Cheney Didn't Help Bush: Kerry 2 - Bush 0

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/06/2004 07:09:21 PM · #51

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by ScottK:
Then Edwards took that money, set up a dummy corporation, and used it to shelter hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes. Then he has the gall to campaign against "evil" corporations that don't pay their fair share in taxes.

WHAT A HYPOCRIT!!!

Scott, what dummy corporation did Edwards set up to shelter money?

Though you'll probably yell "Unreliable Source", Robert Novak reported it last March in his article here

An exerpt:

"At 9 a.m. on June 28, 1995, articles of incorporation were filed with the North Carolina Secretary of State for John R. Edwards, P.A. (professional association), of Raleigh, N.C. The new corporation was authorized to issue 100,000 shares of common stock -- all owned by Edwards, who is its only employee. This is a classic Subchapter "S" corporation devised to shelter income, mainly for professionals such as lawyers (and also syndicated columnists, but not me). It is one of the last loopholes left in the Internal Revenue Code, and it is a big one.

Edwards put his own little corporation to good use in his last two years as a multi-millionaire personal accident lawyer before becoming a full-time politician. He paid himself salaries of $600,000 in 1996 and $540,000 in 1997, on which he paid Medicare taxes. As the sole stockholder, Edwards received dividends of $5 million for each of those years -- all of it free from Medicare taxes. That saved the future senator around $290,000"

Please explain to me what the crime is here and how much money did Edwards gain from this corporation. Was it an illegal corporation? I'm just pleading ignorance here :)

No crime was ever implied. What Edwards did was legal and a very smart thing to do. Ron just answered the question you asked when Scott called Edwards a hypocrite. Got it?

LoudDog

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/06/2004 07:19:32 PM · #52

The problem here is in the human decision making process. Most people make a decision and then spend their time and efforts validating their choice. By doing this you close your eyes to anything opposing your original choice.
Few people actually research an issue without bias and get all the facts before actually making a choice.

Thus arguing on the internet is mostly pointless because your opposition just dismisses it or stands by their position saying the other option is worse. They beleive the half truths in favor of their positon 100% and call the half truths opposing their positon lies.

10/06/2004 07:49:58 PM · #53

Not sure which post to reply to, so in response to the request for info on Edwards' tax dodge, the following is a copy of a Wall Street Journal editorial which provided a description of what he did: Liberal Loopholes: Edwards and Kerry want to raise taxes, but aren't wild about paying them.

Now, right up front, there was nothing illegal about what Edwards did. So no weaseling out under the "he didn't break the law" defense.

Here's the salient synopsis of his corporate wrangling:

Senator Edwards talks about the need to provide health care for all, but that didn't stop him from using a clever tax dodge to avoid paying $591,000 into the Medicare system. While making his fortune as a trial lawyer in 1995, he formed what is known as a "subchapter S" corporation, with himself as the sole shareholder.

Instead of taking his $26.9 million in earnings directly in the following four years, he paid himself a salary of $360,000 a year and took the rest as corporate dividends. Since salary is subject to 2.9% Medicare tax but dividends aren't, that meant he shielded more than 90% of his income. That's not necessarily illegal, but dodging such a large chunk of employment tax skates perilously close to the line.

The Internal Revenue Service takes a dim view of such operations and "may collapse the structure entirely and argue the S corporation is not truly a separate entity," in the words of Tax Adviser magazine. Attorney CPA magazine lists it as No. 11 of its "15 best underutilized tax loopholes," but warns that the IRS "has successfully litigated cases against individuals, particularly sole shareholders of personal service S corporations, reclassifying such deemed distributions as wages subject to social security taxes."

What's at issue is that a man who has made the issues of corporate tax loopholes, the rich not paying their fair share, and championing the medicare system, cornerstones of his political rhetoric, not only didn't pay his fair share, but did (or is it didn't do) so at the expense of the beneficiaries of medicare. While Edwards was one of those "millionaires sitting by their swimming pool, collecting their statement to see how much money their making, make their money from dividends", he avoided paying $600,000 into the medicare system. He's a rich man - $600,000 over that period of time was nothing to him, compared to the $27 million he made that year. Why did he see fit to deprive seniors of medication and treatment just so he could keep an extra 2% of his money?

