NationStates Jolt Archive

Despite the fact that there is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11, and the fact that Al Quaeda hates secular muslims like Hussein Haynes told CNN that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 plot.

www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/index.html

President Bush said in September 2003 that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]."

Maybe he should be sacked for disagreeing with the party leadership. :p

That's how legends are born.........

And he forgot to mention the gay terrorists.

you know, the utter lack of consequences for blatantly making up shit in american politics is rather disturbing. especially because there seems to actually be consequences for those attempting to point out the bullshit. quite odd.

you know, the utter lack of consequences for blatantly making up shit in american politics is rather disturbing. especially because there seems to actually be consequences for those attempting to point out the bullshit. quite odd.
Just a part of Newspeak: patriotism = blind faith to government and/or country and that dissenters are traitors. And in fact, making up shit in politics is applauded. Just like how I just made that up.

you know, the utter lack of consequences for blatantly making up shit in american politics is rather disturbing. especially because there seems to actually be consequences for those attempting to point out the bullshit. quite odd.
agreed if that had happened in the UK they could possibly be thrown out the party. Most certainly if they had a place of authority within the party they would have that position removed

It's nothing new, really. Somebody is always saying something they regret later - whether it's based on ignorance, a slip of the tongue, or a political miscalculation. Fun to watch, though.

Last week it was Durbin in the spotlight. Both sides have them...

Ah, politics. The never-ending well of reasons to feel bad for your country. And yourself.

It's nothing new, really. Somebody is always saying something they regret later - whether it's based on ignorance, a slip of the tongue, or a political miscalculation. Fun to watch, though.

Last week it was Durbin in the spotlight. Both sides have them...

except that durbin said nothing factually incorrect. hell, he didn't even say anything controversial. but apparently the republican party propaganda machine has decided that if people were to hear a description of prisoner abuse without further details, they shouldn't immediately associate that with 'the bad guys', but rather with 'the good guys'. durbin committed the tactical mistake of letting the torture appologists change the subject instead of lunging for their throats.

this guy, though, is one of our supposedly enlightened rulers, and he lives in some weird fantasy land, that is several years behind the standard republican fantasy land.

except that durbin said nothing factually incorrect. hell, he didn't even say anything controversial. but apparently the republican party propaganda machine has decided that if people were to hear a description of prisoner abuse without further details, they shouldn't immediately associate that with 'the bad guys', but rather with 'the good guys'. durbin committed the tactical mistake of letting the torture appologists change the subject instead of lunging for their throats.

this guy, though, is one of our supposedly enlightened rulers, and he lives in some weird fantasy land, that is several years behind the standard republican fantasy land.

Look, the Durbin issue has been settled - he apologized for his remark. By his choice.

My post was simply stating that one politician or another is always in the news for saying something stupid or controversial. This has been going on for some time if you've been watching. And it will continue to happen.

Both sides do it, and it can be funny. Not worth getting your tail in a knot over.

Despite the fact that there is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11, and the fact that Al Quaeda hates secular muslims like Hussein Haynes told CNN that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 plot.

www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/index.html

To counter this:

I offer up.....

The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America

By Stephen F. Hayes.

To counter this:

I offer up.....

The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America

By Stephen F. Hayes.
Is that a book that I would have to go out and buy or is it an essay available on the internet?

Is that a book that I would have to go out and buy or is it an essay available on the internet?

Unfortunately, its a book.

To counter this:

I offer up.....

The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America

By Stephen F. Hayes.

To counter this:


President Bush said in September 2003 that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]."

Are you calling President Bush a liar?

To counter this:



Are you calling President Bush a liar?

In regards to this, I blame him for backing down and saying this statement. Hussein and Bin Laden DID have connections.

So am I calling him a liar? He didn't originally lie when he made the original connection between Saddam and Osama. Now? I think I'll call him a flip-flopper :D

In regards to this, I blame him for backing down and saying this statement. Hussein and Bin Laden DID have connections.

What information do you possess on the matter that President Bush is not privy to?

What information do you possess on the matter that President Bush is not privy to?

His book, apparently. Which dovetails nicely with the never-proved, never-disproved rumours regarding El Presidente and literacy. Unless of course Dick makes a point of reading it to him at bedtime, that is.

What information do you possess on the matter that President Bush is not privy to?

The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America

By Stephen F. Hayes.

It details the Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein Connection.

The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America

By Stephen F. Hayes.

It details the Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein Connection.

See? I toldja so!

The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America

By Stephen F. Hayes.

It details the Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein Connection.

