OT: Gloomy Outlook In Iraq

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 6:16 pm

blueduke wrote:Brando you are an honest and fair person. I wholly commend you for that. Though we may disagree about things I truly respect you and your opinions. Btw you are not the only one wishing for a return to what the GOP used to be.. Now (imo anyway) we are forced to vote for the lesser of the two evils in national elections. Local elections are another matter however

Likewise, despite the heated rhetoric these threads generate, nothing is ever personal. I don't think there's anybody here I couldn't have a drink with. At the end of the day, we are all a bunch of dorks on a sports gaming message board.

Interesting side note: Mrs. Brando, who has worked as a magazine journalist and freelance writer, reminded me about the time she was working on a story, a family interest piece for a national woman's magazine. She was having trouble giving the editor what she wanted, so the editor just asked her to make it up!!! My wife, as a good alum of the hard-assed Mizzou J-School, said no f----- way and wound up not doing the piece. So it's not always about throwing the President out of office

Post by **Jared** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 7:38 pm

blueduke wrote: Yeah that's it. The link you supplied said there was no collaborative realtionship regarding the 9/11 attacks.. Something nobody ever suggested here or anywhere else.

Sorry, blue, but you're completely wrong. Here's a link to the part of the 9-11 report where they talk about a collaborative relationship. And the passage in question:

Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.

Note that they're not just talking about 9/11, but are instead discussing the history of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This paragraph is in a section reviewing the major Al Qaeda hits from 92-96 and their involvement with governments. This is NOT just limited to the 9-11 attacks. Read the report for yourself if you want. But you're completely wrong here.

You showed Goldberg didn't research bugs very well.. So freakin' what? This was the big counter to Dan Rather's disgusting antics. Then you pull links from the howling owl out your behind using it as the ultimate truth (like who was going to bat for Glodberg anyway????) but everytime somone posts a link to a site you don't like it's dismissed.

I posted other Goldberg mistruths and wanted to see if you or others would defend it. If you're not going to defend it, then you shouldn't use it as evidence for why the "media is liberally biased". And this wasn't the big counter to Rather....anchester brought it up. I've got a lot more than just the "bugs" thing...but you choose not to address it.

And I challenge things that don't hold up. It's very different than just dismissing a link that I don't like. You can either defend the challenges or not. You tend to choose the latter.

Nice having it both ways, huh? Your like every other liberal I know. Everytime someone disagrees the next thing to follow is some smartass veiled reference to a person's intellect. This coming from a person who thinks what Clinton did wasn't all that bad and some other great link from IBM 'proved' the phoney document story to be a sham.

Show me where I said that the link from IBM proved the story to be a sham. I presented it to show what others were saying...but I also said that it looked like they're likely a fraud. And I don't even know what you mean by saying "what Clinton did wasn't all that bad". What? His lying about Lewinsky? I think that was terrible.

But again, you keep speaking in stereotypes. "You're like every other liberal I know." The whole point of bothering to discuss this stuff is to show that people aren't stereotypes. PK isn't a crazy liberal because he doesn't like the war in Iraq, and neither is Brando for his opinions. You're not going to get anywhere if you keep dealing in stereotypes.

You want to proclaim Goldberg a phoney scream it loud and long. like anyone cares. He's not the one sitting at the anchor desk every night though. Why aren't you screaming for Rather's head? He's more than dishonest he downright despicable

I don't know how dishonest Rather was. I think they rushed to get this out because they wanted a scoop. They've made mistakes the other way too...for instance, 60 Minutes had Kathleen Willey on saying that she was groped by Clinton. This was completely discredited. 60 Minutes should have been nailed for that, and they weren't. 60 Minutes should be nailed for this (the documents thing), but they probably won't be. Bias runs both ways. That's the way it is. But there's this persecution complex by some people on the right, where the entire media is out to get them. It's pretty baseless....but it works.

Post by **Jared** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 7:46 pm

anchester wrote:jared...i think that was the study. Although it was kinda hard to read for me b/c some of the characters were screwed up. I just read the summary. I didn't see the point that showed newsweek to be the worst major media leaner.

Seemed like it supported what i said, all the major media had significantly more quotes for liberal think tanks vs conservative and were scored significantly higher than the median 38 score. Sure there are a couple of sane democrats like leiberman and other moderates.

You guys are the ones saying there is no bias at all.

First, I'm not saying that there's no bias. I think there's a bias towards getting the "big story" without being careful. It happened with Clinton, and it's happened with Bush. But liberal/conservative...things tend to even out.

