Gay Patriot Header Image

Saddam Links To Al Qaeda — The ‘Lie’ Is Being Busted Open

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 5:16 pm - March 16, 2006.
Filed under: War On Terror

I’m with Michelle Malkin on this one…. if you do nothing else today, go to this website and start reading the truth about Saddam’s ties to Al Qaeda. The “Lie” from the Democrats and our beloved news media is about to be destroyed.

Over at the Jawa Report, the first of many smoking guns coming direct to you from the filing cabinets of Saddam’s regime. Direct links between bin Laden and Saddam’s government in a memo dated four days after the attacks of 9/11/2001.

Below is a translation from Arabic to English of CMPC-2003-001488 document that was posted on Pentagon Website regarding the pre-war Iraq documents. (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm#iraq).

Text of the document in English translated from Arabic.

In the Name of God the Merciful

Presidency of the Republic
Intelligence Apparatus

To the respectful Mr. M.A.M

Subject: Information

Our source in Afghanistan No 11002 (for information about him see attachment 1) provided us with information that that Afghani Consul Ahmad Dahestani (for information about him see attachment 2) told him the following:

1. That Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama Bin Laden group visited Iraq.

2. That America has proof that the government of Iraq and Osama Bin Laden group have shown cooperation to hit target within America.

3. That in case it is proven the involvement of Osama Bin Laden group and the Taliban in these destructive operations it is possible that American will conduct strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

4. That the Afghani Consul heard about the subject of Iraq relation with Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran.

5. In light of this we suggest to write to the Commission of the above information.

Please view… Yours… With regards
Signature:……, Initials : A.M.M, 15/9/2001
Foot note: Immediately send to the Chairman of Commission

Shouldn’t this be the lead story on NBC Nightly News, Dateline, TODAY, the Olbermann Report, etc., etc., etc.? If our news media were truly interested in serving our national defense interests, they would pay people to translate these documents as quickly as possible.

Would any responsible President not have attacked Iraq after 9/11 knowing what we thought we knew at the time about the connections between Iraq and al Qaeda. Even the 9/11 Commission conceded there were ties. I can’t believe there is even a debate still going on about whether our pre-emptive attack on Iraq was warranted. The more truth that comes out from Saddam’s own files, the better.

**UPDATE**The American public obviously agrees with me….

On the third anniversary of the start of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, majorities of Americans feel that the Iraqi people are better off today and the United States is safer.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

57 Comments

  1. Nope, unlike the Downing Street Memo, Michael the A, these documents pass the Dan Rather scratch and sniff tests. It’s going to be a great week for the Republic, for truth, and for Bush and all those evil neo-cons.

    Next up, Syria returns the WMD ferreted out of Iraq in the last days of Saddam. And the Democrat House of Cards will tumble from its perch.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 16, 2006 @ 5:52 pm - March 16, 2006

  2. You are jumping the gun on this Bruce.

    provided us with information that that Afghani Consul Ahmad Dahestani (for information about him see attachment 2) told him the following:

    1. That Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama Bin Laden group visited Iraq.

    You are assuming that both the unnamed source and that “Afghani Consul Ahmad Dahestani” are both telling the truth. And they may not be. This is still only part of the picture. And there are many reasons the data could be false. The source could be proving information in order to get paid. Or the the Consul made up the connection in the hopes of getting allies in the post- 9-11 buildup to war. Or conversely to blame the 9-11 attack solely on Iraq rather than the Taliban.

    Without additional verification this memo is not in of itself a smoking gun.

    It would not surprise me to find that Iraq and Bin Laden had a supportive relationship, but this memo alone does not prove it. It will be interesting to see what the Iraqi bloggers make of this.

    And Sadaam certainly supported terrorism, particularly in Israel and the Palestinian territories. I don’t personally care as far as justification for the war goes, Sadaam needed to be dealt with either way, even if there had been no 9-11.

    Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 16, 2006 @ 6:01 pm - March 16, 2006

  3. #1 — You forgot to mention the lies about how the WTC wasn’t really hit by planes, it was actually destroyed by the J-O-O-S from outer space in their giant orbiting space laser frisbees.

