As Congress debates nonbinding resolutions to rebuke President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq, and Democrat candidates for president move further and further to the left on this issue, an immutable fact about the press is becoming more and more apparent: no media outlet dares to completely challenge Hillary Clinton concerning her October 2002 vote in favor of the war resolution.
A fine example of what should be asked of the junior senator from New York occurred on Friday’s “Real Time” when host Bill Maher posed the following to John Edwards (video available here courtesy of our friend at Ms Underestimated, forward to 4:30):
Alright, let me ask you about your vote in 2002, the vote to authorize George Bush to at least have the authority to go to war. Uh, your response to that was to write an editorial which began with the words “I was wrong,” words you don’t usually hear from a politician.. Uh, Hillary Clinton says, “I was misled.” So, what’s the difference between “I was wrong” and “I was misled?”
Great question. Envision anybody like Tim Russert, Brian Williams, Chris Matthews, Matt Lauer, etc., asking Hillary Clinton such a question? Doubtful, correct?
For the record, this was Edwards’ response:
Uh, “I was wrong” means – I’m only speaking for me – means that I take responsibility for making a serious mistake on a vote that was probably the most important vote I cast in the United States Senate. Uh, I think we desperately need, uh, leaders in this country who will admit when they were wrong. We’re all human. All of us make mistakes. Admit when we’re wrong, change course, take responsibility, uh, for being wrong. I don’t think you can have, uh, the foundation for leadership, the moral foundation for leadership, if you don’t start by telling the truth. And, at least for me, this is the truth.
Now, say what you will about Edwards, but I find this answer to be extraordinarily refreshing, and the only honest response that should be accepted of any political leader on either side of the aisle who is now disavowing his or her vote on this crucial issue.
Furthermore, as the media have continually -- at virtually every press conference and opportunity to do so -- pressured President Bush to admit mistakes concerning this war, it is unconscionable that the leading candidate for the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination gets a pass on this issue. In fact, it’s a sham that the media allow any Democrat to state that he or she was misled in October 2002 by President Bush, for as Edwards accurately stated, such a person lacks “the moral foundation for leadership.”
Despite this seemingly obvious truth, it appears quite unlikely that any media member is going to challenge the junior senator from New York about this crucial issue, and that she, as the former first lady, and a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, will be allowed to continue to cynically present herself to the American people as having been misled by a Republican president concerning the most important vote of her life.
Liberal media bias? What liberal media bias?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
They both know it was not wro
February 17, 2007 - 14:15 ET by Andrew H.They both know it was not wrong--but as you know, the media and many leftists have convinced themselves it was. So now liberal politicians scramble to position themselves calling for the country's defeat.
Edwards has an easier time doing that; his trial lawyer career certainly prepared him for democrat politics.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Very good point. I don't unde
February 17, 2007 - 14:33 ET by ThisnThatVery good point. I don't understand what pleasure anyone gets out of this country's defeat -- but they sure do want it, no matter what the consequences. And that's the problem -- what are the consequences? And why do these policticians try to isolate the problem to Afghanistan only? So many of them are saying "Afghanistan is the good war; Iraq is the bad war; the whole world would be behind us if we only stuck to Afghanistan". Rubbish. I didn't see the whole world get behind us when we struck Afghanistan. In fact, there was immediate condemnation when we didn't win in a week.
We as a nation need to start thinking about what happens next, and stop all the selfish, self-serving posturing. And every single person in the MSM needs to be fired.
The MSM has always strained t
February 17, 2007 - 18:34 ET by GalvanicThe MSM has always strained to parse the war in Afghanistan from the war in Iraq, as evidenced in the US KIA counts -- we're always told how many Americans have been killed in Iraq, but those liked in Afghanistan are never added to the total. In fact, they're gnerally ignored. All you here about now is how Bush could've secured Afghanistan had he concentrated there vice Iraq. But in reality, they don' want our troops in Afghanistan either.
So, why the difference? I think they differentiate in order to counter Bush's "War On Terrorism" policy. By separating the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq from each other strategically, they are rejecting the War on Terrorism with outwardly stating so.
But the terrorism deniers are now appearing. Jimmy Carter is one, when he said earlier this year that there is an irrational terrorism paranoia in this country, as if 9/11 never happened. Naturally, he blames Bush for creating the atmosphere, no doubt in order to subvert our civil rights. I'm waiting for him to say that Bush and bin Laden conspired on 9/11.
I need reassurance here. Why is Bill Clinton's wife running aga
February 17, 2007 - 14:21 ET by acaiguanaI need reassurance here. Why is Bill Clinton's wife running again?
ACA
:-)
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Aca,Because a recent poll of
February 17, 2007 - 14:42 ET by NeoConfirmedAca,
Because a recent poll of 100 Michael Moore fan club members told her she should.
BTW, how in the F*** was she misled? She knew the history of Iraq's friendly relations with terrorists (including B-Laden's group) better than George did. She had read all of the intelligence reports, most of which were gathered during her hubby's presidency. The whole 'misled' excuse ranks up their with 1930's German citizens saying that they had no idea where Hitler was sending the Jews.
Neo, that's a good comparison.
February 17, 2007 - 14:48 ET by acaiguanaNeo, that's a good comparison.
Actually, I think you will find that a lot of Germans admitted they knew the Jews were going to 'camps'. They just could never figure out what that 'smell' was all about.
Maybe they were misled?
