Bush denies panels finding: stop your ears and yell 'No Wann It" it works 4 children!

[pfflam]

Bush is still denying the lack of a link between Iraq and Al Quaida despite the well researched findings of the Panel (ARTICLE (http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/06/17/bush_disputes_conclusion/))

The panel has at their disposal all of Bush's information plus that of two years further research.

But the Administrations approach to being shown to either have been lying or incompetent and wrong is simply to deny the findings NO MATTER WHAT!!

Think about it: if he admits to this, then he will admit to a wrong . . . which he simply is INCAPABLE OF DOING!
as well as admitting to yet another false or faulty claim related to the War In Iraq . . . another heaped on the pile

Also, and this is the kicker, if you are still a Bush-licker at this point with everything that has been revealed about his 'currupt and incompetent' presidency, then you will be one of the throngs who SIMPLY DON"T CARE what the evidence says, you will believe Bush when he says that there is 'was a link' . . you will back him NO MATTER WHAT.

That is how this President operates: they don't care about truth, they will repeat the lies enough and it will be propogated: first through the echo-chamber of the radio-corps then through 'Fair-and-balanced' TV then through bumper-sticker word of mouth etc.

That echo-chamber and TV won't even have to say that there is a link, they will simply restate that President Bush says that there is . . . and since it is the nature of the medium it will sow enough doubt about the evidence-supported findings that the evidence and truth no longer matter!!! :mad: :mad:

[Powerdoc]

You know my opinion about Bush.

I am more concerned by your cardio-vascular system : i fear that too much :mad: is bad for your health ;)

[jimmac]

Originally posted by pfflam
Bush is still denying the lack of a link between Iraq and Al Quaida despite the well researched findings of the Panel (ARTICLE (http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/06/17/bush_disputes_conclusion/))

The panel has at their disposal all of Bush's information plus that of two years further research.

But the Administrations approach to being shown to either have been lying or incompetent and wrong is simply to deny the findings NO MATTER WHAT!!

Think about it: if he admits to this, then he will admit to a wrong . . . which he simply is INCAPABLE OF DOING!
as well as admitting to yet another false or faulty claim related to the War In Iraq . . . another heaped on the pile

Also, and this is the kicker, if you are still a Bush-licker at this point with everything that has been revealed about his 'currupt and incompetent' presidency, then you will be one of the throngs who SIMPLY DON"T CARE what the evidence says, you will believe Bush when he says that there is 'was a link' . . you will back him NO MATTER WHAT.

That is how this President operates: they don't care about truth, they will repeat the lies enough and it will be propogated: first through the echo-chamber of the radio-corps then through 'Fair-and-balanced' TV then through bumper-sticker word of mouth etc.

That echo-chamber and TV won't even have to say that there is a link, they will simply restate that President Bush says that there is . . . and since it is the nature of the medium it will sow enough doubt about the evidence-supported findings that the evidence and truth no longer matter!!! :mad: :mad:


He's still looking for a justification to for that war in Iraq.

What else did you expect of a child? I've always said the scarriest thing about Bush is it makes me feel like we've got a spoiled little boy running the country.

I mean look at it. He blames everyone else for things that go wrong. Just like a child.

[giant]

Originally posted by jimmac
I mean look at it. He blames everyone else for things that go wrong. Just like a child.
Vote Bush 04: It's Not His Fault

[pfflam]

EDITORIAL (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/opinion/17THU1.html) suggests that Bush apologize to the nation for feeding it misleading information.

from the article:Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. While it's possible that Mr. Bush and his top advisers really believed that there were chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.
[ . . . ]
On Monday, Mr. Cheney said Mr. Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Mr. Bush later backed up Mr. Cheney, claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who may be operating in Baghdad, is "the best evidence" of a Qaeda link. This was particularly astonishing because the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime. This is not just a matter of the president's diminishing credibility, although that's disturbing enough. The war on terror has actually suffered as the conflict in Iraq has diverted military and intelligence resources from places like Afghanistan, where there could really be Qaeda forces, including Mr. bin Laden.

Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.

[pfflam]

OH MY GOD!!!!!!!


THIS JUST IN:

"The president answered:"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.""


:wow: :wow: :wow:

Apparently he is going with the 'had contacts with" does not equal 'worked with'

This kind of bald faced equivocating is beneath a street pimp much less the President of the United States!!!

He should be impeached for this kind of rhetoric alone!!!!

[rageous]

Actually, Bush is denying that there was never any link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. There can be association between the two and zero involvement by Iraq as it pertains to 9/11.

The panel is saying there is no link between Iraq and AQ's 9/11 attack (which is pretty hard to contest at this point), but not going off and saying there was never any link between the two at all.

This isn't being an apologist, so stfu before you start with that. I saw an interview today with one of the panel members that stated it as such.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by rageous
Actually, Bush is denying that there was never any link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. There can be association between the two and zero involvement by Iraq as it pertains to 9/11.

The panel is saying there is no link between Iraq and AQ's 9/11 attack (which is pretty hard to contest at this point), but not going off and saying there was never any link between the two at all.

This isn't being an apologist, so stfu before you start with that. I saw an interview today with one of the panel members that stated it as such. You don't get it: that LINK between Saddam and Al Quada that Bush and Cheney are pointing is the meeting set up by the Sudanese Governemnt where Hussain said 'not interested'
They are saying "see, they met and therefor there is a link"

That is tantamount to bald-faced lying!!!

Let me continue to quote Bush:"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaida (is) because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida," President Bush said.

"There's numerous contacts between the two," he added.

Oh . . . .ok . . . now its all clear.

[Anders]

I wish they would just "find" some anthrax or something so they could stop the charade.

[rageous]

Wonderful. You can debate the merits of Bush's argument about the validity of the connection between Iraq and AQ. But the point of this thread was to claim Bush is denying the panel's findings, which he is not. And the panel has stated that.

Why is it that if someone doesn't join the party and shit on Bush, they "don't get it"? Perhaps you can read again what I said and reserve being an ass for another more appropriate time?

[Moogs]

Just calm down a bit pfflam. It's pretty obvious now that anyone who would excuse Bush's jusifications for the war, is by definition an apologist. There's no excuse, no getting around the bi-partisan commission's exhaustive research and ultimate findings. He doesn't have a leg to stand on anymore, and when the terrorist shit starts hitting the fan again in this country (as it inevitably will before November), his claim that "he's made America safer" will go out the f-ing window too. Because we're going to find out we're NO safer than we were three years ago, except in various, obvious areas like airport security (which obviously couldn't have been much worse prior to 9-11 to start with).

So, either you're going to support Bush no matter how many ridiulous lies and inconsistencies are brought to light, or you're going to vote for someone else in November. There's no middle ground left for Bush supporters.

