Brad's a dope, Lars slaughtered him.

There goes the right wing name calling again. How petulant. If you can't win, name call.

Brains always win out and Brad you definitely had a lot more knowledge and facts, than the unsubstatiated claims of Lars who had no evidence or any backing of what he was talking about.

My advice is turning some of his "if you are going to change the subject" crap around on him. He only used that when he was losing or lost on his talking points.

I admire you remaining so calm and pleasant. Also you had a stronger, more authoritative voice which to people with brains was much more credible than Lars blustering his talking points.

It is amazing how every single one of them sounds the same. Same exact words. None of them have any unique or thoughtful ideas or proof of the things they bluster.

You came out on top Brad. I think you have it figured out that you just have to talk over them and interupt like they do. Or say if you keep interupting me or changing the subject, I'll just let you talk to yourself.

I think you standing up and doing the same thing back to him as he does to you is good. And you did that. Your voice was much stronger and authoritative.

Lars sounded like he was whining when he could not win on his talking points. You were getting to him.

Personally, I would not, however, waste my time on his show. You could see from the callers, the total ignorance of his audience. Those are the type of people that are so programmed, that they cannot think about anything for themselves or weigh evidence and come to their own conclusions. Those types need people like Lars to guide them and think for them because they certainly cannot do it on their own. I think i hear bleating: Baaaaaa . . . baaaaaaaa

Brad got schooled.

I've seen this behavior again and again.
Sadly, you can expect more of it as righties' lawless behavior is exposed.

Yo Brad! My Man! I congratulate you for braving the maw of the beast. What's that guy's frequency, anyway, 666? Nice job keeping your cool and staying on topic! Rest assured, friend, you are well loved. Please keep spreading the word!

Bob in Prague - the whole world is listening...

JPENTZ - FWIW, yes, the folks willing to call in (and you folks are always welcome to do yourself!) may be whacky. But a show like Lars, on something like 250 affiliates around the country, goes out to millions of folks who NEED to hear the message that they don't regularly get from folks like Lars.

Sure, the most virulent are likely to call in (like the nice fellow who called to say I was an "idiot"), but if folks like me aren't willing to go out there and tell the TRUTH to AMERICA, then "preaching to the choir" will only get us so far.

With the truth on our side, it's important to get out there and tell it! And to Larson's credit, who was/is willing to let me have the space to do just that. No matter what tricks, gimmicks, etc. he may employ.

Just my opinion. But whaddu I know. Tomorrow morning, I've just heard, I'm debating Ann Coulter on Delay and Frist on Ron Insana's radio show...Wish me luck!

Let's say, hypothetically, that the US public falls pretty much into the following "buckets:"

40% don't have time for media, CNN, NPR, Fox, or left/right Talk Radio --- they are too busy just trying to keep their heads above water. They see a LITTLE of whatever their chosen mass media is, but mostly they use the media as a DRUG to dull the pain of life. If a story is "really big" then they will hear about it. That means, they only hear about the stories that get "traction" with the cable news shows and networks and get shown over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over again. That's why they will, if asked, know how the Jackson verdict turned out, but not the last medicate vote. Most of this 30% don't know who John Rorberts is and think DSM is a vitamin or something for athritis.

You've got 30% well-heeled and media savvy left and 30% well-heeled and media savvy right. The "choir" for each side.

And you've got 30% who have some time for media and check the internet occasionally and watch tv news and maybe even read a paper or a magazine or two.

Now, I've got a secret for you Brad. And it's a REALLY, REALLY important one.

The last 30% is the only one you need to reach, and you will NEVER reach them by talking to Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, or debating Ann Coulter. Not EVER!

These people consider themselve "independent" and "open minded" (though they are, in reality, quite well brainwashed by the media and generally follow their party lines pretty tightly). and would find more than 10 minutes of Larson's tripe (I'm from Portland, I know Lars QUITE well) to be the most they could stand.

Hopefully, soon, we will have an more independent and progressive rich media channel, but I don't believe that it does any good to dillute our message on THEIR media. It's a NO-WIN. If you do well, he'll just attack you tomorrow when you are not there, and nobody's mind will be changed. If you do badly, he'll remind his "loyal viewers" forever about it and use it to butress his failed views, but still, no minds will be changed.

What we need to do is starve the right wing media machine to death, not support it.