But actually, the Germans made a big deal out of sending Jews to Poland and other areas outside the 'Germany' of definition.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
I saw a documentary on the Hi
February 17, 2007 - 14:58 ET by NeoConfirmedI saw a documentary on the History Channel awhile back focusing on the knowledge that the average German had of what was going on. Yes, they had suspicions and a certain underground faction was trying to get a movement of protest. However, they did not have the courage to force change and revolt against the Nazis. Adolf painted a pretty picture to the rest of the world (i.e. Olympics in 36) and was a master of anti-semetic propaganda. However, the average citizen did know that Jews were disappearing, whether they agreed or not, and noone stepped forward to stop the madman.
Sounds kind of like the so-called moderates of Islam today, huh?
NeoCon: Hey, that whole thing
February 17, 2007 - 16:27 ET by Dave HighNeoCon: Hey, that whole thing about Iraq being friendly with al-Qaida has been debunked for about two years! The story was made up out of whole cloth by Feith's "Office Of Special Plans" and pushed forth by our beloved Bush administration to lead our country into a war with Iraq. As it turns out, Iraq and al-Qaida were mortal enemies! Sorry you missed it.
Regards, Dave High
High Dave,Glad you dropped in
February 17, 2007 - 16:34 ET by NeoConfirmedHigh Dave,
Glad you dropped in with your normal ray of sunshine. I know that I have to respond quickly because you have a tendency to post and run.
If the connection was debunked years ago, what the hell was B-Laden's VP doing in Iraq at the time of the invasion? Filling up his tank.
NC:I "post and run"
February 17, 2007 - 16:44 ET by Dave HighNC:
I "post and run" because I have been having trouble signing on and staying on with my current Internet connection. Trust me, it bothers me more than it bothers you. I didn't know that al-Qaeda had a VP. His name isn't bin Cheney by chance, is it? Please, lead me to your unimpeachable sources! And they better not have "Office of Special Plans" on the title page.
Regards, Dave High
VP - Villainous Partner, Vile
February 17, 2007 - 16:52 ET by ThisnThatVP - Villainous Partner, Vile Peckerhead. You know, VP! Not VP.
Dave H,No, I don't think he w
February 17, 2007 - 16:56 ET by NeoConfirmedDave H,
No, I don't think he went by that name. I remember something with a Z in it. I have to admit, I stretched it with the VP tag, it was probably something closer to Vice-Murderer. And it just donned on me, he wasn't there for gas, it was the top notch medical care that drew him in.
Regards, NC
"If the connection was d
February 17, 2007 - 17:01 ET by Dave High"If the connection was debunked years ago, what the hell was B-Laden's VP doing in Iraq at the time of the invasion?"
NC: Okay, so you "stretched it with the VP tag." Still and all, show me your incontrovertible proof that anyone connected with bin Laden was in Iraq at the time of the invasion.
Tick ... Tick .... Tick ... Tick ...
Regards, Dave High
"...at the time of the i
February 17, 2007 - 17:11 ET by Roger the Shrubber"...at the time of the invasion..."
Is that the new time-frame?
Roger, they can't get the times on a bumper sticker.
February 17, 2007 - 17:12 ET by acaiguanaRoger, they can't get the times on a bumper sticker.
That's why Dave High doesn't understand what he is talking about.
Dave is pretty much a clone of the Santa Cruz crowd. All bumper sticker but no metal left on the car.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Mr. High,I could e-mail you a
February 17, 2007 - 17:33 ET by NeoConfirmedMr. High,
I could e-mail you a picture of Bin Laden himself rolling in a bed with Saddam in a fit of man love and you wouldn't see a connection. There is no such thing to you as incontrovertible proof. Because you would instantly pull some dribble from the Huff post and present it as fact. Dave, your an exit strategy guy and you've never believed a word from the administration from the get go. You feel that it is impossible for there to be ANY connection of ANY kind. Gee Dave, imagine one terrorist working with another. Blows the mind doesn't it? What do you think Saddam was doing on 9-11, baking cookies or rejoicing in the streets? And I know Dave, in your world, without a photographic connection, without a sample of WMD dropped by your house for inspection or without the complete battle plan in your mail box for approval, this whole thing must be the evil Republicans lying to you.
Because Saddam had nothing to gain from an attack on America. In fact, he and Bin Laden were enemies, right Dave?
"I could e-mail you a pi
February 17, 2007 - 21:12 ET by Dave High"I could e-mail you a picture of Bin Laden himself rolling in a bed with Saddam in a fit of man love ..."
NC: Please do! God, the whole world would love to see that! Where did you get the picture? From the dark recesses of your otherwise normal mind?
Regards, Dave High
C'Mon Dave....You know I stol
February 17, 2007 - 21:36 ET by NeoConfirmedC'Mon Dave....
You know I stole that picture from your gym locker at the YMCA. But you didn't have to write 'I wish I was the ham in this sandwich' at the bottom.
BTW, just out of curiousity, we're you as skeptical about you're government between 92 and 00? Were you outraged about military action in Iraq and Bosnia back then? Or were you not paying as much attention between classes?
I know a lot of good it will
February 18, 2007 - 06:55 ET by Andrew H.I know a lot of good it will do--but Iraq was a likely source for weaponry--you know things that Hussein would have given to al qaeda to use against the US--and he ignored over a dozen UN resolutions concerning his stonewalling inspections. We're in Iraq and attracting many al qaeda to kill. That's war. It's dirty. It's an awful thing. But it has to be as long as al qaeda wants to kill us.
