Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Welcome discussions

Expand Messages
  • Richard Kelly
    Ram: Thanks for your answer. My objection is someone telling me you believe this, this, this, and this and ergo you re an idiot. For example, I never said
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 12 7:20 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Ram:

      Thanks for your answer. My objection is someone telling me
      "you believe this, this, this, and this and ergo you're an
      idiot." For example, I never said there was a direct link
      between Sadaam and 9/11, don't watch Fox News, etc., but it
      would be a shame for truth to get in the way of propaganda.
      Many people thought Sadamm had weapons of mass destruction.

      Here's what Bill Clinton said in 1998:

      Heavy as they are, the cost of action must be weighed against
      the price of inaction If Sadaam defies the world and we fail
      to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future.
      Sadaam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war
      on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons
      of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them."
      (this quote is from a Wall Street Journal editorial of 11-18-05)

      As I'm sure you recall, many Democrats as well as Republicans in
      the Senate gave Bush authorization to invade Iraq. John Kerry,
      for example, voted for it, as Howard Dean liked to remind people
      in 2004. So it wasn't only the "neo-cons."

      I'm not delusional into thinking the war in Iraq has worked out
      as planned, just for the record.


      Richard Kelly
    • Ram Lau
      ... http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html I ll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 12 8:15 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        > between Sadaam and 9/11, don't watch Fox News, etc., but it
        > would be a shame for truth to get in the way of propaganda.
        > Many people thought Sadamm had weapons of mass destruction.

        http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html
        "I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you
        got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the
        truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)"

        So it's no surprise that the "liberal" New York Times had to report
        with a by-line that the "liberal" reality that "Bush and Cheney Talk
        Strongly of Qaeda Links With Hussein" back in 2004. Was the propaganda
        catapulting a success? You bet. This is what the non-partisan Program
        on International Policy Attitudes found after election 2004:

        "A large majority of President Bush's supporters continued to believe
        that Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (47 percent) or a
        major program to develop them (25 percent), contrary to official
        findings. And three out of four Bush backers believed Saddam Hussein
        provided substantial support to al Qaeda or was involved in the Sept.
        11 attacks, while 56 percent said the Sept. 11 commission found such
        ties. In reality, the commission found 'no collaborative relationship'
        between Iraq and al Qaeda. The survey showed supporters of Bush and
        Sen. John Kerry had stark differences and saw "separate realities."

        Ram


        http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/18/politics/18DEBA.html
        Bush and Cheney Talk Strongly of Qaeda Links With Hussein
        By DAVID E. SANGER and ROBIN TONER

        President Bush and Vice President Cheney said yesterday that they
        remain convinced that Saddam Hussein's government had a long history
        of ties to Al Qaeda, a day after the commission investigating the
        Sept. 11 attacks reported that its review of classified intelligence
        found no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" that linked Iraq
        to the terrorist organization.

        Mr. Bush, responding to a reporter's question about the report after a
        White House cabinet meeting yesterday morning, said: "The reason I
        keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam
        and Al Qaeda" is "because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al
        Qaeda."

        He said: "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were
        orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda. We did say there were
        numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. For example,
        Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of Al Qaeda,
        in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two."

        He repeated that Mr. Hussein was "a threat" and "a sworn enemy to the
        United States of America."

        Last night Mr. Cheney, who was the administration's most forceful
        advocate of the Qaeda-Hussein links, was more pointed, repeating in
        detail his case for those ties and saying that The New York Times's
        coverage yesterday of the commission's findings "was outrageous."

        "They do a lot of outrageous things," Mr. Cheney, appearing on
        "Capital Report" on CNBC, said of the Times, referring specifically to
        a four-column front page headline that read "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq
        Tie." Mr. Cheney added: "The press wants to run out and say there's a
        fundamental split here now between what the president said and what
        the commission said."

        He said that newspapers, including the Times, had confused the
        question of whether there was evidence of Iraqi participation in Sept.
        11 with the issue of whether a relationship existed between Al Qaeda
        and Mr. Hussein's regime.

        Speaking of the commission, he said, "They did not address the broader
        question of a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda in other areas,
        in other ways." He said "the evidence is overwhelming." He described
        the ties and cited numerous links back to the 1990's, including
        contacts between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials.

        Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president,
        also jumped into the debate yesterday, saying: "It is clear that
        President Bush owes the American people a fundamental explanation
        about why he rushed to war for a purpose that it now turns out is not
        supported by the facts. That is the finding of this commission. The
        war against Al Qaeda is not the war in Iraq, when it began."

