Meltdown over Fox

[Tigermike 3,040]

The study doesn't claim it. It's just a fact

Sorry, you are wrong. That is a false piece of informatino, thus nto a 'fact'.

You can post as many examples as you'd like , but they don't prove your case. What I 'need' is for you to get a clue and wake the hell up.

In other words, "My mind's already made up regardless of facts to the contrary."

That's the consensus, we have known that about you for years.

[Tiger Al 0]

The study doesn't claim it. It's just a fact

Sorry, you are wrong. That is a false piece of informatino, thus nto a 'fact'.

You can post as many examples as you'd like , but they don't prove your case. What I 'need' is for you to get a clue and wake the hell up.

In other words, "My mind's already made up regardless of facts to the contrary."

That's the consensus, we have known that about you for years.

Post-padder.

[Tigermike 3,040]

The study doesn't claim it. It's just a fact

Sorry, you are wrong. That is a false piece of informatino, thus nto a 'fact'.

You can post as many examples as you'd like , but they don't prove your case. What I 'need' is for you to get a clue and wake the hell up.

In other words, "My mind's already made up regardless of facts to the contrary."

That's the consensus, we have known that about you for years.

Post-padder.

We've known that about you as well.

[AURaptor 1,125]

The study doesn't claim it. It's just a fact

Sorry, you are wrong. That is a false piece of informatino, thus nto a 'fact'.

You can post as many examples as you'd like , but they don't prove your case. What I 'need' is for you to get a clue and wake the hell up.

In other words, "My mind's already made up regardless of facts to the contrary."

No, my mind's made up despite the amount of spin and false conclusions you bring to the table. You post facts, but then you arrive at the wrong conclusion from those facts.

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

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

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

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

The administration's line on this has been CONSISTANT! That the American public might get a confused signal on this could be based on any NUMBER of factors -

* lack of understanding of geo-political issues

* inablity to clearly seperate one muslim middle eastern area ( afghanistan ) from another ( Iraq )

* flat out not paying attention to the news which is available

* taking sound bites as ' the word of god ' and expecting to understand it all by watching news while they fix , eat dinner, hep the kids with their home work, etc......

It doesn't MATTER what the public thinks if they don't have a solid foundation on what the topic even is to start with ! You can't run effective public policy if the public has no CLUE of what's going on in the world. al Qaeda and Iraq likely wanted their ties to be kept SECRET from the likes of the CIA, so how the HELL are common citizens suppose to know all that was going on between covert operatives.

Damn, it's so Fing annoying trying to explain things to folks who refuse to WANT to understand.

[Tiger Al 0]

The study doesn't claim it. It's just a fact

Sorry, you are wrong. That is a false piece of informatino, thus nto a 'fact'.

You can post as many examples as you'd like , but they don't prove your case. What I 'need' is for you to get a clue and wake the hell up.

In other words, "My mind's already made up regardless of facts to the contrary."

No, my mind's made up despite the amount of spin and false conclusions you bring to the table. You post facts, but then you arrive at the wrong conclusion from those facts.

So, for clarification, is your position that the administration did or did not state that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda?

[AURaptor 1,125]

So, for clarification, is your position that the administration did or did not state that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda?

Saying Iraq had ties w/ al Qaeda isn't the same as saying Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks. The administration never tried to sell that as a primary or even secondary reason for going to war w/ Iraq . It's clear there was evidence that Iraq was had ties w/ multiple terrorist organizations.

So, to clarify, yes, the administration stated that Iraq had informal ties w/ al Qaeda, to the best of their knowledge.

[Tiger Al 0]

So, for clarification, is your position that the administration did or did not state that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda?

Saying Iraq had ties w/ al Qaeda isn't the same as saying Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks. The administration never tried to sell that as a primary or even secondary reason for going to war w/ Iraq . It's clear there was evidence that Iraq was had ties w/ multiple terrorist organizations.

So, to clarify, yes, the administration stated that Iraq had informal ties w/ al Qaeda, to the best of their knowledge.