It's difficult for the left to comprehend but it's true. Leave it to our enemy to make war without a response from us and we'll have to endure more attacks. Not a smart strategy.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
My heart was all a-flutter at
February 17, 2007 - 16:59 ET by Roger the ShrubberMy heart was all a-flutter at the notion that Mr. High just might pull off creating two civil posts. But, alas, it was not to be. Crafting two posts in a row without a little anti-Bush rant was a peak too high to climb.
As for Al-Qaeda, they have no "VP" per say, but some sort of "ruling council", which consisted of a couple dozen (now room temperature, probably) members of the gang, who advised Mr. bin Laden. Mr. bin Laden DID have a "chief deputy", whose name I am sure you know: Ayman al-Zawahiri. Are you actually wasting your energy debating "vice-president" versus "chief deputy"?
You win a gold star if you manage to go three posts without using the word "chimp", Dave! Good luck!
Mr. bin Laden DID have a &quo
February 17, 2007 - 17:18 ET by Dave HighMr. bin Laden DID have a "chief deputy"
RTS:
Thanks for your above link to the Ai Arts Institute’s home page. They do have a “Culinary Arts” division. Are you sure you didn’t mean that bin Laden’s Chef Deputy was in Iraq at the time of the invasion, perhaps picking up some tips on Shock and Awe cuisine?
Really, I have come to expect better of you. But for now, since none of the resident GhostBusters can show incontrovertible evidence that neither bin Laden's VP, Chief of Chef was in Iraq at the time of the invasion, I declare this conservative myth officially DEEE-BUNKED!!
Regards, Dave High
"I know how important it is to be able to put food on your family." Chef Bush
Mr. High, I am not defending
February 17, 2007 - 18:12 ET by Roger the ShrubberMr. High,
I am not defending anybody saying Al-Qaeda was physically INSIDE Iraq the moment we invaded. We gave them a year's notice to get out, and if any WERE in the country, I would be surprised. Before today, I had never heard people claiming Al-Qaeda was in Iraq when the US invaded. If that is some huge "Conservative Myth" you are debunking, you are sad. You seem to be hung up on the little things because you have lost the argument when it comes to the big picture. You were pretty much put in your place here today, and squabbling over "VP" and "at the time of invasion" is rather stupid. And the whole "chef" thing? If you got a "culinary arts" webpage when you clicked my link, it was an advertisement, Sparky. There is a button clearly marked at the upper right-hand of the page saying "click here to skip this advertisement". Perhaps you need some lessons using the "interweb". Or lessons in capitalism, perhaps?
I am surpised you are hungry for dinner, after eating so much crow here this afternoon. Enjoy your after dinner toke.
RtS:So you didn’t like my l
February 17, 2007 - 20:08 ET by Dave HighRtS:
So you didn’t like my little joke about bin Laden’s Deputy Chef. I am not surprised. As evidenced by the upcoming Fox News comedy special, conservatives just don’t get humor. Still, you once again have failed to miss (intentionally?) my larger point. NeoCon boldly re-stated the long-since debunked conservative myth and cooked-up reason for war that al-Qaeda and Iraq were in cahoots on 9/11. He embellished this proven falsehood by placing bin Laden’s “VP” in Iraq on the day of the invasion. Why he stretched this implicit falsehood to a greater level of absurdity, I can’t know. What I do know is THAT THERE WAS NO IRAQ/BIN LADEN 9/11 CONSPIRACY as our leaders had repeatedly told us.
Now, in response to this, you linked to a long bio on Zawahir. I agree with you; he was a bad, bad man with terrible intent towards the United States and our allied interests. I studied the lengthy bio in search of any evidence whatsoever that he was in cahoots with Iraq prior to 9/11. As suspected, there was no evidence of this in the “confirming” article you sent me. There was however, this;
“One of the greatest fears of the US intelligence community was that al-Qaeda was trying to develop capabilities to carry out Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear warfare. Zawahiri appears to have been central to an effort to acquire chemical and biological weapons. An April 1999 memo suggests EIJ research the possibility of using non-conventional weapons. He plunged himself into research on the subject and worked closely with an Egyptian scientist Medhat Mursi al-Sayed to research weapons. Satellite imagery and a video acquired by CNN suggest that tests of nerve gas were carried out in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan, you say? You mean to say if we concentrated our efforts in Afghanistan that we could have captured and killed bin Laden and Zawahir, our mortal enemies? Instead we invaded Iraq, itself a mortal enemy of al-Qaeda, and created a breeding ground for terrorists that Zawahir walked into and lead the effort in killing our soldiers? The devil, you say!
You see, Roger, the enduring conservative myth I have once again debunked tonight is that Iraq was somehow in cahoots with al-Queda and responsible for 9/11. This was a cooked-up reason for war by the Bush administration, yet ya’ll still take it on faith that it is true. What will it take to get you to wake up and realize that we attacked the wrong enemy? Just to complete the history lesson for you, please read this CNN article from March 11, 2003 where Saddam and bin Laden separately proclaim their hatred for each other and then ask yourself, why have I consistently allowed myself to be so willingly deceived by my own government?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/Iraq.Qaeda.link/
Regards, Dave High
"If we had a relationship with al Qaeda and if we believed in this relationship, we wouldn't be ashamed to admit it." ~ Saddam Hussein, denouncing al-Qaeda
“In the latest audiotaped message purported to be recorded by the al Qaeda leader, bin Laden denounced Saddam's socialist Baath party as ‘infidels.’” ~ Oops, no secret love affair here!