[giant]

Originally posted by rageous
The panel is saying there is no link between Iraq and AQ's 9/11 attack (which is pretty hard to contest at this point), but not going off and saying there was never any link between the two at all.
Actually, the commission was not just talking about 9/11 and were indeed announcing their findings that there is "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States" and that they concluded there was likely no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al-qaeda.

[rageous]

And of course, they didn't say "no relationship" they just said "no collaborative relationship."

Which is why I said it's fair game to call into question Bush's continued stance that AQ and Iraq were in cahoots at some level, but the idea that Bush is denouncing the panel's finding that Iraq was not complicit in the 9/11 attacks is false.

[sammi jo]

Iraq/Saddam didn't collaborate with AQ during 9-11 or any other terror attacks against America. That looks pretty conclusive...if otherwise, then the story would have been out and splayed across the media for months and months and months...Bush and co would have milked it dry....see, we told you so.

But according to a speech in the wake of 9-11, I think it was in Oct 2001, I recall Bush saying that Al Qaeda members/cells/operatives, have bases in some 50 nations. It surely looks like we attacked one of the nations where AQ had no base or personnel. Bin Laden, if he's still around, must be cackling into his beard.

btw, all of the Bush reasons for the war have been shot down in flames, one by one: no WMD, no imminent threat, no Saddam-al Qaeda connection, no involvement with 9-11, the "liberation of Iraqis from a despot" doesn't hold any credibility since the US supported the despot in question for some 15 years when he was a far more dangerous proposition. That leaves two other possibilities: (a) a war for the greater control of Iraq's enormous oil supply by an administration of oilmen, for the benefit of the private energy sector (plausible, but would they ever admit to that?), and (b) the Israel factor...but it's politically incorrect to go there, so we will probably never learn the true motives for sure: speculation is all that's left.

and re. "liberation" TWO PERCENT (!!) of Iraqis see American forces as "liberators". That is beyond damning. And the poll was conducted by the coalition itself!!!!!

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=532337

It gets worse and worse. Why didn't these heads-in-the-sand morons in their Washington ivory towers listen to "those anti-American treasonous commie Birkenstocked hippies" marching in the streets? It looks like they forecast the sorry outcome with extraordinary accuracy.....

:wow:

[rageous]

Originally posted by sammi jo
The "liberation of Iraqis from a despot" doesn't hold any credibility since the US supported the despot in question for some 15 years when he was a far more dangerous proposition. That leaves two other possibilities: (a) a war for the greater control of Iraq's enormous oil supply by an administration of oilmen, for the benefit of the private energy sector (plausible, but would they ever admit to that?), and (b) the Israel factor...but it's politically incorrect to go there, so we will probably never learn the true motives for sure: speculation is all that's left.

Actually, that's not true. If it were the same person in power today that supported Iraq for 15 years, then you could say this new found desire to liberate the people rings hollow. But a different leader may feel differently about one situation than another does.

Does take this to mean I think Bush is some noble liberator, I'm merely making the case that you can't say "a war for liberation doesn't count" because former US leaders supported a repressive regime in the past.

Of course, I know Rumsfeld was involved in both scenarios, but since he was not President back in the day nor currently, he's not as really the type of leadership I am speaking of.

[giant]

Originally posted by rageous
... but the idea that Bush is denouncing the panel's finding that Iraq was not complicit in the 9/11 attacks is false.
Maybe I missed it, but I see no such idea being put forward by pfflam or the salon article.

[rageous]

Maybe you haven't looked at the thread's title then? I don't recall saying my arguments were directed specifically at pfflam or the salon article, but I did mention the thread was intended to imply a falsehood.

[giant]

Originally posted by rageous
Maybe you haven't looked at the thread's title then? I don't recall saying my arguments were directed specifically at pfflam or the salon article, but I did mention the thread was intended to imply a falsehood.
"Bush denies panels finding: stop your ears and yell 'No Wann It" it works 4 children!"

This much is correct in the real world sense.

In the strict political sense, he simply says "relationship," rather than "collaborative relationship," to technically agree with the commission while trying to brush over past statements, such as "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

But in the real world sense, Bush is defending his position, which according to him he "keep[s] insisting" on (meaning his historical position), which is that there was a collaborative relationship, as noted in his statement above.

But regarding your last post I replied to, your comment was refuting "the idea that Bush is denouncing the panel's finding that Iraq was not complicit in the 9/11 attacks," an idea that was not put forward by anyone I saw and is certainly not discussed in the title.

[rageous]

But in the real world sense, Bush is defending his position, which according to him he "keep[s] insisting" on (meaning his historical position), which is that there was a collaborative relationship, as noted in his statement above.

And I'll repeat what I said earlier:
"...it's fair game to call into question Bush's continued stance that AQ and Iraq were in cahoots at some level,"

But regarding your last post I replied to, your comment was refuting "the idea that Bush is denouncing the panel's finding that Iraq was not complicit in the 9/11 attacks," an idea that was not put forward by anyone I saw and is certainly not discussed in the title.

giant, sometimes you choose not to see the obvious implications of a statement that isn't 100% explicit. And that's fine, but it leads to little sub-discussions about what the possible implications of a posters verbiage can be instead of addressing the obvious topic at hand.

The panel's finding stated that there was not a collaborative effort between AQ and Iraq. I haven't heard Bush dispute that. (Certainly he may have been singing a different tune in months past, but that's a different topic.) Bush has merely denied the notion there is NO relationship at all, which is not a claim the panel has made. So if the thread title says Bush is denying a finding that wasn't made, one would assume that wasn't the implication of the wording. It is instead probable that what was meant was that the title was intended to imply Bush is denying the finding the panel did make, which is that Iraq and AQ were not collaborating.

[rageous]

ahhh double posts

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by rageous
Actually, that's not true. If it were the same person in power today that supported Iraq for 15 years, then you could say this new found desire to liberate the people rings hollow. But a different leader may feel differently about one situation than another does.

Does take this to mean I think Bush is some noble liberator, I'm merely making the case that you can't say "a war for liberation doesn't count" because former US leaders supported a repressive regime in the past.

Of course, I know Rumsfeld was involved in both scenarios, but since he was not President back in the day nor currently, he's not as really the type of leadership I am speaking of.

It's not just the individual who occupies the position as President: an administration consists of many layers officials and advisers, and the Bush administration is stuffed to the rafters with officials who had input and responsiblity towards Iraq/Middle east policy during the Reagan years, for example

Elliott Abrams
Richard Lee Armitage
John R. Bolton,
Tom Delay,
Andrew W. Marshall,
Richard Perle
Condoleezza Rice,
Paul Wolfowitz
Robert B. Zoellick

and numerous others

[Northgate]

All this parsing of what the commission said versus what they meant versus what Bush mean sounds a lot like... "it depends on what your definition of "is" is."

