Thread: CNN Sponsored Presidential Debate 10/16/2012

A reminder about the last plant-infested, CNN-run town hall debate
By Michelle Malkin • October 15, 2012 12:38 PM


CNN’s Candy Crowley will be moderating tomorrow night’s second presidential debate. It will be a 90-minute town hall forum at Hofstra University on Long Island, east of New York City. Both the Obama and Romney campaigns signed a “memorandum of understanding” about how the debate will be run. But Crowley is already making noises that she plans to circumvent the agreed-upon rules and take control: http://thepage.time.com/2012/10/14/m...re-the-debate/

In a rare example of political unity, both the Romney and Obama campaigns have expressed concern to the Commission on Presidential Debates about how the moderator of this Tuesday’s town hall has publicly described her role, TIME has learned.

While an early-October memorandum of understanding between the Obama and Romney campaigns suggests that CNN’s Candy Crowley would play a limited role in the Tuesday-night session, Crowley, who is not a party to that agreement, has done a series of interviews on her network in which she has suggested that she will assume a broader set of responsibilities. As Crowley put it last week, “Once the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?’”

Do you remember what happened the last time CNN was in charge of a high-stakes “town hall” style campaign debate?

I do. Flashback: CNN/YouTube/plant debacle. http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/30...t-tell-policy/

Refresher:



Concerned Young Undecided Person “Journey” = John Edwards supporter “Journey”



Concerned Undecided Log Cabin Republican supporter David Cercone = Obama supporter David Cercone



Concerned Undecided Mom LeeAnn Anderson = Activist for the John Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers union LeeAnn Anderson



Concerned Undecided Gay Military Retiree Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr = Hillary/Kerry supporter and anti-”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” activist Keith H. Kerr

11/30/07
CNN’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy

If any more political plants turn up at CNN’s presidential debates, the cable-news network will have to merge with the Home and Garden channel.

At CNN’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas two weeks back, moderator Wolf Blitzer introduced several citizen questioners as “ordinary people, undecided voters.” But they later turned out to include a former Arkansas Democratic director of political affairs, the president of the Islamic Society of Nevada and a far left anti-war activist who’d been quoted in newspapers lambasting Harry Reid for his failure to pull out of Iraq.

Yet CNN failed to disclose those affiliations and activism during the broadcast.

Behold – the phony political foliage bloomed again at Wednesday night’s much hyped CNN/YouTube GOP debate.

Oh, CNN did make careful note that Grover Norquist (who asked about his anti-tax pledge) is a Republican activist with Americans for Tax Reform. But somehow the network’s layers and layers of fact-checkers missed several easily identified Democratic activists posing as ordinary, undecided citizens.

The tallest plant was a retired gay vet, one “Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr,” who questioned – or rather, lectured – the candidates on video and in person about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that bans open gays from the military.

Funny. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was exactly the policy CNN adopted in not telling viewers that Kerr is a member of Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual- Transgender Americans for Hillary.

Sen. Clinton’s campaign Web site features a press release announcing Kerr and other members of the committee in June. And a basic Web search turns up Kerr’s past support as a member of a veterans’ steering committee for the John Kerry for President campaign – and his prior appearance on CNN in December ’03.

CNN’s moderator, Anderson Cooper, singled out Kerr (who’d been flown in for the event) in the vast audience, giving him a chance for his own filibustering moment. Marvel at it: Not one CNN journalist uncovered the connection or thought it pertinent to disclose that Kerr’s heart belonged to Hillary.

When righty commentator Bill Bennett pointed out the facts to Cooper after the debate, a red-faced Cooper feebly blubbered: “That was something certainly unknown to us, and had we known that, would have been disclosed by us. It turns out we have just looked at it.”

Cluelessness doesn’t absolve CNN of journalistic malpractice. Neither does editing out Kerr’s question (as the network did on rebroadcast, to camouflage the potted plant).

The story is far from over: Cooper and CNN still owe their audience – and the GOP candidates – a bouquet of mea culpas for due diligence and disclosure lapses. Beyond Kerr, Internet sleuths have uncovered several other Democratic activists lurking in the YouTube garden:

* A young woman named “Journey” questioned the candidates on abortion. On her blog (easily accessed from her YouTube channel), she declares herself a John Edwards supporter. Post debate, she immediately posted a video wearing . . . her John Edwards ’08 T-shirt.