Because he's playing you all for suckers. I say again: What a HYPOCRIT!

10/06/2004 08:51:33 PM · #54

Originally posted by bdobe:

Well Ron,

You at least got this part right:

Originally posted by RonB:
Though you'll probably yell "Unreliable Source", Robert Novak reported...

This is the same Robert Novak that's at the center of a Department of Justice investigation for serving as a Bush Administration tool in the leak of the identity of an undercover CIA operative:

The "senior administration official" is not the original leaker who first told columnist Robert Novak that Wilsonâ��s wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA "operative" specializing in weapons of mass destruction. That as-yet-unidentified official remains the target of Justice Department investigators who today are awaiting stacks of White House recordsâ��including phone logs, e-mails and other material relating to the possible dissemination of information about Wilson and his undercover spouse.
-- //msnbc.msn.com/id/3158220/

According to MadMordegan, in the Discover Freedom thread, the source doesn't matter as long as you agree with their opinion. Of course, as I just posted, this isn't opinion, but fact, so dredging up dirt on Novak (who I'm not personally wild about, so dredge away if you must) is irrelevent.

10/06/2004 08:57:31 PM · #55

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
This was one of my favorite of Cheney's lies:

CHENEY: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." â�� Dick Cheney [Presidential Debates, 10/5/04]

Prove it. And forget the Meet the Press misquote from last September. I heard the whole response, in context, this morning, and he never connects the two. In fact, he specifically stated that he was not saying that.

So the worst lie Cheney told was not, in fact, a lie, then that only leaves one liar on the stage last night...

See the beauty here is that he said "suggested", which is exactly what he did over and over again. Had he said "said" instead, then he would have had plausible deniability.

10/06/2004 09:07:01 PM · #56

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

^^ Yet no comment on the substance of the [challenge]. Classic.

(paraphrased)

10/06/2004 09:24:15 PM · #57

Thanks everybody for clearing up the issue with Edwards tax evasion. Assuming the story is true it was still legal, although ethically questionable. I also imagine that this is common practice for these kinds of shenanigans to be pursued by many people in the upper echelons of our society. Somehow the story got out on Edwards.

I'm not condoning his actions on this but what he did was not illegal. To me, it seems that there is much more corruption coming out of the Bush administration, especially with Halliburton, and what Bush is alleged to have done with his former company, Harken Energy. In addition, Bush, and his family have a long legacy of befriending and associating with unsavory types, such as Enron's Ken Lay, who gave both Bush, and the Republicans large contributions. Is it wrong where I have read that Neil Bush and Jeb Bush have both profited nicely from the Savings & Loan scandal back in the 80's? Is it also wrong that G Bush senior was heavily involved with Iran/Contra? Is the Bush administration (Ashcroft) currently and aggressively pursuing convictions for all of these criminals that have stolen money from their employees and the public? I know that John Kerry actively investigated Iran/Contra, and, if I'm not mistaken the S&L scandal back in the 80's and got a lot of flack for this from many members of congress because both republicans, and democrats were involved. And he did it with peril to his career in politics. Much of what he uncovered, I have read has come to pass as fact.

10/06/2004 09:34:37 PM · #58

Ok, im done with this "my dick is bigger than yours" game Scott.

What I said stands, take your pick here.

Russell2566

10/06/2004 09:40:59 PM · #59

Originally posted by Russell2566:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Even if your theory is true, it wouldnâ��t have been completed this fast. It takes 24-48 hours for a redirect to propagate throughout the internet or an IP/DNS change. So, no.

Thats only when you change the DNS server... For instance I use ZoneEdit, but there are thousands more. When I make a change it literaly only take 2-10 minutes for the new redirection to take place.

