Published on April 20, 2007 at 4:42 pm .
A source has just sent me the full text of an e-mail that Ron Carey sent out to the State Republican Party’s e-mail list that addresses the scandal he finds himself at the center of due to Star Tribune’s recent story. And with Joe Repya nipping at his feet in the race for Party Chair, it looks as though Carey is scared enough to resort to using the Party e-mail list for damage control.
The e-mail’s starts: “Mike Hatch. Star Tribune. Smear Campaign. What a surprise!” Yes, I’m not quite sure how, but Carey actually attempts to blame this thing on none other than Mike Hatch! Talk about holding a grudge…
At any rate, if you want to read the latest manifestation of Ron Carey’s fear for his title as Chair, you can read the whole desperate e-mail below the fold.
April 20, 2007
Dear Friends,
Mike Hatch. Star Tribune. Smear Campaign
Loading ...
Only a person with something to hide blames someone else for their troubles. That Ron Carey tries to be eloquent as he plays the Blame Game shows his own character to be less than noble.
Want to link to the original article?
Never mind “less than noble”: the man exudes fraud. That “similar lawsuit” two years ago was dropped because it was settled, not because there was no evidence. In fact, it was the judge who oversaw that settlement who referred the matter for investigation in the first place.
Hypothetically speaking, had the roles been reversed and it was Brian Melendez in Ron Carey’s shoes, there would be 7 or 8 threads over at MDE about this.
Indeed, 7-8 threads, keeping us in suspense and the info came out.
Not just 7-8 threads NOW but trotted out again in a few months and then again, and again, and again, and again. If MDE addressed each issue just once (like Franken is ANGRY!), there wouldn’t be much to talk about over there. But then that’s the Republican way - say it often enough and people will begin to believe it’s true (can you say ‘Iraq is responsible for 9/11’?)
Kahuna,
I’m not going to defend Ron Carey. Unlike you people, I don’t pretend to know what the facts are. It’s suspicious to me that the AG’s office didn’t persue criminal action if, as you claim, a crime had been committed.
That said, I’m not going to let you get away with saying Republicans claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Which Republican ever said that Kahuna? I want sources. If you’re going to say something that outrageous, you had better back it up.
Chris, I know you asked someone else this question, but I just couldn’t resist putting this quote out there. I’m sure you’ll dismiss thi sas biased, left-wing wordsmithing, but here you go:
“Before the US invaded Iraq, President Bush said he had intelligence evidence that ‘Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.’ Vice President Cheney said Iraq was the heart of ‘the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.’”
In case you want to look up a couple of the 5 ka-zillion places it is documented (my guess is that you don’t want to and that you won’t do it, but oh well), I have included a few.
Hugs
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/093003C.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0916-02.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0616-01.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/982713/posts http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two.
A recent opinion poll suggests that 70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm
A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.html
President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week’s finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission. “The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
Is that enough? It’s really gotten easy to track down all the lies and misinformation coming out of this administration. That’s one of the many reasons the war crimes trial is going to go so fast. Bush, Cheney, and all the other players in this disaster will be held accountable by the world community
“Kahuna,
I’m not going to defend Ron Carey. Unlike you people, I don’t pretend to know what the facts are. It’s suspicious to me that the AG’s office didn’t persue criminal action if, as you claim, a crime had been committed.”
Chris — -
Ummm, if you reread my post, I never even mentioned Ron Carey, much less implied a crime has been committed.
As for the rest of it, Richard has done a great job documenting the Bush administration claim that Iraq and 9/11 were linked. And since it was implied again and again, many people still believe it (as Richard notes.)