    Comment by V the K — March 16, 2006 @ 6:02 pm - March 16, 2006

  4. #2 – I know; #1 is an exercise in the theater of the absurd. The Rather-Mapes documents – proven frauds; Ambassador Joseph Wilson – proven liar and fraud; Saddam Hussein – proven liar and fraud. But patient and mature people who face such facts are “tedious”. Well, compared to an unmedicated psychotic, maybe we are indeed – LOL 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — March 16, 2006 @ 6:04 pm - March 16, 2006

  5. Now I’m seeing Matt’s comment as #1 – which was the #2 before, that I was agreeing with.

    Comment by Calarato — March 16, 2006 @ 6:06 pm - March 16, 2006

  6. In other words, I do NOT agree with the Gryph #2.

    Gryph says: “It would not surprise me to find that Iraq and Bin Laden had a supportive relationship, but this memo alone does not prove it”…

    …which may or may not be a valid point in itself, HOWEVER, it totally denies the fact that a “supportive relationship” between bin Laden and Saddam has already LONG SINCE been proven. Google any of Steven Hayward’s articles. What the new documents may (!) prove is something rather beyond that.

    Comment by Calarato — March 16, 2006 @ 6:09 pm - March 16, 2006

  7. Fox News Flash (headline): Today, for the first time in three years, 800 Iraqis joined 650 “coalition” troops in actual combat. Notably, not a single shot was fired. Even more notable: “It caught the Pentagon by surprise.”

    Comment by Stephen — March 16, 2006 @ 6:14 pm - March 16, 2006

  8. Would someone do me a huge solid and tell me what the fuck Stephen is talking about?!?!?

    I’d ask him myself, but I seem to have misplaced my moonbat phrase book.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 16, 2006 @ 6:44 pm - March 16, 2006

  9. That’s ok, Calarato…. Michael the A did post the first comment and it was a rant with some strong homophones (no Eric of Hollywood fame, I mean homophone and not homophobe.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 16, 2006 @ 6:47 pm - March 16, 2006

  10. I always wanted to meet Dan Rather’s fact-checker; now it seems that we have.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2006 @ 7:02 pm - March 16, 2006

  11. Eric, ask to borrow Patrick’s tin foil hat… it gets better reception.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 16, 2006 @ 7:04 pm - March 16, 2006

  12. I think Stephen or hank have a potential boyfriend posting today.

    Please keep posting Michael, we like our enemies obnoxious and bitter.

    Comment by VinceTN — March 16, 2006 @ 7:06 pm - March 16, 2006

  13. NDXXX, good one. Pithy; very pithy.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 16, 2006 @ 7:08 pm - March 16, 2006

  14. I’d dare say that Angel Michael fellow was a bit out of sorts, but that would be name-calling. And that’s wrong. So very wrong.

    Comment by V the K — March 16, 2006 @ 7:32 pm - March 16, 2006

  15. and gay bashing too… but you’re getting more sensitive VdaK. There is hope and it aint just a city in Arkansas.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 16, 2006 @ 7:38 pm - March 16, 2006

  16. Batch of pre-war Afghanistan and Iraq documents are released

    It’s about time:
    The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has created a website where it will post documents captured in postwar Afghanistan and Iraq. The website is hosted by the Foreign Military Studies Office Joint Reserve …

    Trackback by Sister Toldjah — March 16, 2006 @ 7:38 pm - March 16, 2006

  17. I just wonder what the krazy kos kids are going to have to say about all of this. If they didn’t believe some of their bull shit, it might actually be amusing to see what they believe.

    Comment by SouthernGayRepublican — March 16, 2006 @ 7:47 pm - March 16, 2006

  18. Thanks for the Jawa link. Interesting. What Jawa provided is vague, but it might be a start for the eventual unearthing of some sort of proof.

    Comment by Gene — March 16, 2006 @ 7:59 pm - March 16, 2006

  19. Thanks for the Fox link. The first question, though, is about Mr. Bush’s job approval Approve 39% Disapprove 51%.

    Now about that underlined “The American public obviously agrees with me…”

    You give interesting links.

    Comment by Gene — March 16, 2006 @ 8:11 pm - March 16, 2006

  20. Hey Gene…what about the %70+ who apparently support the war? Why didn’t you mention THAT result?

    How very disingenuous of you.