I'm guessing VERY highly that this is what happens, if you pay attention a redirection DOES occure, and I'm pretty sure it's a server side redirect, not HTML.

Originally posted by CNN:

The company decided to redirect traffic to the Soros site after it became inundated with hits -- about 100 a second after the debate, John Berryhill, a Philadelphia lawyer for FactCheck.com, said Wednesday.

See I really do know what I'm talking about some times :)

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

10/06/2004 09:41:33 PM · #60

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Well, now that we know that you are interested in "clearing up the issues", how about either acknowledging that what Edwards is just as corrupt as what the others you listed did, or pointing out the things that they did that were either illegal, or any more corrupt than what Edwards did? You did say that there was "much more" corrupton coming out of the Bush administration, so it should be easy for you to give us a few examples. And, just so we're clear, also give us "your" definition of what "corruption" is, so we have a basis for evaluating everyone by the same standard.

10/06/2004 09:51:04 PM · #61

Originally posted by Russell2566:

Originally posted by Russell2566:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Even if your theory is true, it wouldnâ��t have been completed this fast. It takes 24-48 hours for a redirect to propagate throughout the internet or an IP/DNS change. So, no.

Thats only when you change the DNS server... For instance I use ZoneEdit, but there are thousands more. When I make a change it literaly only take 2-10 minutes for the new redirection to take place.

I'm guessing VERY highly that this is what happens, if you pay attention a redirection DOES occure, and I'm pretty sure it's a server side redirect, not HTML.

Originally posted by CNN:
The company decided to redirect traffic to the Soros site after it became inundated with hits -- about 100 a second after the debate, John Berryhill, a Philadelphia lawyer for FactCheck.com, said Wednesday.

See I really do know what I'm talking about some times :)

True. I just read about it. They were getting 100 hits per second :o

10/06/2004 09:57:52 PM · #62

Originally posted by karmat:

The problem is whenever "proof" is presented (for either side) the other side claims bias and nothing is ever solved. I am looking (trying to find a source "acceptable" to you, but since I was supposed to leave work 1/2 hour ago, and I still have work to do, you may have to wait until tomorrow.

Karmat, you are correct. What these rants turn out to be is everyone trying to be like lawyers to state their case and present evidence in the form of internet articles. Of course, no one on either side believes their opponents or the sources of their evidence. So what it comes down to for me is that I have to look at what is obvious with the current situation with both candidates and look at their pasts. Also, I see who is saying what from the sources I trust most. In the worlds of high finance and government, coverups are, it seems, a daily activity, not just in the government, but in corporations as well (witness Enron, Worldcom, etc.).

The real art in political discourse lies in analysis and understanding what "lies" (pun intended) behind the "curtains." Reading between the lines. This is where it's very hard to prove things. Hopefully, some of these rants help in some way to make sense of things.

10/06/2004 10:15:58 PM · #63

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Ok, im done with this "my dick is bigger than yours" game Scott.

What I said stands, take your pick here.

Good, I'm glad your done with your games. Now back to your "favorite lie"...

Of 13 items in the list of quotes in your reference, two arguably "suggest" a connection between Iraq and 9/11: the two mentioning the Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer. But in both cases, his comment is followed up by statements to the effect of "...we've never been able to develop anymore ... in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know." Going to the source of one, its preceded by the following:

"Two issues in terms of relationship. One is, was there a relationship between al Qaida and Iraq, between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, or the al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence service? That's one category of
issues. A separate question is, whether or not there was any relationship relative to 9/11. Those are two separate questions and people oftentimes confuse them.

On the separate issue, on the 9/11 question, we've never had confirmation one way or another."

So both before and after that statement, he states that he's not suggesting a definite link.

And, preceding the final quote there, is this very difinitve statement:

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that.

Message edited by author 2004-10-06 22:17:08.

