SHAMELESS

[skunk]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=WCBWGWX0HGGNMCRBAEKSFEY?type=topNews&storyID=5442262Cheney Won't Back Down on Saddam-Qaeda Links -Aides
Wed Jun 16, 2004 09:14 PM ET

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney, who took the lead in pushing the idea of long-standing links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, has no intention of backing down despite a finding to the contrary by the Sept. 11 commission, aides said on Wednesday.

Administration officials stood by Cheney, who critics accuse of using faulty intelligence about alleged weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi links to al Qaeda to push the nation to war.

A White House official said Cheney's assertion, which he repeated this week, that the ousted Iraqi leader had long-established ties to al Qaeda, were based on "facts."

"Hell no!" another administration official said when asked if Cheney would retract his statements after the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks found no evidence that Iraq aided al Qaeda attempts to strike the United States.

According to the commission's staff report, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 and had explored the possibility of cooperation, but the plans apparently never came to fruition.

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States," the report said.

Administration officials disputed suggestions that Cheney's comments conflicted with the report's findings.

Officials said Cheney asserted on Monday that there were links between Saddam and al Qaeda, not that Saddam helped al Qaeda carry out attacks against the United States, although critics say Cheney and other officials at times created the impression that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

"It's not surprising people make that connection," Cheney said at one point as polls showed most Americans believed Iraq was involved.

"The administration's statements rest on a solid foundation of history and facts. The record of links between Iraq and al Qaeda is clear to anyone who has open eyes and an open mind," a White House official said on Wednesday.

Administration officials also disputed suggestions that Cheney was the most outspoken official about the links.

To make that case, his office provided reporters with a list of U.S. officials and lawmakers who made similar statements about Saddam's alleged ties to al Qaeda.

The list compiled by the vice president's office included outgoing CIA Director George Tenet, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York Democrat and former first lady.

"We have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad," Tenet said in an Oct. 7, 2002 letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Sen. Clinton was quoted as saying three days later: "He (Saddam) has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members," according to the list compiled by Cheney's office.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared in September 2002: "We know that al-Qaeda is operating in Iraq today."

© Copyright Reuters 2004.

"Trust me, I'm a politician".

How could he possibly have had a heart attack?? :confused:

[toontra]

Let truth stand in the way of the biggest example of political manipulation and deception on the grandest scale in modern history? - "Hell no!"

[wwworry]

If Cheney gets away with this we are all doomed. The truth won't matter. Free pass to any misdeed.

[numediaman]

It's a simple strategy. If they admit that they have been caught in a lie, a substantial group of believers will not go to the polls in November. I don't believe for a second that these true believers will vote for Kerry, but they will finally realize that they have been used and will simply stay away.

How do you explain the fact that so many Americans believe that Bush's tax policies are actually meant to help them? In fact, the couple of hundred dollars most people got back from the Feds has been replaced with higher local taxes and fees, the deficit, and higher user fees (such as the extra money everyone is now paying in gas taxes). These supporters are willing to conveniently forget that a small group of Americans are being handed hundreds of thousands of dollars at the same time they get peanuts.

In the end, the administration has no choice but to repeat the same lies -- after all, I bet Sly still believes them -- right Sly?

[IJ Reilly]

And here I thought he just wasn't paying any attention to the 9-11 Commission. That's what I get for trying to be charitable.

[Voltron]

"Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."


Voting for Kerry because he'll pay wellfare mothers 5,000 bucks a year, calling it a tax cut when they paid no taxes kinda sucks in my opinion. Tax cuts should only "directly" benefit those who "pay taxes". It benefits all of us by the fact that rich dudes have more money to invest in the market place to create more jobs with.

True allot of those new jobs will be in other countries but so be it. Even Europe out sources now, big controversy in their papers about it. What do you think a world economy will do? Out sourcing is just a symptom of the long range ramifications of the growth pains of such a world economy.

[mactastic]

Sly, what does any of that silly rant have to do with VP Cheney's false statements about a Saddam-alQaeda link? Or is the only response you can come up with when faced with such a lie to obfuscate as best you can? Can't talk about the topic at hand without looking bad?No problem, just throw a little flame-bait out there and watch the topic change...

