Ammo For Sale

« « Now, where was I . . . | Home | So long fourth and fifth – SCOTUS still out of control » »

Oh, that liberal media

Heh!

11 Responses to “Oh, that liberal media”

  1. tgirsch Says:

    Huh, that’s funny. If the “lack of a link” was only pertinent to 9/11, then why did the Commission’s Roemer(D) and Thompson(R) go on national television last night and say that the finding was not specific to 9/11?

    ROEMER: Well, first of all, I’d just say that if the vice president knows something that’s valuable to us with respect to al Qaeda and Iraq, I hope he would share it with us, or I hope we would agree to talk with him again.

    He was generous to spend three hours and 40 minutes with us and the president in the Oval Office. If we need to get to the bottom of this more, maybe we should spend some more time together.

    Listen, Wolf, two or three important points on this. And it’s important to be very precise with the language. One, our report concludes that there is no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States, in the general terminology here, attacks. [Emphasis mine. Get that? No cooperation at all on any attacks against the US.]

    Two, we saw no specific evidence of cooperation on 9/11.

    Three, we looked specifically at the 1994 Sudan meeting, and we found that there was a meeting eventually but it did not result in any more than a tie but no cooperation. Nothing, no attack resulted as a consequence of that. [No cooperation resulted from the Sudan meeting.]

    And lastly, we looked at a meeting between Atta and an intelligence officer from the Iraqi government that reportedly took place in Prague in 2001, April 9th. We could not find evidence that that meeting took place.

    BLITZER: And we’ll get to that in a moment.

    But, Governor Thompson, John Lehman, one of your colleagues from the 9/11 Commission, said on “Meet the Press” today that new information has come to him and to the commission since you completed your staff report, suggesting that a very prominent member of al Qaeda served as an officer in Saddam Hussein’s army, a lieutenant colonel specifically.

    Do you know anything about this?

    THOMPSON: Well, I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to talk about things that have come before the commission that haven’t been publicly released yet or that we haven’t had a chance to fully investigate or question.

    But I will agree with Tim Roemer. Look, both the White House, Bush, and Cheney, and the commission have said no evidence that al Qaeda and Hussein got together to attack the United States. We have no evidence, and we said so, that there was cooperation between them.

    Sorry folks, but they make it quite clear that the scope of their “no cooperation” finding goes well beyond the 9/11 attacks. And for God’s sake, will conservatives finally stop touting the many-times-debunked “Prague meeting?” No, probably not; Let’s not let facts get in the way of our preconceived notions, right? Even NewsMax backed off the Prague thing, and bloggers still bring it up a lot…

  2. tgirsch Says:

    Egad, sorry about the formatting. Apparently your new comments thingy doesn’t recognize the p tag.

  3. SayUncle Says:

    So, not connected to terror turns into did not cooperate in attacks.

    <moving>goalposts</moving>

  4. Thibodeaux Says:

    Way to beat that strawman, Girsch. In the meantime, perhaps you can explain THIS:

    “Were there contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq? Yes. Some of them were shadowy, but they were there,” [9/11] commission Chair Thomas Kean told reporters on Thursday.

  5. tgirsch Says:

    Thibodeaux:
    In the meantime, perhaps you can explain THIS:

    Why should I have to explain it, when the commission already has? They acknowledge that contacts were made, most of them a decade ago, and that nothing came of them. What’s to explain?

    Uncle:

    You know what? You’re absolutely right. Somebody from Iraq talked to someone from al-Qaeda a couple of times a decade ago, with no results. Therefore, there IS a connection, and the President can go to whatever lenghts he deems necessary to protect us from this horrific threat. Everyone — including Democrats and Republicans — who thinks that Iraq was never a legitimate threat vis-a-vis al-Qaeda is obviously a blithering idiot. I don’t know what the hell we lefties (and some on the right) were thinking! Fortunately, it only qualifies as goal post moving when the Left holds the Right to its word, and never when the Right changes its position.

    By the way, have I mentioned that I have conclusively linked Kevin Bacon with al-Qaeda? I expect Bacon’s arrest (and James Woods’ while we’re at it) post haste.

  6. tgirsch Says:

    Let me put it in a way you can more readily understand. Suppose we were able to prove that some terrorists attended a gun show, but nobody at the gun show was willing to sell them any guns. Would that justify shutting down the gun show, killing lots of people at the gun show, and disbanding the organization that put together the gun show?

  7. Thibodeaux Says:

    That’s a false analogy, but I’m not going to waste any more of my time verbally fencing with you. I’m satisfied that you’re going to resort to all the tricks you and your buddies come around here and accuse us of using.

    Oh I forgot: it’s also against the rules to call someone a hypocrite.

  8. Thibodeaux Says:

    One parting shot: I’m sure you can explain how this post actually supports your position, too.

  9. Xrlq Says:

    Tom’s analogy is bad because it assumes the Iraqi government had no terrorist connections of its own. Here’s a better analogy:

    Let me put it in a way you can more readily understand. Suppose we were able to prove that a group of Bloods attended an illegal gun show run by the Crips, but nobody at the gun show is willing and/or able to provide us rock-solid proof that the Crips actually sold the Bloods any guns, presumably out of fear of being killed by either Crips or Bloods, whoever got to them first. Suppose further that the Bloods and the Crips have each caused a significant amount of havoc on their own. Would lingering doubts about their collaboration be a significant reason NOT to shut down the Crips’ gun show, killing as few people as possible in the process, and ultimately disbanding the Crips?

  10. tgirsch Says:

    Thibodeaux:
    Iím sure you can explain how this post actually supports your position, too.

    I dunno. Does what Lehman say actually appear in the report? If not, then that means that the commission as a whole did not agree with those statements. Has he got evidence to back up those claims? If so, that would indeed damage my position somewhat.

    Xrlq:

    My analogy isn’t perfect, but it’s close enough. The “connections” we have between Iraq and al-Qaeda are virtually identical to the “connections” I described in the gun show analogy. The key difference is that I didn’t give my gun show organizer a criminal record, but I don’t see how that sufficiently harms the analogy.

    In your example, the reasons for shutting down the gun show have nothing to do with a suspected collaboration between the Crips and the Bloods. You wouldn’t even need that as justification. That’s where your analogy falls short; because there were plenty of other valid and legitimate reasons given for shutting down the show that have nothing to do with collaboration, and collaboration was never used as a major selling point to drum up public support for shutting the show down.

  11. tgirsch Says:

    Oh, and Thibodeaux, it turns out that Lehman’s Meet the Press assertion was erroneous, and senior Administration officials are distancing themselves from it:

    An allegation that a high-ranking al Qaeda member was an officer in Saddam Hussein’s private militia may have resulted from confusion over Iraqi names, a senior administration official said yesterday. … snip … Yesterday, the senior administration official said Lehman had probably confused two people who have similar-sounding names.

Used three kinds of generics. I liked the Levitra Pills more, although the others acted quite well. Perhaps it all depends on the characteristics of each organism.