10/06/2004 10:27:44 PM · #64

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Thanks everybody for clearing up the issue with Edwards tax evasion. Assuming the story is true it was still legal, although ethically questionable. I also imagine that this is common practice for these kinds of shenanigans to be pursued by many people in the upper echelons of our society. Somehow the story got out on Edwards.

I'm not condoning his actions on this but what he did was not illegal. To me, it seems that there is much more corruption coming out of the Bush administration, especially with Halliburton, and what Bush is alleged to have done with his former company, Harken Energy. In addition, Bush, and his family have a long legacy of befriending and associating with unsavory types, such as Enron's Ken Lay, who gave both Bush, and the Republicans large contributions. Is it wrong where I have read that Neil Bush and Jeb Bush have both profited nicely from the Savings & Loan scandal back in the 80's? Is it also wrong that G Bush senior was heavily involved with Iran/Contra? Is the Bush administration (Ashcroft) currently and aggressively pursuing convictions for all of these criminals that have stolen money from their employees and the public? I know that John Kerry actively investigated Iran/Contra, and, if I'm not mistaken the S&L scandal back in the 80's and got a lot of flack for this from many members of congress because both republicans, and democrats were involved. And he did it with peril to his career in politics. Much of what he uncovered, I have read has come to pass as fact.

Well, now that we know that you are interested in "clearing up the issues", how about either acknowledging that what Edwards is just as corrupt as what the others you listed did, or pointing out the things that they did that were either illegal, or any more corrupt than what Edwards did? You did say that there was "much more" corrupton coming out of the Bush administration, so it should be easy for you to give us a few examples. And, just so we're clear, also give us "your" definition of what "corruption" is, so we have a basis for evaluating everyone by the same standard.

Ok, here's my definition straight out of the American Heritage Dictionary: immorality, depraved, open to bribery, dishonest.

Since it looks like we're going to play tit for tat here with corruption, here's one from Dick Cheney and Halliburton.
From THIS ARTICLE
"In 1998, when Cheney was CEO, Halliburton secretly changed its accounting techniques to show a higher level of profit. Without the change, it would have come in below expectations, which would have hurt its price. The change was unorthodox and "aggressive," and should have been communicated to the stockholders, which only happened after a long and quite improper delay. Halliburton finally settled this case with the Securities Exchange Commission, by paying a paltry $7.5 million fine."

Just one example.

10/06/2004 10:34:22 PM · #65

Just for reference, lots more Bush administration public statements on Iraq here. (search database)

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

10/06/2004 10:56:45 PM · #66

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:
Well, now that we know that you are interested in "clearing up the issues", how about either acknowledging that what Edwards is just as corrupt as what the others you listed did, or pointing out the things that they did that were either illegal, or any more corrupt than what Edwards did? You did say that there was "much more" corrupton coming out of the Bush administration, so it should be easy for you to give us a few examples. And, just so we're clear, also give us "your" definition of what "corruption" is, so we have a basis for evaluating everyone by the same standard.

Ok, here's my definition straight out of the American Heritage Dictionary: immorality, depraved, open to bribery, dishonest.

Since it looks like we're going to play tit for tat here with corruption, here's one from Dick Cheney and Halliburton.
From THIS ARTICLE
"In 1998, when Cheney was CEO, Halliburton secretly changed its accounting techniques to show a higher level of profit. Without the change, it would have come in below expectations, which would have hurt its price. The change was unorthodox and "aggressive," and should have been communicated to the stockholders, which only happened after a long and quite improper delay. Halliburton finally settled this case with the Securities Exchange Commission, by paying a paltry $7.5 million fine."

Just one example.

Not a good example.

"Halliburton (HAL) filed "materially misleading" financial statements that raised its profits in 1998 and 1999 while Vice President Cheney was its chief executive, but it did not violate accounting rules, the Securities and Exchange Commission said Tuesday.