    And Matt? You’re a complete smartass. 🙂

    Eric in Proper Grammar

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 16, 2006 @ 8:30 pm - March 16, 2006

  21. Bruce mentioned it.

    Comment by Gene — March 16, 2006 @ 10:00 pm - March 16, 2006

  22. Gene, welcome to the wingnut zoo. Nobody takes this crap seriously, except those who actually post. And the poll? Don’t rain on their parade! With a few exceptions, only epithets are written.

    Comment by Stephen — March 16, 2006 @ 11:38 pm - March 16, 2006

  23. Yet the results of this FNC poll have not translated into support for Bush. We need to ask why that is. One reason, as the FoxNews article indicates, is that Americans have become pessimistic about the outcome of the Iraq war: A sizable majority no longer believes that a democracy, or even a stable government, can take root over there. Likewise, about half of us think Iran will shortly acquire nuclear weapons, regardless of what we do to stop it. So even though we see ourselves as generally safer and the Iraqi people as better off than was the case three years ago, apparently most of us believe that the long-term consequences of Bush’s foreign policy will still be very, very bad.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 16, 2006 @ 11:42 pm - March 16, 2006

  24. News? What’s that on this blog? I understand why you don’t get it. It’s wholly foreign.

    Comment by Stephen — March 16, 2006 @ 11:43 pm - March 16, 2006

  25. Quite frankly, I don’t recall a time when there was any feeling of general optimism about the Iraq war. From day one people were talking about how it would be a disaster… actually, the media was predicting a disaster before day one in that until something *happened* all they had to report on is what *might* happen, and any time the media does that they look to Vietnam for inspiration.

    In fact, from 9-12 and onward a certain rather loud dissent was part of our national discourse, why do they hate us, what did we do, it’s our fault, fighting back will only make them hate us more…

    That said, I’d like to reply to Tim. I don’t really have an issue with what you’ve said except for the assumption that popular opinion is reliable about anything other than popular opinion and (and you’re in good company with the pollster Zogby on this one) all those grammatical constructions that imply change… “have become” and “no longer believe”… Those things imply that something else used to be true… that people *used* to believe that a democracy could take root in Iraq… that people used to be optimistic rather than pessimistic.

    When was that?

    Comment by Synova — March 17, 2006 @ 12:42 am - March 17, 2006

  26. 25: When was that?

    Synova, you seem to have confused American media coverage with American public opinion. The FoxNews article compares the results of this week’s poll with a similar one from November 2003 — when media coverage of the war was just as negative, but the public’s view was much more positive. (Iraq is still no Vietnam.) I think we could also say that if the numbers had been this low in the fall of 2004, we might be discussing “President Kerry” today.

    You’re right to note that opinion polls seldom reflect on much more than themselves. But we’re about to enter a midterm election cycle in which Republicans are unusually vulnerable, and our politicians will be keeping a close eye on these polls for the next several months. The Iraq War is starting to look like a rather large albatross around the GOP’s neck.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 17, 2006 @ 4:19 am - March 17, 2006

  27. Is ti just me, or does Stephen seem positively gleeful at the prospect of American defeat in Iraq?

    Comment by V the K — March 17, 2006 @ 5:25 am - March 17, 2006

  28. Perhaps the American public is pessimistic because Big Brother media indoctrinated them to be pessimistic. Or, in other words, were Oprahfreyed by media lies.

    Anyway, Saddam and WMDs? I was convinced back in 1991 while living in Moscow, Russia and heard all about the russian mafia selling under the table arms and state secrets (like how to hide things) to many in the mid east including Saddam. My 1991 experience was supported when I came across a Washington Times Op-ed in 2003 written by a former Soviet bloc high ranking intelligence officer who defected, Ion Mihai Pacepa stated “The Soviet bloc not only sold Saddam its WMDs, but it showed them how to make them disappear.”

    To those Americans who actually believe that America is the most evil place in the planet, boy, are you in for a very big surprise.

    Comment by syn — March 17, 2006 @ 6:42 am - March 17, 2006

  29. Here’s why this isn’t a story. You can’t trust any documents that come out of Iraq. As is characteristic of any totalitarian government, the Iraqis routinely lied to others, to themselves, to everyone in order to manipulate situations to their advantage. Placing too much trust in what the Iraqis said/did is exactly how the American intelligence apparatus got duped into thinking Iraq had huge stockpiles of WMD in the first place. One document, which could very easily have been an Iraqi snow job like so many others, does not a connection make. The fact remains, on the surface at least, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were ideologically opposed to one another.

