But you’re not interested in the continuous double standards of the media. Only when you somehow believe that a double standard has been played in favor of the Republicans. As opposed to your previous attempt to excuse a double standard by the media this one you must point out.
I’m not going to argue that example here, or in the other thread where you brought it up. Bring it up in the specific thread if you wish to discuss it further.
But I’m happy to look at double standards on both sides.
McCain though is technically correct.
See above. He wasn’t saying it and then claiming he was ‘technically correct’. He said it (a few times it seems) and then when he was corrected, he changed his mind. So even if he was technically correct, he didn’t know it. Which is the point - is he fit to be President if he’s unaware of (a) the ramifications of what he is saying, and (b) how accurate it is.
Even when he was asked to elaborate, he said it “was common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.” A few moments later, Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate’s ear. McCain then said: “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.”
Where has it been reported in the media? Is it really common knowledge?
He did screw up in stating which groups were likely going into Iran to receive training. And likely knew he needed to correct it, because the media storm would be all over him for war mongering against Iran again. But you wanted to know why McCain’s statement wasn’t playing in a loop. I provided evidence why the media wouldn’t want to do that too heavily, better to get it out there, and let it dissolve into everyone’s mind as true. About like the claims of no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, when the actual report says the opposite. Just get the narrative out there and don’t blast it constantly otherwise it gets too much coverage and the media obscuring of the truth might show up.
He corrected it on the spot, after Joe whispered in his ear. Did he really have enough time to calculate the media response in that split second between Joe doing that and him correcting himself?
No, I’m exaggerating and mocking your double standard of believing that report on Iran while you always doubt reports that run counter to your defense of authoritarian human’s rights abusing regimes. No shit you actually didn’t say it was the gospel, that would actually require you to admit to believing something, which is an occurence you are very careful to never let happen.
The position I’m arguing against is that all the evidence points one way (and that way is the Administration’s way). The NIE was yet another example of how that is untrue. Definitive statements are often being made when there has been evidence disputing those statements. Which means the statements cannot and should not be definitive. Sometimes they can’t even claim ‘on balance’.
EDIT: You claimed that I did say it was gospel and now you’re saying ‘no shit’ that I didn’t. Hmmmmmmmmm.........
But you’re not interested in the continuous double standards of the media. Only when you somehow believe that a double standard has been played in favor of the Republicans. As opposed to your previous attempt to excuse a double standard by the media this one you must point out.
I’m not going to argue that example here, or in the other thread where you brought it up. Bring it up in the specific thread if you wish to discuss it further.
But I’m happy to look at double standards on both sides.
Yeah sure you are. That’s why you just always tend to look at the double standard going one way. I don’t need to bring it up further. I have a demonstration of you defending a media double standard. I see no further need to address it.
McCain though is technically correct.
See above. He wasn’t saying it and then claiming he was ‘technically correct’. He said it (a few times it seems) and then when he was corrected, he changed his mind. So even if he was technically correct, he didn’t know it. Which is the point - is he fit to be President if he’s unaware of (a) the ramifications of what he is saying, and (b) how accurate it is.
Even when he was asked to elaborate, he said it “was common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.” A few moments later, Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate’s ear. McCain then said: “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.”
Where has it been reported in the media? Is it really common knowledge?
McCain is unfit to be the President as far as I’m concerned. Hillary is definitely unift to be president. Obama isn’t even fit to be in the position he’s in now. One of these options is disappointing, two of these are absolute nightmares.
He did screw up in stating which groups were likely going into Iran to receive training. And likely knew he needed to correct it, because the media storm would be all over him for war mongering against Iran again. But you wanted to know why McCain’s statement wasn’t playing in a loop. I provided evidence why the media wouldn’t want to do that too heavily, better to get it out there, and let it dissolve into everyone’s mind as true. About like the claims of no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, when the actual report says the opposite. Just get the narrative out there and don’t blast it constantly otherwise it gets too much coverage and the media obscuring of the truth might show up.
