I know what you're referring to hence this phrase " liberal" media is officially impartial though subconsciously less so. Again, Judy Miller, the willing participation of the all major media outlets in beating the drums of war, etc etc etc, the Clinton feeding frenzy....all of these phenomenon seem to undercut the notion that a liberal media shapes the hard news content in any significant way.
Shouldn't it be "liberal" television and newspaper? Most of the radio talk stuff is pretty conservative. Just an observation.
So if there is new evidence that means the White House deliberately withheld information from the panel or the White House is blowing smoke and there is no more evidence. This story has died news wise.
Yes, the Washington Post buried this on page 13 of section A. Apparently the Weekly Standard *is* the source of the evidence. It's better than the CIA and FBI put together, at least when they agree with the White House. edit(Amazingly enough, this is the same mistake the White House made with that Czech connection...) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58899-2004Jun21.html Al Qaeda Link To Iraq May Be Confusion Over Names By Walter Pincus and Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, June 22, 2004; Page A13 An allegation that a high-ranking al Qaeda member was an officer in Saddam Hussein's private militia may have resulted from confusion over Iraqi names, a senior administration official said yesterday. Former Navy secretary John Lehman, a Republican member of the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said Sunday that documents found in Iraq "indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al Qaeda." Although he said the identity "still has to be confirmed," Lehman introduced the information on NBC's "Meet the Press" to counter a commission staff report that said there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no "collaborative relationship." Yesterday, the senior administration official said Lehman had probably confused two people who have similar-sounding names. . . .
Oops! You'd think with the sheer volume of stories about WMD's having been found and Al Qaeda links at least one of them would be right. How many times can they get this stuff wrong? Somebody should make a list.
Think about this... Why would conservatives defend their administration no matter what? Well, if Bush convinces congress to authorize and declare war on another country. It better be for accurate reasons. And those reasons must be clear; not muddled within innuendo, assumptions and fears (or other agendas). If it becomes evident that there were errors in judgment on the decision to go to war...well, politics will come into play in order to confuse, distract and mislead. If those deceptions succeed, then actions of that administration can be "justified" in the eyes of the people. Even though it's only perception. Not the truth. I'm sure that there are some conservatives out there that would take deception over truth. Come on now... I know you're out there. Anything to defend the prez, right? Anyways, demonizing in politics is very easy when the people really don't understand who the enemy is. It's just that "big bogey-man" out there called: terrorism! Sigh... Anyways, I'll always be a skeptic when it comes to administrations and politics. It's too easy for them to lie; since they have the power.
Fair to call me a conservative?! I do not feel at all deceived. President Bush had me with the "I'm tired of swatting at flies" kind of thinking. I NEVER thought Saddam had much, if anything, to do with 9/11. I do imagine that he celebrated though, and that's enough to can his ass in my book. If I've said it once, I've said it a dozen times: invading Iraq is not about revenge for 9/11; it's about a foothold in the Middle East to facilitate stability in the region. Yes, it's tougher than anticipated... so what? We've gotten less support than we needed. Press on. If this were Gore's War, I'd be supporting him in the American Effort. So, are you implying that Terrorism is a bogeyman? As much as I hate to say it, this country will probably be targeted in the future for some kind of terror strike that could well be worse than 9/11. These terroristic enemies are patient and cunning. What will you say then? Are you denying the evidence that they have been continually trying to find a way to do harm again? Is it not inevitable that they will one day again succeed?
giddyup, do you believe in "an eye for an eye?" Would you kill for God? Really? What's that WMD talk about? What's that Iraq-Al-qaida link talk about? Deception, or just politics? Or are they the same? No, I'm saying that this President likes to broad-brush everything to keep you afraid, in order to achieve his agenda; regime change. WMD and 9/11 links are just tools used to convince you by fear. What would happen if he just came out and said, "We need to topple Saddam because we need to gain foothold in the Middle East to facilitate stability in the region" before 9/11 happened? Kinda sounds like empire building, doesn't it. Sure, sounds nice a tidy. But not when it's your land that's being occupied. I wish you could live in some foreign country. Maybe half your family gets killed by US bombs (regime change)...I guess you would just brush it off as just something that's necessary, huh? Remember, 9/11 was just a catalyst for this decision to go to war. It was necessary for Bush to make the link because it makes the idea of regime change easier to digest for the American people. Without it, well, it's just invasion. You forget that words like "stability" "foothold" and "facilitate" sound nice on some risk assessment manual. But when you put it in action...well, it has a great human cost.