* David Cercone of Florida asked a question seemingly on behalf of the Log Cabin Republicans. He had declared his support for Obama on an Obama ’08 campaign blog back in July.

* Concerned mother LeeAnn Anderson asked about lead in toys with her two children in her lap. She is actually a staffer and prominent Pittsburgh union activist for the United Steelworkers – which has endorsed Edwards.

On other questioners, elementary Google searches show that:

* Ted Faturos, who asked about ethanol subsidies, had served as an intern for Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.).

* Adam Florzak, who asked about Social Security, quit his job as a welder and is working with Sen. Dick Durbin’s (D-Ill.) staff on the issue.

* Mark Strauss, who urged Ron Paul to run as an independent, had publicly supported Gov. Bill Richardson in July.

Alternative media platforms – talk radio, the Internet and this op-ed page – have spread these facts like kudzu. But the persistent media double standard is obvious to everyone but the manure spreaders at CNN: Had GOP candidates somehow been able to insert their operatives and supporters into a Democratic debate, and had, say, Fox News failed to vet the questioners and presented them as average citizens, both Fox and the GOP would be treated as the century’s worst media sinners.

Whether through, as one blogger put, “constructive incompetence” or “convenient ineptitude,” CNN has committed journalistic malpractice under the guise of “citizen” participation.

In a now richly ironic interview with Wired.- com before the debate, David Bohrman, a CNN senior vice president, explained why videos were picked not by popular vote, but by supposedly seasoned CNN journalists: The Web is still too immature a medium to set an agenda for a national debate, he claimed. “It’s really easy for the campaigns to game the system.” “You’ve seen how effective the Ron Paul campaign [supporters] have been on the Web,” he noted. “You don’t know if there are 40 or 4 million of them. It would be easy for a really organized campaign to stack the deck.”

What does Bohrman have to say about his crack staff now?


http://michellemalkin.com/2012/10/15...n-hall-debate/

comments

Not only will CNN have plants, but it has now come out that it will actually choose the questions.

..

before the debate, David Bohrman, a CNN senior vice president, explained why videos were picked not by popular vote, but by supposedly seasoned CNN journalists: The Web is still too immature a medium to set an agenda for a national debate, he claimed.


..

If they picked popular questions they’d have to ask O-blame-O why there was no military back up in Libya, why was Stewart in Bengazi, why is he spending the US into oblivion, why is he dividing the nation racially? Questions duh won wouldn’t be able to honestly answer but enquiring minds want to know.

..

You have to blame the RNC for a lot of this, what are they thinking still agreeing to debates with aggressive, unprincipled Obamunnist moderators and staged crowds?

Everybody knows our side is at a great disadvantage here, and I though the GOP would have learned a lesson from 2010- how is addressing this not worth Reince Priebus’s time?

It seems to be getting worse, if anything- but just accepting it like we are is akin to agreeing to play in the Superbowl wearing army boots- WHY?

..

Because it feeds into the underdog meme. For the GOP establishment, whining about the biased MSM is a great distraction from their real problem: they keep fielding the other Democratic candidate.

Reagan never leaned on that crutch because he didn’t have to.

..

A couple of points via NewsBusters: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...crutiny-debate

KURTZ: Or I could have jumped in here, but you don’t want to jump in so much that you interrupt the flow of the candidates. It’s not a show. It’s a presidential debate, and this one of course is going to have the town hall format, so questions from the audience. Does that make your job more challenging in a way, because you have to think about do you follow up if somebody gives an evasive answer to the nice lady from Long Island?

CROWLEY: Absolutely. And look, I think in some ways it’s both. I think that it’s very easy for politicians to run over a member of the news media. There’s no penalty for that.

It’s very difficult if I go, ‘but Mr. President, she asked about oranges and you answered with apples. So I wonder if you could answer her question.’ That’s harder, I think.

And this:

KURTZ: But briefly, you’ll know in advance what these audience members are going to ask?

CROWLEY: Yes, yes. Yes. So we’ll have seen the questions. We’ll have selected, which ones we think will push it toward some new information, sort of expanding out other subjects that they’ve touched.

