Liberal media misled public

[J Heartless Slick]

"The liberals in general and most of the liberals on this board will never agree to anything that even remotely resembles the truth.
The always put their spin on it and they are the only ones who hold and speak the truth.
Always spewing the same garbage lines
Tin foil hats and kool aide tin foil hats and kool aide.

You people are so friggin brainwashed it's pathetic."

Seriously, bad mouthing liberals does not make your arguments anymore logical or reasonable. What exactly is your point concerning al Qaida and Saddam?

 

[chrisms]

Originally posted by: J Heartless Slick

Originally posted by: chrisms
Nader 2004

A vote for Nader is a vote for GWB.

No, I'm quite sure a vote for Nader is a vote for Nader.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: chrisms

Originally posted by: J Heartless Slick

Originally posted by: chrisms
Nader 2004

A vote for Nader is a vote for GWB.

No, I'm quite sure a vote for Nader is a vote for Nader.

Try to see beyond surface level. Do I have to explain it to you?

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: halik
I would tend to agree with the above. You can argue over the semantics all day long (in contact with versus supporting yade yadda). The point is Bush presented this skimpy "evidence" as a proof that Iraq is harboring terrorists and has WMD and can prove em to bin Laden. I'm sure i can find video GWB saying that somehwere on moveon.org

I actually watched the report of of the commision findings and Bushe's later statement on Fox news and it didn't look good. The commision was pretty clear with their findings and Bush stated that hes sticking to his evidence and CIA insigt

OK, you're clearly clueless. You must not have read beyond the liberal headlines yesterday. The truth is that the commission found ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. I agree that "the commission was pretty clear with their findings." Their findings supported Bush's position. What Bush was responding to was the liberal media's headlines that misinterpreted the commission. If you can't keep up, don't play.

 

[DealMonkey]

Who CARES if Iraq had peripheral "ties" to AQ?!? They didn't have OPERATIONAL ties and that's what really matters. Seems like some of the bozos are arguing with the wall as the 9/11 commission said there weren't "operational ties" but certainly agreed with the idea that there were tenuous contacts over the years which never went anywhere. Are you arguing with the 9/11 commission or are you AGREEING with them?

Again, for the millionth time, none of this information is new. The only thing that's new is the tremendous effort by republicans and their legions of fanboys to deflect blame.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Iraq & al Queda TIES

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
What are your conclusions and what are their implications?

A member of AQ stayed at a hospital owned by Saddam's son = IRAQ is an eminent threat to America?

In a war on terrorism, you're not going to find hard evidence about anything. You're going to have to work with the best intelligence you have. Sometimes it's not 100% accurate, but you do the best you can, working with some of the best minds, to try to mitigate the risk of bad decisions. But the alternative is NOT to do nothing while you wait for indisputable evidence! Our security is at stake here! Every American is at great risk of losing their lives. And there is a greater risk of what the mere threat of terrorism will do for our economy and quality of life. Do you guys not get it?

Bush stated clearly from the beginning that we were going to strike against any country that harbors known terrorists. I'm sure if that al-Zararqi showed up in a US hospital, he would be arrested on the spot. The Iraqi government knew that they were harboring a terrorist whose main purpose in life is to kill as many Americans as possible. That, in itself, is justification to capture their dictator and help them build a democracy, and create an ally.

It literally makes me sick to my stomach that Americans are not on a unified front in this war on terrorism. Some people are more worried about getting a Democrat back in office. I really fear what this war on terrorism might come to if Kerry is elected president. Our enemy will see it as a moment of weakness and vulnerability, and will take advantage of that. And Kerry won't have the balls Bush did to fight back. Yay Democrats! :roll:

 

[wkabel23]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Iraq & al Queda TIES

Iraq and Al-Qaeda had ties before 9/11 but was Iraq involved in 9/11. Hell, how many other middle eastern countries have ties to Al-Qaeda somehow? Who should we invade next? The war on Iraq has only increased terrorism, not curbed it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: halik
I would tend to agree with the above. You can argue over the semantics all day long (in contact with versus supporting yade yadda). The point is Bush presented this skimpy "evidence" as a proof that Iraq is harboring terrorists and has WMD and can prove em to bin Laden. I'm sure i can find video GWB saying that somehwere on moveon.org

I actually watched the report of of the commision findings and Bushe's later statement on Fox news and it didn't look good. The commision was pretty clear with their findings and Bush stated that hes sticking to his evidence and CIA insigt

OK, you're clearly clueless. You must not have read beyond the liberal headlines yesterday. The truth is that the commission found ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. I agree that "the commission was pretty clear with their findings." Their findings supported Bush's position. What Bush was responding to was the liberal media's headlines that misinterpreted the commission. If you can't keep up, don't play.