Let's look closely at your fi
February 17, 2007 - 20:20 ET by NL207Let's look closely at your first point, Dave: You claim that some conservative has argued falsely that there was a conspiracy between Al Qaeda and Saddam pror to 9-11. You cite as evidence our vaunted 9-11 commission, which has repeatedly rejected Czech Republic claims that Mohamed Atta met in Prague with Iraqi intelligence prior to 9-11. "Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross announced last fall that Atta and Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a second consul at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague, had conversed at least once, in April 2001. Gross would not rule out other encounters"
There are only two possible explanations: (1) the Czechs are mistaken (2) the 9-11 Commission is wrong.
Who do you think knows more about what goes on in Prague? The 9-11 Commision or the Czech Government?
It's right if you're left
February 17, 2007 - 21:16 ET by acumenAnd we all have been dutifully instructed that the smartest woman in the world is never wrong;
"He (Saddam) has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..." Her Thighness Oct 10,2002
Dave,Why do you live here and
February 17, 2007 - 20:30 ET by NeoConfirmedDave,
Why do you live here and eat our fish?
After reading your hard hitting CNN report (written by flaming lib Morton), I was almost conviced that Bin Laden and Saddam were sworn enemies.
But when you threw in the quote from Saddam himself, well...
What's next Dave the High and mighty...a quote from Hitler that the Holocaust never happened.
NC:I am not aware that Hitler
February 17, 2007 - 21:05 ET by Dave HighNC:
I am not aware that Hitler ever denied the holocaust. That was left to a very small group of people, after Hitler's demise, who simply couldn't face reality. Remember one modern-day truth, though: He who introduces Hitler first in an unrelated political argument, loses. Raise the white flag, my good man. You just lost the argument.
Regards, Dave High
DH,I wasn't aware that we wer
February 17, 2007 - 21:24 ET by NeoConfirmedDH,
I wasn't aware that we were arguing. As a matter of fact, I was thinking of adding you to my buddy list. But if you say that I've lost, it must be true. To be on the safe side, provide me documented proof including poll data and an exit strategy. An article from the truth seekers at CNN would help as well.
Sure he did, although he didn't use the phrase Holocaust. He was denying (lying) in real time. He told his people that the Jews were being sent where they belonged, out of his country. Big difference between out of the country and a gas chamber.
To a liar of the Clinton pers
February 17, 2007 - 21:31 ET by NL207To a liar of the Clinton persuasion, "out of the country" and "a gas chamber in Poland" can both represent the same place. As long as your country is not Poland, these terms are not in conflict and no "lie" has been told. For a prime example of this technique, see most of Dave High's argumentation today.
NL 207,Good Point....I must l
February 17, 2007 - 21:40 ET by NeoConfirmedNL 207,
Good Point....
I must learn to be more specific when dealing with trolls.
NC:NC:Political argument or p
February 17, 2007 - 21:39 ET by Dave HighNC:
NC:
Political argument or political discussion: what's the difference? “Argument” was meant in the debate sense. The point is if you have to resurrect Hitler to bolster your argument, then you have nothing further to add of current value. It is an emotional “gotcha’” that means in reality, I have nothing more to offer to defend my central thesis. If we were debating, which we are, you would lose on this point.
Regards, Dave High
Thanks Dave.I'm learning so m
February 17, 2007 - 21:59 ET by NeoConfirmedThanks Dave.
I'm learning so much from you tonight. I wasn't aware of the Hitler Debate rule. I will not bring him up again. The last thing that I would ever put upon you is an emotional gotcha.
Who else is off limits because I have so much more to add. Can I mention points such as the fact that numerous reports suggested terrorist organizations were pleased with our elections in November? Could I possibly state that the overwhelming majority of political journalists are democrats and that it's obvious it colors their reporting? Am I allowed to be concerned that the new Speaker of the House is a flaming Liberal from non other than San Francisco?
Or do these consevative talking points automatically lose my argument?
I will admit that I'm a little taken back that you didn't address my buddy list comment. But I will carry on.
Best Regards, NeoConfirmmy
NC: For your edification, ple
February 17, 2007 - 22:12 ET by Dave HighNC: For your edification, please see the link below. We all love and hate Wikipedia, but I don’t think there is much in this article that is contestable, unless you think Goodwin is a Hollywood apparition, or something. I will leave it up to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Regarding Buddy Lists, I don’t have any, being too old to know or care about this Internet technology. Don’t be miffed. A splendid discussion was had by all; at least in my “never to be humble opinion.”
Regards, Dave High
Dave,Good link and point well
February 17, 2007 - 22:34 ET by NeoConfirmedDave,
Good link and point well taken.
However, Goodwin mentioned that both Hitler and Nazi were not allowed.
Would you agree that any democrat who has refered to the President as such would be on the 'Lost the Argument' list?
"Would you agree that an
February 17, 2007 - 23:27 ET by Dave High"Would you agree that any democrat who has refered to the President as such would be on the 'Lost the Argument' list?"