The SEC did not hold Cheney responsible for the actions. It brought charges against the company's former chief financial officer and former controller...the SEC said Cheney "cooperated willingly and fully" with the investigation"

From this article ( USA Today 8/23/2004 )

and

"In a statement, Halliburton said the SEC agreed that the accounting change adhered to generally accepted accounting principles and that there is no need to restate the company's earnings from the late 1990s....The SEC, however, did not find fraud, and Halliburton continues to use the accounting method."

From

this article (Boston.com News 8/4/2004 )

Explain what, in the change in accounting methodology was immoral, depraved, open to bribery, or dishonest.

Message edited by author 2004-10-06 22:57:45.

10/06/2004 11:40:56 PM · #67

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:
Well, now that we know that you are interested in "clearing up the issues", how about either acknowledging that what Edwards is just as corrupt as what the others you listed did, or pointing out the things that they did that were either illegal, or any more corrupt than what Edwards did? You did say that there was "much more" corrupton coming out of the Bush administration, so it should be easy for you to give us a few examples. And, just so we're clear, also give us "your" definition of what "corruption" is, so we have a basis for evaluating everyone by the same standard.

Ok, here's my definition straight out of the American Heritage Dictionary: immorality, depraved, open to bribery, dishonest.

Since it looks like we're going to play tit for tat here with corruption, here's one from Dick Cheney and Halliburton.
From THIS ARTICLE
"In 1998, when Cheney was CEO, Halliburton secretly changed its accounting techniques to show a higher level of profit. Without the change, it would have come in below expectations, which would have hurt its price. The change was unorthodox and "aggressive," and should have been communicated to the stockholders, which only happened after a long and quite improper delay. Halliburton finally settled this case with the Securities Exchange Commission, by paying a paltry $7.5 million fine."

Just one example.

Not a good example.

"Halliburton (HAL) filed "materially misleading" financial statements that raised its profits in 1998 and 1999 while Vice President Cheney was its chief executive, but it did not violate accounting rules, the Securities and Exchange Commission said Tuesday.

The SEC did not hold Cheney responsible for the actions. It brought charges against the company's former chief financial officer and former controller...the SEC said Cheney "cooperated willingly and fully" with the investigation"

From this article ( USA Today 8/23/2004 )

and

"In a statement, Halliburton said the SEC agreed that the accounting change adhered to generally accepted accounting principles and that there is no need to restate the company's earnings from the late 1990s....The SEC, however, did not find fraud, and Halliburton continues to use the accounting method."

From

this article (Boston.com News 8/4/2004 )

Explain what, in the change in accounting methodology was immoral, depraved, open to bribery, or dishonest.

So then why the 7.5 million dollar settlement? Supposedly, that was because Cheney was not cooperating with the SEC investigation. So then what was there to hide if Halliburton was not doing something wrong? In addition, Cheney/Halliburton did not notify investors of these accounting miscalculations. They increased their earings sheet by including payments which they did not receive yet and that the customer had not agreed to even paying. They inflated the company's worth by something like $300,000,000! That's a lot of money.

In addition, it's unlikely that the SEC chariman is going to find any wrong doing with the current vp in an election year. I'm sure he's buddy buddy with Bush and company being that they graduated from Yale Business School. So I would say that the corruption here was dishonesty.

What have you found as far as corruption from Kerry? Any good dirt?

thelsel

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

10/07/2004 01:21:35 AM · #68

Originally posted by bdobe:

Here's just one BLATANT lie by Mr. Cheney:

During The Vice Presidential Debate, Cheney Said The First Time He Met Edwards Was At The Debate That Night.

During the first vice presidential debate, Vice President Cheney said:

"In my capacity as vice president, I am the president of the senate, the presiding officer, I'm in the senate most tuesdays in session. The first time I met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."

HOWEVER!

Cheney Thanked Edwards At the National Prayer Breakfast.

Addressing the National Prayer Breakfast, Cheney said:

"Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I honored to be with you all this morning." [FDCH Political Transcripts, Cheney Remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, 2/1/01]

---------------------------------------

The question then becomes, what other lies have Bush/Cheney told us?