Good luck at the National Election Summit.

Charlie L
Portland, OR
CLL2001@gmail.com

Ooops. Typo. The "well heeled left" and "well heeled right" are just 15% each.

NOW it should total 100%.

Though, of course, if it was counted by ES&S or Triad, then I guess my original numbers are just fine. A final count of 130% shoudn't bother most of the electorate.

Charlie L

You're a brave guy, Brad. From my perspective, though, for any progressive to subject himself to a right-wing radio host's vitriol isn't a productive exercise.

Who listens to the Lars Larsons and Rush Limbaughs of this world? Not moderates...only conservatives. And not conservatives in the old-fashioned sense of the word (thrifty, isolationistic, libertarian, businesslike), but conservative in a modern context (bullying, narrow-minded, profane, militant, intolerant, combative, prevaricating). How many minds can you change among that mob?

Good luck with Ann Coulter.

I guess, but he still kept interupting and changing the subject. I get as frustrated as Paul Rieckhoff about the tactics used. He just wasn't very good at it when confronted with educated facts.

I can't help but be horrified at how brainwashed and dead those people are. I kinda take it personally, as I had good friends in real life, who were transformed into these braindead zombies. They just turn off the truth and now won't speak to me. It's a nightmare.

Those who enjoy lars, rush, hannity, coulter, etc. never grew out of the adolescent schoolyard bully stage. Their development has been stopped prematurely. Their journey of evolution and enlightenment has been retarded.

Echo RLM --- good luck with mAnn Coulter. Take some silver bullets.

Way to put up will this republican megaphone. Loved it when he admitted THERE IS NO WAY TO COUNT THE VOTES (ELECTRONICALLY).

I just listened to both segments - Brad did a great job!

Keep up the battle, Brad! We're right there with you!

MikeyCan

Hey, as long as you knock em' flat like Howard Dean I say go on every right-wing program you want!

But it works much more effectively, to go on independent media and send the message there in huge numbers. Lots of people have to be un-brainwashed, and it won't come from listening to right-wing propaganda shows, it will come from independent media.

Doug E.

Right wing media is popular because people got tired of the slant from lamestream media. That's why Fox now has more viewers than CNN.

N-Chemist,

First of all, shouldn't you want to change to Nukyaler Chesmist? Don't want to be off message right off the bat.

Second...are you capable of writing anything I can't cut and paste from VR.

Third of all, sorry Charlie, Fox IS the mainstream media. Since it is a direct adminitstration mouthpiece, it is much more so.

Doesn't that bother you Nukyaler Chemist? That what you love about your news is what's been endorsed by the Republican-led federal government? Hmmm? Every Military "Analyst" or General interviewed on Fox is O.K.'d by the department of defense? Every "analysis" is a cut and paste of some right wing think tank. Just remember everytime you hear the Roger Ailes, swoosh, you are recieving the news most acceptable to the federal government.

Either that or you have a missing white chick fetish.

Both fox and cnn are bleeding viewers ,one's just bleeding faster than the other.

ollie north now there a convict waiting for a cell

#1, "Brad's a dope!"
Well I don't know about that! Brad if you should have any dope on you would you please come over to the White House? Laura smoked all my dope! If you have any, then come on over! I just can't get enough of the stuff!
Brad, people may accuse you of being a dope! But guess what, Brad, I'm the world champion dope!

Debating Coulter ooh I do not envy you.
You'll kick ass like always though especially
since you have the truth on your side.

Brad should speak the truth, so far as he has the facts, speak clearly, speak loudly and politely. But, he shouldn't kick her butt as that would soil his shoe.

I admire your bravery for daring to go into the same room with someone like that. But, at the same time, I don't see much point to it. She'll just do her schtick and slander everybody and interrupt you, so it all becomes a muddled mess and not real discussion.

I'm curious. Does anyone know who on the Repub side came up with that style of 'slander and interrupt debate'?

Brad's probably learning some things about how to keep on track and steady despite diversions and interruptions. In fact, he's doing a very good job.

I like Doug's idea about turning what s/he says right back onto her. None of the crap stand up to scrutiny - They've developed an art(?) form of avoiding examination of statements. That's the purpose of slander and interruption.

If I were in Brad's shoes, my goal would be to drive Coulter to inarticulate self-destruction. But that's just me.