Right. But, Iraq/al Qaeda ties have been debunked, yet, as late as August of 2004, when this study was taking place, a large number of people not only believed that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda, but, that definitive evidence had shown as much, although it didn't and the administration has admitted as much.

So, who were these people? The study breaks them down into different demographics and people who derive their news from Fox, regardless of other demographic conditions, consistently had more misperceptions than those whose source was different.

As I showed you before, republicans, in general, had a misperception rate of 43%. However, in republicans whose primary source of news was Fox, the number jumped to 54% while republicans whose primary news source was NPR/PBS dropped to 32%. That's a 22% difference between the two news sources within the same political group.

[AURaptor 1,125]

So, for clarification, is your position that the administration did or did not state that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda?

Saying Iraq had ties w/ al Qaeda isn't the same as saying Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks. The administration never tried to sell that as a primary or even secondary reason for going to war w/ Iraq . It's clear there was evidence that Iraq was had ties w/ multiple terrorist organizations.

So, to clarify, yes, the administration stated that Iraq had informal ties w/ al Qaeda, to the best of their knowledge.

Right. But, Iraq/al Qaeda ties have been debunked, yet, as late as August of 2004, when this study was taking place, a large number of people not only believed that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda, but, that definitive evidence had shown as much, although it didn't and the administration has admitted as much.

So, who were these people? The study breaks them down into different demographics and people who derive their news from Fox, regardless of other demographic conditions, consistently had more misperceptions than those whose source was different.

As I showed you before, republicans, in general, had a misperception rate of 43%. However, in republicans whose primary source of news was Fox, the number jumped to 54% while republicans whose primary news source was NPR/PBS dropped to 32%. That's a 22% difference between the two news sources within the same political group.

When have the ties been debunked? I've seen nothing which indicates that, what so ever. Even the 9/11 Commission said there were ties between Iraq and a.Q. So where are you getting your info ? Sorry, but your studie's 'misperception ' rate is specious , at best. It's simply not accurate.

[Tiger Al 0]

So, for clarification, is your position that the administration did or did not state that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda?

Saying Iraq had ties w/ al Qaeda isn't the same as saying Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks. The administration never tried to sell that as a primary or even secondary reason for going to war w/ Iraq . It's clear there was evidence that Iraq was had ties w/ multiple terrorist organizations.

So, to clarify, yes, the administration stated that Iraq had informal ties w/ al Qaeda, to the best of their knowledge.

Right. But, Iraq/al Qaeda ties have been debunked, yet, as late as August of 2004, when this study was taking place, a large number of people not only believed that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda, but, that definitive evidence had shown as much, although it didn't and the administration has admitted as much.

So, who were these people? The study breaks them down into different demographics and people who derive their news from Fox, regardless of other demographic conditions, consistently had more misperceptions than those whose source was different.

As I showed you before, republicans, in general, had a misperception rate of 43%. However, in republicans whose primary source of news was Fox, the number jumped to 54% while republicans whose primary news source was NPR/PBS dropped to 32%. That's a 22% difference between the two news sources within the same political group.

When have the ties been debunked? I've seen nothing which indicates that, what so ever. Even the 9/11 Commission said there were ties between Iraq and a.Q. So where are you getting your info ? Sorry, but your studie's 'misperception ' rate is specious , at best. It's simply not accurate.

Maybe you don't know it because you only get your news from Fox.

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

LINK

[AURaptor 1,125]

So, for clarification, is your position that the administration did or did not state that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda?

Saying Iraq had ties w/ al Qaeda isn't the same as saying Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks. The administration never tried to sell that as a primary or even secondary reason for going to war w/ Iraq . It's clear there was evidence that Iraq was had ties w/ multiple terrorist organizations.

So, to clarify, yes, the administration stated that Iraq had informal ties w/ al Qaeda, to the best of their knowledge.

Right. But, Iraq/al Qaeda ties have been debunked, yet, as late as August of 2004, when this study was taking place, a large number of people not only believed that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda, but, that definitive evidence had shown as much, although it didn't and the administration has admitted as much.

So, who were these people? The study breaks them down into different demographics and people who derive their news from Fox, regardless of other demographic conditions, consistently had more misperceptions than those whose source was different.