President Bush had me with the "I'm tired of swatting at flies" kind of thinking. I'd thought you supported the war before Clarke's and Rice's testimony to the 9/11 commission. But if you just mean that thinking in general, I agree swatting at Osama was insufficient. But attacking a whole other guy in a whole other country instead of dedicating our resources and blood and treasure to catching or killing Osama is an even dumber strategy than swatting at him. Instead of swatting at the terrorists, we invaded a country that had nothing to do with them. I'm tired of losing to the Kings and Mavericks and Lakers and Spurs, but since they're hard to beat, let's develop a strategy against the Hawks and call it a war on a championship. I heard their owner enjoyed our loss to the Lakers. That's enough reason to focus the bulk of our resources on developing ways to beat them by more points than we already do all the time. I NEVER thought Saddam had much, if anything, to do with 9/11. Amazingly, a great many supporters of the war did. Now that they're finding out it's not true their numbers are shrinking dramatically. I do imagine that he celebrated though, and that's enough to can his ass in my book. We should sacrifice nearly 1,000 American lives to invade countries whose leaders celebrate our misfortune? If that's the standard we're gonna have to have a whole lot more wars. There are more countries that don't like us every day. If I've said it once, I've said it a dozen times: invading Iraq is not about revenge for 9/11; it's about a foothold in the Middle East to facilitate stability in the region. Yes, it's tougher than anticipated... so what? We've gotten less support than we needed. Press on. We've never in our modern history had as much international support as we did after 9/11, back when French newspapers were running banner headlines saying "We're All Americans Now." We've never had less world support than we do now, after and because of the Iraq war. If this were Gore's War, I'd be supporting him in the American Effort. Gore never would have entered into this war. He might have done a lot of other unfortunate things, but none this arrogant or reckless. Neither would Bush I, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Carter, LBJ, Kennedy and on and on. So, are you implying that Terrorism is a bogeyman? No. That Iraq was. We should have been going after terrorists instead. As much as I hate to say it, this country will probably be targeted in the future for some kind of terror strike that could well be worse than 9/11. I agree. That's why we should have gone after terrorists instead of non-terrorists. These terroristic enemies are patient and cunning. I agree. That's why we should attack them instead of Iraq. What will you say then? I will say I told you so. I will say why have nearly 1,000 Americans died (not to mention the money spent) in Iraq when we should have been hunting actual terrorists instead. Are you denying the evidence that they have been continually trying to find a way to do harm again? No. That's why we should stop them instead of someone who's not a threat to us at all. Is it not inevitable that they will one day again succeed? Yes. Rinse. Repeat.
Originally posted by DavidS giddyup, do you believe in "an eye for an eye?" Would you kill for God? <b>No I don't believe in "an eye for an eye." I would kill only for human reasons, i.e. self-defense or safety.</b> Really? What's tha WMD talk about? What's that Iraq-Al-qaida link talk about? Deception, or just politics? Or are they the same? <b>Are you forgetting who started all of this conversation? Critics. That WMD's exist(ed) is beyond question. That they had been used is historically factual. That the term WMD has come to to mean Nuclear Weapons is a manipulation of the first order. Hey, deception is Play #1 in Politics.</b>
I've got to leave soon for an early meeting, but I want to address a couple of Batman's points. I'll try to get back to it later: If beating the Hawks somehow makes beating the Laker, Mavs, Kings and Spurs more likely, I'm all for it. Oh yeah, it does. Some1000 Americans sacrificed their lives for this cause; we did not sacrifice them. After 9/11 we had international sympathy. "Rinse, repeat?" Don't forget "Hang 'em out to dry!"
I've got to leave soon for an early meeting, but I want to address a couple of Batman's points. I'll try to get back to it later: If beating the Hawks somehow makes beating the Laker, Mavs, Kings and Spurs more likely, I'm all for it. Oh yeah, it does. I don't really agree, but it was a bad analogy. A better one would be, having failed to beat the Lakers we work up a plan against the Sparks. Or John Stockton. Or that guy that cut us off in traffic. Some1000 Americans sacrificed their lives for this cause; we did not sacrifice them. Those near 1,000 dead didn't decide whether or not to sacrifice their lives for this particular cause. They agreed to risk their lives to protect America. This war wasn't about that, because all evidence shows Iraq wasn't a threat. I think the people who joined the military to risk their lives in the cause of invading countries whose leaders "probably" celebrated 9/11 are probably relatively few. After 9/11 we had international sympathy. Yes, and after a war that majorities in every country aside from ours, Britain and Israel opposed (Back then anyway. Now majorities in America and Britain now oppose it too.) we have international scorn instead. Considerably less effective than sympathy -- or rather, empathy -- in the war on terror. "Rinse, repeat?" Don't forget "Hang 'em out to dry!" I don't even know what that means. And when are you going to address some of my points? That wasn't it, was it?
