Let the spinning begin.
The Bush-Cheney campaign didn’t wait for the debate between Vice President Dick Cheney and John Edwards to begin before they started e-mailing "fact" sheets to the nation's newsroom.
The first one reached the Star at 5:46 p.m, a full 14 minutes before Cheney and Edwards started hammering away at each other.
This "Breaking Pre-Debate Fact" dusted off an Edwards quote from February 2002 about Iraq being "the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
More e-mails from the Bush camp followed at 6:21, 6:32, 6:39, 6:43, 6:46, 7:06, 7:16, and 7:33.
All had the same aim: to shape perceptions by backing up comments made by Cheney and undercut Edwards by pointing out his alleged misstatements or inaccuracies.
As with last Thursday’s debate between President Bush and John Kerry, the Democrats got off to a slower start. The Kerry-Edwards forces didn't unleash their electronic barrage until 6:35. Others followed at 6:35, 6:46, 6:57, 7:18, 7:22, and 7:24.
The Dems got particularly excited about Cheney's comment that he has "not suggested there’s a connection between iraq and 9/11." This newspaper received three copies of the Kerry campaign e-mail disputing this remark by pointing out contradictory things the vice president has said on the topic.
This one, from a Jan. 22, 2004 interview on National Public Radio, was representative: "I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government."
It's getting harder and harder for liberal media to get away with espousing their point of view by slanting news stories and promulgating falsehoods in editorials.
The Republican and Democrat fact sheets also reach other publications on the internet where everyone can see what they are really saying. No longer can editors hide the wackiest of the Democrat statements as they used to, or pretend facts don't exist because they favor the Republican point of view.
Well, actually, they still can and they do. But now more people know about it.
There's plenty of connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Quaida and everyone knows it. Iraq under Saddam openly paid out millions to terrorist groups. It wasn't a secret! Iraq had a terrorist training camp with an airplane fuselage for hijack classes, called Salmon Pak. Iraq harboured lots of famous terrorists and gave them a place to live. An Iraqi Intelligence agent met with one of the 911 terrorists, their leader in fact.
This recent Special Report from CNSNews.com has dramatic new evidence of connections, too. Here's the link: http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html .
It's hard to have less credibility than John Kerry, but John Edwards makes a good effort.
Edwards, a trial lawyer, made millions by suing doctors and hospitals because, according to him, they weren't doing enough Ceasarian operations, which was causing Cerebal Palsy. Today doctors do Ceasarians at the drop of a hat because they are afraid of being sued.
But the large number of unnecessary operations are causing more injuries of women having babies than ever before. And there is now absolute proof that Ceasarians do not help prevent Cerebal Palsy - at all. Of course, the doctors knew that before.
Edwards was wrong, horribly, terribly wrong. He has never apologized or given back his ill gotten gains, however.
Why do the newspapers and TV news hide this information? It makes you wonder.
Posted by: Wayne at October 6, 2004 04:45 AMIt is absurb for someone to suggest that there were significant linkages between Al-Quaida and Saddam Hussein's regime given the obvious facts that the United States' government fully supported and funded Hussein's regime in the 1980's and beyond. Citizens need only to review the number of public and private meetings that took place between officials such as Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and Saddam Hussein during the Reagan administration. American corporate and tax dollars were given to Iraq over an extended period of time. These monies enabled Hussein's subsequent activities against his political and strategic enemies in Iran, Kuwait, and within Iraq itself. Now, Cheney has the audacity to declare that he would change nothing in terms of how and why American forces were brought to bear against the soverign nation of Iraq. Moreover, Cheney's actions as CEO of Haliburton and as Vice-President of the United States suggest he is far more concerned with the economic advantages he and other millionaires have reaped from war-profits than he is with the well-being of American troops at war, the people of Iraq, and the security of American citizens.
Posted by: Jim at October 6, 2004 07:42 AMWhy would the "United States' government fully supporting and funding Hussein's regime in the 1980's and beyond" preclude links between Al-Quaida and Saddam Hussein? That seems patently absurd to me.
That's if you admit that the United States "fully supported" and "funded" Hussein's regime in the 80's or at any other time, which I don't. The United States certainly did not! Saddam Hussein got most of his weapons from Russia, China and France, illegally from France in recent times. ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040908-123000-1796r.htm ) Saddam got funding from selling oil, oppressing his people, and corrupt deals with France and the UN. ( http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110005011 )
All I see in the last part of the previous comment is a whole lot of nothing. What exactly were Cheney's actions that upset Jim? He doesn't say, only giving a contrived set of "reasons" for the mysterious "actions" that sound like a quote from the Daily Worker.
Why don't the anti-war folks just admit they are for Communism and propaganda? What, are they ashamed of their political philosophy? Well, I guess I would be, too.
Posted by: Wayne at October 6, 2004 11:23 AM