:lol:

[giant]

Originally posted by rageous
giant, sometimes you choose not to see the obvious implications of a statement that isn't 100% explicit. And that's fine, but it leads to little sub-discussions about what the possible implications of a posters verbiage can be instead of addressing the obvious topic at hand.
Originally posted by pfflam
Bush is still denying the lack of a link between Iraq and Al Quaida despite the well researched findings of the Panel
pfflam's made it pretty clear what he meant.
Originally posted by rageous
The panel's finding stated that there was not a collaborative effort between AQ and Iraq. I haven't heard Bush dispute that.
Since we are repeating our statements:
Originally posted by giant
In the strict political sense, he simply says "relationship," rather than "collaborative relationship," to technically agree with the commission while trying to brush over past statements, such as "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

But in the real world sense, Bush is defending his position, which according to him he "keep[s] insisting" on (meaning his historical position), which is that there was a collaborative relationship, as noted in his statement above.
Furthermore, he also stated: "He was a threat because he provided safe haven for a terrorist like al-Zarqawi who is still killing innocents inside Iraq," stongly implying a collaboration (and 99% of his audience will read it that way) while, if read strictly, not technically stating it.

Here's how the interaction began:
"when even you have denied any connection between Saddam and September 11, and now the September 11 commission says that there was no collaborative relationship at all?"

The president answered:"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."
Really, he's saying the same thing he always has (collaborative relationship) while technically avoiding the issue.

Also of note is that this is a prime example of the kind of deception used throughout this regime's propaganda.

[a_greer]

When J. Renos no. 2 is on the committy, questioning, and not being questioned, how can people still say it is apolitical.

Imho, most of the clinton people were treated with kid gloves, while the bushies were darn near on trial, I watched a good chunk of the C-Span coverage and was appauled by the way they were fireing alligations and charges disquised as questions at the bushies and not even giveing them a chance to answer before budding in with a "counter point".

This commision was a marvalous failure, and with the way the members were speaking to the press during the investigation, rather one-sided.

[giant]

Originally posted by a_greer
This commision was a marvalous failure, and with the way the members were speaking to the press during the investigation, rather one-sided.
I suppose you believe the commission is guilty of treason (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=633546&#post633546).

[pfflam]

Originally posted by rageous
Wonderful. You can debate the merits of Bush's argument about the validity of the connection between Iraq and AQ. But the point of this thread was to claim Bush is denying the panel's findings, which he is not. And the panel has stated that.

Why is it that if someone doesn't join the party and shit on Bush, they "don't get it"? Perhaps you can read again what I said and reserve being an ass for another more appropriate time? I am not the one being an ASS!!

I did not attack you, I merely pointed out where the admin is trying to pass off a failed meeting as a supposed "LINK' between AQ and Hussain, with the intention that what is understood is a 'collaborative connection'!!!

How can anybody actually say that that failed meeting, which technically does constitute some form of 'link', satisfies all of the previous claims that the admin made about Iraq and AQ?!?!

I know that that is not the only of such "links" but it is emblematic . . . it is hardly worth acknowlding except for the sheer unbelievableness of it!!

and I would say that YOU started acting like an 'ass' when you said "stfu" . . that is rude and sub-standard for you and for these baords

[Gilsch]

:lol: Yeah, that commission was a failure because it's making Bush and Co. look pretty bad. :lol:

No wonder the WH was so against it. No wonder DUHbya didn't even have the decency or balls to testify before it under oath, in public or without his puppet handler.

[rageous]

Originally posted by pfflam
How can anybody actually say that that failed meeting, which technically does constitute some form of 'link', satisfies all of the previous claims that the admin made about Iraq and AQ?!?!

I know that that is not the only of such "links" but it is emblematic . . . it is hardly worth acknowlding except for the sheer unbelievableness of it!!

and I would say that YOU started acting like an 'ass' when you said "stfu" . . that is rude and sub-standard for you and for these baords

My entire point, from the beginning, has been that Bush's stance is shaky at best, and has been. But the topic was his denial of the results of the investigation put forth by the 9/11 commission. He hasn't denied their validity, but rather is hanging onto a thinner argument.

Feel free to discuss his weak argument on the issue of perceived Iraq/AQ alliances. My point was that he's not saying the commission is wrong in stating Iraq and AQ weren't collaborating. His position (as new and convenient as it may be) is that a relationship existed. It's weak, I know. I'm not here to reinforce quicksand.

And my stfu wasn't directed to anyone specific, so if you assumed it was at you my apologies. It was merely put there to preempt some sort of post proclaiming me to be a die hard Republicrat with blinders on and no concept of truth and blah blah blah.

[sammi jo]

But wait!!!! There's more.....lookie here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3118262.stm

From Sept. 18, 2003. just 9 months ago:

US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.
The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.

etc, etc.....

Is there, or isn't there? My my, how he flip flops. Or can't he remember what he claims from one day to the next? Cocaine seizures?

[pfflam]

There are some good points in that article that say clearly what I have been trying to say:

Critics of the war on Iraq have accused the US administration of deliberately encouraging public confusion to generate support for military action..This confusion has been partly attributed to, at best a lack of clarity by the administration and at worst, deliberate obfuscation, correspondents say.

As recently as last Sunday, Vice-President Dick Cheney, refused to rule out a link between Iraq and 11 September, saying "'we don't know"..

"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.".You take the "we don't know" and run that through the media echo chamber, compounded by the rhetoric of "dealt a blow to the heart of the base" and other vaguities that sound nice and patriotic and righteous and you ed up with a wall of rock-solid denial and a throng of Bush-lovers who see-no-wrong!!!

[pfflam]

And here is yet another testimony to HOW MISLEADING the administration is being.

But first a prelude to take note that Cheney called the press "Lazy"!!!!!
Hahahah . . . kettle-pot-lack of color known as black!!! :lol: :no: :(

But now on to this great interview that puts it into perspective:

"Author Peter Bergen of Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden, said the administration is "grasping at straws."

"One of the striking things about al-Qaeda is how few Iraqis there are in the organisation. A lot of Saudis, a lot of Algerians, a lot of Yemenis, but no Iraqis. There are probably more American members of al-Qaeda than Iraqis, and stronger ties to Brooklyn than Baghdad, if al-Qaeda had an office in Brooklyn.

"But I mean the larger point is there were no substantive dealings between al-Qaeda and Iraq. I mean, they met in Sudan on a number of occasions. We know from the United Nations you can have meetings without results, and that was the case – you can't point to any outcomes."

Q: So when President Bush says there are numerous contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein...

PETER BERGEN: "Well, it's an interesting kind of construct, isn't it? Because, I mean, I have contacts with all sorts of people, I met with bin Laden – it's doesn't mean I did business with him. You know, I think this is grasping at straws at this point ... The point is that there's no there there, there's just nothing... I mean, some of the things that were supposed to have been true aren't true, for example, a meeting between the hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent, well, it just never happened."

But straws that are compounded enough times through the Rush machine; through the FAUX machine start to creat a false sense of doubt and create a sense that the Iraqis did indeed have enopugh "contact" to DO 911 . .