As I showed you before, republicans, in general, had a misperception rate of 43%. However, in republicans whose primary source of news was Fox, the number jumped to 54% while republicans whose primary news source was NPR/PBS dropped to 32%. That's a 22% difference between the two news sources within the same political group.

When have the ties been debunked? I've seen nothing which indicates that, what so ever. Even the 9/11 Commission said there were ties between Iraq and a.Q. So where are you getting your info ? Sorry, but your studie's 'misperception ' rate is specious , at best. It's simply not accurate.

Maybe you don't know it because you only get your news from Fox.

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

LINK

Thanks for the link whic proves I'm right. Despite the ' collaborative relationship ' tag on the issue, Iraq and al Qaeda DID have connections. You seem to mistakenly think that ' no ' collaborative relationship' means there were no ties what so ever. Sorry, but you're flat out wrong. I guess you overlooked this little gem....

And Cheney's spokesman pointed to a 2002 letter written by CIA Director George J. Tenet stating that " we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade" and "credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression." Cheney's office also pointed to a 2003 Tenet statement calling Zarqawi " a senior al Qaeda terrorist associate."

Seems you get your news from CNN. Now, for the REST of the story...

While the commission found no evidence of a collaborative operational relationship for carrying out attacks against the United States, they did find that the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda to be more extensive than many critics of the administration have been willing to admit. And, as the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center previously remarked: any indication of a relationship between these two hostile elements could carry great dangers to the United States.

According to the September 11 report:

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request ... [but] the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. (p.61)

In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. (p.66)

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. (p.66)

In addition, two other recent accounts have shed more light on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection. A June 25, 2004 New York Times article, Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says, reported on the contents of a mid-1990s Iraqi intelligence document believed to be authentic. According to the article,

bin Laden ' had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative.'

the Iraqi regime agreed to bin Laden's request to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda.

bin Laden ' requested joint operations against foreign forces ' in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. had a strong troop presence in Saudi Arabia at the time.

following bin Laden's departure from Sudan, Iraq intelligence began “seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship.

the Iraqi Intelligence service believed ' cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement. '

a Sudanese official in 1994 told Uday Hussein and the director of Iraqi Intelligence that bin Laden was willing to meet in Sudan.

July 22, 2004

MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS

FROM: DANIEL McKIVERGAN, Deputy Director

SUBJECT: 9-11 Commission Confirms Iraq-al Qaeda Ties

With the release of the September 11 Commission report, some media outlets may ignore or mischaracterize the fact that the report offers more confirmation of Iraq-al Qaeda ties. It is especially noteworthy, however, that the previous staff report's finding of no 'collaborative relationship ' between Iraq and al Qaeda has been significantly modified. While the commission found no evidence of a 'collaborative operational relationship' for 'carrying out attacks against the United States,' they did find that the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda to be more extensive than many critics of the administration have been willing to admit. And, as the CIA's Counterterrorism Center previously remarked: 'any indication of a relationship between these two hostile elements could carry great dangers to the United States.'

And, on July 7, 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee reported:

That George Tenet provided the Senate Intelligence Committee this assessment in a closed session on September 17, 2002: ' There is evidence that Iraq provided al Qaeda with various kinds of training--combat, bomb-making, [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear] CBRN. Although Saddam did not endorse al Qaeda's overall agenda and was suspicious of Islamist movements in general, he was apparently not averse, under certain circumstances, to enhancing bin Laden's operational capabilities. As with much of the information on the overall relationship, details on training are [redacted] from sources of varying reliability.'

That according to a CIA report called Iraqi Support for Terrorism, 'the general pattern that emerges is one of al Qaeda's enduring interest in acquiring chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) expertise from Iraq.'

That the Iraqi regime 'certainly' had knowledge that Abu Musab al Zarqawi ' described in Iraqi Support for Terrorism as 'a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner' was operating in Baghdad and northern Iraq.

LINK

[Tiger Al 0]

Do you notice that your highlighted sentences are followed very closely by a 'but' or a 'however?'