    Comment by Anonymous — March 17, 2006 @ 6:50 am - March 17, 2006

  30. And lets not even argue that Iraq actually did have WMD and that they just disappeared. Cause if that is in fact the case, we are in big trouble. Even in the incompetance of the Bush Administration, that could hardly be considered an accomplishment.

    Comment by Anonymous — March 17, 2006 @ 7:13 am - March 17, 2006

  31. #28 — Exactly. Three straight years of unrelentingly negative MSM spin on Iraq are of course going to wear down on people’s morale. It is unfortunate that our MSM are as gleeful at the prospect of terrorist victory in Iraq as Stephen apparently is.

    Comment by V the K — March 17, 2006 @ 7:21 am - March 17, 2006

  32. Bruce: You’ve misrepresented the 9/11 Report; the Commission did not find a al-Qaeda-Hussein connection. The obscure memo off the Pentagon’s website makes only an al-Qaeda-Iraq connection.

    The memo’s al-Qaeda-Iraq connection is too vague to be meaningful, it’s source too questionable to be taken at face value, and the claims to circumspect to do what you claim it does. Ergo, neither the MSM nor I see anyhing of importance.

    The people do not agree with you (or GWB). The Pew Poll has GWB’s approval at 32%, and all polls have a clear, often overwhelming, belief that the cause in Iraq is a lost one. William F. Buckley has already declared Bush’s presidency a failed one.

    And, the Americans are awakening from their slumbers. By a clear plurality, they approve the censure of GWB for his lawlessnes. That the Democrats are unable to get behind Feingold is itself pathetic.

    It must be a challenge to defend GWB in the face of so much public discontent. Even the quasi-Republican magazine The Atlantic in its April issue is genuinely concerned that under GWB the U.S. is teetering on fascism. Pretty heady stuff from that venerable periodical.

    Comment by Stephen — March 17, 2006 @ 7:24 am - March 17, 2006

  33. Stephen, lies and distortions usually don’t work, unless you’re running for the Texas House as a former gay prostitute who’s found Jesus or a flip-flopping Democrat candidate for President.

    Buckley did NOT say Pres Bush has been a failure in office –as you offer. Nothing even close. I suggest YOU ACTUALLLY READ his comments instead of pulling those talking points off the Democrat Underground.

    http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/wfbuckley/2006/02/24/187832.html

    Buckley said that the War in Iraq has been a failure because “the great human reserve that calls for civil life haven’t proved strong enough”– meaning, Stephen-the-distorter, that the Iraqi people haven’t stepped up to the plate and demonstrated (to Buckley’s standard) a visceral desire for freedom and the messy work that comes from the process of moving from dictator to democracy.

    You really need to find some integrity, Stephen. And you need to think beyond the Democrat Underground talking points.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 17, 2006 @ 8:49 am - March 17, 2006

  34. Anonymous at #29 “You can’t trust any documents that come out of Iraq.”

    Frankly, I’d expect better from the frantic Left who is now looking at about 690,000 smoking guns pointed right at the Liberal’s deception and unpatriotic musings on the WOT, Bush, the GOP, the Iraqis, and the terror threat. Over the last two years, you’ve dug a hole that’s going to be your political grave –and I’m looking forward to dancing on top of it.

    Nope, Anonymous… work as hard as you can to continue the lies, prevarications and distortions you and the Liberal MSM have spun these last three years. The one thing you DIDN’T count on is that Saddam’s regime was as anally retentive as Hitler’s and Stalin’s and Tito’s and Franco’s –and all those documents are a literal treasure trove of indicting memo, letters, orders and instructions that will prove in the next 3 months that a) Saddam and bin Laden were linked directly; b) that the WMDs were moved for safe keeping to Syria until after Saddam disposed of the American invasion; and c) Saddam was working in concert with other terrorist groups to secure revenge against average Americans for being pushed out of Kuwait.

    It’s coming, Anonymous. 690,000+ smoking guns with all barrels pointed at the Democrat prevaricators, dissemblers, and spin doctors like Feingold, Boxer, Biden, Leahy, Kerry, Dean, Kennedy, Pelosi and Murtha. And patriotic Americans are salivating at the prospects. It’s going to be a fun turn of events to watch American opinion turn on the sneaky little undercutting thiefs like you who have stolen America’s resolve to do what’s right.

