I guess if the press can't find anything substantive to throw up against Sarah Palin, making stuff up will have to do.
A front-page article by the Washington Post's Anne Kornblut crows over what the reporter claims is a gaffe by GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin:
FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, Sept. 11 -- Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."
The idea that Iraq shared responsibility with al-Qaeda for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself.
Kornblut must have missed the news that Saddam Hussein, who was in power in Iraq on 9/11, is not only not in power, but also quite dead -- executed by the current, totally unrelated Iraqi government. "The war in Iraq" morphed from an operation to overthrow Hussein and capture or neutralize his lieutenants to a war against an Al Qaeda insurgency at least four years ago.
Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard blog (HT Hot Air Headlines) responded strongly just after midnight:
Kornblut’s interpretation of what Palin said is either stupid or malicious. Palin is evidently saying that American soldiers are going to Iraq to defend innocent Iraqis from al Qaeda in Iraq, a group that is related to al Qaeda, which did plan and carry out the Sept. 11 attacks. It makes no sense for Kornblut to claim that Palin is arguing here that Saddam Hussein’s regime carried out 9/11—obviously Palin isn’t saying that our soldiers are now going over to Iraq to fight Saddam’s regime. Palin isn’t linking Saddam to 9/11. She’s linking al Qaeda in Iraq to al Qaeda.
People can debate how intimate that connection is, and how much of the fight in Iraq is now against al Qaeda in Iraq--but it’s simply the case that Palin is not saying what Kornblut says she is, and that the Washington Post is, right now, leading its paper with a clear distortion of what Palin said.
Kornblut appeared to feel the need to take on a job Democrats wouldn't do yesterday:
On any other day, Palin's statement would almost certainly have drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats, but both parties had declared a halt to partisan activities to mark Thursday's anniversary.
Nice try, Anne. No sale.
We see yet another reason why WaPo's circulation, along with most other traditional newspapers, continues to decline.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Palintologists
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 07:51 ET by allanfA new species of digger has emerged. The Palintologist. They have ascended to snow covered Alaska to dig up dirt. So far these trained professionals have been beaten by a mother from Wasaila.
When good ideas meet liberals, liberals lose.
Palintology
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 07:54 ET by Tom BlumerGreat word. No, perfect word.
Great word, allanf! I love
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 08:41 ET by MassConservGreat word, allanf! I love it. :-)
No doubt this will become a branch of major libs will be studying in college if McCain/Palin wins in Nov.
Let's not let the truth get in the way
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 09:51 ET by allanfSeems that Time and the Washington Post don't want to let the truth get in the way of a "good story".
Liberals are very afraid of this woman. The palintologists look like bad vampire killers in a "D" movie. The next breaking news item may be that Palin wouldn't let her kid have ice cream.
Isn't Joe Biden. . .
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 15:01 ET by WingletDriveras genuine as Piltdown Man?
Bizarre. If I ran a
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 07:55 ET by Free ThinkerBizarre. If I ran a newspaper I would hire editors to keep reporters from writing such moronic stuff. Kornblut needs to educate herself on this war if she is going to try and write about it. I'm sure the correction will be placed on page C-15.
Correction? There won't be
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 11:15 ET by Conservative BluesCorrection? There won't be a correction. If newspapers had to run a correction for every lie they told, they'd have to print 2 editions every day.
Ecclesiastes 10:2 - "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Anti-Palin Press Corps
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 07:57 ET by jraymondwrightThe anti-Palin Press Corps is so desperate they have to make stuff up. We should call them what they are:
Liberal Fascist Journalistic Nazi Stormtroopers.
Also, See Patterico for a great story on how Charlie misquoted Sarah re: "Pray that ... we are doing God's will" She didn't say "We are doing God's will." Big distinction when you cut out the first part. But I'm not surprised, they are so desperate to pull a "gotcha" on her it is very amusing. And how about Charlie's attitude, could he have been any more condescending?