        Staff Report 15, released by the commission Wednesday, detailed how a
        senior Iraqi intelligence officer "reportedly made three visits to
        Sudan" and met with Mr. bin Laden in 1994. At that meeting, the report
        concluded, Mr. bin Laden sought permission to establish training camps
        in Iraq and help in obtaining weapons, "but Iraq apparently never
        responded."

        "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also
        occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not
        appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report
        continued. "Two senior bin Laden 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."

        Mr. Cheney expressed a slightly different view last night, saying, "We
        have never been able to prove that there was a connection there on
        9/11." He went on to cite a Czech intelligence service report that
        Mohammad Atta, one of the lead hijackers, met a senior Iraqi
        intelligence official in April 2001. "That's never been proven," he
        said. "It's never been refuted."

        The commission report released on Wednesday concluded: "We do not
        believe that such a meeting occurred," citing phone records and other
        evidence that Mr. Atta had been in Florida at that time, not Prague.

        Mr. Cheney returned to the subject of the Times's coverage later in
        his appearance on CNBC when Ms. Borger began saying, "But the press is
        making a distinction between 9/11 and . . ."

        "No, they're not," Mr. Cheney said. "The New York Times does not. `The
        Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Ties,' " he said, quoting the headline.
        "That's what it says. That's the vaunted New York Times. Numerous —
        I've watched a lot of the coverage on it and the fact of the matter is
        they don't make a distinction. They fuzz it up. Sometimes it's through
        ignorance. Sometimes its malicious. But you'll take a statement that's
        geared specifically to say there's no connection in relations to the
        9/11 attack and then say, `Well, obviously there's no case here.' And
        then jump over to challenge the president's credibility or my
        credibility."

        Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were not alone in responding yesterday to the
        commission's findings. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, an Illinois
        Republican, also charged that the media had distorted the findings of
        the commission about links between Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Hussein. He
        sad the report showed the two men were "developing a relationship."

        "That relationship could have led to dire consequences for the United
        States," Mr. Hastert said, adding that the two men "are cut from the
        same cloth."

        Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry had expected to focus on the economy
        yesterday, but the dispute over the 9/11 commission's report
        overshadowed that effort.

        Speaking to reporters in Detroit, Mr. Kerry said that it was Mr. Bush
        and Mr. Cheney who were muddying distinctions. "The president and the
        vice president on a number of occasions have asserted very directly to
        the American people that the war against al Qaeda is the war in Iraq.
        And on any number of occasions, the president has made it clear that
        the front line of the war against al Qaeda is in Iraq."

        He returned to the theme last night, talking to officials in the
        Michigan A.F.L.-C.I.O. "Now we learn in the latest reports of the
        commission that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with what was happening in
        Iraq, and we're spending $200 billion of your tax money over there.
        I'll tell you this, as commander in chief, based on my experience in
        fighting a war, and what I know about what's happened in these last
        years, I will always remember that the United States of America should
        never go to war because it wants to, we should only go to war because
        we have to."

        The line, one Mr. Kerry has been using with increasing frequency in
        campaign appearances, received loud applause. Steve Schmidt, spokesman
        for the Bush campaign, said that Mr. Kerry was contradicting himself.

        "John Kerry explicitly stated that Saddam Hussein was connected to
        terrorism," Mr. Schmidt said. "He contradicted himself today. John
        Kerry voted for war in Iraq, but less than a year later declared
        himself an antiwar candidate." Mr. Schmidt said Mr. Kerry had a "track
        record" of "exploiting the war on terror for political gain."
      • THOMAS JOHNSON
        Richard, I personally believe that your posts have been appropriate and that opinions are never wrong when expressed in a civil manner. As far as whether you
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 12 9:44 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Richard,
          I personally believe that your posts have been
          appropriate and that opinions are never wrong when
          expressed in a civil manner. As far as whether you are
          welcome, when you asked for input on Supreme Court
          info, Gregory and Ram generously provided several
          links to help you learn more.. very welcoming, and
          even gracious in Gregory's case.