    And it’s going to be a thousand little cuts… how Middle Eastern that kind of punishment can be… and how fitting.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 17, 2006 @ 9:04 am - March 17, 2006

  35. GWB the U.S. is teetering on fascism

    And yet every time I challenge a lefty to identify a single civil liberty I have lost under GWB, they are unable to name any.

    Comment by V the K — March 17, 2006 @ 9:58 am - March 17, 2006

  36. VdaK, why ask? You know they can’t. Do you think the rewrite of an EO removing language that pertained to sexual orientation as a cause for denying security clearance is a “lost right” or privilege? It’s certainly some lost words. And it’s going to have a huge and significant impact on gays who are gay first, Americans second –according to Kevin and Anonymous and GoB.

    And aren’t those little false demonstrations of civil protections like the security clearance language important to you? I mean –consider the millions of gays affected by the removal of that language and now will not know if they were denied security clearance because of their sexual orientation. It’s staggering! It’s a crime. It’s a crime against gays and all we stand for. (jk)

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 17, 2006 @ 10:34 am - March 17, 2006

  37. I’d ask him myself, but I seem to have misplaced my moonbat phrase book.

    Ah, well, here you go.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 17, 2006 @ 11:06 am - March 17, 2006

  38. RWP! What a crack up –I love the MoonBat Rant robot. He’s better than Kevin, raj, Mr Moderate, Anonymous, Patrick and QueerPatriot all rolled into one. Do you know if those are direct quotes from this blog?

    Sean Gleeson is brilliant. Thanks!

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 17, 2006 @ 11:26 am - March 17, 2006

  39. I completely second Matt’s opinion of Sean’s robot. Fantastic!

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 17, 2006 @ 12:37 pm - March 17, 2006

  40. this story is going to get buried i fear liberals do not want to hear that W was right……..go to scare america and they do not mention it the fat mans site want everyone to see vendetta (pro-terrorist) if i wan to watch a movie with terrorists in it i’ll watch http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=76660

    Comment by nuyorker — March 17, 2006 @ 1:06 pm - March 17, 2006

  41. You can’t trust any documents that come out of Iraq. As is characteristic of any totalitarian government, the Iraqis routinely lied to others, to themselves, to everyone in order to manipulate situations to their advantage. Placing too much trust in what the Iraqis said/did is exactly how the American intelligence apparatus got duped into thinking Iraq had huge stockpiles of WMD in the first place. One document, which could very easily have been an Iraqi snow job like so many others, does not a connection make. The fact remains, on the surface at least, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were ideologically opposed to one another.

    Of course, there are two problems with that analysis:

    1) What earthly good would it do the Iraqis to release documents showing them colluding with a group that everyone else in the civilized world despises? What exactly did they intend to manipulate people into doing?

    2) Why is it that “Saddam always lied” is used only as an explanation when he’s shown colluding with al-Qaeda, NOT when he’s trying to show himself as ideologically opposed to bin Laden?

    In short, what liberals want us to believe is that Saddam was telling the truth in public and lying in his private documents. That’s bizarre even for them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 17, 2006 @ 1:31 pm - March 17, 2006

  42. […] Michelle Malkin, Rusty Shackleford and Gay Patriot (among many others) are blogging about the recently-released Iraqi documents. Gay Patriot: […]

    Pingback by Right Wing Nation » Blog Archive » Cynical? Never! — March 17, 2006 @ 2:52 pm - March 17, 2006

  43. Why is it nearly everyone else acknowledges no accurate information comes out of Iraq (for the obvious reason: there’s no government, so it’s all ad hoc), except here? Consistency, I guess.

    Oh, and the Buckley comments can be found at:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200602241451.asp

    I have no idea what WFB’s comments on Townhall.com have to do with anything, but again, it is consistent. Shouldn’t put up references that aren’t really references. People can check them.

    Bill’s been pretty distant for quite a while now. I’m sure his retirement’s coinciding with GWB is purely accidental, but after reading the dude for some thirty years, I get the strange feeling he’s not real happy with GWB.