"defend the innocent from
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 07:58 ET by Conservative in the Arts"defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."
it's also plausable that the word "and" denotes a different group of people, making it 3 groups she talked about.
1: the leadership of terrorists
2: the foot-soldiers of terrorists
3: the thousands of Arabs that were seen dancing in the streets over 9-11
That's my take on what she said.
»→ CornButt
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 08:03 ET by Cool ArrowHe's a waste of ethanol.
How does this looneytune know where the punctuations are placed in a spoken statement?
"that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany" - Sarah Palin
Palin spoke the truth and the liberals can't stand it
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 08:04 ET by c5thenThat is an absolute truth. The innocents being the normal every-day Iraqi people who are under attack from cold-blooded, amoral, Islamic exremists who call themselves Al Queda in Iraq. They are linked to and a sub-group of Al Queda.
Ann Kornblut shows a singular and amazing lack of knowledge about foreign policy and the world outside Washington D.C. by trying to imply that the troops in Iraq today are still fighting against the old Saddam Hussein regime. That fight was over with the "Mission Accomplished" banner that Bush has been so castigated for. Since that time, we have been fighting the islamo-fascists from all over the world who have converged on Iraq to try and take on the US military.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
BTW, the reason for the
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 08:11 ET by PeskyDaneBTW, the reason for the circulation of USA Today is that it is essentially a free paper. Everytime I travel on business, there is a stack of them at the hotel desk, and one at every door in the morning. I don't know what kind of discount they've worked out, but there are not many possiblities. Either the Marriot, Hilton, et al organizations are subsidizing them, or their advertisers have demanded some evidence that people are actually cracking open the paper. I personnally don't know anyone dumb enough to feed quarters into one of their kiosks.
USA today - bleh
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 08:50 ET by MazziNo lie! And even free, I won't touch it.
"When a government robs Peter to pay Paul, they can always count on the support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw~
This is unbelievable
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 08:19 ET by Dee BunkI'm so fed up with the press and their lies and distortions. I hope enough people have learned to not trust anything they say anymore.
They lie about the bridge to no where and never state how the AK Democratic party credited canceling it on their web site that was scrubbed after she was named VP. They continue to lie and say she is making a false claim. And they also ignore Obama and Biden's horrible record on earmarks vs John McCain's perfect one.
They are outraged by the McCain camp taking advantage of Obama's nasty lipstick pig comment but don't care about Obama going on about "houses" or lies like saying McCain thinks the middle class is $5 million when he was JOKING about the RICH not the middle class. He even stated that they would probably try to distort the joke.
They try to make it seem like Sarah is attacking community organizers when she was only attacking Obama for his campaign's snide remarks about her being a Mayor and implying she wasn't qualified because of that. They completely ignored that she was also a Governor. She didn't attack community organizing, she attacked Obama's use of it as a Presidential qualification.
They also try to make McCain's ad about Obama and sex education as some sort of distortion and low blow when it's true! It was also a response to lies and distortions on McCain's education record from Obama and they ignore that!
I'm so fed up with this press. They have crossed a line where they don't only distort - they lie.
»→ There's more, Dee
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 08:27 ET by Cool ArrowThey fail to make the connection between Obama's run for Senate (Lawsuit to open Jack Ryan's divorce records, forcing Ryan to resign) and storming Alaska to open divorce records (of Sarah's business partner hoping to find evidence of an affair involving Gov. Palin)
Obama seems preoccupied with infidelity. Wonder if Michelle has noticed this?
"that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany" - Sarah Palin
There's still much more Cool
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 08:40 ET by Dee BunkBut the fingers get tired of typing and life and work get in the way of listing them all.
I'm so mad about what was done to Jack Ryan here. He would have beat Obama. He was the first white Republican to have support from the black community. Unlike Obama's unproductive community organizing that he had nothing to show for, Jack Ryan actually worked for and accomplished better education in a minority community by donating lots of time and money to an inner city parochial school. Obama only wins by eliminating the competition. He has no accomplishments to run on - just a pretty face.