. . you watch, 4 months from now, the majority of people will still believe that Hussain did 911!!

[thegelding]

as i have said before....quick, attack florida....

i mean, hell, if there was maybe a single meeting 10 years ago between an AQ member and an iraqi official that lead to nothing, and the fact that an AQ member is currently in iraq somewhere causing trouble...if these are reasons for the war suddenly, then why aren't we bombing florida??

AQ lived and trained in florida, AQ learned to fly at a state regulated, certified school...

so then florida and, by extention, jeb bush must have ties to AQ...that is the reasoning W is giving now for believing AQ and Saddam had ties, so why doesn't it work for AQ and Jeb?


g

[Scott]

Woops! Looks like everyone here drank the kool aid before it was ready.

The Zelikow Report (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/opinion/21SAFI.html)
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: June 21, 2004



WASHINGTON — "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie" went the Times headline. "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed" front-paged The Washington Post. The A.P. led with the thrilling words "Bluntly contradicting the Bush Administration, the commission. . . ." This understandably caused my editorial-page colleagues to draw the conclusion that "there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. . . ."

All wrong. The basis for the hoo-ha was not a judgment of the panel of commissioners appointed to investigate the 9/11 attacks. As reporters noted below the headlines, it was an interim report of the commission's runaway staff, headed by the ex-N.S.C. aide Philip Zelikow. After Vice President Dick Cheney's outraged objection, the staff's sweeping conclusion was soon disavowed by both commission chairman Tom Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton.

"Were there contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq?" Kean asked himself. "Yes . . . no question." Hamilton joined in: "The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections . . . we don't disagree with that" — just "no credible evidence" of Iraqi cooperation in the 9/11 attack.

The Zelikow report was seized upon by John Kerry because it fuzzed up the distinction between evidence of decade-long dealings between agents of Saddam and bin Laden (which panel members know to be true) and evidence of Iraqi cooperation in the 9/11 attacks (which, as Hamilton said yesterday, modifying his earlier "no credible evidence" judgment, was "not proven one way or the other.")

But the staff had twisted the two strands together to cast doubt on both the Qaeda-Iraq ties and the specific attacks of 9/11: "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." Zelikow & Co. dismissed the reports, citing the denials of Qaeda agents and what they decided was "no credible evidence" of cooperation on 9/11.

That paragraph — extending doubt on 9/11 to all previous contacts — put the story on front pages. Here was a release on the official commission's letterhead not merely failing to find Saddam's hand in 9/11, which Bush does not claim. The news was in the apparent contradiction of what the president repeatedly asserted as a powerful reason for war: that Iraq had long been dangerously in cahoots with terrorists.

Cheney's ire was misdirected. Don't blame the media for jumping on the politically charged Zelikow report. Blame the commission's leaders for ducking responsibility for its interim findings. Kean and Hamilton have allowed themselves to be jerked around by a manipulative staff.

Yesterday, Governor Kean passed along this stunner about "no collaborative relationship" to ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "Members do not get involved in staff reports."

Not involved? Another commission member tells me he did not see the Zelikow bombshell until the night before its release. Moreover, the White House, vetting the report for secrets, failed to raise an objection to a Democratic bonanza in the tricky paragraph leading to the misleading "no Qaeda-Iraq tie."

What can the commission do now to regain its nonpartisan credibility?

1. Require every member to sign off on every word that the commission releases, or write and sign a minority report. No more "staff conclusions" without presenting supporting evidence, pro and con.

2. Set the record straight, in evidentiary detail, on every contact known between Iraq and terrorist groups, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's operations in Iraq. Include the basis for the Clinton-era "cooperating in weapons development" statement.

3. Despite the prejudgment announced yesterday by Kean and Democratic partisan Richard Ben-Veniste dismissing Mohammed Atta's reported meeting in Prague with an Iraqi spymaster, fairly spell out all the evidence that led to George Tenet's "not proven or disproven" testimony. (Start with www.edwardjayepstein.com.)

4. Show how the failure to retaliate after the attack on the U.S.S. Cole affected 9/11, how removing the director of central intelligence from running the C.I.A. would work, and how Congress's intelligence oversight failed abysmally.

5. Stop wasting time posturing on television and get involved writing a defensible commission report. _

[buckeye]

Originally posted by Northgate
All this parsing of what the commission said versus what they meant versus what Bush mean sounds a lot like... "it depends on what your definition of "is" is."

:lol:

Ha. That's funny.

Dick Cheney seems to be really good at it too: "I never said that" (http://www.fair.org/views.html#borger)

It is obvious that the Bush administration used whatever language they could to convince the American Public that we should go to war against iraq in the name of terrorism. Clearly we now know that there was no link. oops!

I think it is incredibly comical listening to Bush and Cheney try to talk their way out of one massive lie after another. And I think that it is unbelievably pathetic that so many people actually believe anything they say.

[pfflam]

Nice try Scott, but that Safire article says nothing: except that yes there was no credible evidence of Iraq/AQ ties to 911.

The point is is that the rhetoric before the war CLEARLY IMPLIED a connection.

THEY LIED, only not technically . . . and now to watch them try and pedal a failed meeting held in Sudan as being what they really meant is sickening.

and worse, we no have Lehman, a partisan Republican on the Panel making idiotic claims that a Fedayeen Colonel is also a Malaysian Airport Greeter for Al Qaida, . . .but . . .OOPS. . . . their names are actually different names.

Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58899-2004Jun21.html)

this is great:Former Navy secretary John Lehman, a Republican member of the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said Sunday that documents found in Iraq "indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al Qaeda." Although he said the identity "still has to be confirmed," [ . . . ]

Yesterday, the senior administration official said Lehman had probably confused two people who have similar-sounding names.

One of them is Ahmad Hikmat Shakir Azzawi, identified as an al Qaeda "fixer" in Malaysia. Officials say he served as an airport greeter for al Qaeda in January 2000 in Kuala Lumpur, at a gathering for members who were to be involved in the attacks on the USS Cole, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Iraqi military documents, found last year, listed a similar name, Lt. Col. Hikmat Shakir Ahmad,

Then this next part is the best:
Why is the following quote the best?
Because it shows the absurd logic that the partisans will use to make it SOUND like there really was a connection, or even just that there MIGHT be one, or that a failed meeting as a connection satisfies all of the forcefull LIES that they fed to us!!

it is the same as saying this: "Even though they have absolutely different names they are two people on the planet, and who knows, maybe they are the same really, maybe they are connected . . . we simply don't know. Is this fellow 'scott' -which sounds an awful lot like 'ahkmet'- is it him or not? We don't know if they are connected, in fact, we don't know if this 'scott/ahkmet' fellow was part of 911 . . . so we can't say for sure . . . "
In an interview yesterday, Lehman said it is still possible the man in Kuala Lumpur was affiliated with Hussein, even if he isn't the man on the Fedayeen roster. "It's one more instance where this is an intriguing possibility that needs to be run to ground," Lehman said. "The most intriguing part of it is not whether or not he was in the Fedayeen, but whether or not the guy who attended Kuala Lumpur had any connections to Iraqi intelligence. . . . We don't know."