So, she picked, in advance, the questions she’ll ask, and she will find it extremely difficult to call Obama out when he pulls his typical non-answering, filibustering BS.

Go figure.

..

Crowley uses that old trick, “Some say Ryan is too extreme…., what say you?” That way she never has to name any sources, but it allows her to get a snarky comment out there, and she is notorious for putting emphasis on words to negatively define Republicans. She’s never hidden the fact that she dislikes Republicans. She’s just a MSM liberal goose.

..

After Crowley, CNN, and the Obama campaign have finished coordinating this debate will make a kangaroo court look fair.

CNN and Crowley will do whatever is necessary to make Obama look good and look like a winner.

The MSM have already writing their post debate commentary.

#RejectedDebateConditions: Convoluted debate rules, Crowley complaints, Axelrod spin spark hilarity

Posted at 6:06 pm on October 15, 2012 by Twitchy Staff

http://twitchy.com/2012/10/15/reject...park-hilarity/


...

Giuliani says WH cover-up on Libya, calls out Soledad O’Brien: ‘Am I debating Obama’s campaign?’

Posted at 4:23 pm on October 15, 2012 by Twitchy Staff

Tom Tillman@TomTillman

Rudy Giuliani on CNN: "I feel like I'm debating the President's campaign. Why are you defending him?" On Benghazi cover-up. #preachit

15 Oct 12

Oh, snap! Rudy Giuliani called out the hacktastic Soledad O’Brien today, during his appearance on CNN. During the appearance, he voiced what everyone with a functioning brain knows. It’s not called #Benghazigate for nothing. http://twitchy.com/?s=%23benghazigate What did the White House know and when did they know it? Seems like “real reporters” would ask such questions, no? Hahaha! Just kidding! Of course they won’t. Instead, they are continuing to be lapdogs, frantically burying Obama’s bones, again. http://twitchy.com/2012/10/03/obama-...-they-know-it/

CMORTOLANI@CMORTOLANI

“There’s plenty to criticize,” said Giuliani. “I mean, the cover-up of Benghazi is startling.” ~@Soledad_OBrien

15 Oct 12

CMORTOLANI@CMORTOLANI

“There’s plenty to criticize,” said Giuliani. “I mean, the cover-up of Benghazi is startling.”~@Soledad_OBrien

15 Oct 12

John Sexton@verumserum 15 Oct 12

Democrats are basically arguing that a serious response to Benghazi is one that comes out in a report after the election. This is nonsense.

The Common Guy@commonguymd

@verumserum Giuliani arguing this on CNN.They are dragging feet til after the election. Funny retort to Soledad"am I debating w the Campaign

15 Oct 12

Sue@Limrintz

Giuliani: The WH is trying to “run out the clock” on Benghazi investigation « Hot Air hotair.com/archives/2012/… via @hotairblog

15 Oct 12

Bingo.

Giuliani then called out Soledad “Special Snowflake” O’Brien as the atrociously biased hack that she is. http://twitchy.com/2012/08/16/soleda...unking-ensues/

Jessica T♥@jessicatiahrt

Soledad and her crew are pulling Bidens on Guiliani. Interrupting and laughing at Benghazi facts.

15 Oct 12

http://twitchy.com/2012/10/15/giulia...amas-campaign/

Rudy Giuliani Asks Soledad O’Brien ‘Am I Debating With the President's Campaign?’
By Noel Sheppard | October 15, 2012 | 11:02

CNN’s Soledad O’Brien just can’t stop herself from appearing like she works for the White House rather than the supposedly most trusted name in news.

This was so apparent on Monday’s Starting Point that guest Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, asked her, “Am I debating with the President's campaign?” (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):

<http://www.mrctv.org/embed/117489

Early in the segment, O’Brien defended Vice President Joe Biden’s debate performance last week by saying the campaign told her the next morning, “If all the Republicans point out is laughing, clearly they have nothing to criticize on.”

Giuliani countered, “Oh, there's plenty to criticize. I mean, the cover-up of Benghazi is startling.”

“Well, that’s not really a cover-up,” quickly interjected Democrat strategist Richard Socarides.