[Voltron]

Sly, what does any of that silly rant have to do with VP Cheney's false statements about a Saddam-alQaeda link? Or is the only response you can come up with when faced with such a lie to obfuscate as best you can? Can't talk about the topic at hand without looking bad?No problem, just throw a little flame-bait out there and watch the topic change...
Ok let me draw the lines between the dots for you.
How do you explain the fact that so many Americans believe that Bush's tax policies are actually meant to help them? In fact, the couple of hundred dollars most people got back from the Feds has been replaced with higher local taxes and fees, the deficit, and higher user fees (such as the extra money everyone is now paying in gas taxes). These supporters are willing to conveniently forget that a small group of Americans are being handed hundreds of thousands of dollars at the same time they get peanuts.

In the end, the administration has no choice but to repeat the same lies -- after all, I bet Sly still believes them -- right Sly?
"Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."


Voting for Kerry because he'll pay wellfare mothers 5,000 bucks a year, calling it a tax cut when they paid no taxes kinda sucks in my opinion. Tax cuts should only "directly" benefit those who "pay taxes". It benefits all of us by the fact that rich dudes have more money to invest in the market place to create more jobs with.

True allot of those new jobs will be in other countries but so be it. Even Europe out sources now, big controversy in their papers about it. What do you think a world economy will do? Out sourcing is just a symptom of the long range ramifications of the growth pains of such a world economy.
ok Macstastic is it easier to understand why I posted what I did now?

I reply to those things that are of interest to me, not necessarily those items that are of interest to you.

[wwworry]

It benefits all of us by the fact that rich dudes have more money to invest in the market place to create more jobs with.

Except 75% of all jobs are are created by SMALL businesses - not the upper .5% that Bush supporting.

&

Those large multi-national rich dude corps. are, primarily, the ones outsourcing jobs.

&

In actuality, most of those rich dudes actually pay a smaller percentage of their income to taxes than your typical upper-middle class wage earner.

But these neo-cons and the ones they have conned always prefer ideology over actuality. Like Cheney, he will repeat any lie to get get what he wants.

[skunk]

Ok let me draw the lines between the dots for you.


ok Macstastic is it easier to understand why I posted what I did now?

I reply to those things that are of interest to me, not necessarily those items that are of interest to you.
Certainly nothing is any clearer for me. Does the topic not concern you?

[numediaman]

Back to the topic at hand . . .

Apparently Bush went to war over chickens:

U.S. analysts also erred in their analysis of high-altitude satellite photos, repeatedly confusing Scud missile storage places with the short, half-cylindrical sheds typically used to house poultry in Iraq. As a result, as the war neared, two teams of U.N. weapons experts acting on U.S. intelligence scrambled to search chicken coops for missiles that were not there.

"We inspected a lot of chicken farms," said a former inspector who asked not to be identified because he now works with U.S. intelligence. His U.N. team printed "Ballistic Chicken Farm Inspection Team" on 20 gray T-shirts to mark the futile hunt.

http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-intel17jun17,1,2168031.story

Now if there is a really good reason to go to war, it's got to be chickens. We can't let these damn Middle East countries put a strangle hold on the world's supply of poultry. You'd think the French would back us on this one.

[skunk]

Now if there is a really good reason to go to war, it's got to be chickens. We can't let these damn Middle East countries put a strangle hold on the world's supply of poultry. You'd think the French would back us on this one.
Thailand's in trouble... :eek:

[IJ Reilly]

Apparently Bush went to war over chickens:


That's why they call them "chicken hawks." Well, that's another reason anyway.

[LeeTom]

"Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."


Voting for Kerry because he'll pay wellfare mothers 5,000 bucks a year, calling it a tax cut when they paid no taxes kinda sucks in my opinion. Tax cuts should only "directly" benefit those who "pay taxes". It benefits all of us by the fact that rich dudes have more money to invest in the market place to create more jobs with.

True allot of those new jobs will be in other countries but so be it. Even Europe out sources now, big controversy in their papers about it. What do you think a world economy will do? Out sourcing is just a symptom of the long range ramifications of the growth pains of such a world economy.

It's called trickle-down economics. It didn't work in the 80s, and it won't work now. You know, many of the biggest corporations in the country pay no taxes either after all their write-offs. The least we can do is let some less advantaged people put some ****ing food on their table. Healthcare would be nice too, being that we're the only 1st world country in the world that doesn't provide it. Saddam Hussein provided better health coverage for his people than we do. Take your tired old ideas and shove em. We have real problems to solve.

Lee Tom

[zimv20]

That's why they call them "chicken hawks."
ow.

[Neserk]

Voting for Kerry because he'll pay wellfare mothers 5,000 bucks a year, calling it a tax cut when they paid no taxes kinda sucks in my opinion. Tax cuts should only "directly" benefit those who "pay taxes". It benefits all of us by the fact that rich dudes have more money to invest in the market place to create more jobs with.



