Why Jack Layton is on an anti-war theme

[uOttawaMan]

All the multi-quoting is making my eyes bleed.

Ah well.. at least its not my heart..

[B. Max]

To say there is no evidence is ridiculous, and even one 911 commissioner has changed his mind. A dem no less.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...26/185610.shtml

Although he is careful to note that the 1995 deal does not implicate Hussein 'directly' in the 9/11 attacks, he says, "It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States."

He adds that the relationship between Hussein and bin Laden will eventually become clear as more intelligence is translated and analyzed.

So, once again, the 'official government' position (as outlined in the work product of the 9/11 Commission) was incorrect. Gosh-oh-gee-golly!

I'm not gonna contribute to any more thread drift, but I will put the question to you that the departed Monty Burns was asked and never answered: if there is strong evidence of a bin Laden/Iraq connection, why isn't the Bush administration pushing said conection with thr same vigour they formerly pushed the WMDs? After all, such a conection would vindicate their decision to invade Iraq in the first place and bolster their contention that it was a necessary part of the "war on terror". Yet the administration has been very recitent to make such claims, leaving me to wonder why they would sit on information that could be of enormous poitical benefit to them and leave it to fringe outlets like NewsMax to report.

One of the things the Bush administration was criticized for was not being aggressive enough in communicating and getting out the facts. Bush and others have said repeatedly that there is no proof that Saddam was directly involved in 911. On the other hand Bush has said that their is plenty of evidence that Saddam has terrorist connections. Two different things. The anti Bush media only runs with the first leaving out lets like news max to get out the whole picture.

[Black Dog]

One of the things the Bush administration was criticized for was not being aggressive enough in communicating and getting out the facts.

By who? The problem wasn't their rlack of communication, it's that the information they were disseminating was horseshit drawn from dodgy sources and cherry-picked to support the foreordained conclusions.

Bush and others have said repeatedly that there is no proof that Saddam was directly involved in 911.

Yet you and the merry bunch at Newsmax are trying to make such a connection.

On the other hand Bush has said that their is plenty of evidence that Saddam has terrorist connections. Two different things

We're not talking about vague "terrorist connections". We're talking about operational ties to Al Qaeda. there may be some vague evidence of the former, but that does not prove the latter.

The anti Bush media only runs with the first leaving out lets like news max to get out the whole picture.

Ah: it's all a conspiracy. Gotcha.

[B. Max]

One of the things the Bush administration was criticized for was not being aggressive enough in communicating and getting out the facts.

By who? The problem wasn't their rlack of communication, it's that the information they were disseminating was horseshit drawn from dodgy sources and cherry-picked to support the foreordained conclusions.

By concervatives of course. The rest of your statement is nonsnese.

Bush and others have said repeatedly that there is no proof that Saddam was directly involved in 911.

Yet you and the merry bunch at Newsmax are trying to make such a connection.

Wrong.

On the other hand Bush has said that their is plenty of evidence that Saddam has terrorist connections. Two different things

We're not talking about vague "terrorist connections". We're talking about operational ties to Al Qaeda. there may be some vague evidence of the former, but that does not prove the latter.

Saddam's connection to terrorist groups goes back to the Clinton fiasco and the first trade tower bombings. Which led to 911.

The anti Bush media only runs with the first leaving out lets like news max to get out the whole picture.

Ah: it's all a conspiracy. Gotcha.

Lets say a conspiracy of, and united by ideology.

[Black Dog]

By concervatives of course. The rest of your statement is nonsnese.

Nope. look up "Curveball". Read up on the Office of Special Plans. Do your homework.

Yet you and the merry bunch at Newsmax are trying to make such a connection.

Wrong.

Oh I'm sorry: your efforts to tie Saddam to Al Qaeda have nothing to do with 9/11. Which, I'm sure, is why in your next sentence you say...

Saddam's connection to terrorist groups goes back to the Clinton fiasco and the first trade tower bombings. Which led to 911.

Again: connections? Maybe (I'm sure most intelligence agencies in the world have "connections" with terrorist goups.) But that doesn't prove an operational relationship.

No Saddam/Al-Qaeda lnk found

[Argus]

Ok I'm going to take this one phrase at a time and paraphrase it for clarity, please correct any misunderstandings if you see any.

According to a recent poll some 22% of Canadians are dumb. They believe that it was George Bush who ran airplanes into buildings on September 11, 5 years ago - empty airplanes, and that he fired a cruise missile into the Pentagon. All this so he could have a happy war.

22% of Canadians believe that the American government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks so that they could launch a war, this means that they are dumb.

Now we see Layton's strategy more clearly. He realizes that dumb people are the primary supporters of the NDP, and he's found a whole new source of recruits and voters. Acording to the media, his last speech made it sound like he was going to run the next election against George Bush. Again, a great plan when your supporters and potential supporters are dumb.