NC: Absolutely, I would agree. Citing Hitler, in any modern-day political discourse, diminishes the meaning of who Hitler was and what we are discussing now. This includes calling Saddam Hussein a “modern-day Hitler,” where I personally believe is a lot of this back and forth nonsense started. Hitler’s sick aberrations were unique to him and his time. Historically, you can’t legitimately relate modern-day events to Hitler. Respect and understand the past, but don’t keep relating current events to Hitler’s world. It just doesn’t work, no matter what side you are on. Goodwin actually settled this in 1990, but the references persist. We should all take a deep breath and relax on the Hitler thing.
Regards, Dave High
Dave High,I believe we have c
February 17, 2007 - 23:37 ET by NeoConfirmedDave High,
I believe we have common ground on this one.
A place we will rarely share.
Your Pal, Neo
NC:Okay and goodnight. I en
February 17, 2007 - 23:53 ET by Dave HighNC:
Okay and goodnight. I enjoyed our discussion. Occasionally, two different-minded people can agree, and that's a good thing. Since a child, I have enjoyed debate. It often went long into the night and it was fun. Ultimately, you can never "prove" who is correct in their beliefs, but if you can have an honest discussion, knowledge moves forward.
Regards, Dave High
NC, I'm not sure facts are al
February 17, 2007 - 22:27 ET by gfrrmanNC, I'm not sure facts are allowed....
Oh. That was a joke? Or a sad
February 17, 2007 - 21:36 ET by Roger the ShrubberOh. That was a joke? Or a sad attempt to save face? I must have no sense of humor. Oh wait, could it be it's because you just aren't funny?
At any rate, your entire rant is based on your claim that Neoconfirmed said that Saddam was involved with 9/11? Where on this thread did this occur? Am I missing something? And who said anything about Zawahiri being involved with 9/11 or Iraq before we invaded? That was a very long post that told us pretty much nothing.
Jesus, Dave, even your President has said repeatedly that Saddam was not behind 9/11. you are debunking nothing here tonight. Get over it.
I still am a little saddened that you would so easily throw into the faces of conservatives that WE armed Saddam in the 1980's to fight Iran, but would find it so hard to believe that Saddam and Al-Qaeda couldn't put their differences aside to fight the "Great Devil"...
anyone else getting the feeli
February 17, 2007 - 21:41 ET by Conservative in the Artsanyone else getting the feeling that Dave High is really David Gregory just blowing off steam here after getting totally blasted by Tony Snow? Same type of language, same type of dumbass comments, same type of arrogance that "critics say"........
It wouldn't surprise me one
February 17, 2007 - 21:45 ET by Free StinkerIt wouldn't surprise me one bit.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing that seperates liberals from conservatives is that liberals are craftier and work without the hinderance of a conscience." --Lynn Wooley
Yeah, I didn't think Dave wou
February 18, 2007 - 09:43 ET by Roger the ShrubberYeah, I didn't think Dave would respond to this.
Well, Dave High with another talking point and no substance.
February 17, 2007 - 16:50 ET by acaiguanaWell, Dave High with another talking point and no substance.
Actually, Dave High, with no sources as usual, but while all evidence shows repeated Iraqi contacts with OBL when he was in the Sudan and Afghanistan and that Saddam did not formally establish a cooperative relationship with him, members of Al Qaeda were in and out of Iraq all the time.
This lack of a 'formal' relationship was the basis for the 9/11 Commission to report that there was 'no basis' for a formal relationship.
But the formality of the relationship is really not important. What is important is that Al Qaeda is currrently in Iraq, as shown here.
And so once again your shallow talking point crap comment about Al Qaeda in Iraq is shown to be misleading, just as you intended it to be.
The issue is that once Al Qaeda was driven from Afghanistan, Iraq was the next logical country for them to harbor in place of Afghanistan. It turns out they had to run all the way to Somalia where they are currently getting killed.
They happen to also be getting killed in Iraq.
Where, Dave High, would you rather they be killed? In Iraq, Somalia or by flying planes into the buildings in our cities here in the US?
Don't bother to answer, I know you would much rather your friends the Terrorist Al Qaeda fly planes into buildings here.
Are you sure you aren't with the Edwards campaign? I heard yesterday he had actually hired Al Qaeda members as staff consultants.
I like the way you want to argue the past when the problems are in the present, such as winning the War in Iraq, but you seem to be invested in the defeat of the US in Iraq. Sorta have to eat a truckload of crow, huh?
By the way Dave, keep on thinking, that's what you are good at.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Actually, Dave High, with no
February 17, 2007 - 17:33 ET by Dave HighDeleted - accidental duplicate post
DH
Actually, Dave High, with no
February 17, 2007 - 17:33 ET by Dave HighActually, Dave High, with no sources as usual, but while all evidence shows …
The Iraq Connection
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed
By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
ACA: Simply astonishing!! To prove your point about “collaborative relationships” between Iraq and Al Qaeda, you linked to the above article? And you say I am all bumper sticker but no metal left on the car? I guess that makes you a hot air balloon in a straight pin factory. One little prick and poof, you're popped!
Regards, Dave High
ACA:Sorry I missed your secon
February 17, 2007 - 17:44 ET by Dave HighACA:
Sorry I missed your second link of evidence of al Qaeda in Iraq. I will give you this, in 2005 when the article was written, al Qaeda had moved into Iraq to create a breeding ground for terrorism. Thank you, George Bush, for creating a great environment for al Qaeda in Iraq.
Now if you will excuse me, I have to go out for dinner. I must say, my little foray with shooting fish in a barrel this evening has made me quite famished! I think I will have the broiled trout tonight.