“Can I finish my statement before you get all upset?” scolded the Mayor.

From there, Giuliani imparted some of the facts of the situation.

O’Brien then predictably put on her Obama campaign hat and said, “The White House now is basically saying the State Department dropped the ball. The State Department is looking and saying…”

After Giuliani mockingly sighed, O’Brien responded, “Listen, I'm telling you how it goes – and they’re saying there's intel issues.”

“Who put Susan Rice on?” asked the Mayor. “The State Department or the political people? It was a political appearance on CNN."

“So what they're really trying to do is they’re trying to run out the clock,” Giuliani continued. “The investigation will be after the debate, after the election is over. So what they're trying to do is cover up this scandal as much as possible.”

“Calling something a cover-up kind of takes it a further step, don't you think?” defended O’Brien.

“No, it doesn't,” replied the Mayor. “The statement was made, including by the President of the United States, that this was due to this terrible movie about Mohammed."

“But, but he actually didn't say that,” amazingly countered O’Brien. “The verbatim, the actual verbatim of what he said, he did not say that it was something other than that. But it was mentioned, but he did not specifically say this was due to a movie.”

Yes, an anchor for the supposedly most trusted name in news really did say this.

She then talked about pulling transcripts of what the President said leading Giuliani to state, “Man, the defensive. Am I debating with the President's campaign? I mean, the defense of the President is overwhelming.”

After some crosstalk, Giuliani continued, “This sounds like a cover-up. If this weren't a Democratic president, I think all you people would be going crazy.”

Following a question from Reuters’ Chrystia Freeland about whether these foreign policy issues will be trumped by the economy this election, Giuliani said, “ I think if, in fact, this becomes a question of the President's lack of leadership, then it cuts into the economy as well, and it's beginning to become like that.”

“The White house has fumbled this,” the Mayor continued. “Whether it's a deliberate cover-up or they're making it look like a cover-up, they have fumbled the ball four or five times here. Several contradictions. So, excuse me if being the fact that I'm a Republican, I don't give them as you do all the benefit of the doubt.”

When Giuliani said “As you do,” he looked and gestured towards O’Brien.

Did I mention that she works for the supposedly most trusted name in news?

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz29SiOQI2o


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz29ShuErS5

Tonight the second Presidential Debate will take place. Overshadowing this debate there is one huge issue that must be addressed. No, that issue is not how CNN and Candy Crowley will try to do their best to help Obama. The issue is Libya. That part is easy.



What is the shocking part of that story that will not be covered in the debate or by the media?



A significant part of that debate should include questions about why the Obama Regime felt the need to lie about Benghazi. Why did the Obama Regime feel the need to attack the First Amendment by blaming a video instead of attacking the real cause of the violence, radical Islam?



For America, there is another bigger problem coming from Libya. Obama is desperate to try and be reelected. So what is he going to do?



He is going to launch military actions in Africa to go after those who attacked our Ambassador and our consulate.



That’s a great idea but there are just a few problems.



First, we still have no clue as to who the attackers were. We have named some names, but that is it.



We have no real clue as to who to attack.



The end result of Obama’s attacks will be civilian casualties, the real possibility we will not get the people we want to get and we will anger some people we do not need to anger.



The original Obama plan, according to the media was going to be drone strikes. Drone strikes are very Obama. They are very safe. Obama can hit the targets and not risk American casualties.



Now Breitbart is reporting that Special Forces have been put on alert. We are seeing mission creep. Obama wants to make this operation big because he needs to save his presidency.



The problem is we will see American casualties on an operation that has one purpose only. That purpose is not to avenge the attack on our Consulate and the murder of our Ambassador.



It is to save Obama’s Presidency.



Obama loves to use Special Forces. The problem is you can only use Special Forces so much. The Navy Seals, the Army Rangers and other special forces are already stretched too thin as it is.



Obama has made war in the Middle East without asking Congress for authorization. He attacked Libya and we see how well that worked out. Now he wants to start another war in Africa.



America must stand up for its interests. Terrorists who want to attack America are definitely in the scope of America’s interests.



Fighting a war so Barack Obama can be reelected is not in America’s interests.