There was no collaboration. Contacts do not constitute collaboration and actually undermine attempts to categorize it as such because it shows that the opportunity existed but wasn't acted upon.

Northern Iraq was out of Saddam's 'jurisdiction' due to the no-fly zone. This was Kurdish controlled area.

You mentioned that I must watch CNN. Actually, I rarely watch it. According to the study, CNN was not that much better than Fox when it came to the three misperceptions. CNN seems to be the poster child for the so-called 'liberal media bias', but, if that were true, its viewers would've scored much higher than they did.

Therein lies the magic trick that the right has managed to pull off with many of its constituents. The media has been branded with the so-called 'liberal bias' that conservatives instinctively view everything through a 'Fox filter' and anything that doesn't jive with what Fox says is automatically disregarded as 'liberal bias.'

[AURaptor 1,125]

Do you notice that your highlighted sentences are followed very closely by a 'but' or a 'however?'

No, I don't notice that, but maybe once. Care to point out the relevence of that ? If any ?

There was no collaboration. Contacts do not constitute collaboration and actually undermine attempts to categorize it as such because it shows that the opportunity existed but wasn't acted upon.

What is it you're arguing about ? I think you've already forgotten. Once again, from the top....

( The 9/11 Commission ) ....did find that the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda to be more extensive than many critics of the administration have been willing to admit

Northern Iraq was out of Saddam's 'jurisdiction' due to the no-fly zone. This was Kurdish controlled area.

Umm....yeah. So what ?

You mentioned that I must watch CNN. Actually, I rarely watch it. According to the study, CNN was not that much better than Fox when it came to the three misperceptions. CNN seems to be the poster child for the so-called 'liberal media bias', but, if that were true, its viewers would've scored much higher than they did.

Therein lies the magic trick that the right has managed to pull off with many of its constituents. The media has been branded with the so-called 'liberal bias' that conservatives instinctively view everything through a 'Fox filter' and anything that doesn't jive with what Fox says is automatically disregarded as 'liberal bias.'

I think you've fallen for the Left wing media's attemp to obfuscate the issue so much that some have no clue what they're talking about, or being asked about in these opinion polls. The Bush administration has been consistant from the start, regardless of how the public has been confused by the Lib media.

[Tiger Al 0]

( The 9/11 Commission ) ....did find that the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda to be more extensive than many critics of the administration have been willing to admit

Those are the words of Daniel McKivergan, Deputy Director of PNAC, not the words of the commission. As the 9/11 Commission report said, there was no collaborative relationship.

The question people were responding to was “Do you believe clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda has been found in Iraq or not?” 67% of Fox viewers said Yes.

The Bush administration has been consistant from the start, regardless of how the public has been confused by the Lib media.

Which is why people who get their news from NPR were not the least informed.

[AURaptor 1,125]

( The 9/11 Commission ) ....did find that the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda to be more extensive than many critics of the administration have been willing to admit

Those are the words of Daniel McKivergan, Deputy Director of PNAC, not the words of the commission. As the 9/11 Commission report said, there was no collaborative relationship.

The question people were responding to was “Do you believe clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda has been found in Iraq or not?” 67% of Fox viewers said Yes.

The Bush administration has been consistant from the start, regardless of how the public has been confused by the Lib media.

Which is why people who get their news from NPR were not the least informed.

You must be suffering from some sort of brain lock. There WAS a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. THAT is irrefutable. The parsing of words, the ' collaborative relationship' nonsense you keep bringing up is something you simply can't see past. It doesn't mean there were NO ties. I'm sorry I can't help you with this.

There was evidence found that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda. Those viewers of FOX were right.

Those who listened to NPR were more likely to ignore the facts and deny anything that showed the Bush administration in a favorable light. Thus their opinions were weighted in like manner.

[channonc 466]

Northern Iraq was out of Saddam's 'jurisdiction' due to the no-fly zone. This was Kurdish controlled area.

Umm....yeah. So what ?

