Meltdown over Fox

[AURaptor 1,125]

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

What is what ? That's exactly right. Saddam 'COULD' provide wmd to terrorists.

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.

Wrong, the administration agrees with my point. I never said there was NO connection. I said the administration never made the direct link between Iraq and al Qaeda and the 9/11 ATTACKS

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.

There's no definitive word on what EXACTLY happened between Iraq and al Qaeda. That the US Intel can't find evidence for something doesn't mean it wasn't there. If there's any question, I'd much rather the administration , who ever it is, err on the side of caution. This isn't at all a matter of 'misconceptions' , because we DON'T KNOW. That's the part of the covert world. Just because a Senate committe says something w/ respect to another country's secrets, it's not the definitive , last word on that issue.

[channonc 466]

That the US Intel can't find evidence for something doesn't mean it wasn't there

Seriously, have you not been reading the thread at all. The Administration stated that there were clear ties... not that they couldn't find evidence and were erring on the side of caution. The American people were told that the reason we needed to go into Iraq was because there were clear ties between al Qaeda and Saddam. That has yet to be proven true.

Like I said earlier, had we finished the job properly in Afghanistan, and made sure that the Taliban (who were directly helping al Qaeda) couldn't regroup, and that Bin Ladin was killed or at least captured, we would have been making real progress in the "War on Terror."

[Tiger Al 0]

I never said there was NO connection.

Yes, you did. You said, "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." If the lower case "a.q." means something other than "al Qaeda" then clarify it. Otherwise, you said it so own it. The administration didn't hedge in its assessment of Iraq/al Qaeda collaboration. The 9/11 Commission clearly states, as did the Senate report, as did most news sources, that Iraq did not have a collaborative relationship (i.e. support) with al Qaeda. The question the study asked, as I've shown you before, wasn't whether Iraq was involved with 9/11 or not. The question was, “Do you believe clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda has been found in Iraq or not?” Sixty-seven percent (67%) of respondents whose primary source of news was Fox answered that question "yes."

[AURaptor 1,125]

I never said there was NO connection.

Yes, you did. You said, "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." If the lower case "a.q." means something other than "al Qaeda" then clarify it. Otherwise, you said it so own it. The administration didn't hedge in its assessment of Iraq/al Qaeda collaboration. The 9/11 Commission clearly states, as did the Senate report, as did most news sources, that Iraq did not have a collaborative relationship (i.e. support) with al Qaeda. The question the study asked, as I've shown you before, wasn't whether Iraq was involved with 9/11 or not. The question was, “Do you believe clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda has been found in Iraq or not?” Sixty-seven percent (67%) of respondents whose primary source of news was Fox answered that question "yes."

I don't know what to say, TA, but your reading comprehension skills are for sh*t . AGAIN, I NEVER SAID THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MADE A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL QAEDA W/ REGARD TO THE 9/11 ATTACKS!!!! Own that. How many ******* times must I say that? Then you go off on some absurd, hodge podge journey where you try to connect the dots of totally irrelevent things. This crap about 'collaborative relationship' you keep bringing up MAKES my case, and yet you seem to think it makes YOURS.

Honestly, I'm ******* tired of this merry-go-round of you not willing or able to understand basic concepts.

Bush never blamed Iraq for 9/11, never SOLD that Iraq was directly involved w/ 9/11 , regardless of what some opinion polls CLAIM their findings are of those who 'allegedly ' watched FOX news or not. But Iraq DID support al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, in various means. THAT IS A FACT.

[Tiger Al 0]

But Iraq DID support al Qaeda...in various means. THAT IS A FACT.

Not according to the 9/11 Commission or the Senate report.

This crap about 'collaborative relationship' you keep bringing up MAKES my case, and yet you seem to think it makes YOURS.

Maybe you don't know what 'collaborative' means. That you keep asserting that there was some sort of working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda leads me to believe that you don't.

Bush never blamed Iraq for 9/11, never SOLD that Iraq was directly involved w/ 9/11 , regardless of what some opinion polls CLAIM their findings are of those who 'allegedly ' watched FOX news or not.

Whether he did or didn't is irrelevent with regards to this study. That wasn't one of the misperceptions they found to be most common. I thought you understood that.

[AURaptor 1,125]

But Iraq DID support al Qaeda...in various means. THAT IS A FACT.

Not according to the 9/11 Commission or the Senate report. - Yes. According to the 9/11 Commission & The Senate Reports

This crap about 'collaborative relationship' you keep bringing up MAKES my case, and yet you seem to think it makes YOURS.

Maybe you don't know what 'collaborative' means. That you keep asserting that there was some sort of working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda leads me to believe that you don't. - It doesn't MATTER what 'collaborative' means. I never once asserted there was one, only that there were connections. YOU'RE the one who keeps interjecting it to mean that there wasn't a collaborative relationship, so there must not have been ANY relationship. Seems YOU don't know what it means. And this 'collaborative' nonsesne was mainly concerning the issue of the 9/11 attacks. Which it's already been established that Iraq had nothing to do with that..... as far as our INTEL can find.

Bush never blamed Iraq for 9/11, never SOLD that Iraq was directly involved w/ 9/11 , regardless of what some opinion polls CLAIM their findings are of those who 'allegedly ' watched FOX news or not.

