As a matter of fact, yes I do watch him and you are a liar. sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Actually the BBC is known for publishing both sides. So, in this case you wouldn't necessarily go to who published it as much as who actually wrote it. And the winner is.....

Show me one piece of CREDIBLE evidence that Ayers is in any way associated with Obama's campaign or will be associated with his administration if he has one. And please don't try to feed me stuff like he had a fund raiser for him. Who was involved in McCain's fund raisers? Think they were all lilly white? What about Bush and Cheney's deals? Know much about Halliburton?

I doubt some of you would recognize a terrorist if they jumped up and bit you on the butt.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/sen-dodd-admits-adding-bonus-provision-stimulus-package/100days/

Alleged link between 9/11 and Iraq

Examination of pre-war intelligence claims by Bush administration

MSNBC

Updated: 6:51 p.m. ET Nov. 11, 2005

David Shuster

MSNBC Correspondent

� Profile

Just days after the 9/11 attacks, Vice President Cheney, on �Meet The Press,� said the response should be aimed at Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terror organization not Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

When asked if any evidence connected the Iraqis to the operation, Cheney said, no.

But during that same time period, according to Bob Woodward's book, Bush At War, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for military strikes on Iraq and during cabinet meetings Cheney, expressed deep concern about Saddam and wouldn't rule out going after Iraq at some point.

That point started to come 11 months later, just before the first anniversary of 9/11.

The president and vice president had decided to redirect their war on terror to Baghdad. So, with the help of the newly-formed White House Iraq group, which consisted of top officials and strategists, the selling of a war on Iraq began and the administration's rhetoric about Saddam changed.

On September 8, 2002, not only did White House hawks tell The New York Times for a front page exclusive that Saddam was building a nuclear weapon, five administration officials also went on the Sunday television shows that day to repeat the charge.

He is, in fact actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, Cheney told Tim Russert on �Meet The Press.

But the White House started claiming that Iraq and the group responsible for 9/11 were one in the same.

The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror, said Bush on September 25, 2002.

We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases, said Bush a few days later on October 7. He's a threat because he is dealing with Al-Qaeda.

In pushing the Saddam-Iraq-9/11 connection, both the president and the vice president made two crucial claims. First, they alleged there had been a 1994 meeting in the Sudan between Osama bin Laden and an Iraqi intelligence official.

After the Iraq war began, however, the 9/11 Commission was formed and reported that while Osama bin Laden may have requested Iraqi help, Iraq apparently never responded.

The other crucial pre-war White House claim was that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech republic in April 2001.

Cheney stated, It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a Senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service.

Confirmed or unconfirmed by Vice President Cheney the 9/11 Commission said, We do not believe such a meeting occurred. Why? Because cell phone records from the time show Atta in the United States.

None the less, the White House strategy worked. In March of 2003, one poll found 45 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11.

On the eve of the Iraq war, the White House sent a letter to Congress telling lawmakers that force was authorized against those who, aided the 9/11 attacks.

Yet the Bush administration continues to say it never claimed Iraq was linked to 9/11.

I think I made it very clear that we have never made that claim, White House Press Secretary McClellan repeated on Sept. 17, 2003.

The brutal irony is that while implications, innuendo, or false claims if you will about a 9/11 connection helped take us into Iraq. The Iraqi war itself has created a real al-Qaeda/Iraq link that may keep us from getting out.

Politicians lie. Is everyone just figuring that out? Why get into an argument over who's lying. Just tell me what you're going to do for me, how I'm supposed to pay my mortgage when you keep sending my job overseas, how I'm supposed to send my kids to college when you keep sending my job overseas, how I'm supposed to pay these ridiculous prices for gas when you keep sending my job overseas.

The first guy that can do that without mincing words and blaming everything on the other gets my vote. I don't care what color you are, whether you screwed around on your wife, who you have in your back pocket, whether your running mate is an old fart or a woman.

President Obama gave a speech in Illinois saying that if we pass this stimulus bill that the CEO of Caterpillar promised to hire back employees. After Obama's speech, the CEO of Caterpillar got up and said that he just wanted to clarify that whether or not the stimulus package passes, they will continue to lay off people for some time and this hire back will be further in the future and I'm sure that means if this package actually works.....which it won't.

I'm sorry people but this stimulus will not work. Obama promised to look out for the middle class and the low class. So far, he is doing nothing but helping the low class and he is going to crush us middle class folk. The rich will survive but it will be the middle class that suffers.....once again.

So is the objectivity and blatant refusal to ever tell the truth of Bush and his worshippers.

Why don't you go back to the CON board? You're showing your colors more and more with each post, and they ain't a pretty sight.