Personally, though, I wouldn't cross the street to have a word with the....What is s/he?

Put on some quality waders, Brad.

Brad: You did great! He was unable to muddle the facts with you! Not only were you cool, but thinking clearly, deliberately, (accurately, under pressure, by the way), and unwilling to vocalize on matters with which you were unfamiliar. You are more knowledgeable on voting matters than any I've heard you come up against. This shows, and it reveals that your opponent is nowhere nearly as informed as yourself. Therefore, when Lars realized you were more studied in the facts than he, he resorted to changing subject, yelling, or rapid pooh-poohing talkovers went straight into station break!

How interesting it is, when you are called a Democrat, and falsely accused of berating Republicans when you point out a discrepancy! Listen to them stutter when you actually state, ... "If the Democrats are doing the same crime, (breaking the law), they should be penalized as well!"

Also, the question: How many? ... How many? They seem to expect you to state some obscure number so if you say 8,749, they can do a great "AH-HAH! You are wrong! It was 8,750!"

It is scary to them, I suppose, when the realization starts to seep in that their programming (brainwashing) facts don't match actuality. It simply, "Does not compute! ... Does not compute!"

Jamie,

Are you a guy or a gal because I sure can't tell from your writing. It does seem girlish though (no insult meant to you Texaslady, Nana, Kira etc...)

What I love about Fox news is that they call someone who intentionally blows up woman and children a terrorist. CNN will say Isreal killed four people in tha Gaza strip. Fox news will say The Israeli army shot 4 Palastinians armed with machine guns trying to attack a settlement. Other news sources like calling terrorists insurgents. I also like hearing the democrats points of view from Dean, Pelosi and other democrats. They even had Moore speaking on there.

Fox is not mainstream media. That title goes to NBC, CBS, ABC, The New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times. You just can't stand the fact that Fox news will tell the truth when other stations won't. Kind of hard to keep your liberal lies covered up with Fox around.

#21 MarkH and BRAD

I was blonde once, so not an attempt to offend any blondes anywhere: But, to my recollection of the debating techniques you question, began hot and heavy, with the long-haired (so they could shake their heads wildly about), loud-shrill-talking, "bimbos" as they were known in certain circles. They talked over every one on the program, and you couldn't hear anything anyone said once it started. You guessed it:

Ann Coulter, the late Barbara Olsen, and similar types.

There is one now (I won't even give the "Nixoness" a mention of her name, hint: rhymes with "Howley"), co-hosting with Ron Reagan on MSNBC's "Coast-to-coast". He has to keep her toned down. She is a refugee from "Fox". (I usually just turn the tv off after sending her a blasting "let someone else talk" e-mail, and comparing her to Ann Coulter.)

Non-Fox viewers don't want to watch a program anywhere if they cannot hear a word that is said, except something not unlike a screaming Banshee. No one can out-scream one of those types if they are unleashed! Only thing, one could do is possibly ask if she was through spewing and hissing yet.

I was actually watching the lecture where she literally out-ran a pie thrown at her. Her hair stood straight out behind her. She is amazingly fleet of foot! (So sorry it missed her)!

Best wishes Brad! You might take a whip and a chair along, and some antiseptic! You're definitely more knowledgeable, but she is meaner than most people on our planet! Ha! No worry. You'll win in truth and honor and showmanship! That's where it counts!

Knucklehead Chemist-

Why not take your sexist comments to a right-wing blog where they will be appreciated. Why is it that people like you always have to advertise their inferiority complexes by calling themselves something like NuclearChemist. I suspect that the closest thing to a nuclear chemist about you is that your hat size is in the subatomic range. Not surprising that faux news is your source or truth since you obviously wouldn't recognize truth if it hit you in your middle eye.

I'm at 8:34 and I am already convinced that Lars Larsen is an idiot. I will listen to the whole broadcast and post again later.

God, this is hysterical. Lars is wondering why we need to get corporate money out of elections! Amazing. Someone needs to remind Lars that it's "We the People", not "We the Corporations". On to the next half.