If Barack Obama has another bad debate tonight, I predict there will not be a third debate. I predict that Barack Obama will use Libya not only to try and boost his reelection efforts but also will also use it to dodge the last debate.



This is “wag the dog.”



We need to talk about this publicly. If Obama does not believe this will work for him he may not do it.



The lives we save may be American.

Gotta love Rudy......

Terrible Questions Lead to Terrible Answers
Posted on October 16, 2012 by Dustin Stockton

As promised, the President came out much more aggressive in the second debate. To his credit, he did it in a way that wasn’t overtly disrespectful. The President certainly didn’t hurt himself tonight, but the most striking thing about the debate was some of the questions that the candidates were asked. We are two debates in and we haven’t heard a word about the Obama Administration’s groundbreaking program to give 40 billion dollars a month to Wall Street to buy the same mortgage backed securities Hank Paulson told us we were buying in 2008. The questions we did get included things like abortion, contraception, and fair pay for women. Two questions seemed ridiculous when they were asked, but led to two of the most telling answers of the night.

1. How are you different than George W Bush?

I was disappointed that Governor Romney didn’t offer a better defense of President Bush. He kept saying that it was a different time, but he should have used this as an opportunity to really stick it to Obama. President Bush had to deal with both the tech bubble collapse and the terrorist attack of 9/11, and yet he never went out of his way to constantly blame President Clinton when dealing with difficult circumstances. He grew jobs and the economy faster in his first term than President Obama has.

Funny enough, Obama brought up the policies of George Bush that most Americans now disagree with as why Romney isn’t as good as Bush. It was an unusual answer.

2. Gun Rights

This answer bothered me from both candidates. Romney, to his credit, brought up the Fast and Furious scandal for the first time in the debates, but didn’t seem to have a firm grasp of what happened. For the first time we heard President Obama reveal his positions on banning assault weapons- a clearly unconstitutional dictate, and he hinted to the anti-gun nuts while bringing up the violence in Rahm Emanuel-controlled Chicago that he isn’t fond of “cheap handguns”. I would have liked Mitt Romney to offer a stronger defense of the 2nd Amendment.

My guess is that most Americans will view this debate as a draw and a debate format that wasted an opportunity to get the candidates to talk about the substantive issues of our time. Obama needed to build momentum and while I’m confident he energized his base, I can’t see his performance tonight shifting the momentum back to his campaign. In the long run, I give the nod to the Romney Campaign by a nose. Candy Crowley did a terrible job of picking questions and made a horrific mistake by backing up Barack Obama’s erroneous claim that he called the assassination of Ambassador Stevens a “terrorist act” in the Rose Garden. President Obama was asked point blank, days after the attack if it was an act of terrorism in the days following the tragedy and refused to call it a terrorist act. She tried to fact check the conversation and got her facts wrong. This error should be enough to permanently disqualify her from moderating any future debates.

http://dustinstockton.com/2012/10/te...rible-answers/

October 16, 2012

If Romney Had Said This, He'd Be A Lying Liar (Who Lies!)

Fortunately, since it was only the Vice President of the United States, the media will be along any second now to tell us what Joe really meant to say:

http://www.memeorandum.com/121016/p76#a121016p76

A censored word was detected. Please do not use censored words in your posts.

Despite statements by Vice President Joe Biden, the State Department is about to begin formal negotiations over the extension of U.S. troops past 2014, a top State Department official said Tuesday.

Last week, U.S. and Afghan negotiators met in Kabul to talk about the Bilateral Security Agreement that will govern the extension of U.S. troops past 2014, when President Barack Obama said the combat mission in Afghanistan will end and the U.S. will complete the transition of the entire country to Afghan government control.

Also last week, Biden told Americans during his Oct. 11 debate with Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan that U.S. troops were leaving Afghanistan by 2014.

"We are leaving in 2014, period, and in the process, we're going to be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion," Biden said. "We've been in this war for over a decade. The primary objective is almost completed. Now all we're doing is putting the Kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security. It's their responsibility, not America's."

Well alright-y, then. Glad we got that cleared up. But that wasn't the only untrue assertion made by Vice President. Peter Feaver explains: http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/post...t_could_linger

The Obama administration has a civil-military problem and, I have reason to believe, they know it. Significant portions of the military believe the administration abandoned them on Iraq, sent them unsupported into battle in Afghanistan hampered by a politically driven timeline, and is jeopardizing national security with unsustainably deep cuts in military spending.

