the truth.

[pinkerton]

i love al franken.

[Paul Tao]

i find him quite hilarious.

[Broken Parachute]

He's kinda odd. That's why he's funny.

[getupkid53]

I can stomach him in doses. He's a minnesota boy. i wouldn't mind seeing him running for office up here. I enjoy the humor he brings to politics, but sometimes his politics just seem off the wall.

[Justin_stacy]

I can stomach him in doses. He's a minnesota boy. i wouldn't mind seeing him running for office up here. I enjoy the humor he brings to politics, but sometimes his politics just seem off the wall.

boy if that doesn't some up whats wrong with the left........

[getupkid53]

yeah, I'm sure you have a great idea of who our senator is up here. Did I ever say I wanted him to win. I said I wouldn't mind seeing him run. Take your head out of your ass before you hurl insults. Dick.

[Justin_stacy]

yeah, I'm sure you have a great idea of who our senator is up here. Did I ever say I wanted him to win. I said I wouldn't mind seeing him run. Take your head out of your ass before you hurl insults. Dick.

Well at least you're bright enough to understand it was an insult.......although it's still quite sad that people "up there" are so far gone that they’d want a fanatic like Stuart to run. Hey you guys should start your own ticket Stuart Smalley and Ted Rall for office, a propagandist and a racist on one ticket! That is the new left isn’t it?

I can honestly say that even the most harden conservative most like wouldn’t want Smalley’s counter part on the right to run for office (and there certainly wouldn’t be a state welcoming them). Extremist are good for a laugh or some simple controversy, but not for leadership.

[getupkid53]

I'm not even a democrat asswipe. Keep your ultraconservative hate mongering on the fox news channel. Hell, you and bill o' reilly can call up some employees and have phone sex. Fucker.

[Justin_stacy]

I'm not even a democrat asswipe. Keep your ultraconservative hate mongering on the fox news channel. Hell, you and bill o' reilly can call up some employees and have phone sex. Fucker.

Hey that was good....I’m an "ultra conservative" (?) because I don't think fanatics should run for office, or be supported in doing so....very intelligent. But hey if you think a lefty's Goebbels would make a good nominee for the senate, I guess there's nothing else that can be said. Long live the fanatic’s, right? Hey maybe we can get Moore to run for Attorney General!

[DroppedUrPocket]

Oooh SNAP!

[getupkid53]

It's alright, the dem's can nominate crazy celebrities and your party can keep putting criminals in office. We'll call it a draw.

[birdman]

I'm not even a democrat asswipe. Keep your ultraconservative hate mongering on the fox news channel. Hell, you and bill o' reilly can call up some employees and have phone sex. Fucker.


I think someone has been reading punkvoter.com too much...dont you? Formulate your own informed opinion instead of just throwing out cliche insults like "bush=hitler and fox news is bad!" And by the way, phone sex is awesome.

[getupkid53]

punk voter is a waste of time. So, now everyone who thinks fox news is biased is some sort of lackey. I'd say you've been on conservativepunk.com a little too much (if you want to play that retarded game). And regardless, I'm pretty conservative. Hell, I voted for Bush... TWICE! I'm not some stupid punk bitch that comes in here and whines. I understand the state of the country, but I don't agree with the direction we are heading in. I've done my research and that is my informed opinion. Get off your high horse. I never said bush is hitler... and the only reason you don't believe fox news is biased is because you agree with what they say. I would imagine someone like you would enjoy phone sex. Someday you'll experience the real thing.. Although I wouldn't count on it being any time soon.

[birdman]

It's alright, the dem's can nominate crazy celebrities and your party can keep putting criminals in office. We'll call it a draw.


So when you said "your party" what party were you referring to?

[radiofriendly]

new jack city was a good movie. am i crazy?

[Cal Smith]

punk voter is a waste of time. So, now everyone who thinks fox news is biased is some sort of lackey. I'd say you've been on conservativepunk.com a little too much (if you want to play that retarded game). And regardless, I'm pretty conservative. Hell, I voted for Bush... TWICE! I'm not some stupid punk bitch that comes in here and whines. I understand the state of the country, but I don't agree with the direction we are heading in. I've done my research and that is my informed opinion. Get off your high horse. I never said bush is hitler... and the only reason you don't believe fox news is biased is because you agree with what they say. I would imagine someone like you would enjoy phone sex. Someday you'll experience the real thing.. Although I wouldn't count on it being any time soon.