Ah, yes, the old Hannity trick of constantly interrupting your guest, constantly changing the subject, and as a last resort, cutting to a commercial when the conversation is not going your way. The subject was Diebold when Lars tried to divert the conversation to illegal immigration. Good for Brad for steering things back on track.
That first caller was a laugh. Obviously a Fox viewer. So was the second caller. Lars is really losing it now. On to Tom Delay.
Lars actually thinks that corporate ownership of America is the way things should be. This is also known as FASCISM, Lars!
Brad, you kicked butt. You will drive Ann Coulter nuts. I can't wait.

Thank goodness almost every person who frequents this blog is aware that Fox News is eaten up with Yellow Journalism. So sorry nukem is in the fewer than 1/3 of all Republicans who find Fox News credible.

[snip] Believe it or not there was a time when the media was forced to be responsible, leave political agenda aside and simply report the news. For years the Federal Communications Commission regulated media with what was called the fairness doctrine, which forced networks to have comparable representation from multiple points of view. News reporting and opinion had to be clearly distinguished. These regulations were abolished over 15 years ago; the FCC justifies lifting old regulations by saying that the marketplace has changed, cable television and the Internet provides the public with a diversity of news sources, thereby eliminating the need for public guidelines. The FCC is also eliminating regulations that prohibit corporations buying one another, which means the consolidation of the mass media.

Five corporations own a majority of U.S. media; News Corp and AOL Time Warner, Viacom, Disney and AT&T. There was once a time where newspapers and television stations were independently owned and operated, but the corporate giants have bought out and merged so many times that we are now left with five companies controlling this country's mass media. [snip]

Why Fox News Channel Is An Industry Joke

[snip] In October 1999, Time Magazine remarked that "Rupert Murdoch is the first press baron to be a monster of the entire world. That's globalization for you."

The Time article goes on to say that Murdoch's "achievement is that he is the only media mogul to have created and to control a truly global media empire. He understood sooner than anyone else the opportunities offered by new technology--computers, satellites, wireless communications--to create first an international press and then a television domain."

Controlling the news is obviously important to Murdoch's vision of the world. The Murdochian viewpoint is largely centered on obtaining money and power --- which is the ideology for which the Fox News Channel stands. Those who control the news also determine the public discourse. In the United States, Murdoch has obviously tapped into the political and social agenda championed by the Republican Party. The views of News Corp. and Fox News, however, are not the ones of the mainstream Republican Party, but those who reside on the far right-wing of the political spectrum.

... One often-cited research study about the faulty news coverage of Fox News is from the University of Maryland Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) Research Center. Released in October 2003 and titled "Misperceptions, The Media and The Iraq War," the researchers from Knowledge Networks in Menlo Park, Calif. conducted a poll with nearly 10,000 respondents. The study was to see the frequency of misperceptions concerning the news coverage on the Iraq War. The questions focused on whether Iraq was involved with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, whether Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda terrorists, whether weapons of mass destruction have been found, and whether world opinion was for or against the U.S. invading Iraq. The reality was that no links between the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda terrorists have ever surfaced and no weapons of mass destruction have been found. In general, world opinion about the U.S. invasion of Iraq is overwhelmingly negative or non-supportive.

The study found that nearly two-thirds of Americans had vast misperceptions about the war. For example, in one poll, 68% said they believed that Iraq played an instrumental role in 9/11. "In the run-up to the war with Iraq and in the postwar period, a significant portion of the American public has held a number of misperceptions that have played a key role in generating and maintaining approval for the decision to go to war," stated the study.

The study also noted that "the extent of Americans' misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions." The problem with the Fox News Channel is NOT that it supports the Republican Party or conservative views. The problem is that Fox News distorts the news to serve its purpose so much, that fact and reality are lost in a sea of half-truths and innuendo. [snip] ***MORE***

The Fox News Channel is considered credible by fewer than one-third of the Republicans

Appreciate all the thoughts here guys. Nonetheless, for now, I think it's a good idea tell the truth wherever there are that folks might listen to it.

For those with prejudices about who may or may not be listening to "Conservative" talk radio and cable news, let me just add that *I* am one of those listeners!

And I don't believe I'm alone in that regard. It's pretty hard to turn on your car radio and *not* hear "Con" talk radio for that matter!

I believe the truth will always win out over the lies. America is smart enough to understand that. Despite the folks who might fanatical enough to call in to these shows and parrot their leaders.