You're right. Bush didn't lie. He danced around with the words so much it made 70%+ of the U.S. population THINK there was an Iraq-9/11 connection. Parsing his words carefully, it's clear he must have a team of lawyers vetting his every statement on the subject. Furthermore, it's obvious Bush himself couldn't achieve such high levels of mind control, so someone must be feeding him the appropriate phrases.

Cheney on the other hand, clearly lied about the Iraq-9/11 connection.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: halik
I would tend to agree with the above. You can argue over the semantics all day long (in contact with versus supporting yade yadda). The point is Bush presented this skimpy "evidence" as a proof that Iraq is harboring terrorists and has WMD and can prove em to bin Laden. I'm sure i can find video GWB saying that somehwere on moveon.org

I actually watched the report of of the commision findings and Bushe's later statement on Fox news and it didn't look good. The commision was pretty clear with their findings and Bush stated that hes sticking to his evidence and CIA insigt

OK, you're clearly clueless. You must not have read beyond the liberal headlines yesterday. The truth is that the commission found ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. I agree that "the commission was pretty clear with their findings." Their findings supported Bush's position. What Bush was responding to was the liberal media's headlines that misinterpreted the commission. If you can't keep up, don't play.

well seeing as i watched the coverage on Fox news, it was difficult to even see the "liberal headlines". They said there has been "communication" between them (notably the 94 meeting), but no "collaboration". Bush later said there has been "numerous contacts" which doesnt really sound like the "considerable evidence" they mentioned earlier.

But you completly fail to see the point we were trying to argue - arguing the semantics here ("contacts" "communication" "collaboration") makes no sense. It depends on what you define as "relationship"... heard that before somewhere...

The problem lies in the fact that there was supposed to be evidence of WMDs and terrorist involvment that would jusity invading that country. As of now theres more evidence inctiminating Saudis than there ever was for Iraq

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

You're right. Bush didn't lie. He danced around with the words so much it made 70%+ of the U.S. population THINK there was an Iraq-9/11 connection. Parsing his words carefully, it's clear he must have a team of lawyers vetting his every statement on the subject. Furthermore, it's obvious Bush himself couldn't achieve such high levels of mind control, so someone must be feeding him the appropriate phrases.

Cheney on the other hand, clearly lied about the Iraq-9/11 connection.

As I said above, I don't care who lied, who misled, or who danced around with words. You guys are grabbing at straws to find anything to use against the current administration to get them out of office. Bush could come out tomorrow and admit that everything was a lie, and he would still have my complete support. At worst, we overthrew a murdering dictator. I don't know why I got caught up in trying to debate who lied and who didn't. I don't care if Bush lied. I care that he's protecting our freedom.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: halik
The problem lies in the fact that there was supposed to be evidence of WMDs and terrorist involvment that would jusity invading that country. As of now theres more evidence inctiminating Saudis than there ever was for Iraq

Fine, let's get them next. I'm serious. I have no patience for people who want to kill me, or those who want to help them out. God, PLEASE don't let KErry get elected. It will result in American deaths.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

You're right. Bush didn't lie. He danced around with the words so much it made 70%+ of the U.S. population THINK there was an Iraq-9/11 connection. Parsing his words carefully, it's clear he must have a team of lawyers vetting his every statement on the subject. Furthermore, it's obvious Bush himself couldn't achieve such high levels of mind control, so someone must be feeding him the appropriate phrases.

Cheney on the other hand, clearly lied about the Iraq-9/11 connection.

As I said above, I don't care who lied, who misled, or who danced around with words. You guys are grabbing at straws to find anything to use against the current administration to get them out of office. Bush could come out tomorrow and admit that everything was a lie, and he would still have my complete support. At worst, we overthrew a murdering dictator. I don't know why I got caught up in trying to debate who lied and who didn't. I don't care if Bush lied. I care that he's protecting our freedom.

i know couple old germans that share the same sentiment. Ein Volk, Ein Reich...