Wait.........what are they saying differently from any other news network?

[pinkerton]

i was talking about his new book...

and i would like him running for office because he is very informed.

[Justin_stacy]

It's alright, the dem's can nominate crazy celebrities and your party can keep putting criminals in office. We'll call it a draw.

yep puttng actual criminals in office like clinto.....oh wait, i guess your party wins both then!

[Justin_stacy]

i was talking about his new book...

and i would like him running for office because he is very informed.

obviously your not.....but that all goes back to what i said originally.

[pinkerton]

he's NOT informed? he has a radio show and has written numerous political books. he's spoken at tons of conventions all over the country, and is a very influential political activist. i don't give a shit whether or not you agree with him, but if you've read any of his books or heard his show once, you'd know that that guy knows his material. if he's not informed, nobody is.

[pinkerton]

It's alright, the dem's can nominate crazy celebrities and your party can keep putting criminals in office. We'll call it a draw.

dem's can nominate crazy celebrities?

ahahahahahahahahaha

i live in california. arnold swartzchanegger(sp) is our governor.

what do you say to that?

[Justin_stacy]

he's NOT informed? he has a radio show and has written numerous political books. he's spoken at tons of conventions all over the country, and is a very influential political activist. i don't give a shit whether or not you agree with him, but if you've read any of his books or heard his show once, you'd know that that guy knows his material. if he's not informed, nobody is.

The guys a partisan hack, a simpleton’s propagandist. Everything about him (radio [which particularly is a joke], TV and fictitious literature) is based on half-truth, lies and character assassinations. There is about as much "fact" behind him as there in a Michael Moore film or an Ann Coulter book. These people aren't well informed, they're good manipulators........The fact is people like them don't want to be informed, because informed individual can't base everything on preconceived conclusions, which fanatics do...

Now as for him being influential, I won't argue that all, in fact I agree with you.......but that again goes back to what I said originally and is one of the main reasons the DNC is failing and can't gain steam even in the face of a faltering RNC. No party that worships extremism can succeed. Bush is probably the worst modern president aside from Carter and LBJ, but yet even with that Democrats are under dogs in 08’. And why is that? One of the reasons relates to the issue of getting behind people like Smalley.

[BrandNew20]

I'm reading one of his books right now, its been a good read so far, but some of the points he makes are definatly a little on the weaker side.

[pinkerton]

The guys a partisan hack, a simpleton’s propagandist. Everything about him (radio [which particularly is a joke], TV and fictitious literature) is based on half-truth, lies and character assassinations. There is about as much "fact" behind him as there in a Michael Moore film or an Ann Coulter book. These people aren't well informed, they're good manipulators........The fact is people like them don't want to be informed, because informed individual can't base everything on preconceived conclusions, which fanatics do...

Now as for him being influential, I won't argue that all, in fact I agree with you.......but that again goes back to what I said originally and is one of the main reasons the DNC is failing and can't gain steam even in the face of a faltering RNC. No party that worships extremism can succeed. Bush is probably the worst modern president aside from Carter and LBJ, but yet even with that Democrats are under dogs in 08’. And why is that? One of the reasons relates to the issue of getting behind people like Smalley.

read his new book the truth (with jokes). its some hawt shit.

[getupkid53]

The guys a partisan hack, a simpleton’s propagandist. Everything about him (radio [which particularly is a joke], TV and fictitious literature) is based on half-truth, lies and character assassinations. .

Sounds alot like bush's campaign against Mccain a few years back.

And I can't wait to see the look on your face when delay and libby get convicted, and its found out that both bush and cheney had forknowledge of the cia leak. I'll post in here again when that happens. Expect it soon. And if you want to pull the Clinton card, I mine as well go back and pull out nixon. Give me a break. Stop living in the past douchebag. Back to the clinton card, why don't you take a look at the state of the economy during clinton's era, and take a quick glance at it now. (Don't give me the 'Clinton was handing bush a presidency on the brink of recession' crap either).

[Cal Smith]

Sounds alot like bush's campaign against Mccain a few years back.