          Tom


          --- Richard Kelly <richwkelly@...> wrote:

          >
          > Ram:
          >
          > Thanks for your answer. My objection is someone
          > telling me
          > "you believe this, this, this, and this and ergo
          > you're an
          > idiot." For example, I never said there was a direct
          > link
          > between Sadaam and 9/11, don't watch Fox News, etc.,
          > but it
          > would be a shame for truth to get in the way of
          > propaganda.
          > Many people thought Sadamm had weapons of mass
          > destruction.
          >
          > Here's what Bill Clinton said in 1998:
          >
          > Heavy as they are, the cost of action must be
          > weighed against
          > the price of inaction If Sadaam defies the world and
          > we fail
          > to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the
          > future.
          > Sadaam will strike again at his neighbors. He will
          > make war
          > on his own people. And mark my words, he will
          > develop weapons
          > of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will
          > use them."
          > (this quote is from a Wall Street Journal editorial
          > of 11-18-05)
          >
          > As I'm sure you recall, many Democrats as well as
          > Republicans in
          > the Senate gave Bush authorization to invade Iraq.
          > John Kerry,
          > for example, voted for it, as Howard Dean liked to
          > remind people
          > in 2004. So it wasn't only the "neo-cons."
          >
          > I'm not delusional into thinking the war in Iraq has
          > worked out
          > as planned, just for the record.
          >
          >
          > Richard Kelly
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Ram Lau
          For some reason this post was delayed for more than a day before it appeared on the message list. I sent this out yesterday morning and I thought it was the
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 13 9:57 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            For some reason this post was delayed for more than a day before it
            appeared on the message list. I sent this out yesterday morning and I
            thought it was the internet connection problem. Censorship perhaps?

