put my faith in any one person to represent me in office. (Perhaps that's why I don't spend hours, days, months in here complaining about who's in office! and which side is right. right wing left wing chicken wing, makes no never mind to me! :unclesam: )
Not that being a Christian now has influenced my participation one way or the other...a 0 is still a 0 regardless.
I wouldn't want to see you making a unsubstantiated stereotype if it could be avoided.

keep shinin'

jerm :cool:

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 18 2006,16:19)
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
and other Democrats who used the report to make it look like Bush had lied.

It’s difficult to prove that Bush actually lied pre-war. What he did was to cherry-pick intel, regardless of accuracy, to justify going to war. The only time that I know he difinitely lied was in one of his speeches when he was talking about wiretap & court orders.

People have been saying that Bush lied about the war since 2002/2003, but I’m not aware of the press or any elected Democrat making that claim. The recent Democrat’s were correct in making the statements they made about Bush with the 2nd report. The public was very misinformed about the Iraq war and has the right to know the truth. The Democrat’s have been trying to get the truth out for a long time. Is there something about the truth that you don’t like Joe? It appears so.


I’m trying my hardest to take you seriously, but when you use cop-outs like “not aware of the press or any elected Democrat making that claim,” it’s laughable.

Gore says Bush lied on Qaeda, Iraq link

Of course now your excuse will be that Algore wasn’t elected. :p


<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Gore says Bush lied on Qaeda, Iraq link
June 25, 2004

Al Gore accused President Bush yesterday of lying about a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and said the president refuses to back down from that position to avoid political fallout. “They dare not admit the truth lest they look like complete fools for launching our country into a reckless, discretionary war against a nation that posed no immediate threat to us whatsoever,” Gore, the former vice president who lost the presidency to Bush in 2000, said during a speech at Georgetown University Law Center. Republicans responded that the Democrat’s assertions were false and out of touch. (AP)



Here Howard Dean dances around in a comment to avoid saying specifically that Bush lied:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
“He never actually came out and said just that,” Dean said. "But in every speech he gave during the campaign and afterwards, he left the impression. He left the impression with 65 percent of the American people, who agreed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. It was dishonest, what he did."


In the same story, even the oft-quoted and liberal-approved John McCain acknowledges what Democrats are really saying:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
And Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona – a member of the Silberman-Robb Commission – said the accusation that Bush lied to Americans to sell the war is “a lie.”

“Were there intelligence failures? Yes,” McCain said. "Were they colossal? Yes. But they do not mean in any way that the president lied to the American people."

link to full story

Was McCain being an extreme right-winger??

Now to get to your Levin story; if you’re concerned about cherry-picking, then you need to re-read this story. We have two sentences and a partial sentence attributed to the DIA with no broader context other than an accusation from a Democrat. Once again, this is a story based on a Democrat agenda. Where are the Republicans quoted in the story?? Where is the balance?? Oh, you did what?? You linked to a Democrat-generated news release at a Democrat politicians Web site. So if this story gets picked up the LMSM, it proves my earlier point about the LMSM advancing the Democrat agenda. Thanks once again Mike. You are your own worst debate opponent.

And I have a hard time taking you seriously. Read the Senate report. Everything that has come out since the war, except the 500 used up WMDs, has suggested that Bush either cherry-picked information or lied or both. Everything!

Pardon me. When I say elected, I meant currently elected, so Gore is not a currently elected politician so he does not count. Yes - alot of people have said Bush lied, but find me a major news outlet or a sitting politician that has made that actually states that Bush LIED (other than the Congressman Dennis what’s his name).

Dean did not say he died. Bush was intectually dishonest, so Dean is correct.

McCain has suported the war & the President from day one. Yes - on this issue McCain is an extreme right-winger.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Where is the balance?? Oh, you did what?? You linked to a Democrat-generated news release at a Democrat politicians Web site.

You bet I linked to a Democrat. The balance is getting the other side of the story. The press does NOT do that, despite your attempts to say it’s unfair. Levin is one of the few who’s trying to educate the people on the bull that they were fed going into the Iraq war.

Listen Bush starting planning for the war in 2002. He even diverted funds from Aphganistan to do this, something Woodward said might actually be illegal.

If you would wake up & realize that this is the neo-con agenda to the tee, then you would see the truth. Read about the New American Century - it’s all there.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 19 2006,12:21)
And I have a hard time taking you seriously. Read the Senate report. Everything that has come out since the war, except the 500 used up WMDs, has suggested that Bush either cherry-picked information or lied or both. Everything!

Okay, once again, listen to yourself, “everything that has come out since the war.” This is key. What we knew before the war was incomplete and unverifiable. 20/20 hindsight is meaningless when you don’t know what your enemies are up to. This idea about cherry-picking is misleading, because these were things that could not simply be ignored or passed off. You either take action or suffer the consequences.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 19 2006,12:21)
Read what I say! Gore is not a currently elected politician so he does count. Yes - alot of people have said Bush lied, but find me a major news outlet or a sitting politician that has made that actually states that Bush LIED (other than the Congressman Dennis what’s his name).