And I can't wait to see the look on your face when delay and libby get convicted, and its found out that both bush and cheney had forknowledge of the cia leak. I'll post in here again when that happens. Expect it soon. And if you want to pull the Clinton card, I mine as well go back and pull out nixon. Give me a break. Stop living in the past douchebag. Back to the clinton card, why don't you take a look at the state of the economy during clinton's era, and take a quick glance at it now. (Don't give me the 'Clinton was handing bush a presidency on the brink of recession' crap either).

Yes, take a look at the economy now.....................if you think he should stop living in the past then you should start living in the present accurately. Ecspecially if you're trying to use the current state of the economy as some sort of evidence against Bush.

Also the recession part is far from crap. Do a little (and that is a little) reasearch. Sadly, you're being a typical partisan. You call it "crap" because it's clear evidence against what YOU think. Yet you provide nothing concrete to prove it's "crap". Here's some info. (i doubt you'll read) to show it's not crap.

link 1 (http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/waggon/2001-09-07-waggon.htm)
"The weekly leading indicators warned of recession in September 2000, says Anirvan Banerji, director of research at the Economic Cycle Research Institute, which produces the leading indicators."

link 2 (http://www.businesscycle.com/showstory.php?storyID=378)"In September 2000, an ECRI report declared that "never in this expansion has the risk of recession been higher" and in March 2001, the group concluded that "recession is unavoidable." For its part, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the body that officially dates U.S. business cycles, didn't declare that a recession had begun until November of last year. It said the recession began in March 2001."

link 3 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3073280)
"Anirvan Banerji, research director at the Economic Cycle Research Institute. He said the economy is at a “tipping point” comparable to where it was in September 2000, when his firm began warning of the danger of recession."

[Cal Smith]

i'd rather not see you post if you're going to be that obviously foolish with things you say.

[getupkid53]

I understand the economy was not on an upswing. But all i've heard conservatives say about bush's obvious mishandling of the economy is that he inherited it and it is all the dems fault. Speaking of posting foolish things.... have you read your signature lately?

[A picasso blue]

boy if that doesn't some up whats wrong with the left........
um, not to say that he'd be the greatest senator of all time, but i'd like to remind you that Republicans have a weightlifting action movie star on their side....

just letting you know that everything has a valid counterargument

[Cal Smith]

I understand the economy was not on an upswing. But all i've heard conservatives say about bush's obvious mishandling of the economy is that he inherited it and it is all the dems fault. Speaking of posting foolish things.... have you read your signature lately?

He came in with a recession underway.........yes. Be honest with you I havent heard the vast majority of conservatives blame the democrats for the recession, because honestly I can't think of one reason off the top of my head of why it would be or was blamed directly on the democrats. Can you tell me what you mean?

You also say "obvious mishandling"..............please tell me the obvious mishandlings? Main reason I can think of is Bush's inability during his 1st term to help control spending (mostly congress fault as well) but Bush still faces a lot of the blame for not using his veto. Other than that what has he mishandled?

Think about this.........Bush has arguably faced the 2 largest disasters in our history, yet the economy has continued to grow in jobs (jobless recovery??????), and I think overall it's been over 3%. Bush has also faced some of the highest gas prices in our history the past couple of years, yet the economy has prospered. Seems to me in your all knowing claims without facts you might take this into account before you say "obvious mishandlings"

[Trainsaw]

the president is the one that overlooks the proposed budget and sends it to congress, not giving the final decision on what is spent on what but backing what he thinks should be spent

http://liberty.hypermart.net/images/employment_deficit_graph.gif

[splitsecond]

You can post all the pretty graphs you want, but our expenses have increased dramatically since Bush went into office for various reasons, mainly the 9/11 attacks. We can play statistics all we want, but because of the way things have been handled, the economy is much better than it could have been post-9/11. Everyone loves to nitpick and forgets the big picture.

[Justin_stacy]

And I can't wait to see the look on your face when delay and libby get convicted, and its found out that both bush and cheney had forknowledge of the cia leak.