 

[MonstaThrilla]

This link should clear things up

This site has a good reputation of deciphering spin and media awfulness from the truth.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Who CARES if Iraq had peripheral "ties" to AQ?!? They didn't have OPERATIONAL ties and that's what really matters. Seems like some of the bozos are arguing with the wall as the 9/11 commission said there weren't "operational ties" but certainly agreed with the idea that there were tenuous contacts over the years which never went anywhere. Are you arguing with the 9/11 commission or are you AGREEING with them?

Again, for the millionth time, none of this information is new. The only thing that's new is the tremendous effort by republicans and their legions of fanboys to deflect blame.

Wait, so now they had ties but they aren't the right kind?
The war was sold on the potential transfer of illegal weapons from Iraq to Al Qaeda. Clearly Iraq would love to see the U.S. attacked. Clearly there were at least peripheral ties. Doesn't the likelihood of Saddam giving weapons to Al Qaeda seem pretty good?

Yesterday-
News reports: No ties found between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Liberals here: See, see, the commission proved that Bush is wrong. A bipartisan objective commission has clearly proven that Bush lied.

Today-
Commission members: The media misinterpreted what we said. Actually, Bush is right and we found clear ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Liberals here: WTF kind of bs evidence is this stupid commision using to base their findings on. They aren't credible at all. It's a bunch of nonsense.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: wkabel23

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Iraq & al Queda TIES

Iraq and Al-Qaeda had ties before 9/11 but was Iraq involved in 9/11. Hell, how many other middle eastern countries have ties to Al-Qaeda somehow? Who should we invade next? The war on Iraq has only increased terrorism, not curbed it.

How many of those other countries are currently required to submit to U.N. inspections and have been found to have continued to violate U.N. resolutions that were passed following their surrender after invading a neighboring country then agreeing to destroy all their wmds?

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: DT4K
Yesterday-
News reports: No ties found between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Liberals here: See, see, the commission proved that Bush is wrong. A bipartisan objective commission has clearly proven that Bush lied.

Today-
Commission members: The media misinterpreted what we said. Actually, Bush is right and we found clear ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Liberals here: WTF kind of bs evidence is this stupid commision using to base their findings on. They aren't credible at all. It's a bunch of nonsense.

Thank you for expressing my points more clearly than I could. At least someone gets it.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Once again let me reiterate:

A member of AQ stayed at a hospital owned by Saddam's son = IRAQ is an eminent threat to America?

You need to connect the dots for me here Rob....I know what your trying to say, but if you go by that philosophy we should be invading the entire Middle East, not just Iraq. The U.S. has known terrorists that we taught how to fly, they 've prob. used our hospitals, and they've went to our strip clubs. Should we bomb ourselves you stupid fsck?! Your argument doesn't have much to stand on and I don't know why we waste our time debating with you.

 

[YellowRose]

I watched as the legal counsel read the report on TV. He said there was no connection between al Qaida and Saddam in regards to 9-11.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: YellowRose
I watched as the legal counsel read the report on TV. He said there was no connection between al Qaida and Saddam in regards to 9-11.

Exactly. All the obviously non biased media outlets just forgot to include the bold part in their headlines yesterday. Honest mistake I'm sure.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Once again let me reiterate:

A member of AQ stayed at a hospital owned by Saddam's son = IRAQ is an eminent threat to America?

You need to connect the dots for me here Rob....I know what your trying to say, but if you go by that philosophy we should be invading the entire Middle East, not just Iraq. The U.S. has known terrorists that we taught how to fly, they 've prob. used our hospitals, and they've went to our strip clubs. Should we bomb ourselves you stupid fsck?! Your argument doesn't have much to stand on and I don't know why we waste our time debating with you.

I highlighted the word known to emphasize that I'm referring to countries that harbor known terrorists. Obviously the 9/11 terrorists trained in the US, but we didn't know they were murderers, did we? You make no sense at all. It doesn't take much common sense to know that Bush was directing his warnings to countries who knowingly and willingly harbor people whom they know to be terrorists out to kill Americans. If you look up the word "harbor," you will see that it means to provide shelter, as in harbor a fugitive. Merely having them in your country, that you're not aware of, does not qualify.