He corrected it on the spot, after Joe whispered in his ear. Did he really have enough time to calculate the media response in that split second between Joe doing that and him correcting himself?
You wanted to claim that if Hillary or Obama had made the statement it would be played on a loop. I provided reasoning why it wouldn’t be played on a loop. Its the same reason there won’t be any actual news reports on the Pentagon report involving links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. They’ve got their message out and they want anything new to disappear down the rabbit hole. They have their “no links between Iraq/Al Qaeda.” just like now they have McCain backing off on a statement of “Iran Providing Aid to Al Qaeda in Iraq,” If they push to hard the actual truth might come out to more than just the people that read blogs.
No, I’m exaggerating and mocking your double standard of believing that report on Iran while you always doubt reports that run counter to your defense of authoritarian human’s rights abusing regimes. No shit you actually didn’t say it was the gospel, that would actually require you to admit to believing something, which is an occurence you are very careful to never let happen.
The position I’m arguing against is that all the evidence points one way (and that way is the Administration’s way). The NIE was yet another example of how that is untrue. Definitive statements are often being made when there has been evidence disputing those statements. Which means the statements cannot and should not be definitive. Sometimes they can’t even claim ‘on balance’.
EDIT: You claimed that I did say it was gospel and now you’re saying ‘no shit’ that I didn’t. Hmmmmmmmmm.........
Do you need to have exaggerated and mocking explained to you? Are these concepts foreign to you like the common phrase of throwing someone under the bus?
Yeah sure you are. That’s why you just always tend to look at the double standard going one way. I don’t need to bring it up further. I have a demonstration of you defending a media double standard. I see no further need to address it.
If you see no further need then that’s fine. But you’ve not proven anything.
McCain is unfit to be the President as far as I’m concerned. Hillary is definitely unift to be president. Obama isn’t even fit to be in the position he’s in now. One of these options is disappointing, two of these are absolute nightmares.
So after all this, you agree with my central point that McCain doesn’t seem to know for sure either way, even though he’s making definitive statements that suggest that he does? Hard to know for sure, being that you basically ignored what you were replying to.
You wanted to claim that if Hillary or Obama had made the statement it would be played on a loop. I provided reasoning why it wouldn’t be played on a loop. Its the same reason there won’t be any actual news reports on the Pentagon report involving links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. They’ve got their message out and they want anything new to disappear down the rabbit hole. They have their “no links between Iraq/Al Qaeda.”
As I said, if there are any real links of any real meaning, it should be reported as such. Operational links especially.
As far as I know, there are no real links of any meaning, and no operational links. Any attempt to portray otherwise is simply over-egging the pudding. Which is what got the US and the UK into the Iraq mess to start with. Manipulation. The Pentagon report says that the documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network. The summary says there was ‘inevitable overlap’ because of ‘similar aims (at least in the short term)’. So until we have something to the contrary, what exactly would you like the media to report?
just like now they have McCain backing off on a statement of “Iran Providing Aid to Al Qaeda in Iraq,” If they push to hard the actual truth might come out to more than just the people that read blogs.
See above. What would you like them to report exactly, given what the Pentagon report says?
No, I’m exaggerating and mocking your double standard of believing that report on Iran while you always doubt reports that run counter to your defense of authoritarian human’s rights abusing regimes. No shit you actually didn’t say it was the gospel, that would actually require you to admit to believing something, which is an occurence you are very careful to never let happen.
The position I’m arguing against is that all the evidence points one way (and that way is the Administration’s way). The NIE was yet another example of how that is untrue. Definitive statements are often being made when there has been evidence disputing those statements. Which means the statements cannot and should not be definitive. Sometimes they can’t even claim ‘on balance’.
EDIT: You claimed that I did say it was gospel and now you’re saying ‘no shit’ that I didn’t. Hmmmmmmmmm.........
Do you need to have exaggerated and mocking explained to you? Are these concepts foreign to you like the common phrase of throwing someone under the bus?