            Ram


            --- In prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, "Ram Lau" <ramlau@...> wrote:
            >
            > > between Sadaam and 9/11, don't watch Fox News, etc., but it
            > > would be a shame for truth to get in the way of propaganda.
            > > Many people thought Sadamm had weapons of mass destruction.
            >
            > http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html
            > "I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you
            > got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the
            > truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)"
            >
            > So it's no surprise that the "liberal" New York Times had to report
            > with a by-line that the "liberal" reality that "Bush and Cheney Talk
            > Strongly of Qaeda Links With Hussein" back in 2004. Was the propaganda
            > catapulting a success? You bet. This is what the non-partisan Program
            > on International Policy Attitudes found after election 2004:
            >
            > "A large majority of President Bush's supporters continued to believe
            > that Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (47 percent) or a
            > major program to develop them (25 percent), contrary to official
            > findings. And three out of four Bush backers believed Saddam Hussein
            > provided substantial support to al Qaeda or was involved in the Sept.
            > 11 attacks, while 56 percent said the Sept. 11 commission found such
            > ties. In reality, the commission found 'no collaborative relationship'
            > between Iraq and al Qaeda. The survey showed supporters of Bush and
            > Sen. John Kerry had stark differences and saw "separate realities."
            >
            > Ram
            >
            >
            > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/18/politics/18DEBA.html
            > Bush and Cheney Talk Strongly of Qaeda Links With Hussein
            > By DAVID E. SANGER and ROBIN TONER
            >
            > President Bush and Vice President Cheney said yesterday that they
            > remain convinced that Saddam Hussein's government had a long history
            > of ties to Al Qaeda, a day after the commission investigating the
            > Sept. 11 attacks reported that its review of classified intelligence
            > found no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" that linked Iraq
            > to the terrorist organization.
            >
            > Mr. Bush, responding to a reporter's question about the report after a
            > White House cabinet meeting yesterday morning, said: "The reason I
            > keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam
            > and Al Qaeda" is "because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al
            > Qaeda."
            >
            > He said: "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were
            > orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda. We did say there were
            > numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. For example,
            > Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of Al Qaeda,
            > in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two."
            >
            > He repeated that Mr. Hussein was "a threat" and "a sworn enemy to the
            > United States of America."
            >
            > Last night Mr. Cheney, who was the administration's most forceful
            > advocate of the Qaeda-Hussein links, was more pointed, repeating in
            > detail his case for those ties and saying that The New York Times's
            > coverage yesterday of the commission's findings "was outrageous."
            >
            > "They do a lot of outrageous things," Mr. Cheney, appearing on
            > "Capital Report" on CNBC, said of the Times, referring specifically to
            > a four-column front page headline that read "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq
            > Tie." Mr. Cheney added: "The press wants to run out and say there's a
            > fundamental split here now between what the president said and what
            > the commission said."
            >
            > He said that newspapers, including the Times, had confused the
            > question of whether there was evidence of Iraqi participation in Sept.
            > 11 with the issue of whether a relationship existed between Al Qaeda
            > and Mr. Hussein's regime.
            >
            > Speaking of the commission, he said, "They did not address the broader
            > question of a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda in other areas,
            > in other ways." He said "the evidence is overwhelming." He described
            > the ties and cited numerous links back to the 1990's, including
            > contacts between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials.
            >
            > Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president,
            > also jumped into the debate yesterday, saying: "It is clear that
            > President Bush owes the American people a fundamental explanation
            > about why he rushed to war for a purpose that it now turns out is not
            > supported by the facts. That is the finding of this commission. The
            > war against Al Qaeda is not the war in Iraq, when it began."
            >
            > Staff Report 15, released by the commission Wednesday, detailed how a
            > senior Iraqi intelligence officer "reportedly made three visits to
            > Sudan" and met with Mr. bin Laden in 1994. At that meeting, the report
            > concluded, Mr. bin Laden sought permission to establish training camps
            > in Iraq and help in obtaining weapons, "but Iraq apparently never
            > responded."
            >
            > "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also
            > occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not
            > appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report
            > continued. "Two senior bin Laden 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."
            >
            > Mr. Cheney expressed a slightly different view last night, saying, "We
            > have never been able to prove that there was a connection there on
            > 9/11." He went on to cite a Czech intelligence service report that
            > Mohammad Atta, one of the lead hijackers, met a senior Iraqi
            > intelligence official in April 2001. "That's never been proven," he
            > said. "It's never been refuted."
            >
            > The commission report released on Wednesday concluded: "We do not
            > believe that such a meeting occurred," citing phone records and other
            > evidence that Mr. Atta had been in Florida at that time, not Prague.
            >
            > Mr. Cheney returned to the subject of the Times's coverage later in
            > his appearance on CNBC when Ms. Borger began saying, "But the press is
            > making a distinction between 9/11 and . . ."
            >
            > "No, they're not," Mr. Cheney said. "The New York Times does not. `The
            > Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Ties,' " he said, quoting the headline.
            > "That's what it says. That's the vaunted New York Times. Numerous —
            > I've watched a lot of the coverage on it and the fact of the matter is
            > they don't make a distinction. They fuzz it up. Sometimes it's through
            > ignorance. Sometimes its malicious. But you'll take a statement that's
            > geared specifically to say there's no connection in relations to the
            > 9/11 attack and then say, `Well, obviously there's no case here.' And
            > then jump over to challenge the president's credibility or my
            > credibility."
            >
            > Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were not alone in responding yesterday to the
            > commission's findings. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, an Illinois
            > Republican, also charged that the media had distorted the findings of
            > the commission about links between Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Hussein. He
            > sad the report showed the two men were "developing a relationship."
            >
            > "That relationship could have led to dire consequences for the United
            > States," Mr. Hastert said, adding that the two men "are cut from the
            > same cloth."
            >
            > Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry had expected to focus on the economy
            > yesterday, but the dispute over the 9/11 commission's report
            > overshadowed that effort.
            >
            > Speaking to reporters in Detroit, Mr. Kerry said that it was Mr. Bush
            > and Mr. Cheney who were muddying distinctions. "The president and the
            > vice president on a number of occasions have asserted very directly to
            > the American people that the war against al Qaeda is the war in Iraq.
            > And on any number of occasions, the president has made it clear that
            > the front line of the war against al Qaeda is in Iraq."
            >
            > He returned to the theme last night, talking to officials in the
            > Michigan A.F.L.-C.I.O. "Now we learn in the latest reports of the
            > commission that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with what was happening in
            > Iraq, and we're spending $200 billion of your tax money over there.
            > I'll tell you this, as commander in chief, based on my experience in
            > fighting a war, and what I know about what's happened in these last
            > years, I will always remember that the United States of America should
            > never go to war because it wants to, we should only go to war because
            > we have to."
            >
            > The line, one Mr. Kerry has been using with increasing frequency in
            > campaign appearances, received loud applause. Steve Schmidt, spokesman
            > for the Bush campaign, said that Mr. Kerry was contradicting himself.
            >
            > "John Kerry explicitly stated that Saddam Hussein was connected to
            > terrorism," Mr. Schmidt said. "He contradicted himself today. John
            > Kerry voted for war in Iraq, but less than a year later declared
            > himself an antiwar candidate." Mr. Schmidt said Mr. Kerry had a "track
            > record" of "exploiting the war on terror for political gain."
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.