:rolleyes: Go do some research on supposed welfare mothers then post. You might be surprised what you find. I know I was.

[Chip NoVaMac]

:rolleyes: Go do some research on supposed welfare mothers then post. You might be surprised what you find. I know I was.

No, he would rather believe in the RNC misinformation machine.

[Neserk]

No, he would rather believe in the RNC misinformation machine.

The liberal media is more to blame than anyone, imo ;) They have a tendency to report extreme cases rather than norms :rolleyes:

[Voltron]

Except 75% of all jobs are are created by SMALL businesses - not the upper .5% that Bush supporting.

&

Those large multi-national rich dude corps. are, primarily, the ones outsourcing jobs.

&

In actuality, most of those rich dudes actually pay a smaller percentage of their income to taxes than your typical upper-middle class wage earner.

But these neo-cons and the ones they have conned always prefer ideology over actuality. Like Cheney, he will repeat any lie to get get what he wants.
What do you think they do with their money stuff it in their mattresses?
If they put it in the bank then the bank has more money to loan and supply and demand formulas causes interest rates to fall.

If they put it in stock then business have more money to expand and thus hire more people somewhere.

They blow it on overpriced window blinds, boats, cars, whatever and increases the demand of such products which in turn increases the demand for the employees who make them.

If they outsource jobs then other people in other countries make more money and buy imports some of which from America, or from some other country who in turns makes more money hires more employees who spend their money on American products. That is if we make them at a reasonable price by not being force to pay those who make them unreasonable prices like GM for example who pay their people over 26 bucks an hour for unskilled assembly job labor.

No matter where they put their additional funds, unless they bury it under a rock or stuff their mattress with it, it can't help but increase employement somewhere.

[Voltron]

It's called trickle-down economics. It didn't work in the 80s, and it won't work now. You know, many of the biggest corporations in the country pay no taxes either after all their write-offs. The least we can do is let some less advantaged people put some ****ing food on their table. Healthcare would be nice too, being that we're the only 1st world country in the world that doesn't provide it. Saddam Hussein provided better health coverage for his people than we do. Take your tired old ideas and shove em. We have real problems to solve.

Lee Tom
If you are correct the money they are not spending on taxes they are investing in their business which in turn requires additional employees. Or they are investing in other business either directly, thru stock, or thru bank deposit who in turn loans it out. More money in the pockets of those who earn it makes more money available for those willing to earn it.

[Voltron]

:rolleyes: Go do some research on supposed welfare mothers then post. You might be surprised what you find. I know I was.
My neighborhood is full of wellfare mothers. One girl was willing to dump her boyfriend if I would agree to become her new boyfriend. We never been on a date and we never actually talked prior to her making me that offer she simply wanted a sugar daddy but not a husband who would ruin her wellfare benefits.

My family is full of those who get paid for not growing crops or not mining coal all of whom have asked me why havn't I moved there to receive GA they would help me collect it, its a wonderful carefree life. Instead I keep pounding my head on a brick wall trying to better my life because I don't believe in being a slug.

I know a lot of women who sit in their living rooms and collect wellfare with no intention of ever getting a job. Why should they the government pays for everything. It is their right after all their children deserve the best of everything.

I've done all the research I need to do in my own back yard.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[numediaman]

Sly, do you know what a tax credit is? It is a credit for taxes paid. For God's sake, will you try to use at least an inch of brain matter before posting?

I know you hate the poor. It is a deeply rooted hate. But I ask you, why do you hate people who make very little money? What threat are they to you and your goal to make the rich richer?

[Voltron]

Sly, do you know what a tax credit is? It is a credit for taxes paid. For God's sake, will you try to use at least an inch of brain matter before posting?

I know you hate the poor. It is a deeply rooted hate. But I ask you, why do you hate people who make very little money? What threat are they to you and your goal to make the rich richer?
That is what a tax credit is suppose to be. a credit on Income tax paid not on Social security insurance paid. If you pay no income tax if your tax result at the end of the year is equal to a total pay back of everything you paid in you should not get more back than you paid in. If you paid no income tax at all you still should get no money back because you have to pay money in order to get it back.

Those employment taxes don't count towards income tax. Neither does sales tax, gas tax, stupidity tax, whatever. Income tax credit should be only for income taxes paid.

[numediaman]

That is what a tax credit is suppose to be. a credit on Income tax paid not on Social security insurance paid. If you pay no income tax if your tax result at the end of the year is equal to a total pay back of everything you paid in you should not get more back than you paid in. If you paid no income tax at all you still should get no money back because you have to pay money in order to get it back.