And once again, calling me a "stupid fuck" really hurts your credibility. This is the last time I will be responding to one of your messages.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Once again let me reiterate:

A member of AQ stayed at a hospital owned by Saddam's son = IRAQ is an eminent threat to America?

You need to connect the dots for me here Rob....I know what your trying to say, but if you go by that philosophy we should be invading the entire Middle East, not just Iraq. The U.S. has known terrorists that we taught how to fly, they 've prob. used our hospitals, and they've went to our strip clubs. Should we bomb ourselves you stupid fsck?! Your argument doesn't have much to stand on and I don't know why we waste our time debating with you.

I highlighted the word known to emphasize that I'm referring to countries that harbor known terrorists. Obviously the 9/11 terrorists trained in the US, but we didn't know they were murderers, did we? You make no sense at all. It doesn't take much common sense to know that Bush was directing his warnings to countries who knowingly and willingly harbor people whom they know to be terrorists out to kill Americans. If you look up the word "harbor," you will see that it means to provide shelter, as in harbor a fugitive. Merely having them in your country, that you're not aware of, does not qualify.

And once again, calling me a "stupid fuck" really hurts your credibility. This is the last time I will be responding to one of your messages.

I agree, being single mindedly partisan doesn't make you a "Stupid Fsck"

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

You're right. Bush didn't lie. He danced around with the words so much it made 70%+ of the U.S. population THINK there was an Iraq-9/11 connection. Parsing his words carefully, it's clear he must have a team of lawyers vetting his every statement on the subject. Furthermore, it's obvious Bush himself couldn't achieve such high levels of mind control, so someone must be feeding him the appropriate phrases.

Cheney on the other hand, clearly lied about the Iraq-9/11 connection.

As I said above, I don't care who lied, who misled, or who danced around with words. You guys are grabbing at straws to find anything to use against the current administration to get them out of office. Bush could come out tomorrow and admit that everything was a lie, and he would still have my complete support. At worst, we overthrew a murdering dictator. I don't know why I got caught up in trying to debate who lied and who didn't. I don't care if Bush lied. I care that he's protecting our freedom.

Just like you're grabbing at straws trying to justify the war. The fact that you would still give your complete support even if Bush was completely lying to your face is telling indeed. "I care that he's protecting our freedom" is apparently code for "I drank the Kool-Aid and it was good."

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: busmaster11
What are your conclusions and what are their implications?

A member of AQ stayed at a hospital owned by Saddam's son = IRAQ is an eminent threat to America?

In a war on terrorism, you're not going to find hard evidence about anything. You're going to have to work with the best intelligence you have. Sometimes it's not 100% accurate, but you do the best you can, working with some of the best minds, to try to mitigate the risk of bad decisions. But the alternative is NOT to do nothing while you wait for indisputable evidence! Our security is at stake here! Every American is at great risk of losing their lives. And there is a greater risk of what the mere threat of terrorism will do for our economy and quality of life. Do you guys not get it?

So you unilatterally decide to wage war on a sovereign nation (1) because you suspect that some element associated with their government *may be* in some minor way aiding the enemy and more importantly (2) because we have the millitary prowess to do so unabated. Might justifies all authority I suppose... Jesus would be proud.

The Iraqi government knew that they were harboring a terrorist whose main purpose in life is to kill as many Americans as possible. That, in itself, is justification to capture their dictator and help them build a democracy, and create an ally.

talk about naive idealistic oversimplified nonsense...

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
So you unilatterally decide to wage war on a sovereign nation (1) because you suspect that some element associated with their government *may be* in some minor way aiding the enemy and more importantly

Are you a lawyer? Nice loaded question. No, the US didn't merely "suspect" anything. The best intelligence our government has was highly confident. I would say that's a little stronger than "maybe suspecting that there's a slight possibility". You guys phrase things to make them suit you better.

The Iraqi government knew that they were harboring a terrorist whose main purpose in life is to kill as many Americans as possible. That, in itself, is justification to capture their dictator and help them build a democracy, and create an ally.

talk about naive idealistic oversimplified nonsense...

Talk about a meaningless rebuttal...