You mean on trumped up charges that Earle had to shop Grand Jury’s to get and now is stalling in trial to effect Delay politically (like he’s done in the past. Hutchison?), instead of taking his “strong” case to a timely jury trial? And Libby is proof of what? A corrupt administration? So is Cisneros’s conviction proof of a corrupt Clinton administration? Or what about the indictments of Espy, Dale or Hubbell are these “proof” of an environment of corruption in the Democratic party?…give me a brake.

Nothing about the "controversies" surrounding Bush are particularly extraordinary, as a handful of fanatic would have you believe.

And if you want to pull the Clinton card, I mine as well go back and pull out nixon. .

Except that the Clinton example is relevant because of its timeliness and similarity…where as Nixon is neither.

Give me a break. Stop living in the past douchebag. .

Take a history lesson shit for brains….lay off the leftwing propaganda sites and open a fucking book.

Back to the clinton card, why don't you take a look at the state of the economy during clinton's era, and take a quick glance at it now. .

It would take one ignorant fool to come to the conclusion you’re trying to make. What Clinton faced and what Bush has faced are nothing alike. First, Clinton was handed an economy that had just rebounded out of a recession, where as Bush was handed one going into a recession. See a difference? Second, Clinton faced nothing like 9/11, which devastated an already weak economy right after Bush’s first election. Third Clinton never faced an oil crisis like the one we are currently facing which is hampering attempts at a recovery…..and it goes on and on and on, the differences are numerous and outstanding. Just because you don’t understand or know anything about history doesn't mean it didn't happen.

(Don't give me the 'Clinton was handing bush a presidency on the brink of recession' crap either).

Facts are facts and recessions don’t happen over night, they are a long drown out process. The 01’ recession first showed itself in late 99’ following the dot.com crash. One years prior to Bush’s election.

[Justin_stacy]

um, not to say that he'd be the greatest senator of all time, but i'd like to remind you that Republicans have a weightlifting action movie star on their side....

just letting you know that everything has a valid counterargument


Nothing personal here, but an extremely weak "counterarguments" is hardly an argument at all. What about being an actor or weightlifter discredits Arnold (?), the way being a propagandist discredits Smalley? Not even staring in Kindergarten Kop puts Arnold anywhere near Smalley.


And I’ll reiterate this; my opinion here has nothing to do with which side of the political spectrum Smalley is on. Right or left fanatics are dangerous and are completely undeserving of political offices or real power. That is why I find it scary, to say the least, that the left in this country would want someone as despicable as Smalley representing them.

[getupkid53]

You're right.... Clinton didn't face what bush faced.....

9/11 bombings - Let's go to war with a country that had nothing to do with it, spend billions of dollars, lose thousands of American lives, only to see terrorism expand to a level we have never seen before. And after 3 years of not backing down and watching your approval rating plummet... you have to apologize for going in under false pretenses. Hell, some of his staff refused to be part of his second term because of it (cough colin powell, cough, respectable man).

Hurricane Katrina - 1100 dead, billions of dollars in damage, an absolutely pathetic government response. --- "you're doing a heck of a job brownie" lets all play the blame game. Bush appointed an underqualified friend into office and it cost over 1000 lives..........wtf

Rising oil prices - In the midst of the biggest profits ever for gas companies, congress shuts down a bill to help low income families pay their heating bills.

Halliburton - Pre 9/11 - 3rd largest government defense contractor. Post 9/11 -- More than double the revenue of the next 4 combined. Illegally takes no bid contracts for Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina. Cheney is an evil genius and i'd assume your smoking crack if you don't think his severance package includes a hefty load of stocks.

As for Delay, there is a reason a non-partisan judge left the larger 2 of the 3 charges on the table. If they were so 'trumped up' he would have thrown them out silly.

And for the record there is no left wing propaghanda here. This is what you see everyday. Someone must have gouged your eyes out because you are obviously blind to the fact that our country is going to hell in a handbasket.

You're right, bush faced much worse situations than clinton. And he botched every damn one of 'em. Way to go with the low blow on history too. You make an argument on history and call it legit... I make one, you call bullshit. Sounds like the republican way to me.............

[DroppedUrPocket]

And to think this all spawned from a thread about Al Franken.

[Cal Smith]

You're right.... Clinton didn't face what bush faced.....

