Last night's Daily Show?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
These are the same reports cheeny is talking about that could neither be confirmed nor denied..  They are unsubstantiated..

Besides, these reports show no cooperation between the two identities.. Only meetings..

Or wait, cheeny said these reports had never been refruted or confirmed was his exact words I believe..

So you accept some things the commission claims, but not others?  I get it now.  Selective acceptance.  How convenient.

[Mighty1]

Jon Stewart is not what (well some of you would) most would call a bleeding liberal or any other leftist comment one could imagine.

What?!

He is as liberal as you get! OK OK not as liberal as MM but still...

Don't get me wrong I like watching his show most of the time but he almost always has some liberal jerk off on spouting off on how the Repubs are evil and Bush is satan.

He IS funny but his show this year has been as political as you can get and it is so one sided it makes it hard to watch.

Sure Sure he puts in a few ketchup jokes but most of the time it's "Did you see what Bush did today?" BS.

[Saurdaukar]

When I want unbiased information I always turn to a has been comedian with a 6PM show on cable.

[TheDudeDVant]

Originally posted by Mighty1
What?!

He is as liberal as you get! OK OK not as liberal as MM but still...

Don't get me wrong I like watching his show most of the time but he almost always has some liberal jerk off on spouting off on how the Repubs are evil and Bush is satan.

He IS funny but his show this year has been as political as you can get and it is so one sided it makes it hard to watch.

Sure Sure he puts in a few ketchup jokes but most of the time it's "Did you see what Bush did today?" BS.

You must not have watched him when Clinton was president.. He is a news man that reports current news.. When clinton was pres he had the daily 'did you see what clinton did'... But none of that matters, obviously..

You are totally wrong about his guest.. He has a very good mix of guest..

[TheDudeDVant]

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
When I want unbiased information I always turn to a has been comedian with a 6PM show on cable.

Glad your up to date on things..  The 6pm show is a re-run of the previous night..

[TheDudeDVant]

Originally posted by Martlet
So you accept some things the commission claims, but not others?  I get it now.  Selective acceptance.  How convenient.

What am I accepting and what am I not??

Are you not guilty of selective acceptance believing against the 911 findings?? How convenient!!

[Torque]

Jon is da chits and funny as hell most of the time, although the Haliburton Fairy and Pinocchio  make it easy for him to whip up plenty of witty satire. The man carries the Comedy Channel.

[AKIron]

OK, this certainly indicates ties. Perhaps they didn't have the resources or the cooperation of Al Qaeda to confirm colaboration?

Well, I can't paste from the document itself. However it's in statement 15 where they mention the 3 meetings between Al Qaeda and Iraqi officials.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Iron... there were contacts between our diplomats and Japanese diplomats prior to Pearl Harbor. Just because there were meetings does not translate into ties.
-SW

[AKIron]

Maybe not, there are other indicators though. Still, why would they need to meet three times if they were not discussing collaboration?

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

I don't know. I'm sure if this were turned around to be us, we'd already know the excuse. First one, help us with this. Second one, give us money or weapons. Third one, join us or die.

Of course thats all conjecture - but that differs little all the way up to through the administration... seems lots of things these days are based around conjecture.
-SW

[AKIron]

Well, there was certainly plenty of conjecture in the panel's report.

One thing I don't think many will deny is that Saddam hated America. Why wouldn't he use whatever means available to strike at us?

[rpm]

Originally posted by Martlet
So you accept some things the commission claims, but not others?  I get it now.  Selective acceptance.  How convenient.

ROFLMAO  That's rich coming from you Martlet.

Originally posted by Martlet
Here's a few tidbits:

• Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan."

• "A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994."

• "Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan."

Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there."

 •Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden tried to get a meeting with Saddam but was refused.

•Senior Iraqi officials went to Sudan 3 times to tell him no meeting with Saddam.

•He kept trying to meet with Saddam but was again refused.

I get it now.  Selective acceptance.  How convenient.

[Red Tail 444]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I don't know. I'm sure if this were turned around to be us, we'd already know the excuse. First one, help us with this. Second one, give us money or weapons. Third one, join us or die.
-SW

For some odd reason, I seriously doubt threatening Saddam's henchmen would result in the desired outcomes

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Sure, plenty of conjecture in the panel - plenty of conjecture thrown around by the heads of the administration. We went to war over conjecture and to-date lies in Iraq. We went to war over proven facts in Afghanistan.

I don't care about Saddam, he's number last on my list of countries that absolutely despise us and definitely have the means to attack us - and openly support those who would and more than likely will.

We went after the LEAST likely threat while bypassing the MOST likely, and one proven, threat.

I could continue on, but it really doesn't matter. No ones opinion of Iraq, Saddam, Al Qaeda "connections", or the Bush administration will change.
-SW