Here's a good article on why the study you mentioned is flawed. It's an interesting read, and why studies like this should be taken with a grain of salt.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 01169.html

And as for the Democratic platform, it's a .pdf file so you need Acrobat Reader to see it. The point of that is to show that Democrats aren't just the party of blaming and complaining...they actually have proposals that are worth exploring, even if you don't agree with them.

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:17 pm

"what Clinton did wasn't all that bad". What? His lying about Lewinsky? I think that was terribl

Good God man why don't you just give it up? Clinton refused Bin Laden on a silver platter. You seem to be more upset with Goldberg than you do Clinton. Where's the outrage??? Who the fek cares about some fat chick who likes to blow????? What somebody ought to have cared about is our nuclear secrets being exported to China. Campaign contributions from China (btw, if you were running for prez and one of this countries sworn enemies wanted to donate to get you elected wouldn't you wonder if oh..maybe you they want you elected for something other than your statesmanship?). End of term pardons for felons. But the main thing and the one that Bush bashers don't give a damn about is passing on the mastermind of 9/11. DISGRACEFUL

I posted other Goldberg mistruths and wanted ...yap yap yap

You posted mistruths from a website from an Al Gore buddy. Now who's the first one to cry foul when someone posts a link from a sight that doesn't adhere to their political leanings?? I believe that would be you.

Hypocrisy doesn't become you

And I challenge things that don't hold up

Two words....................type fonts. way to solve that one, Mr Debunker

I presented it to show what others were saying...but I also said that it looked like they're likely a fraud.

You presented it with a snotty comment directed at me suggesting I jumped gun. Claimed it didn't take you long to "debunk" it. Whine about stereotypes all you want but you seem to be more than happy to keep on conforming to the stereotype.

dougb · Post by **dougb** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:14 pm

Best wishes,

Doug

Post by **Jared** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:21 pm

blueduke wrote: Good God man why don't you just give it up? Clinton refused Bin Laden on a silver platter. You seem to be more upset with Goldberg than you do Clinton. Where's the outrage??? Who the fek cares about some fat chick who likes to blow?????

You didn't make it clear what you were talking about there...so I had no idea. As for the whole "Clinton refused Bin Laden on a silver platter" meme, Clinton actually made a preemptive attack on Al Qaeda and on the camps in Afghanistan where Bin Laden was. Bin Laden escaped, but he tried. Look at this article. The title is "Clinton ordered Bin Laden killing". How is this Clinton refusing Bin Laden on a silver platter?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1558918.stm

It's the same old same old. Blame Clinton for everything. Bush was in office for nine months and must have known that Bin Laden was a threat, since Clinton attempted to kill him. What did he do about it?

What somebody ought to have cared about is our nuclear secrets being exported to China. Campaign contributions from China (btw, if you were running for prez and one of this countries sworn enemies wanted to donate to get you elected wouldn't you wonder if oh..maybe you they want you elected for something other than your statesmanship?). End of term pardons for felons. But the main thing and the one that Bush bashers don't give a damn about is passing on the mastermind of 9/11. DISGRACEFUL

With regards to China, what are you talking about? I heard something about Clinton and China, but I believe it's been discredited. I want to know what you're talking about exactly before I look into it.

You posted mistruths from a website from an Al Gore buddy. Now who's the first one to cry foul when someone posts a link from a sight that doesn't adhere to their political leanings?? I believe that would be you.

Hypocrisy doesn't become you

How were they mistruths? You haven't provided any evidence that those articles are mistruths. Again....you can make your case or not. Put up or shut up.

And I challenge things that don't hold up
Two words....................type fonts. way to solve that one, Mr Debunker

I presented it to show what others were saying...but I also said that it looked like they're likely a fraud.
You presented it with a snotty comment directed at me suggesting I jumped gun. Claimed it didn't take you long to "debunk" it. Whine about stereotypes all you want but you seem to be more than happy to keep on conforming to the stereotype.

There was a specific point made in the article that was wrong and I debunked it. But a lot of the other evidence showed it to be a fraud and I stated that I was very skeptical about the memos in my second post on the subject. The memos didn't hold up and I challenged them and said that they're likely frauds. No hypocrisy here.

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:42 am

Clinton actually made a preemptive attack on Al Qaeda and on the camps in Afghanistan where Bin Laden was.

You just don't know when to quit do you?

Was should be placed with emphasis in the above gem. Hitting abandoned camps doesn't exactly take big balls, Jared. You can spin spin spin but the fact of the matter is Bill Clinton was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter on three seperate occasions and he refused to take him. NOW GET OVER IT. I swear I believe if somebody from some website spit out an article saying "Bill Clinton is really Elivis in disguise" you'd fekkin' believe it.