Who gives a crap if they sat next to each other at prayer breakfast? The real question is why they can't seem to refute the main point of Cheney's statement. Edwards seems to have a real problem showing up in the senate. At least Bob Dole had the decency to resign from the senate while campaigning for the Presidency.

thelsel

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

10/07/2004 01:55:52 AM · #69

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Just for reference, lots more Bush administration public statements on Iraq here. (search database)

...and just for reference, Kerry's public statements on Iraq. There's also a short version for those of you with short attention spans. Now, didn't Edwards bash Cheney for making similar statements?

They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning,
no-one you see, is dumber than he...

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

10/07/2004 02:24:02 AM · #70

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Well said Olyuzi! Incredibly succinct and very damning.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

10/07/2004 10:08:18 AM · #71

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

So then why the 7.5 million dollar settlement?

Sorry, you will have to ask the SEC for an explanation of why 7.5 million.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Supposedly, that was because Cheney was not cooperating with the SEC investigation.

Sorry, again, but as the USA Today article said, "the SEC said Cheney "cooperated willingly and fully" with the investigation."

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

So then what was there to hide if Halliburton was not doing something wrong?

Who says that anyone was hiding anything. The finding wasn't that Halliburton "HID" anything, only that they did not disclose it in a timely manner.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

In addition, Cheney/Halliburton did not notify investors of these accounting miscalculations.

They were no "accounting miscalulations" as you claim. The SEC agreed that "there is no need to restate the company's earnings from the late 1990s".

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

They increased their earings sheet by including payments which they did not receive yet and that the customer had not agreed to even paying. They inflated the company's worth by something like $300,000,000! That's a lot of money.

Yes, they did; yes, they did; and yes, it is. But none of it violated generally accepted accounting methods. It was only a failure to report the change in accounting methods in a timely manner that the SEC found to be misleading.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

In addition, it's unlikely that the SEC chariman is going to find any wrong doing with the current vp in an election year. I'm sure he's buddy buddy with Bush and company being that they graduated from Yale Business School.

Now you are casting dispersions on the chairman of the SEC with absolutely NO PROOF, whatsoever. I call that innuendo at best, if not outright libel. It is impossible to counter an accusation of that sort, but that's why libel laws put the burden of proof on the accuser.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

So I would say that the corruption here was dishonesty.

On whose part? Obviously, you imply Cheney. Yet, the SEC did not find anything dishonest about Cheney's involvement.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

What have you found as far as corruption from Kerry? Any good dirt?

If "dirt", as you call it, presents itself, I may post a reference to it, but I certainly do not make it a habit to spend time looking for "dirt" that hasn't already been made known. I do, at times, post information from those sources in support of my own statements, or to make comparative arguments, but I have no personal vendetta against any of the candidates, or columnists, or posters to these threads.

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

10/07/2004 11:36:24 AM · #72

"I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11."
- Dick Cheney [Vice Presidential Debates, 10/5/04]

---------------------------------------

"IRAQ/AL QUEDA CONNECTION" STATEMENTS MADE BY MR. CHENEY.

"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there."

Source: Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004).

Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

*

"Al Qaida had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces."

Source: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at a Bush-Cheney 2004 Fund-Raiser, White House (10/5/2003).

Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. The statement also refers to al Qaeda in Northeastern Iraq without acknowledging that this area was not controlled by Saddam Hussein.

---------------------------------------

NOTE THAT MOST AMERICANS, post 9/11, when we hear Al Queda, we automatically conjure images of 9/11. Therefore, if an elected official, say a VP or a President, were to actively link Iraq with Al Queda, then most of us would have naturally concluded: since, Al Queda = 9/11, therefore 9/11 = Iraq.

Now, those that still defend the administration will bend and twist to negate that such a link was ever made; however, we all know better than that: all we have to do is follow Mr. Cheney's advise, Look at the record.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

10/07/2004 11:44:29 AM · #73

It is going to be a very interesting election :-)