Posted on 09/29/2004 8:00:45 AM PDT by finnman69
Your little rant doesn't change the fact that you were wrong, and I was correct, despite your days and days of trying to defend a position contradicted by your own source. You can spin that all you want. You claim to have changed your cut and paste now. You have acknowledged that the guy wasn't Fedayeen, despite your posting a couple of dozen times that he was, AFTER I quoted the 9-11 report to you on that issue. As far as credibility and posting links goes, that is indisputable proof that posting links does not establish the facts the poster is claiming.
"Exactly. Kerry makes Clinton look like a straight shooter."
The problem is all the little demonRats~ want to BE CLINTON and they just can't pull it off. They just don't realize that Clinton had a REAL natural tallent for lying that you just have or don't.
And I'm loving every minute of it!
"We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today"
I will never forget a news story about a man who was trapped on the 4th story of a burning building. All he could see is scores of people waiving - all he could hear was the word jump. With the flames burning his backside he jumped-breaking several bones.
On the ground - the people were really yelling - don't jump - the fireman are on their way. The didn't know his backside was being burned.
A reporter went on and on about how stupid the man was to jump. He did not let his viewers know that he had arrived on the scene after the fact, nor did he tell his viewers that his opinions were based on the fact that the eyewitnesses knew that help was on the way. He basically was saying-
" He should not have jumped knowing the information that we know today"
Spin. Spin. Spin.
The guy was Iraqi national and probably intelligence vs. Fedayeen. I venture to say you are the only one impressed by the difference.
And, I will repeat, if you think I would ever take your word for something without your providing a link, you need those meds even more than I thought.
But let's go back to your denial that you called me a Pakistani operative. Then I provided a link that you did. Sounds like there is a liar on board here. And tag, you're it.
What time is the debate. I want to make sure I catch it. The contrast between the president and the poodle should be startling.
I wonder if he'll still be orange for the debate. That would be a nice touch.
The difference is that one is true and one is not. That is obviously not a difference that means anything to you.
That is a false characterization. Cheney said that it hasn't been proven one way or the other which is in no way a retraction or backing away.
Did you even READ what you posted?
In addition, peach's quotation was from a different time and a different interview. The lack of identical language means little to any but those vainly attempting to parse the language to attack the VP.
And you have the nerve to call Peach "dishonest." LoL
It is a flat out LIE that he denied his earlier comment.
What part of "I never said that" do you not understand?
Its subject.
Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?
CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.
Fast forward:
BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohammad Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed." Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that. BORGER: OK. Vice Pres. CHENEY: Never said that. Okay, justshutup, are you seriously going to sit there and say he isn't denying the earlier comment?
What do you think he was talking about when he said "I never said that"?
Kerry's in a no win on Iraq... he has to somehow articulate coherently and concisely an argument that says all of the following at the same time:
A) Going to war against Saddam was bad.
B) Saddam was a really really bad man.
C) Removing Saddam was good.
D) War to remove him was bad.
E) Even though the BAD war, successfully removed SADDAM (GOOD), it was still BAD.
F) There were other options to remove saddam (good)... of course all of these had failed for over 11 years, and Saddam continued to engage in Acts of War against the US during that time (firing on US flights in No Fly Zone, etc etc etc).(BAD)
G) The No Fly Zones were illegal, so Saddam attacking the US doesn't count as act of war. (according to him and his surrogates, but even the UN doesn't buy that one)
H) We know he had and used WMD (bad) and all intelligence said he still had a weapons program (bad)
I) Since we didn't find anyt WMD though, even though Saddam was a really bad bad man, who violated the international community for 11 years, harbored terrorists, funded WMD programs in Libya, and likely moved his WMD's and other weapons to Lebanon and Syria before the war... removing him from power was bad because we didn't find WMD on the ground afterwards.....
So in simple terms... Kerry can't make any arguments on Iraq against the war without sound A) INSANE or B) HYPOCRITCAL to sane americans.
Kerry basically can't win, he's making an argument that cannot be remotely justified by facts, or by his own words.
Hell even his excuse about the $87 Billion being a late in the evening tired inarticulate moment was a flat out lie as he made the statement at noontime.
You decided yet what you are going to try to claim the VP was talking about? I mean, it is pretty obvious he is talking about the Atta trip to Prague, since that is what the question is about. How are you going to spin it?
Not when he goes on to repeat it and even add to it. Borger does not quote his remark and it is rather open ended when Cheney jumps in.
A denial would be "no the report that he met in Prague with a senior Iraqi official has been shown to be false." That is a denial not this comment prior to adding even more information about the ties and THEN specifically saying the report has not been confirmed or refuted.
He NEVER denies that the report was false but conceded it has not been proven one way or another.
What does that mean to you?
It's Tough to be Orange!
Wow, you are missing it completely. He didn't deny that the report was false, and I didn't say he did. He denied that he previously said it was "pretty well confirmed." And, beyond all doubt, he previously said the report was "pretty well confirmed."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.