[Scott]

Originally posted by pfflam
Nice try Scott, but that Safire article says nothing: except that yes there was no credible evidence of Iraq/AQ ties to 911....


Nice try but obviously you are having trouble with reading comprehension. Point being that the panel has concluded NOTHING. But don't let media lies get in the way of a good Bush bashing.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Scott
Nice try but obviously you are having trouble with reading comprehension. Point being that the panel has concluded NOTHING. But don't let media lies get in the way of a good Bush bashing.

Exactly. The commission itself has denied that it was concluding that "no ties between Al-Qaeda and Iraq exist or existed". But that doesn't matter to people like pfflam, giant, et al.

The administraton never once said that Iraq was invloved in 9/11, either. But, that won't stop the above posters and their like-minded cohorts from drinking the kool-aid either...because now their statements change from "Bush said...." to "the clear implication was....".

[Harald]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The administraton never once said that Iraq was invloved in 9/11, either. But, that won't stop the above posters and their like-minded cohorts from drinking the kool-aid either...

Now where the hell did we get that idea from?

The monkey in the White House maybe? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html)

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Joker.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Harald
Now where the hell did we get that idea from?

The monkey in the White House maybe? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html)



Joker.


Good post!

[Scott]

Originally posted by Harald
Now where the hell did we get that idea from?

The monkey in the White House maybe? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html)



Joker.

We have another person that needs reading comprehension classes. That letter doesn't state the Iraq was involved in 9/11. Although I'll congratulate you on providing the full quote unlike many "news" organizations.

[Harald]

Originally posted by Scott
We have another person that needs reading comprehension classes. That letter doesn't state the Iraq was involved in 9/11. Although I'll congratulate you on providing the full quote unlike many "news" organizations.

You're a joker.

Purely so I can laugh at the language mangling and sophistry with which you're no doubt about to supply us, would you care to tell us why the letter requsting the right to use force against Iraq mentions, in fact concludes prominenently with, 9/11?

Absolute joker.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Harald
You're a joker.

Purely so I can laugh at the language mangling and sophistry with which you're no doubt about to supply us, would you care to tell us why the letter requsting the right to use force against Iraq mentions, in fact concludes prominenently with, 9/11?

Absolute joker.

Just read and understand. Bush's letter is simple and does not imply that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Don't be a troll.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Scott
Just read and understand. Bush's letter is simple and does not imply that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Don't be a troll.


So what the point referencing 911 in the same paragraph as attacking Iraq? It really seems like he's trying to say one action is called for by another. One action based on another. If what you're saying is true why refer to 911 at all?

The implication's there.

[Harald]

Why does the letter mention 9/11?

Spell it out for us thickoes. Come on.

[Scott]

Just read it objectively. Pull off your "I hate Bush" hat for two seconds and read and understand the english language.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Scott
Just read it objectively. Pull off your "I hate Bush" hat for two seconds and read and understand the english language.

It's pretty cut and dried. I think it would read the same no matter what your opinion of Bush was.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Harald
Now where the hell did we get that idea from?

The monkey in the White House maybe? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html)



Joker.

Bullshit.

consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations....

The quote continues to say "INCLUDING those nations, organizations...that aided in the [9/11 attacks]. It does not say tht Iraq was one of these countries.

[pfflam]

It is an unbelievable thing to watch: the technicality that was stretched to a point where it CLEARLY was misleading, and was misleading INTENTIONALLY!!

and then the absurd equivocation!!!!!

There was a link: yes and there was a link twixt the state of Florida and AQ! Yes there in fact was a link . . . a collaborative link?!?!

No, and there will not be shown to be one unless you start to look for names that are close by a six or seven letters difference.

Just look at what you are defending!!!!! How can you call yourselves reasonable?!

They forced a 'Nothing' (as Scott said) into a 'something' through proximity of rhetorical phrases . . . over and over and over until we were assured that Hussain had a collaborative part to play in 911!

This is plain to see to anybody willing to take a step back and look at historical pronounciations, and to look at what the Admin is trying now to say that they meant by their 'link'!!

It simply doesn't matter what the administration does, if I object then you will see it somehow as the good thing for them to do . . NO MATTER WHAT!!

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Bullshit.



The quote continues to say "INCLUDING those nations, organizations...that aided in the [9/11 attacks]. It does not say tht Iraq was one of these countries.


Yes you put that together with this :
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:"

-----------------------------------------------------------

And the implication is there that Iraq was one of them.

[shetline]

Here's a completely true statement, no matter to whom you say it: "You're not perfect."

Here's some completely good general advice: "You shouldn't think you're perfect."

Now, put all this truth and good advice together, walk up to that special someone in your life, and deliver it out of the blue like this: "You're not perfect, you know, and don't go thinking you are!"

So, what do you imagine the effect of all of this truth and good advice will be? Will it be properly appreciated? If someone takes it "the wrong way", is it their fault for failing to see the clear truth in your wise words?

I think it's fairly obvious that the context of what you say and the reasons for bringing something up to talk about in the first place are as big a part of any message as parsing legalistic truth out of your literal words.

Bush and his administration are obviously talking about "contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda" for a reason beyond creating the impression of inconsequential meetings that didn't amount to much of anything. That they know incorrect impressions will be created, like the idea that Saddam was behind 9/11, is as obvious as it is deliberate, and seeking to take advantage of people "drawing their own conclusions" -- the conclusions they want them to make while hiding behind legalistic parsing of literal words -- is just as dishonest and manipulative as outright lying.

[ShawnJ]

In a nutshell, the President is still misleading the public into thinking Iraq and Al Qaeda were "in cahoots." He's doing this by leaving open the nature of their "relationship" for the public to decide, while strongly suggesting a collaborative relationship. You don't have to be a rhetorical genius to pull that off, but you do need a smart political advisor or two.

[sammi jo]

Al Qaeda was active in Iraq before the war, but their agents were based north of the northern no-fly zone, an area under Kurdish control, where the Saddam Hussein regime had no jurisdiction.
Cheney's persistent alleged "connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda" have been taken out of context: people have assumed that "Iraq" meant "the whole of Iraq". Typically manipulative, misleading and deceitful stuff from this administration.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Al Qaeda was active in Iraq before the war, but their agents were based north of the northern no-fly zone, an area under Kurdish control, where the Saddam Hussein regime had no jurisdiction.
Cheney's persistent alleged "connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda" have been taken out of context: people have assumed that "Iraq" meant "the whole of Iraq". Typically manipulative, misleading and deceitful stuff from this administration.