    Thinking about WFB’s conservatism including limited government (so how come the budget under GWB has increased more than under LBJ; that’s a feat)? I can’t imagine he’d endorse federalization of education. Nope, never. Yes, cutting taxes would typically be conservative, but certainly would not be conservative if spending is increased. That causes deficits, and conservatives are appalled by deficits. And these religious wingnuts? Yes, Bill is a conservative, Council of Trent kind of Catholic, but he must be shaking silly over GWB’s endorsement of (UN)intelligent Design, cut-backs for the poor and disabled (Jesus was kind of emphatic about those things), and the theocracy that has inhabited the White House and Congress. Catholics, after all, are at least intelligent. They’d never accept something so silly as “the Bible is the literal, inerant Word of God, which alone is sufficient for salvation.” That’s simply nuts. Sullivan, another Catholic, has resorted to calling the wingnuts Christianists, so that they don’t tarnish Christianity. Good move, I think. No, I think Bill’s retirement could not have come at a better time. Oh, he’d have supported the Iraq invasion, but he might be a tad bit displeased with how incompetent the war has been blotched. Three years into the war, and yesterday was the first day Iraqis were involved in the fighting? And, most notably, “the Pentagon was caught by surprise.” What does Rumsfeld do other than pontificate? He certainly hasn’t a clue about warmongering. So, Bill, enjoy your retirement. Stop gritting your teeth, or you’ll bite your tongue. At worse, only three more years.

    Comment by Stephen — March 17, 2006 @ 3:52 pm - March 17, 2006

  44. Stephen, the NRO articel and Townhall are the same op ed pieces, you schmuck. Nice try to divert attention away from your bold faced lie and falt out wrong assertion.

    Buckley didn’t indict Bush’s Administration as a failure. You know it. Others know it. Buckley knows it. Buckley underscores what we all know: Iraq will not succeed unless its people take to heart the fight of progress from dictator to democracy –a messy, imprecise, bloody journey for Iraq just as it was for America.

    So, nice try at more lies. But that dog don’t hunt.

    Care to offer some penance for your sins, Stephen?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 17, 2006 @ 4:09 pm - March 17, 2006

  45. Stephen and not to let your little lying weasely self off, Buckley and the editors at NRO had Brent Scowcroft in recently to chat about Iraq… Scowcroft is pessimistic about opportunities in Iraq –to be generous. Guess what? When the interview was over and the editors at NRO were writing up an analysis, Buckley offered: “Scowcroft wants us to hopeless and insecure. Any takers?”

    Buckley went on: “The reality of the situation is that missions abroad to effect regime change in countries without a bill of rights or democratic tradition are terribly arduous… This isn’t to say that the [Iraq] war is wrong, or that history will judge it to be wrong.”

    At Buckley’s 80th B-day party at the WH, Bush paid tribute to this great American –someone who Russell Kirk would have identified as a “Root of the American Order” if still alive and writing. The warmth between Bush and Buckley and the 200+ attendees was obvious. Buckley and Bush are fondly held Yale alums.

    You Stephen, on the other hand, are a flat out liar of the first order. And to clothe yourself in some comfortable affectation of intimacy with Buckley, conservativism, or American honor is false.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 17, 2006 @ 4:28 pm - March 17, 2006

  46. Matt said…

    “Stephen, the NRO articel and Townhall are the same op ed pieces, you schmuck.”

    I can’t believe Stephen tried to pull that shit – as if NO ONE here would have picked up on it.

    Jesus Hairy Christ, my man! This would be funny if it weren’t so damned typical.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 17, 2006 @ 4:34 pm - March 17, 2006

  47. #41 – Hey, wow! At least the commentor blamed the lying on Saddam!

    Here’s what I think will happen with the Iraq documents. The raging Lefty moonbats will tell themselves, and their followers, that they are all forgeries. Being such experts at lies and forgery, and still smarting from one of their big forgeries being exposed (the Rather-Mapes documents), it will be “on the brain”, so to speak, and something they badly want to get even for. They will use their standard echo-chamber tactics to prevent a drop of reality from ever seeping in on them.

    Comment by Calarato — March 17, 2006 @ 10:36 pm - March 17, 2006

  48. 28: Perhaps the American public is pessimistic because Big Brother media indoctrinated them to be pessimistic.

    Two problems with that, Sy — 1) Now that FoxNews is on the scene, American media is no longer completely dominated by leftists. 2) Unlike Europeans, Americans tend not to accept blatant editorializing from our media (which is a major reason FoxNews is held in fairly low esteem). I suspect that Abu Ghraib and Hurricane Katrina were the two major turning points in American popular opinion on Iraq, and that the latter was much more important than the former.