9/11 bombings - Let's go to war with a country that had nothing to do with it, spend billions of dollars, lose thousands of American lives, only to see terrorism expand to a level we have never seen before. And after 3 years of not backing down and watching your approval rating plummet... you have to apologize for going in under false pretenses. Hell, some of his staff refused to be part of his second term because of it (cough colin powell, cough, respectable man).

Hurricane Katrina - 1100 dead, billions of dollars in damage, an absolutely pathetic government response. --- "you're doing a heck of a job brownie" lets all play the blame game. Bush appointed an underqualified friend into office and it cost over 1000 lives..........wtf

Rising oil prices - In the midst of the biggest profits ever for gas companies, congress shuts down a bill to help low income families pay their heating bills.

Halliburton - Pre 9/11 - 3rd largest government defense contractor. Post 9/11 -- More than double the revenue of the next 4 combined. Illegally takes no bid contracts for Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina. Cheney is an evil genius and i'd assume your smoking crack if you don't think his severance package includes a hefty load of stocks.

As for Delay, there is a reason a non-partisan judge left the larger 2 of the 3 charges on the table. If they were so 'trumped up' he would have thrown them out silly.

And for the record there is no left wing propaghanda here. This is what you see everyday. Someone must have gouged your eyes out because you are obviously blind to the fact that our country is going to hell in a handbasket.

You're right, bush faced much worse situations than clinton. And he botched every damn one of 'em. Way to go with the low blow on history too. You make an argument on history and call it legit... I make one, you call bullshit. Sounds like the republican way to me.............

You are an idiot. You can't stick to the topic which you're attacked on for being an idiot so you just start firing shit off in hopes to either get something to stick or cover up your ass.

Why don't you stick with what you were arguing about Clinton's economy compared to Bush's. Hell you didnt even know the recession was underway when Bush came in because you called that idea "crap".

I think you shouldn't post here until delay and libby are both convicted that works out well for all.

[Cal Smith]

Reading this unsupported attack alone I can list a number of things that are either half truths, unrelated, unsupported, or flat out wrong.

Are you seeing a pattern in your posts..................?

You're right.... Clinton didn't face what bush faced.....

9/11 bombings - Let's go to war with a country that had nothing to do with it [No One In The Administration Said Iraq Had Anything To Do With 9/11], spend billions of dollars, lose thousands of American lives, only to see terrorism expand to a level we have never seen before [Please Show Us How You Know Terrorism Has Expanded To Unheard Of Levels?]. And after 3 years of not backing down and watching your approval rating plummet... you have to apologize for going in under false pretenses. Hell, some of his staff refused to be part of his second term because of it (cough colin powell, cough, respectable man). [How Do You Know He Refused?]

Hurricane Katrina - 1100 dead, billions of dollars in damage [You Do Realize That Damage Would Have Been There Even If Franken Were President?] , an absolutely pathetic government response. --- "you're doing a heck of a job brownie" lets all play the blame game. Bush appointed an underqualified friend into office and it cost over 1000 lives..........wtf

Rising oil prices - In the midst of the biggest profits ever for gas companies, congress shuts down a bill to help low income families pay their heating bills.

Halliburton - Pre 9/11 - 3rd largest government defense contractor. Post 9/11 -- More than double the revenue of the next 4 combined. Illegally takes no bid contracts for Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina. [How Come There's Been No Charges?] Cheney is an evil genius and i'd assume your smoking crack if you don't think his severance package includes a hefty load of stocks. [If it's that obvious you should be able to prove it easily?]

As for Delay, there is a reason a non-partisan judge left the larger 2 of the 3 charges on the table. If they were so 'trumped up' he would have thrown them out silly.

And for the record there is no left wing propaghanda here. This is what you see everyday. Someone must have gouged your eyes out because you are obviously blind to the fact that our country is going to hell in a handbasket.

You're right, bush faced much worse situations than clinton. And he botched every damn one of 'em. Way to go with the low blow on history too. You make an argument on history and call it legit... I make one, you call bullshit. Sounds like the republican way to me.............

[lightcollapse]

people in the administration constantly says iraq had to do with 9/11. infact, they constantly repeated that.

i just read about 10 chapters about it in the truth (with jokes), and franken pulls up MANY examples of connecting iraq to 9/11.