Those employment taxes don't count towards income tax. Neither does sales tax, gas tax, stupidity tax, whatever. Income tax credit should be only for income taxes paid.

Are you really this stupid? Or are you playing a game?

You can't get a tax credit if you don't pay taxes -- get it?

I paid six figures in tax last year -- I'll be happy to take the extra couple thousand in credit. But I know the people it will really benefit are those who make a lot less. The role of government is to defend those people -- not me.

(For God's sake Sly, stop being a brown shirt for a moment and think for yourself.)

[Chip NoVaMac]

What do you think they do with their money stuff it in their mattresses?
If they put it in the bank then the bank has more money to loan and supply and demand formulas causes interest rates to fall.

If they put it in stock then business have more money to expand and thus hire more people somewhere.

They blow it on overpriced window blinds, boats, cars, whatever and increases the demand of such products which in turn increases the demand for the employees who make them.

If they outsource jobs then other people in other countries make more money and buy imports some of which from America, or from some other country who in turns makes more money hires more employees who spend their money on American products. That is if we make them at a reasonable price by not being force to pay those who make them unreasonable prices like GM for example who pay their people over 26 bucks an hour for unskilled assembly job labor.

No matter where they put their additional funds, unless they bury it under a rock or stuff their mattress with it, it can't help but increase employement somewhere.

And then they move their companies and money to offshore locations to avoid taxes.

I guess the rest of us can east cake...

[Chip NoVaMac]

Are you really this stupid? Or are you playing a game?

You can't get a tax credit if you don't pay taxes -- get it?

I paid six figures in tax last year -- I'll be happy to take the extra couple thousand in credit. But I know the people it will really benefit are those who make a lot less. The role of government is to defend those people -- not me.

(For God's sake Sly, stop being a brown shirt for a moment and think for yourself.)

Actually i think he might be a RNC bot that just matches words with cliche ridden rhetoric. It is amazing how many of those on the Right know so many poor people. One would think that only 5% of the US population actually works given the poor they know.

[3rdpath]

thank goodness for the ignore option...it's like preperation H for the forums.

as for cheney's lack of concern for the facts as established by a bipartisan committee...guess this kinda explains how we got into this war in the first place.

at this point i'm still amazed that i have any outrage left...

[Voltron]

Are you really this stupid? Or are you playing a game?

You can't get a tax credit if you don't pay taxes -- get it?

I paid six figures in tax last year -- I'll be happy to take the extra couple thousand in credit. But I know the people it will really benefit are those who make a lot less. The role of government is to defend those people -- not me.

(For God's sake Sly, stop being a brown shirt for a moment and think for yourself.)
My sister received over 3,000 dollars last year above what she paid in. That is in addition to what she paid in. That is in fact the way it works.

[Voltron]

Are you really this stupid? Or are you playing a game?

You can't get a tax credit if you don't pay taxes -- get it?

I paid six figures in tax last year -- I'll be happy to take the extra couple thousand in credit. But I know the people it will really benefit are those who make a lot less. The role of government is to defend those people -- not me.

(For God's sake Sly, stop being a brown shirt for a moment and think for yourself.)
If I called you stupid you would be clicking on the report abuse button.

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) provides support for families that are making the transition from welfare to work. Workers who qualify for the EITC and file a federal tax return can receive a refund of some or all of their federal income tax. Because it is refundable, eligible families receive the full amount of the credit even if that amount is greater than the amount of taxes owed. Qualifying families with no tax liability receive the entire credit as a refund.

http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/Publications/friedmanapril.htm



New non-refundable credits would be useless to families of four that earn less than $28,000, because they already pay no federal income taxes. In fact, about a third of the nation's children live in families with incomes too low to receive any benefit from the child credit enacted in 1997. To the extent that they are intended to benefit children, credits are a particularly inappropriate policy tool. Kids do not file tax returns, so the credit has to go to the parents, with the hope that parents spend the added resources on their children.

http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/gale/19990216.htm



Whoever coined the saying "there is no such thing as a free lunch" never filed for the Earned Income Tax Credit. Although the tax season officially ends on April 15, many Americans will have to work well past that date just to pay their tax bill. Many Americans, that is, except those who receive the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Whenever one thinks of welfare and entitlement programs, the first thoughts that usually come to mind are things like food stamps, Head Start, and Medicaid, or acronyms like AFDC, WIC, and SSI. But one of the greatest forms of welfare – the ultimate free lunch – is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC in government jargon).