»→ And Biden's a sexist
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 08:46 ET by Cool ArrowIf Biden really believed in Affirmative Action, the rules would dictate he defer to the woman's [Hillary's] equal, (or better, in his words) ability, and ask that she be picked.
But Biden put his ambition above that which he has legislated for.
There is just so much fodder on the surface we don't even have to dig for it.
"that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany" - Sarah Palin
You're not the only one mad
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 09:28 ET by dmntd1You're not the only one mad about Jack Ryan, but my anger also extends to the State GOP.
After accepting the resignation of Ryan, they brought in a carpet-bagger, Alan Keyes, to takeover the campaign. This, in part, is what has allowed Barack Obama to run for the office of the President. Had we picked Oberweiss, or any number of Illinois residents, to run, we might not have lost in such a spectacular fashion. I know many conservatives that refused to vote for Keyes purely based on the fact that he wasn't truly an Illinoisan.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his imminent relationship with a superior law and with an objective will that transcends the particular individual - Mussolini
I agree dmntd - the IL Rep party is stupid
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 10:29 ET by Dee BunkI think Alan Keys is extremely intelligent and I like him, but he's not a good candidate. His positions are too intellectual for the media or the public and they easily misinterpret and turn around what he says.
It turns out Oberwise wasn't a good candidate either and lost Hastert's seat. The IL Rep party. I really wish Jim Edgar would have run against Obama.
No False "Aha" Here!
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 08:26 ET by j. frank wilsonOn the anniversary of 9/11, clearly Gov. Palin was attempting to link the war in Iraq to those attacks on the United States. She stated the troops headed out would "defend the innocent [classic anti-abortion language, by the way] from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."
This really doesn't require any interpretation - it's very clear what Gov. Palin said. Particularly given the day she said it. The war in Iraq is far more complex than fighting the AQ that arrived after we did - there are four or five different strains going on right now. And we now know that for all his many, many faults, Saddam Insane was not involved in the 9/11 attacks.
To use Bill Kristol as a source to argue the opposite position? The guy would kept saying we were going to find WMD in Iraq - we really, really were? What has Mr. Kristol been correct about in, say, the past seven years? He's a weak straw, indeed, to cling too...
You'll have to excuse frank - he doesn't know what's gone on
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 08:31 ET by Dee BunkIn Iraq. He probably never heard of Al Queda in Iraq. These left wingers are really out of it
Of course this whole discussion begs the question....
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 09:50 ET by Prester John...why then, if Iraq didn't pose a danger to the United States, did such experienced, savy, well regarded Democrat senators such as Joe Biden, Tom Daschle, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Jay Rockefellar, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein and all the others vote to authorize the war? Surely it wasn't because of political considerations? I mean when it comes to war, the national interest comes first and individual political fortunes are never even considered are they? And surely they weren't so gullible as to allow themselves to be sucked into a misguided vote?
Has anybody on the Left ever bothered to read the ENTIRE Iraq War authorization resolution? Out of about 20 "whereas's" justifying the action, exactly one referred to "members al-Qaeda" being in Iraq".
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107oD3n94::
Good points Prester John
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 15:38 ET by Dee Bunkliberals have to ignore all the facts to make their arguments
Prester John:
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 19:04 ET by j. frank wilsonThis is the "Enron Defense." Cook the books, present faulty information, and then say "Well, all you suckers made up your mind on your own. It's not our fault."
You're right Frank. She
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 08:38 ET by Ruths husband BenYou're right Frank. She doesn't understand that the troops leaving today are going over to try and topple the Saddam Hussein regime. She still thinks they are going there to fight (among other people) the remnants of Al Queda who are still trying to kill innocent Iraqis. What a lack of understanding..........