I didn’t see any exaggeration and mocking in what you said:
Once again CM doesn’t want to believe US intelligence when it doesn’t fit into his views. But the US intelligence that Iran stopped their Nuclear Weapons program in 2003, well that’s the gospel truth to be quoted all the time without question.
Seems to be a pretty clear post, accusing me of a double standard. There was no indication that when you said ‘gospel truth’ that you didn’t mean it.
As I said, if there are any real links of any real meaning, it should be reported as such. Operational links especially.
As far as I know, there are no real links of any meaning, and no operational links. Any attempt to portray otherwise is simply over-egging the pudding. Which is what got the US and the UK into the Iraq mess to start with. Manipulation. The Pentagon report says that the documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network. The summary says there was ‘inevitable overlap’ because of ‘similar aims (at least in the short term)’. So until we have something to the contrary, what exactly would you like the media to report?
The report, as opposed to the “executive summary”, actually states:
Saddam’s interest in, and support for, non-Iraqi non-state actors was
spread across a wide variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic
terrorist organizations. For years, Saddam maintained training camps for foreign
“fighters” drawn from these diverse groups. In some cases, particularly for Palestinians,
Saddam was also a strong financial supporter. Saddam supported groups
that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad,
led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally
shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives. 97
How much closer do they have to get before there are “real links”?
That’s a far cry from the “there are no connections between alQaeda and Iraq” that is the current meme. Shouldn’t it be reported? At least allow people to make their own decisions on if that is or isn’t close?
Associating with groups that were associated with Al Qaeda is a meaningful link? You can link me to anyone in the world via six degrees of seperation. How many links would you say were meaningful?
‘Generally sharing goals and objectives’ - that doesn’t suggest a link. It is essentially meaningless in terms of supporting anything. It’s not a statement that is directly relevant in proving it one way or the other. He just happened to share general goals and objectives with other people/groups. So do I, but I’ve never met 99.9% of them and never will.
Real links would be meaningful contact about specific operations, multiple meetings with senior people, knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen, direct financial assistance. Stuff that would be impossible to know about unless you got detailed records from some guy who seemed to keep everything.
I take ‘no connections’ to mean ‘no connections of any consequence, with any connections being tenous and not operational’.
So far. Tomorrow evidence may be uncovered that changes everything.
Of course that won’t change what was known at the time.
If the US administration had damning evidence at the time, why did they not present it to the UN as part of their case? Or even outside the UN? They were doing everything possible to convince people. The incentive not to do so must have been overwhelming, so what was it?
Why are you saying ‘/other parts of a government’ if the agency reports to one man? The reporting to one man could make a lot of difference. Often it can mean that the agency does things that aren’t officially part of what the country does. And that is only ONE part of the explanation which could mean a variety of different things.
Sooo, your arguing / digging in your heals on an argument like a wing-nut on say free republic saying the US and/or US government had no responsibility for the CIA or it’s tricks.. in it’s heyday of dirty tricks… since J Edgar Hoover had pretty much locked it down as a personal fiefdom. It sounds okay… but.... does it add up? Hey, you prove it. I can no more ‘prove’ the Quds are under 100% control than you can prove they are not… again, it’s just a smoke screen argument on your part…
CM
Real links would be meaningful contact about specific operations, multiple meetings with senior people, knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen, direct financial assistance. Stuff that would be impossible to know about unless you got detailed records from some guy who seemed to keep everything.
And that’s why I’m glad you’re not leading the fight against terrorism.
Why are you saying ‘/other parts of a government’ if the agency reports to one man? The reporting to one man could make a lot of difference. Often it can mean that the agency does things that aren’t officially part of what the country does. And that is only ONE part of the explanation which could mean a variety of different things.
Sooo, your arguing / digging in your heals on an argument like a wing-nut on say free republic saying the US and/or US government had no responsibility the CIA or it’s tricks.. in it’s heyday of dirty tricks… since J Edgar Hoover had pretty much locked it down as a personal fiefdom. It sounds okay… but.... does it add up? Hey, you prove it. I can no more ‘prove’ the Quds are under 100% control than you can prove they are not… again, it’s just a smoke screen argument on your part...