Actually, the Admin has been quite deliberate in their use of the term "Iraq" rather than "SH's regime" or "the Iraqi gov't" when describing all of this, since it allows them to imply that Iraq was a state-sponsor of terrorism when all they're saying was that some terrorist, at some point, was in the country.

If they get called on it, they can just deny it. It's easy, really. For instance, you just do this:

Step One: Say Something

Vice-President Cheney: “It’s been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April.”--Transcript, NBC’s “Meet the Press,” December 9, 2001.

Step Two: If that statement becomes a liability, deny you said it

Gloria Borger: “Well, let’s get to Mohammed Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well._ You have said in the past that it was quote, “pretty well confirmed.”

Vice President Cheney: No, I never said that.

BORGER: OK.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Never said that.

BORGER: I think that is...

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not.

--Transcript, CNBC’s “Capital Report,” June 17, 2004


See? Piece of cake!

[addabox]

The desperation is palpable.

All this ridiculous parsing of what the president "really meant", and when a lie is not a lie but a misunderstanding.

How can any serious person continue to claim Bush never meant to link Iraq to 9/11? How can any serious person deny that he continues to do so? Sure, everyone watches their language so that they can maintain "plausible deniability" when the claims are closely scrutinized (well, everybody except Cheney...), but the intent is there for all to see.

The people defending this on these boards are reduced to labeling "taking note of the obvious" as "irrational Bush hatred".

Do ya'll even believe what you're saying or is it just complete knee-jerk "whatever the "liberals" say I say the opposite"? Cause you reach a point when the "liberals" are saying the sky is blue and your vehement denials start making you look like you're in the midst of some kind of autistic fugue state which compels you to keep shouting the same nonsense phrases over and over again while you bang your head against the floor.

"Liberal media! Partisan sniping! Irrational hatred! Yugga-yugga-yugga!"

[midwinter]

Originally posted by addabox
The people defending this on these boards are reduced to labeling "taking note of the obvious" as "irrational Bush hatred".

I prefer to think of myself as engaged in "irrational Bush hatred program related activities."

[addabox]

Originally posted by midwinter
I prefer to think of myself as engaged in "irrational Bush hatred program related activities."

:lol:

[ShawnJ]

Originally posted by addabox
Do ya'll even believe what you're saying or is it just complete knee-jerk "whatever the "liberals" say I say the opposite"? Cause you reach a point when the "liberals" are saying the sky is blue and your vehement denials start making you look like you're in the midst of some kind of autistic fugue state which compels you to keep shouting the same nonsense phrases over and over again while you bang your head against the floor.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Post of the month.

[Harald]

Sod it. This shit doesn't matter, and I winder who we're trying to kid. The only important thread is the Peak Oil thread. Bush is corrupt. So there. So will Kerry be, should he win.

We live in Pompeii.

[pfflam]

No

it matters

and you live in yoorp . . . most likely not in pompei

and I live here in the US a country that I love and that I hate to see terrorized by an incompetent, mean spirited, lying, corrupt, and ultimately dangerous Government

[SDW2001]

How can any serious person continue to claim Bush never meant to link Iraq to 9/11?

Perhaps by actually listening to him. He's never said Iraq was involved. Now, are the two "linked"? Yes, in the sense that threats must be deal with differently in the post-9/11 era.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Perhaps by actually listening to him. He's never said Iraq was involved. Now, are the two "linked"? Yes, in the sense that threats must be deal with differently in the post-9/11 era.

Talk about stretch! SDW is in rare form tonight.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Talk about stretch! SDW is in rare form tonight.

Facts:

1. Bush never once claimed that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11
2. Threats in the post 9/11 era must be dealt with differently.

I've said it before...if you want to criticize Bush, then do so in an intellectually honest way. Leave your ridiculous rehtoric aside. (i.e. "Bush says he's on a misson from God").

[tonton]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Facts:

1. Bush never once claimed that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11
2. Threats in the post 9/11 era must be dealt with differently.

I've said it before...if you want to criticize Bush, then do so in an intellectually honest way. Leave your ridiculous rehtoric aside. (i.e. "Bush says he's on a misson from God").

1. But it was definitely, undeniably (unless you're either an idiot or a liar) implied.
2. Why? Is justice any different? The same values that the Constitution was built upon definitely still apply in the post 911 envoronment: All [people] were created equal and all are innocent until proven guilty. Or do you disagree with these principles?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by tonton
1. But it was definitely, undeniably (unless you're either an idiot or a liar) implied.
2. Why? Is justice any different? The same values that the Uonstitution was built upon definitely still apply in the post 911 envoronment: All [people] were created equal and all are innocent until proven guilty. Or do you disagree with these principles?

1. It was not implied. Please cite examples of it being implied.

2. What are you referring to specifically? Does the Constitution state "The United States shall not invade another country without the express written permission of its allies"?

[pfflam]

Originally posted by SDW2001
1. It was not implied. Please cite examples of it being implied.
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/06/20/weekinreview/Quotes.jpg As for the second part I was under the impression that when a country trumpted up false charges, repeatedly, in order to make an excuse to invade another country that we would not be talking about the US . .. we were supposed to not act like fascists and aggressors. Besides, Hussain was not guilty as charged with regards to WMD. He had none.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Facts:

1. Bush never once claimed that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11
2. Threats in the post 9/11 era must be dealt with differently.

I've said it before...if you want to criticize Bush, then do so in an intellectually honest way. Leave your ridiculous rehtoric aside. (i.e. "Bush says he's on a misson from God").

We've gone over this already. Your technique of not listening gets a little obvious when it happens so quickly.

[Aquatic]

Semantics. You people are being "intellectually dishonest" if you think Bush didn't imply Saddam being tied in some way to 9/11. Disingenuous. So cut the shit. I think pfflam's explicit quotes make whatever Scott or SDW have to say null and void. When J. Renos no. 2 is on the committy, questioning, and not being questioned, how can people still say it is apolitical.

Imho, most of the clinton people were treated with kid gloves, while the bushies were darn near on trial, I watched a good chunk of the C-Span coverage and was appauled by the way they were fireing alligations and charges disquised as questions at the bushies and not even giveing them a chance to answer before budding in with a "counter point".

This commision was a marvalous failure, and with the way the members were speaking to the press during the investigation, rather one-sided.

Um duuuuh. Did you see when they had Condi Rice on? If they had kiddie gloves on with Clinton that must mean they had what, pillows the size of refrigerators on their hands when interviewing "Bushies"? And they never even had Bush testify publicly. Alone. That basically makes whatever the Commission has to say BULLSHIT. Not 100% trustworthy or apolitical. That one fact alone. OK bye now, keep on believing whatever you want. Mmm that steak tastes so good..ignorance really is bliss!

[Aquatic]

Oh and one more thing. That everyone seems to kind have missed. What are these "links"?