Regards, Dave High
PS – Yet another conservative myth about the reasons for the Iraq war DEEEE-BUNKED!!!
And there goes Dave High.Mr.
February 17, 2007 - 17:54 ET by NeoConfirmedAnd there goes Dave High.
Mr. Wonderful.
I hope he chokes on his fish!
Actually, they didn't have br
February 17, 2007 - 20:03 ET by Dave HighActually, they didn't have broiled trout on the menu tonight. I did however enjoy the "seared ostrich medallions" in honor of our conservative friends who have their heads in the sand on the issue of global warming.
Regards, Dave High
Well, Dave,My favourite resta
February 17, 2007 - 20:06 ET by BlondeWell, Dave High,
My favourite restaurant has stuffed mushrooms on the menu.
Every time I order it, I think of you.
Zing! "It isn't tha
February 17, 2007 - 20:08 ET by Uncle JohnZing!
"It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Blonde:You should be a comedy
February 17, 2007 - 20:37 ET by Dave HighBlonde:
You should be a comedy writer for the new Faux News Sunday night "comedy" special. From what I have seen, they desperately need you. Stuffed mushrooms. Hah, that's funny! meaningless, but funny. Anytime you want to have a comedy food fight, jest let me know.
Regards, Dave High
"Faux News"...ouch that's got
February 17, 2007 - 20:42 ET by gfrrman"Faux News"...ouch that's gotta hurt...and so original too!!!
Well, my pauvre petit little
February 17, 2007 - 20:50 ET by BlondeWell, my pauvre petit little shroom....
FEAR
February 17, 2007 - 20:55 ET by UnsaneGood to see you still haven't changed, Nightnoise/Dave High. You are still clearly paralyzed by overwhelming, intense, and quite palpable FEAR of one little, tiny cable news network that MIGHT reach 1% of the U.S. population on a busy news day.
Sad, isn't it?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
The Cross of Guilt
February 17, 2007 - 21:43 ET by UnsaneI'd much rather have my head in the sand - from which I can extract myself - over crucifying myself on a cross of First World Guilt as you are so ready to do. It wouldn't be so bad to watch yourself crucify yourself on a cross of guilt - if you weren't so insistent on dragging me down to your personal private Hell.
Tell me something:
1) If global warming is such a global, real threat, please explain why China (the world's #1 GHG emitter in 2015), among others, is EXEMPT from the Kyoto Protocol.
2) Why is tropical deforestation not dealt with anywhere in the Kyoto Protocol? That activity alone is responsible for 20% of greenhouse gas emissions if we are to believe the scientists...
3) What caused Exit Glacier to begin melting in 1780? Was it those damn Brits and their Industrial Revolution?
4) Perhaps you want to tell me why, if global warming is happening, why Houston and San Antonio experienced ice storms this past January. Why, I thought this global warming thing would make them RARER.
5)...or why it SNOWED to the SOUTH and EAST of San Antonio (a city that rarely if ever gets snow!) for Christmas 2004.
6)...or why during the winter of 2005-2006, it snowed in Lisbon and New Delhi.
7)...or why, in July 2006, it snowed in Johannesburg.
8) France gets 78.5% of its energy needs from nukes. This, in spite of the fact it has no permanent disposal site for nuclear waste (only Finland and the United States have such locations)! Why don't Leftists support that laudable goal, in favor of pushing unproven/impractical sources of energy?
I eagerly await your responses. You can't be all that high if weighed down with guilt.
But I also realize my questions will be invalidated by the GW religionist community once they figure out that they were composed in the city of Houston. But do take a shot at them, anyways...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Then please explain this. &qu
February 17, 2007 - 19:45 ET by NL207Then please explain this. "In the summer of 2002, Zarqawi was reported to have settled in northern Iraq, where he joined the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against the Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region"
Zarqawi, as in Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, late leader of Alqaeda in Iraq. What's that date on it? 2002? Isn't that prior to the September 2003 invasion of Iraq? Or does Dave High's calendar run backawards?
The wikipedia is a sucky source, but even those clowns know you are wrong.
NL:I have never read so much
February 17, 2007 - 20:24 ET by Dave HighNL:
I have never read so much un-attributed uncertainty in a single paragraph (see my bolding below). Context my dear friend, context. I know you guys hate Wikipedia because anyone can add their own “facts” to the article, but in this case, I guess that’s okay. Right?
Regards, Dave High
After the September 11 attacks, Zarqawi again traveled to Afghanistan and joined Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters resisting the U.S.-led invasion.[15] He was allegedly wounded in a U.S. bombardment. He moved to Iran to re-organize al-Tawhid, his former militant organization. Later, Zarqawi supposedly traveled to Iraq to have his wounded leg treated at a hospital run by Uday Hussein. In the summer of 2002, Zarqawi was reported to have settled in northern Iraq, where he joined the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against the Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region.[16] He reportedly became a leader in the group, although his leadership role has not been established. According to Perspectives on World History and Current Events (PWHCE), a not-for-profit project based in Melbourne, Australia, "Zarqawi was well positioned to lead the Islamic wing of the insurgency when the March 2003 invasion took place. Whether he remained in Ansar al-Islam camps until April 2003 or laid the preparations for the war during extensive visits to Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle is uncertain, but clearly he emerged as an important figure in the insurgency soon after the Coalition invasion."[17]
The point is, Zarqawi was a f
February 17, 2007 - 20:33 ET by NL207The point is, Zarqawi was a full fledged member of Al Qaeda after he joined them in Afghanistan prior to entering Iraq in 2002. This extinguishes all arguments, including yours, that Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq prior to the September 2003 invasion.