So what??? The kurds hated Saddam, and I doubt that they were looking to help him out in getting any weapons that he could use against them. The fact is the Bush Admin wanted to badly overthrow Saddam, and "right" the mistakes of 41. This had nothing to do with 911, and everything to do with revenge. In the meantime, Bush has dropped the ball on Afghanistan with the Taliban's resurgence, and Bin Ladin still running through the caves of Pakistan. Had we focused on one war, maybe we would have captured Bin Ladin and really could be bringing stability to a country that has never had real peace and stability.

[Tiger Al 0]

( The 9/11 Commission ) ....did find that the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda to be more extensive than many critics of the administration have been willing to admit

Those are the words of Daniel McKivergan, Deputy Director of PNAC, not the words of the commission. As the 9/11 Commission report said, there was no collaborative relationship.

The question people were responding to was “Do you believe clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda has been found in Iraq or not?” 67% of Fox viewers said Yes.

The Bush administration has been consistant from the start, regardless of how the public has been confused by the Lib media.

Which is why people who get their news from NPR were not the least informed.

You must be suffering from some sort of brain lock. There WAS a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. THAT is irrefutable. The parsing of words, the ' collaborative relationship' nonsense you keep bringing up is something you simply can't see past. It doesn't mean there were NO ties. I'm sorry I can't help you with this.

No parsing, just quoting the commission. Raptor, you and I have a connection. We have ties through this forum. But, neither of those things amounts to a collaborative relationship. You're holding up the fact that there were a couple of meetings over 10+ years as evidence of support when the commission clearly said there was no working relationship. The study shows that some news sources did a good job conveying this information to its consumers, and, others didn't.

[Tiger Al 0]

Northern Iraq was out of Saddam's 'jurisdiction' due to the no-fly zone. This was Kurdish controlled area.

Umm....yeah. So what ?

So what??? The kurds hated Saddam, and I doubt that they were looking to help him out in getting any weapons that he could use against them. The fact is the Bush Admin wanted to badly overthrow Saddam, and "right" the mistakes of 41. This had nothing to do with 911, and everything to do with revenge. In the meantime, Bush has dropped the ball on Afghanistan with the Taliban's resurgence, and Bin Ladin still running through the caves of Pakistan. Had we focused on one war, maybe we would have captured Bin Ladin and really could be bringing stability to a country that has never had real peace and stability.

In addition to the Kurds hating Saddam, he literally had no reach north of the no-fly zone, so, whatever went on up there was out of his control.

[AURaptor 1,125]

No parsing, just quoting the commission. Raptor, you and I have a connection. We have ties through this forum. But, neither of those things amounts to a collaborative relationship. You're holding up the fact that there were a couple of meetings over 10+ years as evidence of support when the commission clearly said there was no working relationship. The study shows that some news sources did a good job conveying this information to its consumers, and, others didn't.

That's just it, you're IGNORING what the commission states, and I can understand why. The entire point here is that you claim the Administration lied/ spun the connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attack by al Qaeda. I say there was no such a move by the Administation, and the 9/11 Commission stated EXACTLY that. The entire basis for your premise , as well as the so called ' opinion poll's finding have been completely debunked. How? Because regardless of what this or that group THOUGHT the war in Iraq was about, the administration NEVER made a direct link between Iraq and a.q. Fact is, we may NEVER know exactly how related the two were, but one thing is clear.....going to war in Iraq was never based on the assumption that Saddam had a roll the terrorist attack.

Why you bring up the Kurds to the North, is beyond me. That's a completely irrelevent issue which was being discussed.

[AURaptor 1,125]

In the meantime, Bush has dropped the ball on Afghanistan with the Taliban's resurgence, and Bin Ladin still running through the caves of Pakistan. Had we focused on one war, maybe we would have captured Bin Ladin and really could be bringing stability to a country that has never had real peace and stability.

Problem with that is we needed the President of Pakistan, and running rough shod all through this country too would have put him at a tremendous risk. Not everyone in his Gov't is keen on helping the USA, and it's very real a coup might have errupted in a country which DOES have nukes.