    Mind, I don’t claim that American media has not played a role in shifting public opinion. But it’s awfully easy to overestimate their impact.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 18, 2006 @ 4:06 am - March 18, 2006

  49. #47 — Don’t forget, the MSM has a huge investment in the “No links between Saddam and al Qaeda” lie, and, since the media has been banging that drum so loud for so long, they would look like fools to admit they were wrong now. Remember, Dan Rather still claims the memos were real.

    And remember a couple of weeks ago, when the media came out early in the week witha HUGE over-hyped story that “Bush knew the levees would breach and he let people die anyway because he’s incompetent and he wanted black folks to die.” They pumped that story all week. Then, Friday afternoon, just when people stopped paying attention, they issued a tiny, quiet retraction. That’s how the media handles their “Mistakes.”

    Come to think of it, that’s similar to how the MSM has handled all their Iraq reporting. Bad news gets hyped all week. Good news gets a twelve second “but there’s some progress in Iraq, too” story every other weekend on those lame Saturday morning shows nobody watches.

    Comment by V the K — March 18, 2006 @ 8:41 am - March 18, 2006

  50. Oh, and, by the way. By adding that one bi-weekly 12 seconds of “there is progress in Iraq” to their 13,000 weekly stories of ‘civil war, Abu Ghraib, Bush is a failure, no WMDs, no links to al Qaeda,” coverage, the MSM can then claim they are presenting both sides.

    Comment by V the K — March 18, 2006 @ 8:45 am - March 18, 2006

  51. V the K…. Winston Churchill said it best “a lie gets halfway around the world before truth has a chance to get its pants on” am sure the msm is counting on that

    Comment by nuyorker — March 18, 2006 @ 9:40 am - March 18, 2006

  52. Okay, wingnuts, my browser misfired, but you seem to forget that YOU claimed WFB said X, when he said Y, and he didn’t. GWB is a failed president, and Iraq is a failed war. But you’ll never get it. Fortunately, your numbers are dwindling.

    Comment by Stephen — March 18, 2006 @ 5:13 pm - March 18, 2006

  53. Stephen, Bush liberated 50,000,000 people, planted the seeds of democracy in the Middle East, obliterated al Qaeda’s capacity to kill American civilians, and steered the country out of economic recession. You, on the other hand, are a petty old man whose highest achievement is posting deranged rants on a conservative gay weblog that inspire only ridicule. Who’s the bigger failure?

    (I mean, Bush’s domestic policies are more or less disastrous, but at least he has the power to implement them… unlike petty old men who have nothing more to contribute than deranged rants on weblogs.)

    Comment by V the K — March 18, 2006 @ 6:12 pm - March 18, 2006

  54. Stephen, are you really that lame? Go back i the thread, read YOUR post claiming Buckley said Bush was a failure, see my cite at TownHall or YOUR cite at NRO –they’re the exact same text– then apologize for mischaracterize Buckley, Buckley’s statement about Bush, and Buckley on the WOT.

    Til you do that, anything is is still a lie. And men who tell lies, even the Liberals, are liars.

    Simple enough, Stephen. Now be a man and take care of the apology.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 18, 2006 @ 6:24 pm - March 18, 2006

  55. so how come the budget under GWB has increased more than under LBJ; that’s a feat

    I keep reading this comparison of GWB to LBJ regarding spending. It is very misleading.

    Discretionary spending during GWB has averaged 7.4% of GDP(pdf file). This is quite modest when compared to LBJ’s 12.4%. Just to be fair, Clinton averaged 7% and Reagan 11%.

    Comment by John — March 18, 2006 @ 10:40 pm - March 18, 2006

  56. #55 — Discretionary spending is not what is killing us, though. It’s entitlements. And GWB enacted the largest (and most unnecessary) entitlement program since LBJ … the Prescription Drug Giveaway.

    Comment by V the K — March 19, 2006 @ 8:54 am - March 19, 2006

  57. The original assertion, repeated here, that Bush has spent more than LBJ referred to the discretionary spending of the two administrations.

    I’m not defending Part D.

    Comment by John — March 19, 2006 @ 9:28 pm - March 19, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.