With regards to China, what are you talking about?

Jared still obviously in fantasyland. You've never heard of Chinagate? Yes you have. No it hasn't been discredited. Why bother saying anymore about it? Heck you're not gonna believe it anyway.

How were they mistruths? You haven't provided any evidence that those articles are mistruths. Again....you can make your case or not. Put up or shut up.

Hey Mr Debater with the snotty attitude...................the point being banged over your head is You post "proof" from left leaning sites ALL THE TIME and that's all and good but when someone posts a link from a site Jared don't agree with it's dismissed. Again I say hypocrisy doesn't become you

here was a specific point made in the article that was wrong and I debunked it.

We all know why you posted the link Jared. You thought it got your boy Dan Rather off the hook. You even posted at least one image in at a later time. You were like Dan. You hoped like hell the docs were real and it had to take evidence of biblical proportions to get you to back off. But we're still bragging about "debunking" something. I truly believe you would argue with a brick wall all night long and post links to howling owl atricles to said wall and high five yourself after "debunking" it

Post by **Jared** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 1:40 am

blueduke wrote: Was should be placed with emphasis in the above gem. Hitting abandoned camps doesn't exactly take big balls, Jared. You can spin spin spin but the fact of the matter is Bill Clinton was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter on three seperate occasions and he refused to take him. NOW GET OVER IT. I swear I believe if somebody from some website spit out an article saying "Bill Clinton is really Elivis in disguise" you'd fekkin' believe it.

So are you saying that Clinton didn't order Bin Laden's killing? If this is something you're really pissed off about, then answer this question. How many times did Clinton order Bin Laden's killing before September 11th? And how many times did Bush order Bin Laden's killing before September 11th?

As for the "three separate occasions" thing, here's the Sunday Times article that reported it.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/us_missed_t ... _laden.htm

As for the second offer, the article says "Senior former government sources said that Ijaz's offer had been treated in good faith but, with the denial of the UAE government, there was nothing to suggest it had credibility. The article says the third offer was mysterious, and is unsourced.

Now I'm not going to say Clinton handled this perfectly. But he did authorize going after Bin Laden and tried to get him. He failed, and that's not a good thing.

But at least he tried. Let's see what Bush did....

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/20 ... 30624.html

When President Bush took office in January 2001, the White House was told that Predator drones had recently spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times and officials were urged to arm the unmanned planes with missiles to kill the al Qaeda leader.

But the administration failed to get drones back into the Afghan skies until after the Sept. 11 attacks later that year, current and former U.S. officials say.

And a detailed article on Clinton's response to Bin Laden:

Link

With regards to China, what are you talking about?
Jared still obviously in fantasyland. You've never heard of Chinagate? Yes you have. No it hasn't been discredited. Why bother saying anymore about it? Heck you're not gonna believe it anyway.

It's something about how Clinton supposedly gave nuclear secrets to China for campaign contributions. And I'm pretty sure this was never proven. Though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Hey Mr Debater with the snotty attitude...................the point being banged over your head is You post "proof" from left leaning sites ALL THE TIME and that's all and good but when someone posts a link from a site Jared don't agree with it's dismissed. Again I say hypocrisy doesn't become you

You really don't understand the point I'm trying to make. But I'll try and communicate it again. It doesn't matter where the site is located, and whether it's on a "left wing" site or "right wing" site or whatever. What matters is whether it's legitimate or not....whether it can hold up to analysis...to criticism. A lot of correct stuff about the CBS documents were posted on the right wing site and were correct. If they're right, they're right...doesn't matter if they're pro-left or pro-right.

The Goldberg stuff was criticized because it was deceptive and/or poorly researched. Other links have been dismissed if they've made errors or don't make sense. Doesn't matter where they're from.

If you have a problem with something posted from a "lefty" site, then criticize the content. Otherwise, you don't have an argument.

We all know why you posted the link Jared. You thought it got your boy Dan Rather off the hook. You even posted at least one image in at a later time. You were like Dan. You hoped like hell the docs were real and it had to take evidence of biblical proportions to get you to back off. But we're still bragging about "debunking" something. I truly believe you would argue with a brick wall all night long and post links to howling owl atricles to said wall and high five yourself after "debunking" it

We're getting absurd here. First, Rather is not my boy. In my second post, I said that it's likely that they're fake. In the post that I put an image up, I said "These memos are still somewhat suspicious...but there are still some points that are inconsistent with the forgery story." Which there were. The thing is, it's important to examine both sides before making a conclusion. I presented the other side, while consistently saying that the memos were suspicious and likely forgeries. Does this sound like someone that wanted to get Rather off the hook?