No blood for oil! Bush lied-people died! Shredding the constitution! Torture! Not in our name! Fire cannot melt steel!

Sincerely,

American Idiot

I agree 100%. President Bush never said Sadam was involved in 9/11. He didn't even say Saddam was an imminent threat to the US. He said we cannot wait for Saddam to become an imminent threat, because by then, it is too late.

We know Al Quada was in Germany, Spain, England, Indonesia, Japan, Africa, France, Saudi Arabia, everywhere. But for some reason, the lefties believe they were everywhere BUT Iraq. It makes no sense. Of course. ww

The usual moonbats will cite polls when the polling data favors their world view. Otherwise, you hear

At the very bottom of that poll:

25% Republican
35% Democrat
34% Independent
3% No party/Not interested in politics
*% Other party
3% Don't know

"...The overall margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting surveys can also introduce error or bias to poll results."

Then the "results" are gleefully posted on a liberal blog with super-imposed images of a Bush/Pinocchio effigy. Though the smallest sampling was from people who clearly identified themselves as Republicans (aside from the negligible "Don't Know" and "No party/Not Interested in Politics") it's naturally assumed, through the constant accusations of Republicans lock-stepping with Bush and all his "lies", that the 41% is largely, if not all, Republicans and Independents who identify with them.

Sweet!

Will anyone ever address the possibility that Saddam/Iraq was involved in the OKCity attacks? Farfetched? Not if you read the Third Terrorist, by Jayna Davis?

Will anyone ever address the possibility of a cover up by our federal govt? The 1st FBI APB after the bombing was for a 'middle eastern' looking man whcih was rescinded hrs later.

I have friends who cite the text of the authorization for the use of force against Iraq as clear evidence that Bush tied Saddam to 9/11. They can't explain how this one obscure text no one ever saw could have done that (at least no one ever saw it before it was listed as one of Bush's lies by his enemies) and you practically have to diagram the sentences for them for them to see that it doesn't say what Bush's enemies claim it does, but it's still impossible to convince them it's not evidence of the lie.

The only friend who can clearly articulate why he thinks Bush lied about Saddam and 9/11 when he knows Bush never said anything of the sort is one who's convinced that the Administration's attempts to show Saddam was connected to terrorists in general was designed to delude the public into thinking that meant he was involved in 9/11, too. He's convinced that it worked as they intended because so few people actually pay attention to what politicians say. Trying to talk him out of it is hopeless.

In the end, I'm convinced that the real source of this confusion is the Democrat's technique of rejecting Bush or the White House or the GOP's claim of X, when none of the above ever claimed X. They say that Bush has no proof that Saddam was involved in 9/11 often enough that people become convinced Bush claimed he was. That still doesn't explain the 70% poll results, though.

And I simply can't understand why people get so fascinated with any of them.

C'mon Jay, surley you could see the fascination in some one getting accidentally stuck in a jail-house shower with Paris Hilton?

Jay parses his lies carefully, just like the Bush administration.

Notice that Jay says Bush didn't lie, instead of the administration didn't lie. The fact is, Cheney tried his darndest to make America believe there was a connection. Bush even had to correct Cheney publicly, but the persistent efforts of the administration to lie to the American public, about WMDs, about yellow-cake uranium, about those nefarious 'aluminum tubes', were successful in creating in the public's mind -- as this survey shows -- that there was a connection.

(published 9/18/2003

Distancing himself from remarks by Vice President Cheney, President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- disputing an idea held by many Americans. [...]

[Money quote - write this one done kiddies] Critics have said the administration has tried to create the impression of Saddam's involvement in the attacks, without directly making such a claim, in order to boost public support for the war against Iraq.

On Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney said that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC's "Nightline," White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons Mr. Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged."

In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in a Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.

"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied.

Mr. Bush defended his No. 2.

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11," he said. "What the vice president said was is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."

Despite such assertions, the administration has never proved a prewar link between Saddam and the terrorist network.

What Cheney said:

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don't know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93. And we've learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in '93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know.

Cheney was eager to say we didn't know, and then to give reasons that supported a connection -- when he knew damn well that "No, there's no connection" was the full and correct answer.

Well, the President set the record straight shortly thereafter - we DO know there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11, but as you can see Cheney was only too eager to let people believe there was...

And when asked the direct question - Was Saddam involved in 9/11 - rather than giving the correct answer - No, Saddam wasnt involved - Cheney says "We don't know" (when we did know) and then goes on to provide supporting evidence to suggest Saddam WAS involved.

Here's the MSNBC transcript of the interview with Cheney.