I’m not the one relying on claims to support a position. I only need to find reasonable fault with what I’ve been given. And I can with the information supplied in this case.
You know full well that I’m responding to what was presented in this thread.
CM
Real links would be meaningful contact about specific operations, multiple meetings with senior people, knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen, direct financial assistance. Stuff that would be impossible to know about unless you got detailed records from some guy who seemed to keep everything.
And that’s why I’m glad you’re not leading the fight against terrorism.
I’m willing to bet that I’m gladder. I’d be terrible at having to rely on manipulation/half-truths/cherry picking to get what I want. Mind you, if I got to that level, I’m sure I’d have had years of getting used to it and perfecting it.
Why are you saying ‘/other parts of a government’ if the agency reports to one man? The reporting to one man could make a lot of difference. Often it can mean that the agency does things that aren’t officially part of what the country does. And that is only ONE part of the explanation which could mean a variety of different things.
Sooo, your arguing / digging in your heals on an argument like a wing-nut on say free republic saying the US and/or US government had no responsibility the CIA or it’s tricks.. in it’s heyday of dirty tricks… since J Edgar Hoover had pretty much locked it down as a personal fiefdom. It sounds okay… but.... does it add up? Hey, you prove it. I can no more ‘prove’ the Quds are under 100% control than you can prove they are not… again, it’s just a smoke screen argument on your part...
I’m not the one relying on claims to support a position. I only need to find reasonable fault with what I’ve been given. And I can with the information supplied in this case.
You know full well that I’m responding to what was presented in this thread.
The funny part is that the Dems are eating each other alive, so McCain gets a free pass.
Who the hell is in charge at the DNC? Oh yeah…
YEAAARRRRRRGHHHH!!!!!!
LOL. So true. ILA would no doubt be so proud.
I don’t honestly care who wins the Dem race or the main race.
I think it would be most interesting if Obama won though, so I’m kinda hoping for that outcome solely based on that flimsy premise.
In some ways I was glad Bush won because it was always going to make things interesting.
Associating with groups that were associated with Al Qaeda is a meaningful link? You can link me to anyone in the world via six degrees of seperation. How many links would you say were meaningful?
‘Generally sharing goals and objectives’ - that doesn’t suggest a link. It is essentially meaningless in terms of supporting anything. It’s not a statement that is directly relevant in proving it one way or the other. He just happened to share general goals and objectives with other people/groups. So do I, but I’ve never met 99.9% of them and never will.
Islamic Jihad, which is mentioned specifically in the report, is not a tenuous link. Their connection to alQueda is so tight that at one time, again as pointed out in the report, Zawahari, bin Laden’s lieutenant, was their leader. That’s a close relationship between IJ and AQ, close enough that I would call IJ a subsidiary or ally of AQ.
Real links would be meaningful contact about specific operations, multiple meetings with senior people, knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen, direct financial assistance. Stuff that would be impossible to know about unless you got detailed records from some guy who seemed to keep everything.
Forget about 9/11, no one has claimed that Saddam had knowledge of or involvement in 9/11.
However all your other points are interesting. I know another incident where a government had no “meaningful contact about specific operations, multiple meetings with senior people,...direct financial assistance”. Thank you for proving the Kennedy Administration had no involvement in the Bay of Pigs.
I take ‘no connections’ to mean ‘no connections of any consequence, with any connections being tenous and not operational’.
So far. Tomorrow evidence may be uncovered that changes everything.
Of course that won’t change what was known at the time.
If the US administration had damning evidence at the time, why did they not present it to the UN as part of their case? Or even outside the UN? They were doing everything possible to convince people. The incentive not to do so must have been overwhelming, so what was it?
This argument is for the other thread, all I wanted to do here was directly refute your claim that the report showed no links between Saddam and AQ.