“it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” - Justice Antonin Scalia
You are correct
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 09:02 ET by jay_1975Regardless of what some here may say, you are right. We are not fighting an al Queda in Iraq that was in any way associated with those that attacked us. Abu Al Zarqawi (a Jordanian) pledged himself to bin Laden in October 2004 because of our operations in Iraq. This started al Queda in Iraq and had no direct links to the attacks on 9/11. Our presence in Iraq was based on a mistake and now we have to do right by the people in Iraq, but to claim that the insurgents there (primarily Iraqis as opposed to foreign fighters) are all al Queda is ridculous. During my second deployment I worked in two jails, one in Tikrit, the other in Mosul and the prisoner population was at least 95% Iraqi, not foreign al Queda fighters. No matter how much someone tries to justify our invasion of Iraq, it doesn't pass the BS test. Iraq posed no immediate threat to us and our actions in going there was such an underplanned, over hyped mistake and no one seems to want to admit to it.
jay
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 09:40 ET by larry on LIto consider what you have stated to be factual,we would than have to consider that our government has lied to us for the last 15 years.
What are you talking about?
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 09:49 ET by jay_1975What are you talking about? 15 years, I though 9/11 happened 7 years ago. We first invaded Iraq in '91 because of their invasion of Kuwait and we have enforced a "no-fly-zone" up until our invasion in 2003, but since when did Iraq ever pose a real threat to us? Or is it now that you believe Clinton and Gore? Remember our intent was to stop Sadaam's WMD operations that we didn't know existed. The last confirmed attemps by his regime to start a WMD program was '96. In the build up to Iraq we were told that al Queda was training in Iraq and being funded by Sadaam, both untrue. The yellow cake (500 tons) that was taken from Iraq a few months back was from the failed '96 WMD program and had been shelved since then, that is why President Bush never came out and said "I told you so".
Iraq under Saddam was a threat to everyone
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 10:19 ET by CobraManOh, please, get your facts straight!
Iraq under Saddam was a threat to everyone. Have you forgotten the ten-year war Iraq fought with Iran, the one where over a million people died? Have you forgotten Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? Have you forgotten Iraq's fruitless attempt to invade Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Shield? Have you forgotten the numerous missiles Saddam launched into Israel during Operation Desert Storm? Have you forgotten the stores of chemical weapon that we destroyed after Saddam lost Operation desert Storms? Have you forgotten the REASON for that no-fly zone? Have you forgotten that Saddam was a ruthless dictator who's stated goal was to control the entire Middle East and wipe out Israel as a first step in global expansion and domination? Have you forgotten the torture, the deaths, the disappearances, and the devastation Saddam caused during his thirty-year reign of terror?
Saddam was a madman hell-bent on world domination, and the entire world is better off without him.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
All that you have mentioned
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 10:29 ET by jay_1975All that you have mentioned ended back in 1991. Did you forget that we funded his war with Iran and supplied weapons? Did you forget that we drove him out of Kuwait and stopped him from attacking Israel and Saudi Arabia? Did you know that Saddam's WMD program effectively ceased to exist after 1996? But hey, you are such a humanitarian, maybe you should campaign to invade Africa to stop the torture and murder of people there, advocate invading Iran since they pose a threat to more people than Iraq ever did, cry out for the US to invade North Korea since they potentially pose a threat far more immediate than Iraq ever was. Beg NATO to invade Russia for its actions against Georgia. Challenge the UN to invade China because of human rights violations. Where does it stop? If its good enough for Iraq, then why not all of these others? "Saddam was a madman hell-bent on world domination"? No, he was a madman hell-bent on regional domination.
No, it didn't
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 10:40 ET by CobraMan"All that you have mentioned ended back in 1991."
No, it didn't. Even after his humiliating defeat in 1991, Saddam refused to abide by ANY ceasefire agreement with us or abide by any of the UN sanctions against him. He continued to kill, torture, and maim anyone who opposed him and his government, He continued to rebuilt his military, he continued to threaten other countries, he continued to rebuild his WMD programs (although he did fail at that one, just like he fail at most of his military aspirations), and he continued to advance his agenda of world domination.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Hmmmm...Who has forgotten?