Now I'm sorry but I can't stay and entertain the preschoolers that comprise your readership, Jay, but I have a real blog to attend to - so I'll leave you and your trolls to parse more of your carefully worded lies and lies by omission.

Have a nice day! Give your little rubber ducky a squeeka from me.

btw - Here's the caption from the photo on the blog post Jay linked to:

(photo caption: President Bush is depicted with a long nose on a carnival float during the traditional carnival parade in Duesseldorf, western Germany, on Monday, Feb. 23, 2004. The writing on Bush's nose reads: Iraq possess weapons of mass destruction (AP Photo/Frank Augstein))

Lee, stop your LYING!!!!!

I own a beanie duckie. I also live near about 50 real ducks. I do not own a rubber duckie, nor have I ever. When will you stop your LIES!!!!!?

And have fun over at your "real" blog. No need to rush back here.

Ever.

J.

Bush not only didn't say that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11, I seem to recall that he positively asserted that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 - more than once.

This is like the leftist lie that Bush said the Iraq War or the W.O.T. would be easy. Both he and his surrogates emphatically stated just the opposite; that it would be long-fought and hard.

Saddam's Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. Period.
==================================

See? That's just funny. Lee Ward is the one who will get all literal and stuff in saying that, even though they want to use the gov't to enforce 'fairness', it's not censorship but who isn't so literalist when it comes to parsing bullshiit out of thin air.

That's why I love Lee. It's a naked partisan pretending to be an intellectual who usually resorts to name calling after its 'points' are demolished.

And when asked the direct question - Was Saddam involved in 9/11 - rather than giving the correct answer - No, Saddam wasnt involved - Cheney says "We don't know" (when we did know) and then goes on to provide supporting evidence to suggest Saddam WAS involved.

An al Qaeda runner shows up in Bagdad meets with Saddam and is given cash to help fund al Qaeda before 9/11, thus establishing a link between Saddam and 9/11. Is such an event plausible? Very much so. Did it happen? We don't know and no one can prove it didn't happen. Cheney's answer was exactly correct. Had Cheney answered with an emphatic "no" that would have been incorrect.

The fault is in the question, not the answer. The correct question would have been "Do you know of any involvement Saddam had with 9/11?" To which Cheney could have responded with a simple "no".

Claiming this exchange proves Cheney lied instead proves those making that claim lied, and have done so repeatable. Why then should I accept anything else they say on the issue?

Lee you are so stupid....

Date of your link? 9/18/2003

Date we went into Iraq? 3/20/2003

Other than that, you make a great point.

Moron.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don't know.

Only a thoroughly dishonest liberal like Lee could assert that this is a positive statement by Cheney that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

You know, I always thought Lee was intellectually dishonest, prone to far-fetched interpretations and impossibly obtuse, but I thought that was as bad as it could get. Boy was I wrong. Since he's been given a [sarcasm]real blog[/sarcasm] which gives him a position to be headlined, rather than just buried in a comment section, he has become a monster. He thinks it has lent him more legitimacy when the more apt analogy would be that he has enthusiastically grabbed the rope with which to hang himself.

It would be funny if it wasn't so awful. Wait ...

nevermind. It IS funny.

Libby's brief seeking bail during appeal was filed yesterday. To my mind, the most important part of the three points used for appeal is the preclusion of Andrea Mitchell's testimony. She is the one who said that everyone knew about Plame, and she is most likely to impugn Russert's testimony that Plame couldn't have come up in his conversation with Libby, and that is the discrepancy on which Libby's conviction stands. If it can be shown, as it will, that Russert lied on the stand, then the whole charade by NBC comes falling down, and we have a chance to get to the truth of the matter.

The other two points were the exclusion of a memory expert and the constitutionality of Fitz's appointment. If the first carries, Libby will get a new trial. If the second carries, I suspect the whole shebang will be thrown out, and we may never get to the truth. I'm convinced Fitz was unconstitutionally appointed but if it goes that route, we may never learn the truth of the matter.
==================================

heh- good point Mac but logic will get you nowhere with that idiot

"Any" involvement and "direct" involvement are two different things. I do believe that Saddam was involved with (supported) Al Qaeda and thus indirectly involved in 9/11. The question is usually parsed with the word "directly."

I am still down with "Let's Roll" and my support for the war has not waned one iota.

The media is making much of an effort to really present anything about the threat of Saddam or pre invasion Iraq in a remotely responsible way. Over the past few years as I've managed www.regimeofterror.com and tried following up with reporters from the AP and NEWSWEEK and others and actually talked to these people on the phone it's stunning how little they really know on the subject (like "Who is Izzat al Douri or Abdul Rahman Yasin?" they'd say). Saddam's terrorist links were once common knowledge and now taboo for these people, they stopped being journalist some time ago and chose to simply pick a side in this, for better or worse, and that side is to report on only the reasons why we shouldn't have gone into Iraq (thus the focus on supposedly faulty prewar intel, the death counts, trying to whitewash Saddam, etc.).