That’s bullshit. You guys are twisting the facts and throwing out bullshit. Bush never said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. That’s false if you say he did. Bush said that he was going after the countries who harbored terrorists - particularly al Qaeda. There is no dispute that al Qaeda operatives were in Iraq after 9/11. Some intelligence sources say that al Qaeda members met with Saddam’s elite intelligence people. Others disputed that fact. I’m glad to know that you guys on the left want to just roll the dice when it comes to our national security. Thank God Bush wasn’t willing to do that again after 9/11. As for war crimes, it’s sad to see idiots who hate their country like Richard lump the President of the United States with despots like Hilter and Pol Pot. Richard thinks that Bush is worse than Saddam was and I am ashamed that Richard is an American.
The sources that connected Al Qaeda to Saddam have been thoroughly discredited. No one is even pretending that anymore.
And as far as rolling the dice, Bush has basically played right into Al Qaeda’s hands. Instead of finishing them off in Afghanistan with the support and cooperation of the whole world, he invaded Iraq and made Al Qaeda more powerful than ever. Osama Bin Laden could not have asked for more cooperation from Bush.
Dan,
That’s just not true. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi received medical treatment in Baghdad after 9/11. Since Iraq has no Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance, how do you suppose Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ended up getting treatment in Baghdad?
What we’re seeing here is a monumental effort to remain ignorant. It would have to be a monumental effort to keep from knowing that Bush lied in his presentation to the Congress and to the American people about the case for going to war in Iraq. This effort, culminating with Powell’s address to the United Nations has all been thoroughly discredited since. If the media had been doing anything like it’s job, the most grievous foreign policy mistake in this nation’s history could’ve been prevented. This nation’s brilliant system of government failed because leaders on the left lacked the imagine to believe fascist style manipulation of public opinion would work in this day and age here in the US. The success of this effort eliminated the built in checks and balances that stood in the way on one small groups agenda. Bush didn’t fail, instead, he suceeded wildly. Profits, exceeding all the dreams of avarice of the Oil industry and the defense industry have poured in their coffers. Stupidity of this magnitude, does not happen by happenstance. Future will demand an accounting.
Richard,
You are a modern day Neville Chamberlain.
By the way, Richard,
Every single member of the Democratic leadership as well as the Clinton administration said the same thing about Iraq as the President did. Were they all lying, incompetent fools too?
That didn’t take long. We went from “it’s Hatch’s fault” to “it’s Clinton’s fault”.
Richard,
You’re just intellectually dishonest. Clinton said the same things about Iraq’s WMDs and Saddam but he wasn’t a liar. Hillary repeated them and she’s not a liar. When Bush says it, he’s a liar. You just hate America and Bush more than you care about the facts.
Chris — I’m not going to address the issue of why disagreement equals hatred (I disagree with the President on most things, but I can’t say that I hate him. Maybe I would, if I ever met him). I don’t understand why would you say hatred of Bush is the same as hatred of America? If “hatred” for the President is the same as hating America, what did you say about the constant Clinton-bashing in the 90’s (NOT what do you say now, what did you say then?)?
Or is this just a matter of whose ox is being gored?
BTW, the AG did not pursue Mr. Carey for fear it would look too political. I don’t know that anyone has yet made a decision on whether a crime has been committed.
A politically sensitive time - so, if there’s an election, it should be ignored?
Sort of like suppressing parts of the 9/11 report until AFTER an election, where people can get redress - our pretty much only opportunity to speak out?
I don’t know the facts of this case, but it sounds as though Carey is running scared.
Of course, Chris NO ONE, NO ONE AT ALL said Iraq was tied to 9/11.
No one on Fox?
Dissent equals treason. Insistance that the president adhere to the laws of this nation equals hatred. Of course, like cockroaches, the GOP cannot stand the light of investigation. We are in for a very illuminating 24 months. Mr. Carey will not be the only one subject to some very uncomforatable questions.