You betray your own reputation when you make such statements. Can’t wait to see how you spin this:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Kennedy says White House lied about reasons for war

By Susan Milligan
Boston Globe

WASHINGTON — Sen. Ted Kennedy accused the Bush administration of lying about the reasons for attacking Iraq and said the war has not made Americans safer.
Ted Kennedy Kennedy on Wednesday seized on the comments by former Treasury secretary Paul O’Neill, who delighted war critics and annoyed the White House when he said over the weekend that the administration was mulling Saddam Hussein’s ouster soon after President Bush took office.
“O’Neill has now revealed what many of us have long suspected, that despite protestations to the contrary, the president and his senior aides began the march to war in Iraq in the earliest days of the administration, long before the terrorists struck this nation on 9/11,” Kennedy said in a speech before the liberal Center for American Progress. It was the Massachusetts Democrat’s fourth formal denunciation of the administration’s policy toward Iraq.
“The agenda was clear: find a rationale to end Saddam’s regime,” said Kennedy, whose audience included an American soldier who lost both arms in Iraq and the parents of a slain U.S. serviceman. “It is now plain what was happening. The drumbeat for war was sounding, and it drowned out those who believed that Iraq posed no imminent threat.”
Kennedy went on to charge the administration with lying about the reasons for the war and misrepresenting alleged evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. “War in Iraq was a war of choice, not a war of necessity. It was a product they were rolling out,” Kennedy said in his most assertive attack on the administration to date.
In previous speeches, Kennedy, a leading antiwar voice in Congress, has focused on Bush’s foreign policy and the implications of a preemptive strike. In his latest address, Kennedy painstakingly recounted the White House history of the decision to oust Hussein, going back to the Clinton administration, and accused the current administration of manipulating the American public to further its own political agenda.
“I believe that this administration is indeed leading this country to a perilous place. It has broke faith with the American people, aided and abetted by a congressional majority willing to pursue ideology at any price, even at the price of distorting the truth,” Kennedy said.
House majority leader Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, said he was saddened and disgusted by Kennedy’s speech. “Ted Kennedy insulted the president’s patriotism, accused the Republican Party of treason, and resurrected the weak and indecisive foreign policy of Jimmy Carter and Michael Dukakis,” DeLay said.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan also dismissed Kennedy’s criticisms. “I think the case that we outlined was very clear. Let me remind you that the world is safer and better because of the action that we took to remove a brutal regime from power in Iraq,” McClellan told reporters at the White House. “The president worked to exhaust all diplomatic means possible before taking the action that we took.”
Several of the Democratic candidates for president have been on the defensive for their votes to authorize force against Iraq, with antiwar candidate Howard Dean criticizing them for backing Bush on what was then a popular war.
Kennedy Wednesday said “the war in Iraq itself has not made Americans safer” — a comment similar to a controversial remark by Dean that Hussein’s capture did not make Americans safer. But Kennedy, who recently returned from campaigning in Iowa for Dean’s rival, Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, said he was not defending Dean.
“He wasn’t talking about the war,” but rather Hussein’s capture, Kennedy said after the speech. "It’s not the same. We all agree that the Iraqi people are safer with Saddam behind bars."


link

Or this (remember, even though Jo.Ke. didn’t become president, he’s still an elected official).

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
“The president went back on his word,” Kerry said. “I take that personally.”


<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Asked if Bush had lied to him, Kerry said: "Look, those are all the words of politics. The bottom line is that the president abused the authority that we gave him. The president went back on his word. You use the words you want."

Evidently the LMSM wanted to used the words that Bush lied and Jo.Ke. says that okay with him.

Full story at link

You are a piece.

Distorting the truth is not equal to lying.

The title of the article you cited, which you conveniently left out is Kerry campaign says Bush misled US on Iraq.

Misled does NOT equal lying.

Of course, Kerry & Kennedy believe Bush lied, as I do, but they can’t come right out & say it (although it’s quite possible that Kennedy did at some point).

And of course, the press wants to say that somebody accuses Bush of lying. That’s the sad state of mass media today.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 19 2006,12:43)
You are a piece.

Distorting the truth is not equal to lying.

It’s not?? I’d like to see you tell your wife that (presuming you might actually have one).

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 19 2006,12:43)
The title of the article you cited, which you conveniently left out is Kerry campaign says Bush misled US on Iraq.

Misled does NOT equal lying.

It doesn’t change the facts in the story. Saying that Bush misled is another way of calling him dishonest, which is another way of calling him a liar. You’re helping me when you point out such things. That is convenient. Thanks Mike.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 19 2006,12:43)
Of course, Kerry & Kennedy believe Bush lied, as I do, but they can’t come right out & say it (although it’s quite possible that Kennedy did at some point).

Spin, spin, spin and try to land on a point that actually makes some sense. You’re falling back on semantics when its the LMSM itself that has reported what these people are really saying. You asked for major news outlets and sitting politicians and they have been provided.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 19 2006,12:43)
And of course, the press wants to say that somebody accuses Bush of lying. That’s the sad state of mass media today.

What?? Are you actually admitting the media is in a sad state (such as I’ve been saying for years)?? It’s really funny to see you turn on the media now, when you’ve been such a big defender in the past. You might as well concede.