Comments on: BREAKING: Ron Carey E-Mails State GOP List in Response to Autism Center Scandal

By: Fraud and Illegal Immigrants, Just Another Day At The RPM. at MNpublius.com

Fraud and Illegal Immigrants, Just Another Day At The RPM. at MNpublius.com — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:08:35 +0000

[…] most charming aspect of this story? When Tostenson confronted Ron “Call the Lawyers… Again” Carey, his salary was slashed by 40%. Subtle […]

By: Mockingbird

Mockingbird — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:28:24 +0000

You sound so desperate Chris.
You really want to believe the stuff you spout.

I worry about you.

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 05:14:07 +0000

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’.

By: SeanH

SeanH — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:03:13 +0000

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You are either talking about some other Zarqawi or your NeoCon talking points are extremely out of date.

By: Nicho

Nicho — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:59:41 +0000

Apparently the answer to my final question was a resounding “no”.

Keep on trolling.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:42:27 +0000

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.

By: Nicho

Nicho — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:15:46 +0000

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?

By: Demrock6

Demrock6 — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:40:27 +0000

Aww, I love the stench of Republican corruption in the morning. It smells like victory……..

That said, Ron Carey all the way!

By: Max

Max — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 04:12:43 +0000

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’.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 03:05:48 +0000

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.