Randy,
Disagreement does not equal hatred at all. But people like Richard who actually want to try the President of the United States in the International Court of Justice are haters. They hate Bush so much that they don’t care about the consequences of their actions. There are people like Richard and dare I say Harry Reid who WANT us to lose in Iraq. Anyone who wants us to lose in Iraq hates this country. The people who call our troops baby killers and compare them to terrorists, Nazis and Pol Pot hate America. There are plenty out there Randy - just open your eyes and ears. I think it’s funny that you said you don’t know if you hate someone you’ve never met but you think you would hate him if you’ve met him. Well Randy, I’ve been with the President six times since he took office. Including twice at the White House and once at Air Force One. I can honestly say that nobody who meets him would hate him.
As for your argument about the Attorney General’s office and Ron Carey. All I can say is phooey! You’ve lost your marbles if you don’t think they would indict Ron Carey if there was something they could indict him on. Come on, this is the most political Attorney General’s office in America.
Mockingbird,
Do you even watch Fox News? If you say people on Fox News said Iraq was responsible for 9/11, you’ve never watched Fox. The salient question here is, who told you to say that Fox News said Iraq was responsible for 9/11?
Chris is a troll, don’t take the bait.
We would all do well to remember that century’s ago a Greek philospher observed that “Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.”
BP Dem,
To quote a “philosopher” from the 1970s (I’ll leave it up to your feeble little mind to try and figure out which person I am referringg to): “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but you are still a meathead.”
P.S. It’s centuries ago not century’s ago.
Chris,
P.S. It’s ‘try to figure out’ not ‘try and figure out’.
P.P.S. It’s ‘referring’ not referringg’.
P.P.S. It’s ‘to which person I am referring’ not ‘which person I am referringg to’.
Aww, I love the stench of Republican corruption in the morning. It smells like victory……..
That said, Ron Carey all the way!
Chris -
If you wish to pursue the semantics of “Bush never said Iraq was behind 9/11”, I’m willing to concede that he did not, in fact, ever utter such a phrase. By your definition he did not lie, nor did anyone in his administration.
But by your definition - and since you had the surprising tactic of bringing Clinton up - I’m going to use your own logic to prove that Bill Clinton never lied about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. He never actually said, “I never got received oral sex from Monica Lewinsky” did he? So by your standards, he didn’t lie about that at all.
Now if you wish to be intellectually honest, since you seem to be able to affix that label to others without pause, you’d be willing to concede that this administration went to great lengths to muddy the debate that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. You cannot deny that, regardless of what wordplay you wish to employ. Everyone from all political stripes has realized this just as much as everyone knew that Clinton was lying about a blowjob. (It’s the consequences that matter.)
But since I have also left hanging your question of citations, allow me to present you with a link to an article from the Christian Science Monitor, dated March 14, 2003.
In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was “personally involved” in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein’s regime.
“The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein],” says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
The numbers
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either “most” or “some” of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.
According to Mr. Kull of PIPA, there is a strong correlation between those who see the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who support going to war.
…
So, do you still wish to be intellectually honest?
Nico,
Nice try. I’m not going to take your ridiculous bait about Monica Lewinsky and oral sex. Clinton said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” And I will leave it at that.
The CS article you cited never gave one quote about Bush saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Bush has always said that he would go after the countries that harbored terrorism and there is no question that Saddam harbored one of the top al Qaeda operatives in Iraq - al Zarqawi - after 9/11. Zarqawi received medical treatment right in Baghdad. In addition, Iraq was one of the top sponsors of terrorism in the world. You still have not shown where Bush lied.
Apparently the answer to my final question was a resounding “no”.
Keep on trolling.
The CIA concluded that Saddam didn’t give Zarqawi squat much less harbor him. Unless the words “the regime did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates.” mean something else.
The 2006 Senate investigation concluded that Hussein actually tried to capture him.
You are either talking about some other Zarqawi or your NeoCon talking points are extremely out of date.
Chris done wrote:
“Come on, this is the most political Attorney General’s office in America.”
Actually, I think the one located in Washington, DC wins this one hands down. I’m just sayin’.
You sound so desperate Chris.
You really want to believe the stuff you spout.
I worry about you.