Whether he did or didn't is irrelevent with regards to this study. That wasn't one of the misperceptions they found to be most common. I thought you understood that.

Agian, not it's not irrelevent w/ regards to the study. If there isn't a consensus of what IS KNOWN , the the opinions of what the general public believes is meaningless! The STUDY is flawed from the premise. I thought YOU knew that.

[Tiger Al 0]

But Iraq DID support al Qaeda...in various means. THAT IS A FACT.

Not according to the 9/11 Commission or the Senate report. - Yes. According to the 9/11 Commission & The Senate Reports

This crap about 'collaborative relationship' you keep bringing up MAKES my case, and yet you seem to think it makes YOURS.

Maybe you don't know what 'collaborative' means. That you keep asserting that there was some sort of working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda leads me to believe that you don't. - It doesn't MATTER what 'collaborative' means. I never once asserted there was one, only that there were connections. YOU'RE the one who keeps interjecting it to mean that there wasn't a collaborative relationship, so there must not have been ANY relationship. Seems YOU don't know what it means. And this 'collaborative' nonsesne was mainly concerning the issue of the 9/11 attacks. Which it's already been established that Iraq had nothing to do with that..... as far as our INTEL can find.

Bush never blamed Iraq for 9/11, never SOLD that Iraq was directly involved w/ 9/11 , regardless of what some opinion polls CLAIM their findings are of those who 'allegedly ' watched FOX news or not.

Whether he did or didn't is irrelevent with regards to this study. That wasn't one of the misperceptions they found to be most common. I thought you understood that.

Agian, not it's not irrelevent w/ regards to the study. If there isn't a consensus of what IS KNOWN , the the opinions of what the general public believes is meaningless! The STUDY is flawed from the premise. I thought YOU knew that.

If you want to be childish, a more effective way to do it is to put your hands over your ears and yell, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU" over and over. Or, hold your breath.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

But Iraq DID support al Qaeda...in various means. THAT IS A FACT.

Not according to the 9/11 Commission or the Senate report. - Yes. According to the 9/11 Commission & The Senate Reports

This crap about 'collaborative relationship' you keep bringing up MAKES my case, and yet you seem to think it makes YOURS.

Maybe you don't know what 'collaborative' means. That you keep asserting that there was some sort of working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda leads me to believe that you don't. - It doesn't MATTER what 'collaborative' means. I never once asserted there was one, only that there were connections. YOU'RE the one who keeps interjecting it to mean that there wasn't a collaborative relationship, so there must not have been ANY relationship. Seems YOU don't know what it means. And this 'collaborative' nonsesne was mainly concerning the issue of the 9/11 attacks. Which it's already been established that Iraq had nothing to do with that..... as far as our INTEL can find.

Bush never blamed Iraq for 9/11, never SOLD that Iraq was directly involved w/ 9/11 , regardless of what some opinion polls CLAIM their findings are of those who 'allegedly ' watched FOX news or not.

Whether he did or didn't is irrelevent with regards to this study. That wasn't one of the misperceptions they found to be most common. I thought you understood that.

Agian, not it's not irrelevent w/ regards to the study. If there isn't a consensus of what IS KNOWN , the the opinions of what the general public believes is meaningless! The STUDY is flawed from the premise. I thought YOU knew that.

If you want to be childish, a more effective way to do it is to put your hands over your ears and yell, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU" over and over. Or, hold your breath.

Looks like Raptor's prescriptions need refilling.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Looks like Raptor's prescriptions need refilling.

Typical Lib response. Can't deal w/the facts, make an ad hominem attack to divert attention away from the issue at hand.

Sorry, I'm not on meds. That must be a YOU issue, that you're projecting onto others.

[AURaptor 1,125]

If you want to be childish, a more effective way to do it is to put your hands over your ears and yell, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU" over and over. Or, hold your breath.

I'm just tired of dealing w/ blind sicophants who refuse to deal w/ the facts and have to spin every bit of evidence on the issue into that which proves their pre conceived template to be right , no matter what.

You're the one being childish.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

Looks like Raptor's prescriptions need refilling.

Typical Lib response. Can't deal w/the facts, make an ad hominem attack to divert attention away from the issue at hand.

Sorry, I'm not on meds. That must be a YOU issue, that you're projecting onto others.

Anger management class canceled?

[AURaptor 1,125]

Anger management class canceled?

Just at the end of my rope in trying to deal w/ a bunch of blind myrmidons.

[AFTiger 282]

Anger management class canceled?

Just at the end of my rope in trying to deal w/ a bunch of blind myrmidons.

AURaptor, TT reduces every argument to "you are stupid" every time. Name calling is his primary tool. It is like reasoning with a four year old.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Anger management class canceled?

Just at the end of my rope in trying to deal w/ a bunch of blind myrmidons.

AURaptor, TT reduces every argument to "you are stupid" every time. Name calling is his primary tool. It is like reasoning with a four year old.

Seems that's the standard Lib M.O.

That, or by calling us hate mongers, homophobes, anti woman..........which ever best suits their need at the time when looking for a way out of a debate.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Whack-a-mole, gentlemen. These 2 inerudite simpletons are masters of spin.

[AFTiger 282]

DEMOCRATS FIND NEWS OUTLET TO HOST DEBATE