Kira,

From your same article:

"The Pew Research Center found that while only 14 percent of Republicans believe all or most of what they read in The New York Times, even among Democrats the figure is only 31 percent."

http://www.marginalrevol.../09/surprise_fox_is.html

Surprise! Fox News is Fair and Balanced!

Accusations of media bias are common but are typically based upon nothing more than subjective standards and anecdote. A brilliant new paper by Tim Groseclose (GSB Stanford, currently visiting GMU) and Jeff Milyo (U. Chicago, Harris School) pioneers a more promising approach. Since 1947, the interest group Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) has tracked how Senators and Represenatives vote on key issues and they have used these votes to rank politicians according to their liberalism. In the 2002 session, for example Ted Kennedy received an ADA score of 100 and Phil Gramm a score of 0. Political scientists are familiar with ADA scores and have come to rely on them as a measure of ideology.

Groseclose and Milyo have found a way to compute ADA scores for media outlets as if they were politicians. What they did was to examine the Congressional Record for every instance in which a politician cited a think tank. They then did the same thing for newspapers, network news shows and other media outlets. By matching newspapers with politicians who had similar citation records they can impute an ADA score for the media outlet. Joe Lieberman, for example, has an ADA score of 66.3. Suppose that in his speeches he cites the Brookings Institution twice as much as the Heritage Institute. If the New York Times has a similar citation style then the New York Times is assigned an ADA score of 66.3. (The method is slightly more complicated than this but this gives the right idea.) Note that Groseclose and Milyo do not have to determine whether the Brookings Institution is more liberal than the Heritage Institute all they need to know is that the Times has a similar citation style to Lieberman.

Ok, what were the results? It turns out that all of the major media outlets, with the exception of Fox News: Special Report are considerably more liberal than the median member of the House over the 1993-1999 period. Moreover, although Fox News: Special Report was to the right of the median house member it was closer to the median member than were most of the other media outlets. (Interestingly, all of the liberal media outlets were less liberal than the average Democrat and Fox News is less conservative than the average Republican - thus there is a sense in which all media outlets are less biased than is the typical politician.) Here are the ADA scores of various media outlets along with some comparable politicians.

Joe Lieberman (D-Ct.) 66.3
New York Times 64.6
CBS Evening News 64.5
USA Today 62.6
NBC Nightly News 62.5
Los Angeles Times 58.4
Ernst Hollings (D-SC) 56.1
ABC World News Tonight 54.8
Drudge Report 44.1
Arlen Spector (R-PA) 44.0
House Median 39.0
Senate Median 36.9
Olympia Snowe (R-Me) 36.0
Charlie Stenholm (D-Tex) 29.3
Fox News Special Report 26.4

No ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda???

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:

* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.

(Why are all of those meetings significant? The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which "emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.")

* As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan --- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks --- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports.

* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives --- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'"

* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.

* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.

* In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was 'good,'" according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.

* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.

* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.

*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.

* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq."

* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam's regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.

* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.

* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein --- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by "Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad."

* After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam's strongholds inside northern Iraq.

Brad says - For those with prejudices about who may or may not be listening to "Conservative" talk radio and cable news, let me just add that *I* am one of those listeners!

I'm shocked!

You have a stronger stomach than I have. I listen to it unwillingly, however, as Limbaugh, etc. seem to be everywhere like those ubiquitous blaring speakers in 1984.

Yep, nerves of steal! I can't do it. My son listens to all of them, when i complain, as i'm leaving the room in a huff, he quotes 'know thine enemy'.

I have to agree that Brad's going on Lars' show or any other conservative venue is a good thing.

There are, I believe, some folks listening who may be hearing "our side" for the first time; who may hear someone like Brad & recognize that what he's saying warrants their attention, warrants further scrutiny.

Those polls that show the chimp's numbers plummeting reflect real people, whose opinions have changed, maybe by just such a debate!

I, also, tune in sometimes to hear what vile lies are spewing from the likes of limbaugh, hannity, o'reilly etc. It's painful to listen to but, as Nana's son said, it behooves us to 'know thine enemy'.

Kudos & thanks to Brad for braving the belly of the beast!!!

#33

Remind me again how many times Saddam Hussein or members of his cabinet met with Bin Laden?