[Cal Smith]

people in the administration constantly says iraq had to do with 9/11. infact, they constantly repeated that.

i just read about 10 chapters about it in the truth (with jokes), and franken pulls up MANY examples of connecting iraq to 9/11.

Then please tell me who in the administration said Iraq was involved in 9/11, and where they said it. Also if their are dates there that'll help.

[lightcollapse]

Then please tell me who in the administration said Iraq was involved in 9/11, and where they said it. Also if their are dates there that'll help.

i'll get them later. i just got back from chicago and the books in my suitcase.

being you, you should read it to see the other side of your arguements.

[Cal Smith]

i'll get them later. i just got back from chicago and the books in my suitcase.

being you, you should read it to see the other side of your arguements.

I like reading other sides of an argument from me if it's from someone i have some respect for or they have some credibliity. Stuart Smalley.................no

I'm very interested to see who he has in the administration saying that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

[siberianxkiss]

Then please tell me who in the administration said Iraq was involved in 9/11, and where they said it. Also if their are dates there that'll help.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged

By Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender , Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent, 9/16/2003

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
ADVERTISEMENT

Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

Democrats sharply attacked him for exaggerating the threat Iraq posed before the war.

"There is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11," Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat running for president, said in an interview last night. "There was no such relationship."

A senior foreign policy adviser to Howard Dean, the Democratic front-runner, said it is "totally inappropriate for the vice president to continue making these allegations without bringing forward" any proof.

Cheney and his representatives declined to comment on the vice president's statements. But the comments also surprised some in the intelligence community who are already simmering over the way the administration utilized intelligence reports to strengthen the case for the war last winter.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney's "willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding."

In particular, current intelligence officials reiterated yesterday that a reported Prague visit in April 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent had been discounted by the CIA, which sent former agency Director James R. Woolsey to investigate the claim. Woolsey did not find any evidence to confirm the report, officials said, and President Bush did not include it in the case for war in his State of the Union address last January.

But Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," cited the report of the meeting as possible evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link and said it was neither confirmed nor discredited, saying

: "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

Multiple intelligence officials said that the Prague meeting, purported to be between Atta and senior Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, was dismissed almost immediately after it was reported by Czech officials in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and has since been discredited further.

The CIA reported to Congress last year that it could not substantiate the claim, while American records indicate Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., at the time, the officials said yesterday. Indeed, two intelligence officials said yesterday that Ani himself, now in US custody, has also refuted the report. The Czech government has also distanced itself from its original claim.

A senior defense official with access to high-level intelligence reports expressed confusion yesterday over the vice president's decision to reair charges that have been dropped by almost everyone else. "There isn't any new intelligence that would precipitate anything like this," the official said, speaking on condition he not be named.

Nonetheless, 69 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States, according to a recent Washington Post poll. And Democratic senators have charged that the White House is fanning the misperception by mentioning Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks in ways that suggest a link.

Bush administration officials insisted yesterday that they are learning more about various Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda. They said there is evidence suggesting a meeting took place between the head of Iraqi intelligence and Osama bin Laden in Sudan in the mid-1990s; another purported meeting was said to take place in Afghanistan, and during it Iraqi officials offered to provide chemical and biological weapons training, according to officials who have read transcripts of interrogations with Al Qaeda detainees.

But there is no evidence proving the Iraqi regime knew about or took part in the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush officials said.

Former senator Max Cleland, who is a member of the national commission investigating the attacks, said yesterday that classified documents he has reviewed on the subject weaken, rather than strengthen, administration assertions that Hussein's regime may have been allied with Al Qaeda.

"The vice president trying to justify some connection is ludicrous," he said.

Nonetheless, Cheney, in the "Meet the Press" interview Sunday, insisted that the United States is learning more about the links between Al Qaeda and Hussein.

"We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s," Cheney said, "that it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems."

The claims are based on a prewar allegation by a "senior terrorist operative," who said he overheard an Al Qaeda agent speak of a mission to seek biological or chemical weapons training in Iraq, according to Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement to the United Nations in February.

But intelligence specialists told the Globe last August that they have never confirmed that the training took place, or identified where it could have taken place. "The general public just doesn't have any independent way of weighing what is said," Cannistraro, the former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said. "If you repeat it enough times . . . then people become convinced it's the truth."