Here is where the mind-reading begins again: Layton realizes that most of the people who vote NDP are dumb, and he needs more voters. The media reported that his last speech was mostly anti-Bush, and only dumb people believe that George Bush could be wrong.

Layton will run on the Kyoto Accord - even though he has no idea whatever how to actually meet our obligations under it or how many billions that would cost, against Afghanistan - an American war, and against the softwood lumber agreement - evil Americans refusing to bow to our superior arguments.

Dumb and Dumber will be the new campaign theme.

Layton is so dumb that he has no idea how we can meet the targets of the Kyoto Accord, even though he is going to base his platform on it. He is so dumb that he is against the war in Afghanistan because he thinks it is an American war, and he refuses to support the softwood lumber agreement because he thinks the Americans "on the other side of the table" are evil.

Now why didn't you just save all of us some reading time and say "Stupid NDP"?

That wouldn't have been very polite, now would it?

[WestViking]

I submit we have taken Taliban Jack's bait, hook, line and sinker. The thread title could be Taliban Jack's end run

Conservatives can rest assured that Harper’s governance to date is sound enough that the NDP and Liberals want no part of a traditional election campaign or to debate issues important to voters.

The NDP, openly aided and abetted by the Liberal mainstream media, is trying to focus public attention and Parliament on debating the war on terror in an effort to drown out Conservative government agenda announcements expected with the opening of the fall session of Parliament next week.

Rather than actually dealing with a broken-down justice system, a broken equalization system, Senate reform, income tax relief, EI overhaul, and a host of other economic and social ills that have languished, unattended, for a dozen years, the opposition wants to reopen the May 2006 debate on Canada’s commitment to NATO in Afghanistan.

Taliban Jack Layton and his supporters must not be allowed to hijack the Parliamentary agenda to debate a decision on Afghanistan not six months old and to engage in a protracted debate on foreign policy while they have nothing constructive to offer us at home.

The opposition may well fear Conservative governance competence but debating foreign affairs at the cost of moving ahead on domestic improvements is not an acceptable alternative to offer the public.

At election time, we shall remember and remind voters that the cake offered by the opposition is the stale stuff of incompetents, scallywags and rogues seeking refuge by wrapping themselves in a flag they otherwise disdain.

[jbg]

snip..

Dumb and Dumber will be the new campaign theme.

Wow, what a great way to start a conversation. Brand everyone who disagrees with you a dumbass... I'm sure this will be a great discussion. The perfect definition of a troll?

Better as a campaign theme then:

Stephen Harper is eating your children

1. In his kitchen;
   
2. At 24 Sussex Drive;
   
3. In Ottawa;
   
4. In Ontario;
   
5. In Canada
   

We're not making this up. We're not allowed to make this up.

[Rovik]

I submit we have taken Taliban Jack's bait, hook, line and sinker. The thread title could be Taliban Jack's end run

Conservatives can rest assured that Harper’s governance to date is sound enough that the NDP and Liberals want no part of a traditional election campaign or to debate issues important to voters.

The NDP, openly aided and abetted by the Liberal mainstream media, is trying to focus public attention and Parliament on debating the war on terror in an effort to drown out Conservative government agenda announcements expected with the opening of the fall session of Parliament next week.

Rather than actually dealing with a broken-down justice system, a broken equalization system, Senate reform, income tax relief, EI overhaul, and a host of other economic and social ills that have languished, unattended, for a dozen years, the opposition wants to reopen the May 2006 debate on Canada’s commitment to NATO in Afghanistan.

Taliban Jack Layton and his supporters must not be allowed to hijack the Parliamentary agenda to debate a decision on Afghanistan not six months old and to engage in a protracted debate on foreign policy while they have nothing constructive to offer us at home.

The opposition may well fear Conservative governance competence but debating foreign affairs at the cost of moving ahead on domestic improvements is not an acceptable alternative to offer the public.

At election time, we shall remember and remind voters that the cake offered by the opposition is the stale stuff of incompetents, scallywags and rogues seeking refuge by wrapping themselves in a flag they otherwise disdain.

It's obvious by these attacks on Layton and the NDP, that the right-wingers are afraid that Layton may persuade enough of these "dumb" non-committed voters or "dumb" soft-Conservative voters not to vote Conservative, which may cost the Conservatives a possible majority in the next election or perhaps even losing power altogether.

And my goodness if you listen too what some of these right-wingers say, one would think that Layton had horns, a tail and pitchfork. They exaggerate or twist what the NDP are saying and resort to name calling such as "Taliban Jack." Layton must be making these right-wingers very nervous indeed for them to spend so much time and attention attacking him and the NDP.

And I agree with the poster that many things need to be fixed but I feel that the Conservative agenda will make things things worse not better. Of course, "Bush's Boy Steve," may surprise me but sadly, I doubt it.

Oh my, I have to apologize for that name calling....the venom of some of the right-wingers here must be catching.