We know our enemies by now very well. It doesn't do harm to see what they are up to at the moment. They make money when their viewership is higher than their competitor. Fox is energetic, high-spirited entertainment, but it doesn't take too long to find out when they are still pounding anybody but Bush. So, don't stay long! I'm guilty once in a while, but like so many others, my stomach and blood pressure doesn't permit much of that garbage. So, most of the time, I go straight to Raw Story, then Brad. If it is late in the evening, CrooksandLiars can show me what I missed! For the meantime, I don't miss "The Daly Show" with Jon Stewart! The vulgarity of some skits on there are not appreciated by myself, but I can tell you --- he's getting the message across to the college kids!

NEO IDIOT - the number of meetings was 13 - 5 = 8 = (eight-ball which is what you are hiding behind)!

The real question is "How many times did GeoWBush meet with him?" That is why our country is in this mess today! He has never been interested in even attempting to find that Bennie Boo Laden.

NEO - My apologies! My error. I thought you were a Troll joining up to have a conversation with NuclearChemist to continue that back and forth propaganda. Truly sorry!

Going to go to a wedding. Hopefully, (after my fauxpaux toward you in my remark, I shan't stand up and "object"! Perhaps I shall - just to humililate myself further! Ha!)

Good Day!

#32

The Liberal media! Hah. You just go ahead and believe that nuke, if it makes you feel like you're up on things. There is no such thing in the mainstream media. All of us here want unbiased news --- we don't want it slanted. We are intelligent enough to read facts and weigh them for ourselves. You obviously need some bias in your news. We don't need or want it. You can have your FOX news --- you can have your stupid rhetoric-based opinions --- just don't expect anybody here to agree with you.

The difficulty for repukes is that when they hear factual news... just the facts... they think it is liberal biased. That's because they rarely, if ever, hear facts on Faux.

Now, since this is Sunday, I'm trying to find a recording of Brad's encounter with Coulter. I have read that she split after a half hour. a characteristically conservative coward. Is there any other kind? I thought not.

Cr. RW...Only the STUPID republicans think that all the news in Liberal Bias. So i wouldnt keep going on saying all of us do...u might get your self in trouble...
I don t even watch fox :angry:

Dr. RW...Only the STUPID republicans think that all the news in Liberal Bias. So i wouldnt keep going on saying all of us do...u might get your self in trouble...
I don t even watch fox :angry:

Hi PJC,
You are Republican, I take it? Do you support the bu$h cabal? Just curious.

Thanks,
Kira

Hello Kira,
If your saying Bush has some kind of scheme to rip off our country or something similar ...I dont beleive that. I live in Massachutsettes and all the kids in my grade in school beleive Mr.Bush has some agenda to kill us all or something like that... and the only place they get their political views is from their parents.(I emphasize that( they admitt it too) I wish people would actualy base their opinions on facts-not garbage! Now Iam not saying that about your views what so ever... I am just saying Iam sick of people having ones not worth anything. I know everyone has different views and I dont want everyone to have the same ones as me for that would be really boreing. All I am asking for is reeasoning-( sorry my response in so in depth)So to answer your question bluntly- I dont beleive Pres. Bush has some scheme to rip off our country--So *No*
-PJC-

Hi PJC! Thanks for your response.

Have you read the Downing Street Minutes (sometimes referred to as the DSM Memo?) Are you aware that none of the reasons bu$h claimed were reason to go to war with Iraq have proved to be true? Even Colin Powell recently stated he was ashamed of what he said that supported one of the lies bu$h used to send our country to war with Iraq.

bu$h has already "ripped off" our country in so many ways --- not just bu$h --- he's only the figurehead chosen by the extreme rightwing faction of the Republican Party (called neoCONS by some.) Their agenda is globalization and imperialism.

Tell me how you would support your belief that bu$h does not have a "scheme to rip off our country."

Thanks!
Kira

And who's to say that a majority of those felons who voted in Washington State didn't vote Republican? Sounds plausible when you consider that she was the States Attorney General.
Similarly, who's to say the illegal immigrants wouldn't vote Republican? After all, they wouldn't be here if not for this administrations porous borders policy. Stop felons and illegals from voting? Be careful what you wish for Lars.

Let's see.. The U.S. had Bin Laden on the payroll for how long? perhaps we should invade ouselves?

we had him in Afghanastan and let whom try to pick him up? drug lords?

Chemmy, go back under your rock...