If Obama wins a second term, he and his national security team will have a lot of remedial work to do to repair relations with the military.

I think Vice President Biden made that job even more difficult with his remarkable comments in each of those areas in the VP debate.

On Iraq, Biden criticized Romney-Ryan for recommending that we have a 30,000 stay-behind force in Iraq. When Ryan pointed out that the Obama administration had actually been trying to negotiate a stay-behind force, Biden just smiled mockingly at him, as if Ryan were talking nonsense.

But Ryan was not talking nonsense. The official position of the Obama administration until late in 2011 was that they were seeking a Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA) to permit a stay-behind force in Iraq. The exact size was in doubt, but the 30,000 figure was what the military wanted and the White House supported the concept, if not the exact number. The Obama administration wanted this for the very same reason the Bush administration wanted it: It was the best way to solidify the gains of the Iraq surge and to build a stable partnership with Iraq.

Biden knows all of this because he was leading the effort to negotiate the SOFA. Was Biden's mock ing smile saying something else, perhaps that Obama was never seriously committed to negotiating a successful SOFA? Was Obama's decision to delegate this task to Biden a sign of how committed Obama was to it? Or how uncommitted he was? Was Biden's guarantee that he would get the SOFA just idle bragging from someone assigned a trivial task?

The U.S. military leadership believed they accomplished something significant in the Iraq surge, and they believed that the Obama administration wanted to get them a SOF A that would help secure those accomplishments. Did Biden tell them otherwise in the debate last night? Or did Biden, as Ryan pointedly asked, simply fail at his SO FA assignment, in which case the mocking laughter is beyond inappropriate?

On Afghanistan, Biden's comments were even more troubling. Let's set aside the extraordinary "mission accomplished" boast, a remarkable thing to say when American men and women continue to risk their lives under very dire circumstances in theater. Biden got away with it, and neither Ryan nor the hapless Martha Raddatz called him out on it.

Where things really got dicey was when, in response to the charge that the Afghan surge withdrawal timeline was driven by political considerations, Biden tried to hide behind the military. Raddatz pressed him on the complaints she is hearing -- we all are hearing -- but Biden dismissed it as nonsense. He pretended that the withdrawal timeline was proposed by the Joint Chiefs rather than imposed by the White House.

That is not true. The Joint Chiefs and the Afghan combatant commander did go along with the White House order, but they proposed a slower, conditions-based timeline and they certainly did not want it announced at the outset.

Not to worry, however. We can rely on our friends at the NY Times to warn us of the really pressing dangers. Like the strong possibility that, if sElected, Mitt Romney will parse the Co nstitution and discover a here tofore undet ected pen u mbral Article One power that allows w omyn-hating Repub lican presidents to single-h andedly reverse Suprem e Court decisions. And the n he'll sna tch your birth con trol p ills and outl aw woman-on-top se x.

Al Q aeda? Don't be si lly - recent events in Beng hazi not withstanding, that's just fe ar-mong ering: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai...-straight.html

As part of their ongoing effort to pump up their candidate, David Kirkpatrick of the Times informs us that Al Qaeda is now a story used to scare the gulli ble. And the partis ans, of course.

Did we mention that Mitt Romney wants to chain women to tiny pink EasyBake ovens and force them to bake cupcakes for The Patriarc hy? There are serious issues facing the nation.

Try to focus, people.

[I]Posted by Cassandra at October 16, 2012 02:50 PM

comments

Years ago (2005 or 2006) I wrote a post about going back into the archives of the NYTimes during the Clin ton a dmin tration when they were writing h orrified articles about what a menace Sad dam Huss e in was, and how Amne sty Interna tional had cited Iraq for human rights violations committed by Al Qaeda in Iraq (you know, the "ima ginary" al Qae da types inv ented by D er Bus Hitl er to "lie us into war" with his f ear-monger ing ways)?

It really is comical, the lengths to which these folks will go to rationalize whatever their agenda-du-jour happens to be.

*sigh*

..

[/I]