So then, what is the purpose of this universally-lauded "tax credit," and how does one qualify for it? According to the IRS:

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), sometimes called the Earned Income Credit (EIC), is a refundable Federal income tax credit for low-income working individuals and families. Congress originally approved the tax credit legislation in 1975 in part to offset the burden of social security taxes and to provide an incentive to work. The credit reduces the amount of Federal tax owed and can result in a refund check. When the EITC exceeds the amount of taxes owed, it results in a tax refund to those who claim and qualify for the credit.

Income and family size determine the amount of the EITC. To qualify for the credit, both the earned income and the adjusted gross income for 2003 must be less than $29,666 for a taxpayer with one qualifying child ($30,666 for married filing jointly), $33,692 for a taxpayer with more than one qualifying child ($34,692 for married filing jointly), and $11,230 for a taxpayer with no qualifying children ($12,230 for married filing jointly).

For 2004, some employees with at least one child living with them may be entitled to receive advance EITC payments in their paychecks. The employee must file Form W-5, Earned Income Credit Advance Payment Certificate, with an employer to receive the advance payments. The employer then pays part of the credit to the employee in advance throughout the year. The taxpayer claims the rest when filing the 2004 Federal tax return.

The EITC does not generally affect eligibility for Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), food stamps, or low-income housing.

Some observations. First, if social security taxes are a "burden," then why not reduce the social security tax rates or eliminate the tax altogether? Second, why does the government have to provide people with "an incentive to work"? I thought eating was a good incentive to work? Does it not say in the New Testament "that if any would not work, neither should he eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10)? Third, the EITC is only "for low-income working individuals and families." But these people hardly pay any taxes. The ones who actually pay most of the taxes in the country don’t qualify. The top 50 percent of income earners pay 96 percent of all federal income tax. The top 1 percent pay 36 percent, and the top 5 percent pay 55 percent of all federal income taxes. Fourth, the EITC "reduces the amount of Federal tax owed." It is not like a deduction for charitable contributions or medical expenses that lowers your income and therefore your taxes. Instead, it actually directly reduces your taxes. You don’t even have to itemize deductions to claim it. Fifth, "Income and family size determine the amount of the EITC." There is a notable difference between the EITC and other forms of welfare – there is no asset test or net-worth ceiling to qualify. Having two cars in the driveway, a yacht at the marina, and a plane at the airport does not exclude anyone from receiving the EITC. Sixth, the receipt of welfare in the form of the EITC does not hinder ones ability to receive other forms of government handouts. Eligibility for "Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), food stamps, or low-income housing" is not generally affected by receiving the EITC. Seventh, the EITC is refundable; that is, you get what is left after it covers your taxes. But not only that, you still get it even if you don’t owe any taxes. This means that many people who don’t pay any federal income taxes still get a tax "refund." Thus, the EITC is the embodiment of the "negative income tax" advocated by Milton Friedman in his book Capitalism and Freedom. It would have the effect of establishing a floor below which no man’s income could fall, another anti-libertarian measure advocated by Friedman. But destructive tax policies are nothing new to Friedman, for as Murray Rothbard pointed out in his classic essay, "Milton Friedman Unraveled," "One of Friedman’s most disastrous deeds was the important role he proudly played, during World War II in the Treasury Department, in foisting upon the suffering American public the system of the withholding tax." And eighth, you don’t have to wait until tax time to get your EITC. You can get "advance EITC payments" in your weekly paycheck.

Like any other government program, the cost of the EITC has gone up every year. The maximum available payout has increased from a modest $400 in 1975 to a whopping $4,204 for 2003.


tables follow that paragraph at http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance11.html

[screener]

Sly, Voltron, whoever,

Are you maybe a Libertarian, if not maybe you should consider it.
They have the same concepts of reality as you, screw you Jack, I'm okay
type of attitude.

[screener]

My sister received over 3,000 dollars last year above what she paid in. That is in addition to what she paid in. That is in fact the way it works.

You mean Candlelite?
I'm sure she would appreciate that you shared.

[Voltron]

Sly, Voltron, whoever,

Are you maybe a Libertarian, if not maybe you should consider it.
They have the same concepts of reality as you, screw you Jack, I'm okay
type of attitude.
I'm a liberal.
Just read John Locke.


Only those who pay income taxes should receive tax refunds and then no more than they paid in.

[screener]

I'm a liberal.
Just read John Locke.


Only those who pay income taxes should receive tax refunds and then no more than they paid in.

(comedian) as well.
You begrudge Candlelite and hers and yours?

[skunk]

I'm a liberal.

"to a degree". :D