[Cal Smith]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged

By Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender , Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent, 9/16/2003

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
ADVERTISEMENT

Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

Democrats sharply attacked him for exaggerating the threat Iraq posed before the war.

"There is no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11," Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat running for president, said in an interview last night. "There was no such relationship."

A senior foreign policy adviser to Howard Dean, the Democratic front-runner, said it is "totally inappropriate for the vice president to continue making these allegations without bringing forward" any proof.

Cheney and his representatives declined to comment on the vice president's statements. But the comments also surprised some in the intelligence community who are already simmering over the way the administration utilized intelligence reports to strengthen the case for the war last winter.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney's "willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding."

In particular, current intelligence officials reiterated yesterday that a reported Prague visit in April 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent had been discounted by the CIA, which sent former agency Director James R. Woolsey to investigate the claim. Woolsey did not find any evidence to confirm the report, officials said, and President Bush did not include it in the case for war in his State of the Union address last January.

But Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," cited the report of the meeting as possible evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link and said it was neither confirmed nor discredited, saying

: "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

Multiple intelligence officials said that the Prague meeting, purported to be between Atta and senior Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, was dismissed almost immediately after it was reported by Czech officials in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and has since been discredited further.

The CIA reported to Congress last year that it could not substantiate the claim, while American records indicate Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., at the time, the officials said yesterday. Indeed, two intelligence officials said yesterday that Ani himself, now in US custody, has also refuted the report. The Czech government has also distanced itself from its original claim.

A senior defense official with access to high-level intelligence reports expressed confusion yesterday over the vice president's decision to reair charges that have been dropped by almost everyone else. "There isn't any new intelligence that would precipitate anything like this," the official said, speaking on condition he not be named.

Nonetheless, 69 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States, according to a recent Washington Post poll. And Democratic senators have charged that the White House is fanning the misperception by mentioning Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks in ways that suggest a link.

Bush administration officials insisted yesterday that they are learning more about various Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda. They said there is evidence suggesting a meeting took place between the head of Iraqi intelligence and Osama bin Laden in Sudan in the mid-1990s; another purported meeting was said to take place in Afghanistan, and during it Iraqi officials offered to provide chemical and biological weapons training, according to officials who have read transcripts of interrogations with Al Qaeda detainees.

But there is no evidence proving the Iraqi regime knew about or took part in the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush officials said.

Former senator Max Cleland, who is a member of the national commission investigating the attacks, said yesterday that classified documents he has reviewed on the subject weaken, rather than strengthen, administration assertions that Hussein's regime may have been allied with Al Qaeda.

"The vice president trying to justify some connection is ludicrous," he said.

Nonetheless, Cheney, in the "Meet the Press" interview Sunday, insisted that the United States is learning more about the links between Al Qaeda and Hussein.

"We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s," Cheney said, "that it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems."

The claims are based on a prewar allegation by a "senior terrorist operative," who said he overheard an Al Qaeda agent speak of a mission to seek biological or chemical weapons training in Iraq, according to Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement to the United Nations in February.

But intelligence specialists told the Globe last August that they have never confirmed that the training took place, or identified where it could have taken place. "The general public just doesn't have any independent way of weighing what is said," Cannistraro, the former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said. "If you repeat it enough times . . . then people become convinced it's the truth."

Good God................did you actually read what you've posted. They say it plain as day and it could only get clearer if they drew a picture for you. I put it in BOLD and mad it BIG for you.

[lightcollapse]

I like reading other sides of an argument from me if it's from someone i have some respect for or they have some credibliity. Stuart Smalley.................no

I'm very interested to see who he has in the administration saying that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

al franken does to have credibility.

[getupkid53]

If you don't think terrorism has expanded, you are probably tasting your own shit because your head is up your ass.

Go watch Colin Powell's interview with Barbara Walters. He says he didn't agree with the administrations handling of the war. It seems to be the consensus that that is why he refused to come back. You really think bush asked one of the most respected men in the history of america to step down?

Stop with the Al Franken bullshit! I never said he should be president. I never even said he should be in office. I said 'it would be interesting if he ran for office'. God you're a fucking retard. For someone who complains about people not reading shit.... geez. Hey, it would be alot worse with Cookie Monster there too, right?