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 18:37 ET by NewHavenI hate to point this out. But, the US actually provided arms to Saddam when they fought Iran, including chemical weapons. Have you forgotten the photo of Rummy shaking hands Hussain. Looks like you have forgotten some basic history.
No one's forgotten that.
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 20:36 ET by PeskyDaneNo one's forgotten that. All that proves is that some dogs need to stay leashed.
Good lesson for the rest of the world.
Please name at least one US
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 20:40 ET by Free StinkerPlease name at least one US weapon system we provided Iraq.
Provide a link to your source as well, please.
Who's making that claim?
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 10:08 ET by CobraMan"to claim that the insurgents there (primarily Iraqis as opposed to foreign fighters) are all al Queda is ridculous"
Who's making that claim? I know it’s not Sarah Palin, as she never said that the insurgents are all foreign fighters. She merely commented that our troops are in Iraq to help them fight against al Queada. That IS one of their duties and that is something no one can deny.
It seems to me that the only one making the claim that ALL of the insurgents are al Queda is the Washing Post. Everyone else seems to understand that we're SUPPORTING the Iraqi government now and not fighting it, just as we have been for the last four years.
BTW, I can understand why you would tend to notice that "most" of the men you observed being held were citizens of Iraq as it is normal practice that foreign fighters are held separately from a country’s citizens so as to reduce the possibility of recruiting others while being held in captivity.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
"I can understand why you
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 10:13 ET by jay_1975"I can understand why you would tend to notice that "most" of the men you observed being held were citizens of Iraq as it is normal practice that foreign fighters are held separately from a country’s citizens ". Not quite, we had a couple of Africans, an Iranian-American and some others that were all in the general population. We only segregated the HVI's (high value inteligence) and the extremely violent (head choppers). Maybe you should go over there and find out what is going on.
I don't need to, I have you
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 10:32 ET by CobraManI don't need to "go there," I have you to straighten me out. But you still haven't disproved my argument, you've actually strengthened it. Since the majority of foreign fighters are considered HVI's, they would be held separately, or don't you feel that gaining information as to the methods of training, arming, transporting, and commanding foreign fighters is important and any information they can provide would be high value intelligence?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
You are giving the
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 10:38 ET by jay_1975You are giving the insurgents way too much credit. Not all foreign fighters are HVI's. The ringleaders (primarily locals) are the most valuable. A guy from Sudan who comes over to blow himself up is not of much intel value. The Somali who tries to bomb a US checkpoint is not of much value either. The Iraqi who is part of an influential tribe who is running a VBIED (vehicle bourne improvised explosive device) factory out of a large garage has names, address' and contact info that we want. That is the HVI, not a low rate would-be suicide bomber.
Say what?
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 10:54 ET by CobraManIt's obvious that you don't work in intelligence. I'm sure that the military would be VERY interested in finding out how this "guy from Sudan who comes over to blow himself up" obtained his explosives. I'm sure the same can be said of the one attacking a checkpoint. I know that, as a veteran, that I would be very interested in how those men obtained their training and equipment, and who gave them the orders to attack.
Has it occurred to you that the foreigners you observed in that Iraqi jail had ALREADY been held seperatly and, after being questioned for any possible intelligence value, was transferred to the Iraqi jail simple because he was of no more use to intelligence and was determined not to be much of a threat?
I'm quite positive that you were not deployed to every jail in Iraq and that you were not a part of the intelligence gathering operation in Iraq so you actual knowledge is limited to generalities and only that information that was required to perform your duties.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
You are correct, I did not
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 11:04 ET by jay_1975You are correct, I did not gather the intel. We held the prisoners and escorted them to their interrogations. The capturing unit would interrogate them then bring them to us. If they were deemed worthy of keeping we flew them the a larger detention facility where they were held for around three months then released. We have had mutiple re-captures. We catch them, determine they are not high enough in the chain and release them and catch them again a couple of months later. Everyone we catch is logged into BIDS (bio-metric ID system) and we have had to run retina's of heads and hands brought in from bombers and sure enough, they were caught before. Hell, we even pay them when we release them. The person determining who is segregated as an HVI is usually and E-5 or E-6 and the interrogators are as low as E-4's. There are also civi interrogators who have a college degree and a clearance, volunteer to go through a couple of months of training and go to Iraq to make $120,000 a year. When I worked patrol our S-2 (intel) briefs were almost always backed by work from locals who were working for us. That is the key to our intel, the local who are sick of the fighting. Mosul would have taken a lot longer to regain control in if not for a few brave Iraqi's who actually worked against the insurgents from the inside.