Right. And the President and his advisors are unaware of this knowledge.

Just admit that you probably don't know the whole story and that the President and his staff are far, FAR more knowledgeable than you on the matter.

His book, apparently. Which dovetails nicely with the never-proved, never-disproved rumours regarding El Presidente and literacy. Unless of course Dick makes a point of reading it to him at bedtime, that is.

Evidence used in book:

CIA Debriefings
Top Secret Memos from our National Intelligence Agencies
Interviews with Iraqi Military Leaders
Washington Insiders.

Right. And the President and his advisors are unaware of this knowledge.

They backed off of it because of politicians and the media.

Just admit that you probably don't know the whole story and that the President and his staff are far, FAR more knowledgeable than you on the matter.

Since they backed off of it, we won't know the full story. I suggest you read this book though. I'm going to get it.

Evidence used in book:

CIA Debriefings
Top Secret Memos from our National Intelligence Agencies
Interviews with Iraqi Military Leaders
Washington Insiders.

Yet, the ultimate Washington insider, the President, offers us statements to the contrary.

You're either saying our President is a liar or an idiot. Which one is it, Corneliu?

Evidence used in book:

CIA Debriefings
Top Secret Memos from our National Intelligence Agencies
Interviews with Iraqi Military Leaders
Washington Insiders.

So, Bush needs to read a book (or have one read to him, whatever) which uses, as evidence, "CIA Debriefings, Top Secret Memos from our National Intelligence Agencies, Interviews with Iraqi Military Leaders, and Washington Insiders"?

Wasn't he there for most of that? Why's he need to read about it in a book?

Since they backed off of it, we won't know the full story. I suggest you read this book though. I'm going to get it.

Oh, so you haven't actually read it yet. :rolleyes:

Republicans too like conspiration theories, don't they?
:headbang:

Alwell,

I guess liberals don't like hearing the fact that there was a Hussein/Bin Laden connection, as reported by Bush prior to him retracting his statements on this issue due to political pressure.

Alwell,

I guess liberals don't like hearing the fact that there was a Hussein/Bin Laden connection, as reported by Bush prior to him retracting his statements on this issue due to political pressure.
Dude, if he could provide evidence to back the claim up he wouldn't have to retract it. Also it would make his opposition look stupid. Politicians never miss an opportunity to make the opposition look stupid.

Dude, if he could provide evidence to back the claim up he wouldn't have to retract it. Also it would make his opposition look stupid. Politicians never miss an opportunity to make the opposition look stupid.

Dude, he did. It got ignored by the Democrats and the Press. They labeled it false, misleading, etc. Since the liberals have full control of most of the press, that was all that got reported. That it was false, misleading, regardless of what the other side said.

Dude, he did. It got ignored by the Democrats and the Press. They labeled it false, misleading, etc. Since the liberals have full control of most of the press, that was all that got reported. That it was false, misleading, regardless of what the other side said.
If liberals had full control of the press they'd have pressed Bush much harder during his two presidential bids and wouldn't have spread lies like "Gore claims he invented the internet" and "Kerry approved the funding bill for Iraq before voting against it" If the press were as liberal as you say wouldn't they have explained that Gore pushed through the legislation that made the internet a reality? Wouldn't they have explained that Kerry approved one version of the funding bill, but voted against a drastically different version?

If liberals had full control of the press they'd have pressed Bush much harder during his two presidential bids and wouldn't have spread lies like "Gore claims he invented the internet" and "Kerry approved the funding bill for Iraq before voting against it" If the press were as liberal as you say wouldn't they have explained that Gore pushed through the legislation that made the internet a reality? Wouldn't they have explained that Kerry approved one version of the funding bill, but voted against a drastically different version?

The internet thing really was a non-issue but his statement that he invented the internet stuck! Anyway, I digress.

The media did their damndest to unseat Bush. They tossed everything into the race including falsified memos and the kitching sink to try and destroy him. They tried to paint Kerry as the best choice for President. They failed obviously.

The only thing from the Press that I've heard was that Bush Lied Bush LIed Bush lied non-sense. Problem is, people rejected that Bush lied and rejected the liberal members of the Democratic Party that was pushing such an agenda.

The press continued to harp that there was no Osama/Bin Laden connection and the people were eating it up. This forced Bush to retract his statements. Only problem is that talk radio continued to push it even after he retracted it! Why would they do that? Maybe because it was actually accurate that Saddam did have ties to al Qaeda and to terror in general even though the Democrats said he didn't.