It seems that Billary didn’t “misspeak”, she lied:
Clinton came under fire after saying she “misspoke” about what happened during the trip and claimed it was the first time she erred in describing her visit - an assertion Barack Obama’s campaign quickly disproved by finding at least three prior occasions over the last few months where she’s claimed there was sniper fire.
So the question is, did she “misspeak” 4 times about being under sniper fire? She does speak “millions of words a day”. Has she suffered sleep deprivation while recounting her Bosnia trip on four occasions? Did she say those things and actually believe that she came under sniper fire while in Bosnia? That’s a scary thought. Or did she just out and out lie on four separate occasions about the same incident, hoping that no one would catch it? I’m in the latter camp, I think she thought that nobody, least of all CBS, would do the research and call her out on it. She hasn’t been elected yet and she’s already lying. Warm fuzzies for all Bush haters who hate him because he allegedly lied.
CM
Real links would be meaningful contact about specific operations, multiple meetings with senior people, knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen, direct financial assistance. Stuff that would be impossible to know about unless you got detailed records from some guy who seemed to keep everything.
And that’s why I’m glad you’re not leading the fight against terrorism.
I’m willing to bet that I’m gladder. I’d be terrible at having to rely on manipulation/half-truths/cherry picking to get what I want. Mind you, if I got to that level, I’m sure I’d have had years of getting used to it and perfecting it.
I agree with that, it’s a good point. So maybe you can sympathize with what Bush might have gone through. We’ll probably never know.
However all your other points are interesting. I know another incident where a government had no “meaningful contact about specific operations, multiple meetings with senior people,...direct financial assistance”. Thank you for proving the Kennedy Administration had no involvement in the Bay of Pigs.
Yup....
Turn about is fair play and all that…
Actually, I think the US is totally in the clear now (re: I could go on all day scrubbing history with these standards). Example: A lot of those generals in charge of dealing with the Indians didn’t really have much oversight… et cetera…
CM
Real links would be meaningful contact about specific operations, multiple meetings with senior people, knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen, direct financial assistance. Stuff that would be impossible to know about unless you got detailed records from some guy who seemed to keep everything.
And that’s why I’m glad you’re not leading the fight against terrorism.
I’m willing to bet that I’m gladder. I’d be terrible at having to rely on manipulation/half-truths/cherry picking to get what I want. Mind you, if I got to that level, I’m sure I’d have had years of getting used to it and perfecting it.
CM
Real links would be meaningful contact about specific operations, multiple meetings with senior people, knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen, direct financial assistance. Stuff that would be impossible to know about unless you got detailed records from some guy who seemed to keep everything.
And that’s why I’m glad you’re not leading the fight against terrorism.
I’m willing to bet that I’m gladder. I’d be terrible at having to rely on manipulation/half-truths/cherry picking to get what I want. Mind you, if I got to that level, I’m sure I’d have had years of getting used to it and perfecting it.
I breezed through this thread, so if my sentiments are duplicated I apologize.
I am so fucking sick of this pointing at someone else to justify fucking lies! Let’s assume that McAmnesty made a gaffe, it in no FUCKING way compares to the flat out lies Billary spewed forth. She lied, she didn’t mis-speak, she lied. I was mugged in Chicago, twice, and I can recount every detail of the events, which both times I was piss drunk!
As for CM’s latest veiled stab, I have this. I used to manage bars. I had to rely on my instincts as to whether someone was intoxicated. I didn’t have intelligence reports, I had to make the call as I saw it. It they stunk like booze, acted drunk, and stumbled a bit, I was confident that they were drunk. I have cut someone off that I found to be sober later, but I always erred on the side of caution. You act as though the situation with Al-Qoward and Iran can be an exact science, but it’s not, nor ever will be.
Sorry CM, you’re being a tool on this one. Your arguement is extremely childish by going after McAmnesty over Clinton’s outright lie. I now see you as defending a liar. What will that make you doing so?