Why do you suppose he was treated in a hospital run by Uday Hussein? Do you suppose he was there without Hussein's knowledge?
If he were unwelcome in Iraq, as many liberals like to claim, then why was he not killed [a favorite Saddam method for eliminating undesireables] or at the least, deported?
NL:The article states, "
February 17, 2007 - 20:53 ET by Dave HighNL:
The article states, "Zarqawi supposedly traveled to Iraq to have his wounded leg treated at a hospital run by Uday Hussein."
Supposedly? By whom? please fill me in, because this unatributed Wikipedia assertion is the centerpeice of your argument. Somehow, because I supect you need to believe it, "supposedly" has morphed into "was know to have" or "was photographed" or "was documented to have." Many people have "supposedly" seen UFOs. Supposedly, Big Foot has been spotted in Alaska. Have you seen UFOs, spotted Big Foot, or have more concrete evidence of Zarqawi and Uday plotting 9/11 in a hospital? Where in Iraq was this hospital, by the way? Isn't it strange to you that, according to the article, Zarqawi was wounded several years before he sought treatment in Uday's hospital? Hmmm. Something seems a little fishy here.
Regards, Dave High
I see you don't care for the
February 17, 2007 - 21:12 ET by NL207I see you don't care for the accuracy of Wikipedia when its used to kick in your teeth, do you?
I never liked it in the first place, but its often the first relevant source that appears in a query results set, and I am lazy.
This source also places Zarqawi in Iraq prior to September 2003, at latest, spring 2003:
"However, at the beginning of 2002, apparently as a result of American pressure, the Iranians closed his bases and arrested more than 20 of his followers. That accelerated his plans to reach northern Iraq and settle in the area controlled by his Islamist Kurdish supporters and to set up two training camps there."
I find it hard to believe it took Zarqawi a year to get to northern Iraq from Iran. Even a camel could have made the trip in less time. I think it an inescapable conclusion he arrived there in 2002.
"In any event, beginning in the spring of 2003 al-Zarqawi appeared as the leader of the jihad in Iraq, against both the US-led coalition and – mainly – against Iraqi civilians and military personnel thought to collaborate with the coalition forces and the new Iraqi régime. Special emphasis was put on the Shiites, with the intention of fomenting a civil war in Iraq "
Although it is more tennuos in his connection to AQ at that time. This same source argues however, that Zarqawi was indeed in Afghanistan, attend Al Qaeda U., and fought against the US there. Some folks would accept this as proof of membership in the AQ Jihad.
Looks like your argument is now finished in spite of any ideas you have to the contrary.
This source also places Zarq
February 17, 2007 - 21:57 ET by Dave HighThis source also places Zarqawi in Iraq prior to September 2003, at latest, spring 2003:
NL:
I do not know anything about your latest source, Dr. Yoram Kahati, and so I will not attempt to impugn him in any way. He does say at the top of his article though that, “As of this writing,3 attempts to determine exact biographical details about al-Zarqawi and his activities meet with extreme difficulty because of the lack of reliable, scholarly data.” (His emphasis, not mine.) I will give him credit for apparent intellectual honesty. So I guess, by your own sourcing, everything in Wikipedia could be lacking reliable, scholarly data. I wonder also, if there is such a paucity of reliable information on al-Zarqawi, how do you know so much about his travels and whereabouts? Doesn’t the Wikipedia article seem bloated with detail that is obviously incomplete in substantiating facts? Don’t you find your second source contradictory of your own central argument?
Regards, Dave High
I would guess that it is not
February 17, 2007 - 22:23 ET by gfrrmanI would guess that it is not reliable because it is not "peer reviewed" then....yeah that's the ticket.
Dave High...What is your prob
February 17, 2007 - 22:29 ET by Clear thinkerDave High...
What is your problem? Do you not care about the GW on terrorism? Would you rather be forced to bow to Mecca or face being beheaded? And for Gods sake, why would you root for us to lose in Iraq?
Exactly whose side are you on???
ClearT,Dave doesn't care eith
February 17, 2007 - 22:45 ET by NeoConfirmedClearT,
Dave doesn't care either way.
He's a man who quotes Saddam in his posts. He refuses to believe there is any possibility of a relationship between Iraq and Al Quada in 2003. He wants proof (i.e. liberal news articles) of this imagined connection. He does not believe that Bin-Laden's second in charge was in Iraq. He feels that the members of the terrorist group behind 9-11, who have been flooding into the country, are only there because of our invasion.
You see, Dave thought this was a bad idea from the start. His connection phobia fits in with his agenda.
NeoC...I fully understand whe
February 17, 2007 - 22:50 ET by Clear thinkerNeoC...
I fully understand where he's coming from, I was just wanting to see if he was able to see the big picture.
Folks like Dave High can't see the truth through their blinders, and all the info in the world won't change their mind. They would rather see us lose this battle so their grandchildren have to fight it.
You are either fool or a glut
February 17, 2007 - 23:29 ET by NL207You are either fool or a glutton for punishment. I do not care which. I only wish to drub your asinine liberal arguments so far into the ground that you will need to speak Chinese to get helped out of your hole.