The people also have more choices of where to get their news from thus the liberal press is beginning to lose touch with the American People. That is why they are losing viewers and members. They are tired of the politics that they have been interjecting into their broadcasts (See Dan Rather's falsified memos and election night coverage)

As for Kerry, it doesn't matter what he approved of originally. It was what he wound up voting against that got him into trouble. A politician should never go around saying I actually voted for something before voting against it. Especially if it involved the troops. I've stated this before. The bill that failed to pass is inconsequential to the one that ultimately passed. The only people trying to cover up his statements were ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and the papers. Talk Radio and bloggers took his statement and ran with it. Kerry then explained himself but it was too late. The damage was done. That is why a politician needs to be careful of what he says otherwise its going to bite him in the ass! (see kerry's comment about the 87 Billion and Senator Durbin)

Is the press liberal? For the most part yes but now there is a counter balance and that counter balance is pulling in the viewers and listeners. This is forcing change in the left wing press. I think sooner or later, it'll go back to being balanced again.

The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America

By Stephen F. Hayes.

It details the Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein Connection.


Well, gosh-googly-doodle-doo! If it's in a BOOK, it MUST be true!!!!!!


Hey, that nice chubby fella... umm, gosh darnit what's his blessed name again....oh yeah! Michael Moore!!!! He's pub-lubbly-ublished too isn't he?


Why, by THIS standard, he must always be right too!

Well, gosh-googly-doodle-doo! If it's in a BOOK, it MUST be true!!!!!!


Hey, that nice chubby fella... umm, gosh darnit what's his blessed name again....oh yeah! Michael Moore!!!! He's pub-lubbly-ublished too isn't he?


Why, by THIS standard, he must always be right too!

MM is anything but right. However, Hayes uses actual information from people such as the top secret memos from the National Intelligence agencies (to many jokes on this, the agencies not the memos) and Iraqi Military leaders.

The media did their damndest to unseat Bush. They tossed everything into the race including falsified memos and the kitching sink to try and destroy him. They tried to paint Kerry as the best choice for President. They failed obviously.


I think it's more a question of what 'damnedest' means. I watched a lot of the coverage of your nation's last election, and all I could think was, "what a weak-as-water, totally-obviously cowed/right-wing co-opted media the Americans are constrained to make use of. I sure hope what with the internet someone down there'll be getting their news coverage from some organization not so scared of political repercussions that they'll candy-coat this Bushian BS. Maybe they'll manage to edge out this utter crapfest and at least let peole know where to get something that approaches what the Free World knows as 'news'."

They failed, obviously.

Hi, Ned, btw.

Missed you in the Canadian Gay Marriage thread, you repressed yet sexy, mustachioed thing, you.

MM is anything but right. However, Hayes uses actual information from people such as the top secret memos from the National Intelligence agencies (to many jokes on this, the agencies not the memos) and Iraqi Military leaders.


Well gee-wilikers. And here I thought handing out top-secret information was a crimin-iminal offency-wency!!!


And needless to say there are no Iraqi leader-weaders looking for a free ride that doesn't include a little stoppy-woppy at abu Ghraib either right?



But hey, who am I to argue with people who choose to believe the booky-wookie that tends to support their position? Even IF it flies in the face of every other oogly-googly bit of evidence currently put out there by the Intelligence community-woonity or silly folks like nice Senate Committee folks... AFTER the intel was properly matched to that pesky little detail that we all call "reality".

Is the press liberal? For the most part yes but now there is a counter balance and that counter balance is pulling in the viewers and listeners. This is forcing change in the left wing press. I think sooner or later, it'll go back to being balanced again.

some day i'd like to visit this planet you guys live on. it must be a really strange place.

Hi, Ned, btw.

Missed you in the Canadian Gay Marriage thread, you repressed yet sexy, mustachioed thing, you.


Now, now. Down boy.

I may believe in the nifty-wifty ideals of love, forgivenes, and tolerance.... but I've picked my preference and it is decidedly of the femininity-winity variety!

Well gee-wilikers. And here I thought handing out top-secret information was a crimin-iminal offency-wency!!!

They probably were top secret then got declassified. Alot of information was declassifed regarding Saddam Hussein you know.

And needless to say there are no Iraqi leader-weaders looking for a free ride that doesn't include a little stoppy-woppy at abu Ghraib either right?

Nice stab at Abu Ghraib. Alas, that was bad. At least those responsible are getting punished for their crimes.

But hey, who am I to argue with people who choose to believe the booky-wookie that tends to support their position? Even IF it flies in the face of every other oogly-googly bit of evidence currently put out there by the Intelligence community-woonity or silly folks like nice Senate Committee folks... AFTER the intel was properly matched to that pesky little detail that we all call "reality".