BUSTED, BUSTED, BUSTED!!!
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 20:48 ET by PeskyDaneBIDS? BIDS? LMAO at you. The system is called BATS. Biometric, Automated Toolset System. Good job picking the brain of whatever friend was really over there, though. Some of your info passable. Without googling, would you even know the names of the camps?
Oh yeah, no such thing as HVI. I'll take HVD (High Value Detainee) for $100.00, Alex.
jay_1975:
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 15:46 ET by j. frank wilsonGreat post! You're going to take quite a bit of "friendly" fire here - service for two tours isn't enough for many of the folks on this site. They would honor your service if they agreed with your views - they'll attack you like junkyard dogs if you suggest the Bush Administration got us all into the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.
As I understand Iraq today, there are:
1. Folks fighting the US military because they want us out of Iraq;
2. Sunni and Shiites fight each other (and some inter-faith fighting, as well);
3. Flat-out terrorists taking advantage of the situation to just raise Hell and keep everything in confusion - including (or largely) AQ; and
4. Criminal elements taking advantage of the chaos to loot, kidnap and otherwise pillage.
Then there are the Kurds trying to establish their own nation out of parts of Iraq and Turkey.
Of far more interest, however, how do you see it?
J Frank, he's a fraud, as
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 20:49 ET by PeskyDaneJ Frank, he's a fraud, as I've proved above. You are too stupid to post here. Please go back to the Kind Of Stupid (KOS) site where you belong. Thank you.
MSM
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 08:39 ET by rick007Let me see now. The 4000 plus deaths in Iraq . None are not from Al Quida fighters?????
Liberals get your heads out of your asses. It's dark up there and smells bad.
The problem with Libs is the real reason we are in Iraq and Agaf.
Their heads up ther asses like the Clintons regime with Al Quida,Iran and N. Korea.
Boy have they left this world in great shape after only 8 years.
Anybody with half a brain can see what the libs realy think just by watching the news. They realy have no idea of how to provide security for this country.
Here is Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in his own words that I find most revealing: "I probably always feel on some level I can persuade anybody I talk to." That's what he told Time on Feb. 20, 2006, and I happened to stumble across that quotation while browsing through a book by Lisa Rogak titled Barack Obama In His Own Words.
This is posted on the BullitinHere is Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in his own words that I find most revealing: "I probably always feel on some level I can persuade anybody I talk to." That's what he told Time on Feb. 20, 2006, and I happened to stumble across that quotation while browsing through a book by Lisa Rogak titled Barack Obama In His Own Words.
Hmmm can he realy get Iran and the rest to sing Kum Ba Ya with him???
"O" Dumby is a terroists.
The possiability oh him becoming President has me terrified.
rick 007:
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 15:49 ET by j. frank wilsonYou wrote:
Hmmm can he realy get Iran and the rest to sing Kum Ba Ya with him???
"O" Dumby is a terroists.
The possiability oh him becoming President has me terrified.
Apparently so does Spell Check. And coherent thought.
al-Queda in Iraq
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 08:47 ET by easygoerThis is what kills me about the no "al-Queda in in Iraq before we were there" crowd. We are to believe that before 9/11, there was al-Queda in country in every country in Europe, all over Asia, in North America including many US states(Florida, Minnesota...) the entire Mideast region but there was absolutely no al-Queda in Iraq.
By your rationale then we
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 09:03 ET by jay_1975By your rationale then we can go invade anyone we want to then right? al Queda is everywhere. Abu Al Zarqawi started al Queda in Iraq in October 2004.