[Scott]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Semantics. You people are being "intellectually dishonest" if you think Bush didn't imply Saddam being tied in some way to 9/11. Disingenuous. So cut the shit. I think pfflam's explicit quotes make whatever Scott or SDW have to say null and void. ...


Which quote? Please be specific and don't dodge the question.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Scott
Which quote? Please be specific and don't dodge the question. notice the large IMG file with all of the quotes.
Of those listed by Bush alone the 1st the 3rd the 4th and even the 5th are clearly misleading statements or out of proportion. . . and if they are not then I want to see proof.

The thing that is not shown with those quotes is the larger context which of the speeches which very likely situates even further the implied link of Iraq directly to 911

[Aquatic]

Yeah that's a pretty big picture, but no matter how big you make something, those who choose only what they want to see, won't see it.

[Aquatic]

And what are these "links"?

[Scott]

Originally posted by pfflam
notice the large IMG file with all of the quotes.
Of those listed by Bush alone the 1st the 3rd the 4th and even the 5th are clearly misleading statements or out of proportion. . . and if they are not then I want to see proof.

1 and 3 are true. I don't know the basis of 4 but it's so plain it should be easy to verify or disprove. I believe 5 to be true too.

Originally posted by pfflam
The thing that is not shown with those quotes is the larger context which of the speeches which very likely situates even further the implied link of Iraq directly to 911

Where when quote source? After 9/11 the US couldn't afford to allow Iraq to be a huge question mark. Saddam funded terrorism, harbored terrorist and terrorist operated and passed though Iraq. Case closed.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Scott
1 and 3 are true. I don't know the basis of 4 but it's so plain it should be easy to verify or disprove. I believe 5 to be true too.



Where when quote source? After 9/11 the US couldn't afford to allow Iraq to be a huge question mark. Saddam funded terrorism, harbored terrorist and terrorist operated and passed though Iraq. Case closed.

If that was the reason Bush wanted us to go to war he should have stated that.

However he didn't.

[pfflam]

#1 is absurd and #3 is not true . . . . show me its truth.

Hussain was no 'ally' of AQ . .. wrong . . .

so far absolutely nothing.

ut as was allready said: you will see what you want

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by pfflam
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/06/20/weekinreview/Quotes.jpg As for the second part I was under the impression that when a country trumpted up false charges, repeatedly, in order to make an excuse to invade another country that we would not be talking about the US . .. we were supposed to not act like fascists and aggressors. Besides, Hussain was not guilty as charged with regards to WMD. He had none.

What kind of bullshit is this? Your image proves my point, not yours. There is no implication whatsoever. As for us being fascists and aggressors, well I suppose I should expect that kind of a statement from you. And Saddam "not guilty as charged?" My God...is this really how you think?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Semantics. You people are being "intellectually dishonest" if you think Bush didn't imply Saddam being tied in some way to 9/11. Disingenuous. So cut the shit. I think pfflam's explicit quotes make whatever Scott or SDW have to say null and void.

Um duuuuh. Did you see when they had Condi Rice on? If they had kiddie gloves on with Clinton that must mean they had what, pillows the size of refrigerators on their hands when interviewing "Bushies"? And they never even had Bush testify publicly. Alone. That basically makes whatever the Commission has to say BULLSHIT. Not 100% trustworthy or apolitical. That one fact alone. OK bye now, keep on believing whatever you want. Mmm that steak tastes so good..ignorance really is bliss!

Ummm..pardon me...but what the fuck are you reading?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Ummm..pardon me...but what the fuck are you reading?

The same things you are evidentially.:lol:

[Harald]

"Saddam Hussein is a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda"

George Bush

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Harald
"Saddam Hussein is a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda"

George Bush

Prove that statement false.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Prove that statement false.

In order for you to prove that it's true, you're going to have to make an argument about what the meaning of "is" is.

[Harald]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Prove that statement false.

The 9/11 commission says it's false.

You cling on the sophism that the 9/11 commission only talks about collaboration on those attacks, but it says more then that.

It says that bin Laden "provided support for anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan."

That is, bin Laden gave support to anti-Saddam terrorists.

According to MSNBC, it says "bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps in Iraq as well as Iraqi assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded, the staff report said."

That is, bin Laden tried to have links and Saddam didn't respond.

It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan “do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,” and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."

So, prove it true. The 9/11 commission says there was animosity and un-reciprocated approaches, and thet al Qaida associates adamantly deny links.

Joker.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Harald
According to MSNBC, it says "bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps in Iraq as well as Iraqi assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded, the staff report said."

That is, bin Laden tried to have links and Saddam didn't respond.

If I remember correctly, I think that Sudan was the key there. Sudan's relationship with Iraq was pretty rocky at the time, and they wanted to see if they could bolster it a little by establishing some kind of relationship through AQ. Iraq wasn't interested.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Harald
The 9/11 commission says it's false.

You cling on the sophism that the 9/11 commission only talks about collaboration on those attacks, but it says more then that.

...

No it doesn't. You on the sophism (media lie?) that the 9/11 commission has made a final report. It hasn't.

[Harald]

Originally posted by Scott
No it doesn't. You on the sophism (media lie?) that the 9/11 commission has made a final report. It hasn't.

SHOCK REPORT: 9/11 Commission Reports: "Forget the interim findings, they didn't mean anything! We've totally changed our mind for Scott!"

You can't answer the points, so you fall back on the point that the report *may* just have a 180-degree turnabout.

By the way, look up 'sophistry.'

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Harald
By the way, look up 'sophistry.'

Heh. I thought that was ironic, too.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Harald
The 9/11 commission says it's false.

You cling on the sophism that the 9/11 commission only talks about collaboration on those attacks, but it says more then that.

It says that bin Laden "provided support for anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan."

That is, bin Laden gave support to anti-Saddam terrorists.

According to MSNBC, it says "bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps in Iraq as well as Iraqi assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded, the staff report said."

That is, bin Laden tried to have links and Saddam didn't respond.

It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan “do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,” and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."

So, prove it true. The 9/11 commission says there was animosity and un-reciprocated approaches, and thet al Qaida associates adamantly deny links.

Joker.

Now you're arguing the nature of the ties. The point is that there was at least some ties between the two. Anything else you're offering above is supposition. And really...of course "senior bin laden aides" have denied a relationship. A confirmed relationship would add more legitimacy to our actions in Iraq, and that's the last thing bin Laden would want.

[Harald]

SDW, the ties were that bin Laden was helping people who wanted to destroy Saddam, according to the 9/11 commission.

Tell me, do you think that kind of tie is what Bush claimed as justification for the war or not when he said, as I quoted above, "Saddam Hussein is a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda."

You're digging holes for youself, joker.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Harald
SDW, the ties were that bin Laden was helping people who wanted to destroy Saddam, according to the 9/11 commission.

Tell me, do you think that kind of tie is what Bush claimed as justification for the war or not when he said, as I quoted above, "Saddam Hussein is a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda."

You're digging holes for youself, joker.