The are probably 50 or more publicly accessible references that place Zarqawi on the battlefield in Afghanistan in behalf of AQ and the Taliban in early 2002, and then in Iraq. Of course, you must doubt them all so that you can continue to believe the lefts version of events.
This source: "In February 2003, al-Zarqawi's name was mentioned on a worldwide stage for the first time, associated with Iraq, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the U.N. Security Council to make his case for the U.S. invasion of Iraq."
places Zarqawi in in Iraq before February 2003.
This Source: "Zarqawi's whereabouts in 2002 often were difficult to pin down, although Western and Arab intelligence agencies said that he moved frequently and with relative ease among Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, expanding his network.
Powell, in his speech to the United Nations, said Zarqawi arrived in Baghdad in March 2002 for medical treatment and stayed for two months "while he recuperated to fight another day." During his convalescence, Zarqawi was joined by a dozen followers who moved money, supplies and al-Qaeda-affiliated fighters throughout Iraq, Powell added.
About the same time, Jordanian authorities indicted Zarqawi in absentia for his role in the millennium plot. Jordanian investigators had followed his trail to Iraq and tried to persuade Saddam Hussein's government to extradite him.
"There is proof that he was in Iraq during that time," a Jordanian security official said. "We sent many memos to Iraq during this time, asking them to identify his position, where he was, how he got weapons, how he smuggled them across the border.""
Places Zarqawi in Iraq in 2002 and 2003.
This source says: "After the Taliban's fall he fled to Iraqi Kurdistan, where local informants told the US about him and his jihadists."
This source is unequivocal: " In April or May 2002, the Iranians passed Zarqawi across the border into Iraqi Kurdistan, and the camps of Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaeda-backed Islamic terrorist organisation led by Mullah Krekar. Iran is believed to have supported Ansar al-Islam as a way of undermining the larger, secular Kurdish parties. "
Given that just about all of these sources say that at some point, Zarqawi was (a) trained in Afghanistan at AQ U. and received money from AQ while in Iraq, it is impossible to argue convincingly that he was not at all affiliated with Al Qaeda. Moreover, they all place him in Iraq prior to the Spetember 2003 invasion.
Enjoy your hole, Dave.
Wikipedia and Dave High.
February 18, 2007 - 07:29 ET by acaiguanaWikipedia and Dave High.
Well, I see you caved on my points, so I'll deal with you on this point.
Two problems associated with Wikipedia - 1) anyone with any agenda can modify or add to its entries. 2) Wikipedia relies on readers to point out errors of fact.
The first problem allows Al Qaeda operatives (absurd possibly but real) to make entries. The second problem allows bad stuff to stay in it. Now, there is a lot of generic stuff in Wikipedia that is pretty solid.
For example, the earth is not flat.
But there is a lot of stuff, particularly stuff associated with the War in Iraq that is simply in error, politically motivated and slanted to an anti-Bush/War point of view.
So, Dave High, when you often almost without fail cut and past entire pages of the Wiki on this site it doesn't bolster either your research capabilities, your mental rigor, or even your information judgment skills.
Which brings us to bumper sticker mentalities again.
You make a great point about people using sources that seemingly contradict their assertions, but these same sources have been twisted in quoted MSM articles to the degree that in many cases the source when consulted is so different from the 'bumper sticker' phrase that one wonders how that MSM representation came about.
Sort of like your representations on this site; quoting sources incompletely that ignore the crux of the story. Is this what you want people to believe about your thinking skills Dave High? That only that fragment of a source supporting your incorrrect cite of the source is true?
I've chided you before about this issue. The tendency you have to misrepresent the source itself.
Just because, for example, the 9/11 commission could find no formal relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda you assume no relationship existed and since that fits your agenda of painting Bush the fool and liar, you look no deeper.
We were all concerned about whether Bush is in fact a 'liar'. Primarily because the idea that a President of the United States would deliberately mislead the Public into a War with no 'relevance' to the War on Terror.
So, we researched the issue. So did Congress.
The Office of Special Plans, which you are now so fond of quoting as having been a propaganda 'whole cloth' factory was not found to have engaged in anything 'illegal' by Congress. If in fact the President and this office had deliberately created 'whole cloth' intelligence estimates, would you not agree that this would lead immediately to the impeachment of the President? I would think so and since the story died in 24 hours (except in your limited presentation of the facts) I would tend to think most everyone right of a loony toon character agrees.
You need to really rethink how you present yourself here Dave High. The bumper sticker stuff ain't working out too well for you, huh?
As I brutally demonstrated to you in my posts using the WaPo as a source, you need to read the entire story before jumping out and calling Bush a liar over Al Qaeda in Iraq. He was only presenting the case for War in the most convincing way he could because he believed, as many believed and still believe, that Iraq is a key part of the War against Terror.
But more importantly Dave High, is your need to continue to go back in time when discussing the war and blame what has been proven as incomplete and faulty intelligence alone for this war. No intelligence is ever perfect and one might even say no intelligence is better than any MSM reporting on any event.
We need to concentrate on victory in Iraq. The future of the Iraqi people depends on the United States as well as its own government now. To undermine that government in progress and to undermine the United States' effort in Iraq is to undermine our security and our freedom.
This is a serious war Dave High. It will determine your future. To be against war in general is fine; but to undermine and deny your own country the chance for success by consistent and brutal attacks on the President and his Administration in the time for war simply for personal political power seeking is insideous.
That's it for me with you, Dave High.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."