If your referring to the WMD intel, that was wrong yes. But then, if Saddam wasn't playing games with the UN, we would've known that wouldn't we? Yes by-golly we would've. Since Hussein played gamey wamies with the UN Weapons inspectors, we didn't know that he didn't have them. If Hussein stopped playing games and played by the rules, we wouldn't have had to invade him. He didn't play by the rules so we did invade him.

some day i'd like to visit this planet you guys live on. it must be a really strange place.

Dude...you live there. You're in the perfect position to study their habitat.

you're not...quite right when you say, 'down boy'.

Does the phrase, 'best of both worlds' ring any bells in the head of Ned?

Heh heh.

Be seeing you...

you're not...quite right when you say, 'down boy'.




Some people say that I haven't been "quite right" for some time now.... oddly-woddly enough.

lol

Some people say that I haven't been "quite right" for some time now.... oddly-woddly enough.

lol

You haven't been the same since Maude died.

Man she made me feel like a woman.

some day i'd like to visit this planet you guys live on. it must be a really strange place.
Speaking of which...

http://a799.g.akamai.net/3/799/388/b3b9ded3cdfefd/www.msnbc.com/comics/editorial/bs050629.gif

Is the press liberal? For the most part yes but now there is a counter balance and that counter balance is pulling in the viewers and listeners. This is forcing change in the left wing press. I think sooner or later, it'll go back to being balanced again.
I want numbers and evidence. The press is sure as hell not majority liberal:

Radio waves are controlled well over 80% by conservatives.

Fox News gets by far more viewers than any other station.

Conservative think tanks dominate the publication realm.

Nationally, conservative newspapers are more read than liberal ones.

These are verifiable stastics; just take a quick gander on Google.

I want numbers and evidence. The press is sure as hell not majority liberal:

Notice the word press and not radio!

Radio waves are controlled well over 80% by conservatives.

Conservatives have to control something so that they can get the otherside out. Besides that, that is about the only media they have full control of.

Fox News gets by far more viewers than any other station.

Finally an admitter that they do. Why do you thing? Because the people are tired of the liberal BS that is being spouted by CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and CBS.

Conservative think tanks dominate the publication realm.

News to me. Proof please?

Nationally, conservative newspapers are more read than liberal ones.

Because the liberal ones are losing subscribers because of the bs they've been spouting the last few years. This is all starting to change and if the libs don't keep up, they'll find themselves out of a job.

In the past however, the liberals controled everything. The Conservatives are now starting to win out and with fewer markets than the liberals have.

Notice the word press and not radio!



Conservatives have to control something so that they can get the otherside out. Besides that, that is about the only media they have full control of.
First, radio is part of the media.

Second, this would sort of disprove the "liberal media" myth of a large portion of it is dominated almost exclusively by conservatives. More people listen to talk radio per day than watch the Nightly News.

Finally an admitter that they do. Why do you thing? Because the people are tired of the liberal BS that is being spouted by CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and CBS.
I want hard evidence that "liberal BS" is coming out of each of those stations. Because (I'll give you a hint) none of those stations (with the possible exception of CBS while Dan Rather was there) even have a hint of liberal bias that any credible outside investigative source has confirmed. More of the "liberal media" myth that has served conservatives so effectively.

News to me. Proof please?
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/sp05/wisensale.htm
http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-02-03.html
http://www.thedoylereport.com/default_article.aspx?page_id=spotlight&id=538&archive=1
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPRU%202002-115/EPSL-0205-115-EPRU.htm
This is a pretty well established fact. Not many people dispute it.

Because the liberal ones are losing subscribers because of the bs they've been spouting the last few years. This is all starting to change and if the libs don't keep up, they'll find themselves out of a job.

In the past however, the liberals controled everything. The Conservatives are now starting to win out and with fewer markets than the liberals have.
You need to have evidence for these expansive claims. Statistically, most of these are either even in terms of liberal/conservative growth rate or tilting liberal. This, too, comes from a recent media survey which only exists in print, so I can't send you a link.

News to me. Proof please?


Think tanks tend to be conservative. I have the Hoover Institute near by ;)

all I ever see on the media is right-wing bais. I have never heard a news station use the words "Bush lied," nor have I ever seen the Iraq war citisised since the invasion began. All I've ever seen in centrist and conservative. There are almost no real "liberal" media sources out there. Why? They are all owned by big business.