Iraq
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 09:50 ET by cassratJay,
If you would spend 2 minutes checking the facts, you would know that Al Queda was NOT the reason we took out Hussain.
We took him out because the UN resolutions granted us the authority.
Further news We did find the makings of WMDs in Iraq. We destroyed the chemicals and rockets and shipped the Nuclear materiels to Canada.
Those materials were from
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 09:57 ET by jay_1975Those materials were from 1996 when Iraq halted its WMD program. The initial build up to Iraq was based statements that Iraq was training and funding al Queda. If you would spend a couple of minutes looking at all of the facts, you would see that when the plan of attacking Iraq because of 9/11 wasn't flying too well, the stragey switched to WMD's in Iraq which was wrong as well. Iraq was a mistake no matter how much you try to justify it.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.alqaeda.links/
jay_1975
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 13:31 ET by bassndudeAnd the arms inspectors were supposed to inspect and remove these WMD parts. Which, Saddam refused to even let them see, which Saddam said he did not have anymore.
What part of "give it up or be attacked" did Saddam not understand?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
btw we can invade anyone we
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 13:28 ET by TruthMongerbtw we can invade anyone we want to - regardless of al-queda
we could literally take over the whole planet as our empire right now
yet we don't excercise that option
first nation in history to do so:)
if foreigners don't like us that would be the only possible reason
that darn seething jealousy:(
Ix-nay on the mpireeay,
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 13:36 ET by MassConservIx-nay on the mpireeay, TM.
Shhhhhhhh. Evidently you missed the admonition at the meeting last night that no one is to divulge that part of the plan until AFTER November.
nobody tells me nothin:(
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 14:14 ET by TruthMongernobody tells me nothin:(
cassrats:
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 15:51 ET by j. frank wilsonWe knew Saddam Insane had WMD's because Secretary Rumsfeld listened to Judge Wapner and saved the receipts...
Mesopotamia
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 10:15 ET by easygoerDidn't say that. I said there was al-Queda in Iraq before 9/11. And there was. Book on it. Just because they weren't organized under an official name is does not mean they were not there. You refer to the group started by Al Zarqawi in Oct. 2004 as al-Queda in Iraq. The NY Times instructs the good liberal to call it al-Queda in Mesopotamia.
"Just because they weren't
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 10:17 ET by jay_1975"Just because they weren't organized under an official name is does not mean they was not there". So they were just what, Saudi's and Egyptians wandering around the Iraqi desert, unorganized and not doing anything, but they were just there? You said that al Queda is in almost all of Europe, US states and the middle east. All I want to know is who else we need to invade then?
Our murderous enemies...or whatever you want to call them.
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 14:59 ET by easygoerI am merely stating that al-Queda was in Iraq. I am not saying and do not believe we invaded Iraq because of it. Nor did I say we should invade any other country. You call them "Saudis and Egyptians wandering around the Iraqi desert". Others would call them al-Queda cells, and they've been known to be pretty murderous. It's preposterous to believe al-Queda which was operating all over the world, especially in the Mideast, had no presence in Iraq prior to 9/11.
But to listen to some on the left and the MSM you'd think Iraq was as pure as the driven snow; that other than Sadam Hussein being a bad guy there was no one there who had evil intentions toward the US; that they all came after the invasion. They were there, and in significant numbers. You disagree, fine. Respond if you want, but I'm done. If it keeps going it's going to turn into a "who's on first" routine. Take care.
MSM
Fri, 09/12/2008 - 08:48 ET by rick007The news and nothing but the newa as seen through liberal eyes.
The bridge to nowhere. Hmmm would they equate these two?The killer Big dig @ 15 Billion.
The bridge to nowhere. Reids 10 Billion Monorail from Vegas to Cal?
I see just where the Liberal minds are.
Stop Mc Cain/Palin at all costs so we get the fairness docturin in.
Hey they even claim Bill the Perv was a good Pres.