I doubt we took our eyes off the ball w/ respect to OBL, but it's easy to see how you'd come to that conclusion. He was in hiding, and no amout of troop involvement would have helped. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq was heating up, and the media was definatly going to cover that,instead of showing a dozen G.I.'s walking across the mountain slopes of Afghanistan, while goats munch grass and watch our boys walk by.

[channonc 466]

In the meantime, Bush has dropped the ball on Afghanistan with the Taliban's resurgence, and Bin Ladin still running through the caves of Pakistan. Had we focused on one war, maybe we would have captured Bin Ladin and really could be bringing stability to a country that has never had real peace and stability.

Problem with that is we needed the President of Pakistan, and running rough shod all through this country too would have put him at a tremendous risk. Not everyone in his Gov't is keen on helping the USA, and it's very real a coup might have errupted in a country which DOES have nukes.

I doubt we took our eyes off the ball w/ respect to OBL, but it's easy to see how you'd come to that conclusion. He was in hiding, and no amout of troop involvement would have helped. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq was heating up, and the media was definatly going to cover that,instead of showing a dozen G.I.'s walking across the mountain slopes of Afghanistan, while goats munch grass and watch our boys walk by.

But my point was that, there should have never been a war heating up in Iraq if we were really focused on the job in Afghanistan, and doing it right. We should not be relying solely on NATO troops to do the work that we should be doing in Afghanistan.

[Tiger Al 0]

TexasTiger, does AURaptor remind you of anybody else?

[AURaptor 1,125]

In the meantime, Bush has dropped the ball on Afghanistan with the Taliban's resurgence, and Bin Ladin still running through the caves of Pakistan. Had we focused on one war, maybe we would have captured Bin Ladin and really could be bringing stability to a country that has never had real peace and stability.

Problem with that is we needed the President of Pakistan, and running rough shod all through this country too would have put him at a tremendous risk. Not everyone in his Gov't is keen on helping the USA, and it's very real a coup might have errupted in a country which DOES have nukes.

I doubt we took our eyes off the ball w/ respect to OBL, but it's easy to see how you'd come to that conclusion. He was in hiding, and no amout of troop involvement would have helped. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq was heating up, and the media was definatly going to cover that,instead of showing a dozen G.I.'s walking across the mountain slopes of Afghanistan, while goats munch grass and watch our boys walk by.

But my point was that, there should have never been a war heating up in Iraq if we were really focused on the job in Afghanistan, and doing it right. We should not be relying solely on NATO troops to do the work that we should be doing in Afghanistan.

Perhaps, but a bit late on wishing for that.

[AURaptor 1,125]

TexasTiger, does AURaptor remind you of anybody else?

Wow, that's one hell of a reply. Never mind the facts, just run off to TT and look for some moral support.

[Tiger Al 0]

I'll play this game.

That's just it, you're IGNORING what the commission states, and I can understand why.

Here's what the commission states: "There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number

of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported

to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s

efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle

Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative.

In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States,

two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence.

In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with

the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps

both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian

deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was

under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air

attacks in December.75

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have

occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.

According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.

Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan

remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe

friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of

the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier

contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor

have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing

or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

The entire point here is that you claim the Administration lied/ spun the connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attack by al Qaeda. I say there was no such a move by the Administation, and the 9/11 Commission stated EXACTLY that. The entire basis for your premise , as well as the so called ' opinion poll's finding have been completely debunked. How? Because regardless of what this or that group THOUGHT the war in Iraq was about, the administration NEVER made a direct link between Iraq and a.q.

Then what is this?

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. 2003 State of the Union Address

We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. Bush-2002 Speech in Cincinnati

We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization. Cheney-Meet The Press

QUESTION: All right. And links to terrorism would include al Qaeda? I just want to be certain. MS. RICE: Links to terrorism would include al Qaeda, yes." Rice-Fox News Sunday

You say the administration NEVER made a direct link between Iraq and al Qaeda. The administration says you're wrong.

It's no surprise that 80% of Fox viewers had one or more misperceptions. You really should listen to NPR if you want to be more informed.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

TexasTiger, does AURaptor remind you of anybody else?

Nobody I want to be reminded of.