Isn't it hilarious how Kerry...

Article

[QUOTE=NY Times]Secretary of State Colin L Powell concedes that despite his assertions to United Nations last year, he has no 'smoking gun' proof of link between government of Iraqi Pres Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al Qaeda; says he thinks possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them at that time; his remarks are stark admission that there is no definitive evidence to back administration statements and insinuations that Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda; impression of such a link in public mind has become widely accepted--and something administration officials have done little to discourage;[/QUOTE]

I think the NY Times is a little bit more respectable than the Washington Times which is just another right wing newspaper. The NY Times reported facts straight from the administration as they said them. Are you going to argue with your own administration?

And Clarke, a security advisor, registered Republican, who served under 3 Republican presidents said that he was pressured to find a link by Bush, one that he says does not exist. He was head of intelligence for the past four administrations and followed Al Queda for many years. He was the one to know of a link if there was one.

[QUOTE=Nostalgia] I mean, if you haven't heard of this yet, at least admit to ignorance - i don't think anyone will think any less of you.[/QUOTE]
I see we have passed into the realm of personal attacks...

I think the NY Times is a little bit more respectable than the Washington Times which is just another right wing newspaper. The NY Times reported facts straight from the administration as they said them.

*cough* Jason Blair *cough*

[QUOTE=graphicsguy]at least Kerry has the brains to change his mind.[/QUOTE]

Kerry says whatever he thinks the people he is w/ at the moment want to hear.And if an issue has 5 sides to it,Kerry is on every side of the "issue" to "cover all the bases".

Well on the other hand, I guess we can asertain that we dont have to wonder if Kerry has any "core values" or "principles" that he simply will not prostrate under any circumstances.

On another note,have you noticed that they(the people on Kerrys team) are already starting to make excuses for why Kerry might lose?

I hate politics,but I watch 'em like a hawk.From the time they enter politics to the time they open their mouths ... they have a history.

"Earthly minds, like mud walls, resist the strongest batteries; and though, perhaps, sometimes the force of a clear argument may make some impression, yet they nevertheless stand firm, keep out the enemy, truth, that would captivate or disturb them."

I see we have passed into the realm of personal attacks...

No, if you did not know about the information i gave, were you not ignorant to those facts? What other word would you have chosen?

I think the NY Times is a little bit more respectable than the Washington Times which is just another right wing newspaper. The NY Times reported facts straight from the administration as they said them. Are you going to argue with your own administration?

You have still failed to provide me with the official retraction! The only words that were quoted by Powell in that little paragraph of yours were "smoking gun". The rest was just commentary added by the journalist.

...he has no 'smoking gun' proof of link between government of Iraqi Pres Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al Qaeda; says he thinks possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them at that time; his remarks are stark admission that there is no definitive evidence to back administration statements and insinuations that Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda...

How does the journalist turn "he thinks possibility of such connections did exist" into a stark admission that there is no definitive evidence? Obviously there IS definitive evidence, as i just posted SEVERAL. Powell said these things at a time when there was no hard proof - now there is.

Do you deny Iraq's ties to al-Qaeda? Is it possible to deny Iraq's ties with al-Qaeda?

Nos.

NY Times respectable? Find me a Republican who agrees with that statement and I'll show you a pig who can fly at Mach 7.

And Clark, who served under 3 Republican administrations, who is registered Republican, but who only contributed to Democratic campaigns?...yeah, that's someone who I'll believe. Smells like a wolf in sheep's clothing to me.

How is it a two party system? There are HUNDREDS of parties, people simply do not vote for their candidates. It's democracy at it's best.

Yeah, right. Voting for anyone other than the candidates of the Republican or Democrat parties is basically throwing your vote away. there's no point. Anyone who voted for Ralph Nader might as well have voted for a tree. I thought that Nader's story would teach us this.

The point is that your vote will more or less amount to nothing if it's not for a Republican or a Democrat, and I pretty firmly believe that at this point, choosing between a Republican or a Democrat has become (because of the nature of the candidates) choosing between the lesser of two evils. I am seriously considering not voting even once I get my voting priveleges at the age of 18.

Yeah, right. Voting for anyone other than the candidates of the Republican or Democrat parties is basically throwing your vote away. there's no point.

That's because people like you aren't voting for the candidate you like. Our system is fine - if the public likes the Republican and Democratic parties, then they're going to stay as the top two parties. You, and everyone else, has the right to vote for who they want to vote for. As i said, it's democracy at it's best.

You can't blame the public for choosing who they want to be president.

Nos.

You can't blame the public for choosing who they want to be president.

... if that were the case, we'd all be b*tching about President Gore.

Nos, I agree - (as painful as that was to type) - the public does decide, well, sort of.

One could also argue that the electoral college doesn't count individuals in lesser populated states. Ask any democrat that voted in Wyoming, for example.

Nos, maybe what you should've typed was " You can't blame the public in most of the larger states except for Florida for choosing between two rich white males who they want to dictate their personal religious beliefs, define free-speech, raise their income taxes, gas prices, grocery prices and make it damn near impossible to find a job in a crappy economy while making $5.15 an hour wishing they could go thousands of dollars into debt to attend a college - if it made a difference."

just felt the need to clarify ;)

Nos, maybe what you should've typed was " You can't blame the public in most of the larger states except for Florida for choosing between two rich white males who they want to dictate their personal religious beliefs, define free-speech, raise their income taxes, gas prices, grocery prices and make it damn near impossible to find a job in a crappy economy while making $5.15 an hour wishing they could go thousands of dollars into debt to attend a college - if it made a difference."

That's one way of saying it

Although it isn't the president that does all of that, it's congress as a whole.

Nos.

Nos: You continue to gain my respect with your insights, debate, and occassional incidental personal attack. ;)

Graphicsguy: You're still my favorite liberal.

Looky--I turned this into a popularity contest! Good thing we don't pick our candidates this way!!!

(The above sarcasm was aimed at the boneheads who voted for Clinton because he was 'cool' and could play a saxophone).

Saddam supported terrorists. Anyone who believes otherwise is naive and a victim of election politics and propaganda.