In responce to the bit about the UN inspectors, Saddam invited, allowed in, and co-operated with UN weapons inspectors. Bush forced them to leave when he invaded regardless, and forced them to get out or get blewed up. Bad intelligence my ass, the Bush administration knew there were never WMDs. Colin Powel said so in 2001, that he had no WMDs, that he has no conventional military power, and he is only getting weaker.

In responce to your sig, it was the US representative mainly that blocked it from being called a genocide, and stopped the UN from interviening. A stronger UN would have been able to do something about it. The US didn't want to help, because it didn't benfit us. That's the only thing the US ever acts out of.

Finally an admitter that they do. Why do you thing? Because the people are tired of the liberal BS that is being spouted by CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and CBS.


No, because Science Fiction is becoming more and more popular these days. It's funny that you call news other than FOX (ha! it almost sounds like I'm saying that FOX actually is a news station), when surveys taken at the start of the FOX war showed that people who favored the war were the most misinformed and those who listened to FOX news were the most misinformed. In other words, it is scientificly established that the more FOX you watch the stupider you become.

No, because Science Fiction is becoming more and more popular these days. It's funny that you call news other than FOX (ha! it almost sounds like I'm saying that FOX actually is a news station), when surveys taken at the start of the FOX war showed that people who favored the war were the most misinformed and those who listened to FOX news were the most misinformed. In other words, it is scientificly established that the more FOX you watch the stupider you become.I loved what Howard Dean said recently about Fox News. When he was asked about a statement Cheney made about him on Fox News Sunday I believe, Dean responded with "I consider Fox News to be a propaganda arm of the Republican party and I don't comment on them." YEAAAAAAAAARRRRGHHHH!!!!!!

The internet thing really was a non-issue but his statement that he invented the internet stuck! Anyway, I digress.

Just for the record, Al Gore never actually said that. See here: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

The press continued to harp that there was no Osama/Bin Laden connection and the people were eating it up. This forced Bush to retract his statements. Only problem is that talk radio continued to push it even after he retracted it! Why would they do that? Maybe because it was actually accurate that Saddam did have ties to al Qaeda and to terror in general even though the Democrats said he didn't.

....or maybe because most of the talk radio pundits I've listened to appear to believe that things like "facts" and "actual data" are for bleeding-heart pansy liberals. Or are you claiming that Rush Limbaugh has access to top-secret classified information that no one in Congress saw?

Dude...you live there. You're in the perfect position to study their habitat.

but that's the thing. i encounter these people in my plane of existence, but where they claim to be from differs in many significant respects from the universe i inhabit. i suspect something funny has gone on with quantum mechanics, and that these people are merely the fuzzy projections of beings from other possible worlds. specifically, they are from a world with a massive organized left in the united states that has a complete lock on all aspects of society.

what is really disconcerting is when you run into the same entity again, only this one properly belongs in this world, and they start saying accurate things that are wildly at odds with what their nearly-identical quantum possiblity was saying mere minutes before. it leads to much confusion.

They probably were top secret then got declassified. Alot of information was declassifed regarding Saddam Hussein you know.


For a man who claims alot, you don't know much about jack, do you? The CIA doesn't declassify sensitive information very quickly. I'm gonna be pushing 40 by the time we find out what actually happened to JFK-And that is almost 60 years after he died. Sensitive information is not declassified within a few years. Something like this would not see the light of day for at least another half decade, probably much, much longer. Sure, alot of stuff about Hussein was declassified-but nothing of actual worth, this I can almost guarentee. The CIA would NOT, I repeat NOT, release such information to the general public. It would be devastating. Which leads me to believe one of two things: A HUGE leak, or bullshit. And quite frankly bullshit is more believable. One thing most people don't know about the government is that nothing is released without someone who is in charge's aproval. You think there are leaks? There are NO leaks. Everything that is "leaked" is allowed. Something like this would not "leak", thus I smell bullshit from a mile away.

Give us some information that this books supposedly gives. Give us some of these "alleged" memos. Of course, these memos will only be opinions of what actually happened, and not what actually happened(I'm using your own method against the DSM against you here on purpose). And these supposed "top-level officials": What, praytell, are their names? What is this insider info? Quite frankly, I doubt any of this "information" exists, and that whomever wrote this book is the "conservative" Michael Moore, using true information and twisting it into a lie. Also remember: Anybody can just make something up out of the blue and hope that people will be either to lazy to look it up and find the bs at the heart of the issue or be to gullible to see past a lie. Which are you? The blind or the sloth?

I'd much rather believe a commission created by the President, whom would have every reason to bring such information out into the public, then some no-name writer whom could easily make up information.