And if the fact that Halliburton's business has grown 10 fold while every other former stronghold defense contractor has faultered isn't evidence, you're not listening.


Halliburton lost the contracts for katrina and were fined an undisclosed amount.....

I would have expected something more than being a partisan hack from a politics writer. Oh wait, youre from texas.

You didn't prove anything was flat out wrong buddy.

And Bush inherited an economy on a downturn. He didn't inherit a full out recession. 9/11 happened. He couldn't put the pieces back together. Just because he did a good job in office for a few months doesn't excuse the past four year's of incompetence. I can see where you differ though because you want newt in office. I read part of his book last book and I had to stop because no one likes being spoon fed a pile of steaming shit.

[Cal Smith]

If you don't think terrorism has expanded, you are probably tasting your own shit because your head is up your ass.

Notice again...............you offer no proof. Allow me to offer some evidence to contradict you. How about the fact that prior to Bush countries like Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya either supported terrorism by harboring, or funding them. These countries also had secret weapons progams. Since Bush 3 of the 4 governments have become closer allies to the US and Libya has opened up it's weapons progams.

That's HUGE................

Go watch Colin Powell's interview with Barbara Walters. He says he didn't agree with the administrations handling of the war. It seems to be the consensus that that is why he refused to come back. You really think bush asked one of the most respected men in the history of america to step down?

The consensus from who...........again you're assuming, assuming, assuming. Quit putting words in the mouth of Powell.

Stop with the Al Franken bullshit! I never said he should be president. I never even said he should be in office. I said 'it would be interesting if he ran for office'. God you're a fucking retard. For someone who complains about people not reading shit.... geez. Hey, it would be alot worse with Cookie Monster there too, right?

What? I was just making the point that destruction from Katrina would have occured had anyone other than Bush been President. Again stick with what I'm saying..............

And if the fact that Halliburton's business has grown 10 fold while every other former stronghold defense contractor has faultered isn't evidence, you're not listening.


Halliburton lost the contracts for katrina and were fined an undisclosed amount.....

Did you know Halliburton has tried to sell Kellogg, Brown and Root? Don't you find that intersting? I mean if the profits for Halliburtion was just rolling in from Kellogg, Brown and Roots work in Iraq you'd wonder why they put them up for sale? Halliburton can also only make a 2% profit on the contract with Iraq. I'd like to see the deal Michael Moore had. I'd be willing to bet money that he's made more money off the war than Halliburton has in profits.

Now I realize KBR has problems from investigations involving different things, but if what you are suggesting and Halliburton and Cheney are bathing in money from the war in Iraq why would they even consider selling KBR?

You didn't prove anything was flat out wrong buddy.

And Bush inherited an economy on a downturn. He didn't inherit a full out recession. 9/11 happened. He couldn't put the pieces back together. Just because he did a good job in office for a few months doesn't excuse the past four year's of incompetence. I can see where you differ though because you want newt in office. I read part of his book last book and I had to stop because no one likes being spoon fed a pile of steaming shit.

I didnt prove anything cause I havent claimed anything (except the administration never claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11). You are the one who made a long post just saying baseless claim after baseless claim. I'm not even arguing that you might not be right on some of them like the spread of terrorism, but if you're just going to make shit up I'm going to damn sure call you out on it and give you the other side.

You've yet to address them with evidence or facts. You've simply just give launching other baseless attacks.

[birdman]

I love you Cal.

Its not that I agree with everything Bush does, because I dont at all. I just think it is a little ridiculous that the left in this country seek their spokespeople in coke head rock stars, egotistical celebs, and medicore ex-SNL stars. I agree with the moderate left a lot of the time. I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. And I will agree that Bush isnt very conservative. But the left has just gone nuts in their desperate quest for power that they have lost thier message.

[birdman]

I love you Cal.

Its not that I agree with everything Bush does, because I dont at all. I just think it is a little ridiculous that the left in this country seek their spokespeople in coke head rock stars, egotistical celebs, and medicore ex-SNL stars. I agree with the moderate left a lot of the time. I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. And I will agree that Bush isnt very conservative. But the left has just gone nuts in their desperate quest for power that they have lost thier message.

[Cal Smith]

Anyone have that Franken book and knows what he says about the administrations connections of Iraq and 9/11?