What's also funny about that poll is that only 20 percent of the public is aware that ANY WMD's have been found in Iraq when NEWSWEEK themselves reported that OVER 800 shells (either filled with Sarin, vx, Mustard or something) had been found in Iraq (usually by troops and not inspectors) and didn't find this part of their poll odd. I hate to keep harping on the media bias but these people only find it odd if the public has bent to their reporting and believe something else.

Wow, so is Mr. Ward asserting enough people saw Cheney say "We don't know", cite some "alleged" incidents, and repeat more than once "but we have no evidence..." on "Meet the Press" that 70% of the whole population to instantly believed that meant Saddam was responsible for 9/11?

Foolish preschooler me, it sounds like Cheney was giving an objective description of what the bipartisan Senate report on Iraq said. Live and learn, I guess.

So Cheney, by telling the established facts straight out, mananged to convincingly lie while not saying what he enemies claim he said. Damn. I thought only Karl Rove was that good. I mean, evil.

Another Thread Where Lee Talks Too Much But Says Too Little

I'll tell you what pisses me off and that is that Lee can see that the Union effort to block secret ballots was 'greasy' but still rejoices at the plan to Stalinistically propagandize the workers about Republicans opposing elections. This is a corrupt as one can get.

Well, no, probably not.
======================================

Paul,
Thank you for pointing out Lee's attempt at misdirection. He was hoping that no one would notice that the statement the VP made came well after the invasion, not before. Of course, the fact that the VP was talking about "stabilizing" Iraq was a dead giveaway about the timing of it.

Lee said, "[Money quote - write this one done kiddies] Critics have said the administration has tried to create the impression of Saddam's involvement in the attacks, without directly making such a claim, in order to boost public support for the war against Iraq."

Because everyone knows that if critics said it, it must be true.

An amazing number of lies have been told to diminish public support for the war, and they started with Joe Wilson, Val Plame, Jay Rockefeller, and John Kerry at the May, '03 Senate Democratic Policy Committee meeting.
===================================

Hey Lee you moron can you freaking read????

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

Did you read that?

You just tried to prove that Cheney caused people to believe that 41% of the people believe the connection because of his comments on Meet the Press....

But at the time (duh before his comments) 69% believed in the connection.

So Cheney (by your logic) must be responsible for the DECREASE.

You stupid stupid moron.

wee wee lee lee wardie over at bluie has to come over here to get someone to look at his name (snicker snort). Over at "bluie", he has to comment on his own post to show any comments at all. Go take a look. 99.9% of the comments are from "Lee Ward", "Paul Hamiltom" or "Larkin". It is amazing that they have time to come over here and spread their crap. (snicker snort) Now you know why the present liberals in Congress are trying to get a "fairness bill" passed. YOU CANNOT GET ANYONE TO LISTEN TO A LIBERAL for over 5 seconds at a time.- snort snicker- Even if it passed how the hell do they think that would make anyone listen to them? Do they not know that a radio has a dial. (shouldn't have asked that as it is self-evident). Just like Jay says, gheezz, how could anyone be so dumb.

Another Thread Where Lee Talks Too Much But Says Too Little

If you've ever been polled, you quickly realize that the answer to the poll has been preordained. The pollsters never give you the choice that best explains your position. Example: would you like to die by (a) hanging, (b) a handgun (c) being beheaded?

They get their answer and the media hypes it. Polls don't mean squat.

Push polls are a propaganda technique, and you can smell it, COgirl.
==========================

Three things:

1) Good job Lee! I think Lee proved that Bush's gang actively encouraged people to doubt the fact that Saddam had nothing what so ever to do with 9/11.

2) If you guys hate Wizbang Blue so much why don't you devest yourselves from it, or shut it down?

3) Kudos to Jay for using an Underpants gnome analogy.

I just want to say...Hoo Haa to Jeff Blogsworthy...I am with you brother...When all else fails quite a few us will still be defending and fighting against these Islamofasit...America is well worth everything we have and more...911 taught me that if nothing else...I always say I'll be come an army of one, should our "Leaders" decided to run from the battle; and then I run across true blues like yourself...I refuse to allow these thugs to take over my home land and will fight until death before I every let them convert me...My support for the war has not waned either, and by the grace of God, as long as necessary, never will...Any one who shows common cause with these a--holes has my scorn...I don't care if they were involved directly or inidirectly with 9/11...Siempre Fi my brother...Godspeed...Now "Let's Roll"...