And so is anyone who can claim to *see* how someone she's never met will celebrate any holiday.

"I was astonished to hear him say that he was surprised I 'didn't have the guts' to do that, because the fact is, the question didn't come up in that fashion," McCain said of the last debate. "I think he's probably ensured it will come up this time."

McCain made clear that he still thinks it's an issue. "It's not that I give a damn about some old washed-up terrorist and his terrorist wife, who in 2001 said they wish they'd bombed more. What I care about, and what the American people care about, is whether he's being truthful."

The consistent problem I see with Barrack Obama is that these sketchy associations pop up and he denies them and then when proof is made that he did know these people or associated with these people or organizations, he will then admit that he did. Like McCain said.....it isn't even the fact that he has associations with these people.....it is the fact that he consistently denies stuff and then turns around and changes his story. That is lying. He is consistently lying.

Ayers was just a guy in his neighborhood until proof came out that they were on a committee together etc. Obviously not the truth, Mr. Obama. Why not be truthful if it wasn't a big deal.

Rev. Wright never said anything like that in the 20 years he went there. Sure...I don't believe that either. As well as the fact that when Rev. Wright was first initially in hot water, Barrack Obama said that he could no sooner denounce Rev. Wright as he could family. Later Barrack denounced him to save his political career.....so another lie from BO.

Acorn....he was not associated with Acorn and now he was their lawyer at one time. He trained their employees. He gave them 800,000 dollars........not associated my rear end.....another lie.

He will look out for the middle class.......lies. He will given 95% of people tax breaks when not every person pays taxes to begin with........lies.........lies...........lies............lies........HELLO......LIES.

on your party as I am a registered democrat -- got my "Are you supporting Obama?" call just last week. I told her then that I was undecided, but over the last few days, I have finally come to a decision. I'm voting McCain.

Obama Is a Two-Faced Liar. Aw-RIGHT!

Republicans are right. President Barack Obama treated them like dirt, didn't give a dam what they thought about his stimulus package, loaded it with a bunch of programs that will last for years and will never leave the budget, is giving away money disguised as "tax refunds," and is sneaking in huge changes in policy, from schools to health care, using the pretext of an economic emergency.

Way to go, Mr. O! Mr. Down-and-Dirty Chicago pol. Street-fightin' man. Covering over his break-your-face power play with a "we're all post-partisan friends" BS.

Frankly, I was worried about this guy. Obama's appointing Clinton-droids to the Cabinet, bloated incompetents like Larry Summers as "Economics Czar," made me fear for my country, that we'd gotten another Democrat who wished he were a Republican.

Then came Obama's money bomb. The House bill included $125 billion for schools (TRIPLING federal spending on education), expanding insurance coverage to the unemployed, making the most progressive change in the tax code in four decades by creating a $500 credit against social security payroll deductions, and so on.

It's as if Obama dug up Ronald Reagan's carcass and put a stake through The Gipper's anti-government heart. Aw-RIGHT!

About the only concession Obama threw to the right-wing trogs was to remove the subsidy for condoms, leaving hooker-happy GOP Senators, like David Vitter, to pay for their own protection. S'OK with me.

And here's the proof that Bam is The Man: Not one single Republican congressman voted for the bill. And that means that Obama didn't compromise, the way Clinton and Carter would have, to win the love of these condom-less jerks.

Now I understand Obama's weird moves: dinner with those creepy conservative columnists, earnest meetings at the White House with the Republican leaders, a dramatic begging foray into Senate offices. Just as the Republicans say, it was all a fraud. Obama was pure Chicago, Boss Daley in a slim skin, putting his arms around his enemies, pretending to listen and care and compromise, then slowly, quietly, slipping in the knife. All while the media praises Obama's "post-partisanship." Heh heh heh.

Love it. Now we know why Obama picked that vindictive little viper Rahm Emanuel as staff chief: everyone visiting the Oval office will be greeted by the Windy City hit man who would hack up your grandma if you mess with the Godfather-in-Chief.

Will it last? We'll see if Obama caves in to more tax cuts to investment bankers. We'll see if he stops the sub-prime scum-bags from foreclosing on frightened families. We'll see if he stands up to the whining, gormless generals who don't know how to get our troops out of Iraq. (In SHIPS, you doofuses!)

Look, don't get your hopes up. But it may turn out the new president's ... a Democrat!

While parts of this may be from a court brief, they are taken wholly out of context and your entire posting is a cut and paste from a neocon website article. Time to 'fess up!

Your source of "facts" will always be totally different from the liberal board's source of facts so we are never going to agree on much of anything in general. SO therefore we cannot debate.