As for this moron Lars.. I got soooo pissed listening to him, had to stop the second part after just a few minutes to post.. he thinks corperate interests should be able to BUY our government? WTF kind of ignorant crap is that??? Then to say "if 100,000 people in an organization give their $1 to the cause that supports their beliefs.. why can't they do that? should they give their dollar themselves?" um.. duh? YES?? Because the "contrabution" from the "orginization" may well go UN-ANNOUCNED .. so 50,000 of those people who do NOT support a specific "party" but belong to a "group" my have "their dollar" sent DESPITE their not wanting it.. Sure, they can leave the "group", but only -after- the funds are diverted, only after they are shafted, and only if the offence was enough to "piss them off that bad".. That would be the REASON "people" can contribute, but "corperations" and special interests can't in some places.. It's called "mitigating corruption", which Lars clearly is against.. he likes corruption.. What kind of moron finds ONE thing Shrubman is doing as "good"?

And his shit about "the law for prosecuting has to be applied in the county of residence" makes sense.. and implies DeLay should be left alone for his crimes because due process isn't being adhered to? what a shit-fuck-ass-whipe.. (sorry for the profanity, I'm damn pissed that people like this even TRY to defend their psychotic positions which have no merrit in reality)

finishing the second part now.. man, what a bunch of shit Lars is.. and anyone that sucks this shit up is brain-dead.. That goes for Nukeyboy and anyone that tries to defend these assholes and criminals..

OH!!! the bit that had me come over..

what a tool Lars is.. "no one will want to make code that has exposure".. what a flippin moron.. give me $10 mill and I'll write the damn code, and be HAPPY to have it looked over by millions of people..

what a shit-bag to try and imply that open source on our voting software somehow needs to be protected. Corperate interests that want that code will reverse-engineer it in under a year.. or build their OWN on their OWN hardware in LESS time..

The issue isn't about "corperate secerets", it's about hiding the truth from the public, who FUNDS this crap.. What a friggin jerk-off to try and imply that somehow "adding one to the total" (which looks like "CandidateX += 1" is a seceret???????)

I hate stupid assholes like Lars.. he has no desire for a decent Government.. he has no interest in making sure rich fucks don't take advantage of the rest, he's thinking it's cool to have lots of nice things (like his free Dodge Truck) even though that means the rest of America has to pay more for their goods.. Greedy ignorant shits like him should just be lined up and shot..

oh.. my .. flippin.. gawd!

"I don't think that just because you make a lot more money than I do means you should have a lot more influence over what laws are made.. do you?"

"I don't see a problem with that"..

well, there you have it.. Brad calling a moron elitist "entitlist" shit-bag a spade, and the spade saying "so?"..

Didn't we fight a few wars and kill lots of assholes that felt entiteled to have it better than the rest?

I rest my case on "main stream Republicans".. they suck, they are biggotts and disconcerned assholes that feel that, for some reason, they deserve more, despite it causing 1000s of people pain and misery..

Looks like the Revolution is back on the table boys.. lock and load..

Oh.. and the logic for the illegalization of pot? Cause you can test for alchohol, but not for "active" pot use?

How many people on "pot" have been in accidents that killed people.. that's what I'd like to find out.. But, if that's your ONLY concerne, what about demanding a better test for THC in the system? what about demanding research into a test that shows if your brain is actively under the influence? there are several signs.. AND, one of the issues with alchohol is the impared judgement.. what about some studies to find out what happens "under the influence of pot"? and, during that study, perhaps a way to positively identify it?.. you think alchohol in the LUNGS (ala breathalizer, which is falable) was known up front?

this guy is a shame to the human race..

I can see why seriously mind altering drugs like Meth are illegal.. but he made it sound like Libertarians support Meth? is that the case? If so, Libers are morons.. Supporting the legalization of pot is a totally different matter.. I don't think anyone that's sane supports Meth, Heroin, Coke, Crack, or any other seriously mind altering drug should be mad legal.. Pot, now that's a totally different matter with serious problems for keeping it illegal.. natural, non-processed, not "serious" like the others.. Only problem for the Gov is, it's hard to tax since you can grow it in your closet if you want.. easier to do than making your own beer (which is legal)..