Regime change (Neocon Vision): What does that mean? Well, lots of things. US Legitimacy, Middle East stability to surrounding countries (namely, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Israel), economic subversion (France, China and Russia's oil contracts with Iraq), and to facilitate an economic connection with the region in order to achieve globalization (free-markets). Now, the question is...How to achieve this? Who makes the decisions? What do we do? Do we do anything? If so, how? Would the truth hurt us? Or is deception better? Some feel that military force is the only way (Vietnam). Some feel that economic force is the only way (U.S.S.R; Cold War). Some feel that it's about Christians vs Muslims (Crusades). Some feel that it's secularism vs fundamentalism (money vs religion). Some feel that cultural change is the only way (West vs Middle-East). There are lots of ways...not just one way.
True. The way I see it is that the military personnel put themselves in harms way by choice. They make the decision to possibly sacrifice (selflessly) their lives in order defend their country. This matters not what period we are in. Whether it's 1917, 1941, 1950, 1965, 1991, or 2003....the (volunteer) military frame-of-mind doesn't change. Now, it's Congresses and the American people's job (civilians) to make sure that this blind loyalty (our military men and women) is not misused! That they are not put in harms way for hidden agendas. This would be a misappropriation of lives. What really makes me mad is that some rich-elite like to put other people's children in harms way, but not their children. This is not WWII folks. Back then nearly half of Congress had children that fought in the war. Today, only one congress member does.
Another proposed connection bites the dust. Actually I don't mind an administration looking at intel and forming ideas and guesses about assumptions. The only problem is that this administration didn't investigate to see if their theories were correct. They used those theories to START a war. Now people have died in thousands, billions of dollars have been spent from an overdrawn budget, and we don't really see an end in sight. And so far the administration has been wrong. This administration keeps trying to put out bogus information(Niger nuke purchase) then when they are called on their own misdeed they attack the person called them on it(Felony committed in the Valerie Plame deal.)
I was just listening to NPR this morning, and they had some CIA folks on there talking about how the name of the Iraqi and the name of the al-Qaeda guy aren't even the same name. Only parts of it are the same. They said the CIA had received this information before, investigated it, and found that it was not a connection. They seemed surprised that the administration would now try and introduce this piece of already debunked intel as evidence to the commission. Earlier in this thread the question was asked some people seem so eager to discount the evidence showing an operational link between al-Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq. I guess that a reason that I'm skeptical is that the administration does things like this and offers up info that is known not to be connected. When the commission asks for any other evidence showing a connection the administration is not helping out by showing evidence that has no connection. It makes people who are willing to look for the truth skeptical. When dealing with an administration that is handing out information known not to be relevant, and claiming it's relevant then one should take anything they try and present on the matter with a huge grain of salt. This latest piece of info wasn't an example of bad intel. It was an example of the administration not listening to what was said about the faulty intel and using it anyway, or listening to what was said and hoping to pull one over on us. Either way this is only the latest step to add to the administration's credibility problem. If you would like to hear the story you may go to the link above and listen to the audio of it.
Hmmm, I wonder if there are any high ranking officers in the Saudi Arabian or Pakistani military that are members of, or have "ties", "links", or "connections" to Al Qaeda. Just curious.
Maybe yes maybe no. But I wonder if there are any that have similar names to those in Al-Qaeda. That's all it really takes, apparently.
seems more than Iraq... New al Qaeda cell leader trained with Saudi military RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) -- The man most likely to take over leadership of al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia reportedly trained with the Saudi military and worked as a prison guard before joining Muslim militants in Afghanistan. While set back by the death of previous leader Abdulaziz al-Muqrin, mastermind of the kidnapping and beheading of American engineer Paul M. Johnson Jr., al Qaeda remains able to strike at the Saudi government because of men such as Saleh Mohammed al-Oufi. According to Saudi newspapers and several terror analysts Monday, al-Oufi is a logical choice to replace al-Muqrin. Saud Musaibeeh, a public relations official at the Interior Ministry, refused to comment on the possibility al Qaeda had a new leader in the kingdom. Al-Oufi is fifth on the Saudi government list of most-wanted terrorists. Two of those above him on the list, including No. 1 al-Muqrin, are dead. A third, Rakan Mohsin Mohammed al-Saikhan, was believed wounded and arrested in the shootout with Saudi security forces in which al-Muqrin was killed Friday, hours after his cell announced it had killed Johnson. The fourth, Kareem Altohami al-Mojati, may not be considered the right man to lead a Saudi cell because he is Moroccan. According to reports in Saudi papers closely linked to the government, al-Oufi, believed to be in his late 30s, received military training in Riyadh before joining the kingdom's prison guard unit. He worked as a guard in the prison in Medina, near his hometown, before he was fired in 1992, apparently for misconduct. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/21/alaoofi.ap/index.html
I am not the rich elite. I have two nephews currently in the military-- by their choice... since 9/11 erupted. Question: according to your deconstruction of the career choices of the sons and daughters of US Congressmen and Congresswomen, the US can fight no more wars? Is that what you mean to conclude?