Hello Kira,
I dont see how going to Iraq to defend our country against terrorism is a rip off to us all?(also help Iraqy people) We have done so much for Iraq and all people want to do is complane. How do you think the people over their Dieing feel about this? (soldiers)They are fighting to their country...and all the Dems-(maybe some republicans too..(not sure) are whining and crying about it!!! To me thats really disrespecful!!
Stop whineing and SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!!

PJC Age:14

PS: Bush isant perfect I am sure he has made mistakes...who hasnt?

PJC..

Given that you are only 14, I'm gonna cut you some slack here...

We are -not- fighting "terrorism" in Iraq. Sadam was no threat to the U.S. or any other country when we invaded this time. He was rendered impotent in 1991 when we stomped on his country then.. The Bush Administration keeps changing the "reason" we are there, and the Iraqi people do NOT want us there (the "insurgents" are 90% + Iraqi citizens, acording to at least one study). They may have been on board to have Sadam removed, but that was done 2 years ago.. the Iraqi people do NOT want the U.S. to have armed forces walking their streets killing their citizens, they want us out.. We haven't left because we haven't gotten our contracts for the oil rights yet.

To say that this administration has failed our country, to say that the conflict in Iraq (I refuse to call it a war any longer... our Congress didn't have the balls to declare war, why should we pretend for them?) is wrong and we have no business there is NOT to be confused with "not supporting troops".. That is, -I- support the troops in as much as they are following orders doing what they are told .. in a "pretense" of preserving OUR freedom. The truth isn't relavant in that regard. Following orders is all that matters. I can -also- say Bush is WRONG, his policy is CRIMINAL, and he has no business killing our troops for his energy plan. That is not related to the "troops", or my support of "them"..

That's something the criminals in office don't want you to realize. You can "support the guys fighting in the trenches" and -also- know they have no business being there. One reflects the troops, the other the actions of the country. The guys comitting the crimes against us and the Iraqi people hope you can't see there is a difference..

To understand why the administraion is wrong, you have to be able to see a lot more than just what you see on TV about why we are in Iraq. The story keeps changing.. that should be a clue.. Other tid-bits of data matter too.. Peak Oil.. which means we have passed the 1/2 way point for "all oil in the world", wich means we are using the last 1/2 of all the oil we'll ever have, and using it at a faster and faster rate.. it's all gone in 30 years (should scare the hell out of a 14 yr old.. knowing that in your prime, you won't have gasoline for your car, diesl to run farm equipment for food and trucks to move good around the country.. we'll shut down on our current technology without oil... no power, no heat, no food, no consumer goods, nothing). Problem is (and more data to digest), the Bush family is making 100s of millions (my guess, someone can get the actual dollar amount, I'm sure) on the rising costs of oil .. they own oil companies.. in case you didn't know... and Iraq is the second largest deposit of oil in the world.. Starting to paint a picture for you? and there was a symposium a few months back where the oil companies of the world are breaking up Iraqi oil rights already? waiting to suck up all that money and power?

Bush is -far- from perfect... he's criminally incompetent. That means, it's -his- fault a lot of this is going on (Iraq, Katrina failures, etc). Some go so far as to propose his friends created the 9/11 problem, and lots of proof that our government was directly involved in some of the points posted by Nuclear Chemist about bin Laden (and bin Laden was a "friend" of the U.S. for many years, collecting millions of dollars to kill people the U.S. didn't like).

Our government is out of control. Until people see that fact, and are willing to root out the corruption (no matter what party it's in), we're doomed to be slaves to Corperate America, and psycho criminals like Bush will keep screwing us over..

Brad:

Congratulations on your take down of the wind bag Lars Larson. Unfortunately for me, Larson's show is aired on my local conservative FM "news talk" station, and this guy is a true dip shit. He is almost as despicable as O'reilly.

Just a note that I had to quit listening to your segment when Lars went off on the hypothetical about Democrats counting votes in democratic precincts as though was somehow equivalent to what is alledged vis a vis Republican vote fraud. This is a standard Repub tactic and I wish you had nailed him on it because he does it all the time: tosses out absurd hypotheticals with no basis in fact in order to make a moral relativist argument that Repubs are no worse than democrats because it is possible that dems do the same thing, just not reported in the lib media blah blah blah. Standard bush bot tactic that you can identify for the masses next time it is used.

Good job and great blog...

johnny