That's a complete mischaracterization of what the commission reported. That's more like what you wanted them to report.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Now you're arguing the nature of the ties. The point is that there was at least some ties between the two. Anything else you're offering above is supposition. And really...of course "senior bin laden aides" have denied a relationship. A confirmed relationship would add more legitimacy to our actions in Iraq, and that's the last thing bin Laden would want. We've always been arguing the nature of the ties . . . what is it with you?!?! . . .

I actually wrote the words quite clearly . . . ties existed . . . however the NATURE of the ties is such that to even ATTEMPT to associate them to 911 or to say that they are enough to merit an invasion is tantamount to LYING.

Because the NATURE of the ties are akin to saying that I have a link to the McDonald's Corporation because I used a restroom in a McDonald's Restaraunt . . . . and then saying that my link to McDonald's merits a CEO salary . . .

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by pfflam
We've always been arguing the nature of the ties . . . what is it with you?!?! . . .

I actually wrote the words quite clearly . . . ties existed . . . however the NATURE of the ties is such that to even ATTEMPT to associate them to 911 or to say that they are enough to merit an invasion is tantamount to LYING.

Because the NATURE of the ties are akin to saying that I have a link to the McDonald's Corporation because I used a restroom in a McDonald's Restaraunt . . . . and then saying that my link to McDonald's merits a CEO salary . . .

There was no implication that Iraq was tied to 9/11. None. And really...I don't see how you're so confidant that these ties were inconsequential. In the very least, Saddam allowed terrorists to operate within Iraq freely.

[pfflam]

especially those trying to overthrow him . . . :\

[Aquatic]

Prove that statement false.

What? "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY."

Oh, and prove Bush didn't do crack. Or skip out. Or murder my grandmother. Prove that Karl Rove doesn't wear women's underwear or that Cheney didn't have secret dealings with Halliburton and his other Energy Task Force buddies. Prove you're not a douche.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Harald
SHOCK REPORT: 9/11 Commission Reports: "Forget the interim findings, they didn't mean anything! We've totally changed our mind for Scott!"




Go back and read the first page of this thread. I quote whole thing and yet people like you still believe the media lie. You're just wrong. Go back and read the link.


WASHINGTON — "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie" went the Times headline. "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed" front-paged The Washington Post. The A.P. led with the thrilling words "Bluntly contradicting the Bush Administration, the commission. . . ." This understandably caused my editorial-page colleagues to draw the conclusion that "there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. . . ."

All wrong. The basis for the hoo-ha was not a judgment of the panel of commissioners appointed to investigate the 9/11 attacks. As reporters noted below the headlines, it was an interim report of the commission's runaway staff, headed by the ex-N.S.C. aide Philip Zelikow.

The panel has made No conclusions. You were lied to by the media and not smart enough to know it.

Originally posted by Harald
You can't answer the points, so you fall back on the point that the report *may* just have a 180-degree turnabout.

By the way, look up 'sophistry.'

I already did ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS THREAD. You must have failed reading comprehension in school like so many others here. You may want to apply that word to yourself.

[Aquatic]

Scott can you sum up what you think the panel said, and then what they said, objectively? Tell us what they said, and then give us your interpretation, and we will grade you on reading comprehension. Thanks for your time. If you don't want to, then don't hold everyone else to the same standards.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Scott can you sum up what you think the panel said, and then what they said, objectively? Tell us what they said, and then give us your interpretation, and we will grade you on reading comprehension. Thanks for your time. If you don't want to, then don't hold everyone else to the same standards.

The panel made no no conclusions so I can't do that. I'll have to quote it again. Read this time. READ! I'll bold the important parts.


The Zelikow Report (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/opinion/21SAFI.html)
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: June 21, 2004



WASHINGTON — "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie" went the Times headline. "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed" front-paged The Washington Post. The A.P. led with the thrilling words "Bluntly contradicting the Bush Administration, the commission. . . ." This understandably caused my editorial-page colleagues to draw the conclusion that "there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. . . ."

All wrong. The basis for the hoo-ha was not a judgment of the panel of commissioners appointed to investigate the 9/11 attacks. As reporters noted below the headlines, it was an interim report of the commission's runaway staff, headed by the ex-N.S.C. aide Philip Zelikow. After Vice President Dick Cheney's outraged objection, the staff's sweeping conclusion was soon disavowed by both commission chairman Tom Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton.

"Were there contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq?" Kean asked himself. "Yes . . . no question." Hamilton joined in: "The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections . . . we don't disagree with that" — just "no credible evidence" of Iraqi cooperation in the 9/11 attack.

The Zelikow report was seized upon by John Kerry because it fuzzed up the distinction between evidence of decade-long dealings between agents of Saddam and bin Laden (which panel members know to be true) and evidence of Iraqi cooperation in the 9/11 attacks (which, as Hamilton said yesterday, modifying his earlier "no credible evidence" judgment, was "not proven one way or the other.")

But the staff had twisted the two strands together to cast doubt on both the Qaeda-Iraq ties and the specific attacks of 9/11: "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." Zelikow & Co. dismissed the reports, citing the denials of Qaeda agents and what they decided was "no credible evidence" of cooperation on 9/11.

That paragraph — extending doubt on 9/11 to all previous contacts — put the story on front pages. Here was a release on the official commission's letterhead not merely failing to find Saddam's hand in 9/11, which Bush does not claim. The news was in the apparent contradiction of what the president repeatedly asserted as a powerful reason for war: that Iraq had long been dangerously in cahoots with terrorists.

Cheney's ire was misdirected. Don't blame the media for jumping on the politically charged Zelikow report. Blame the commission's leaders for ducking responsibility for its interim findings. Kean and Hamilton have allowed themselves to be jerked around by a manipulative staff.

Yesterday, Governor Kean passed along this stunner about "no collaborative relationship" to ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "Members do not get involved in staff reports."

Not involved? Another commission member tells me he did not see the Zelikow bombshell until the night before its release. Moreover, the White House, vetting the report for secrets, failed to raise an objection to a Democratic bonanza in the tricky paragraph leading to the misleading "no Qaeda-Iraq tie."

What can the commission do now to regain its nonpartisan credibility?

1. Require every member to sign off on every word that the commission releases, or write and sign a minority report. No more "staff conclusions" without presenting supporting evidence, pro and con.

2. Set the record straight, in evidentiary detail, on every contact known between Iraq and terrorist groups, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's operations in Iraq. Include the basis for the Clinton-era "cooperating in weapons development" statement.

3. Despite the prejudgment announced yesterday by Kean and Democratic partisan Richard Ben-Veniste dismissing Mohammed Atta's reported meeting in Prague with an Iraqi spymaster, fairly spell out all the evidence that led to George Tenet's "not proven or disproven" testimony. (Start with www.edwardjayepstein.com.)

4. Show how the failure to retaliate after the attack on the U.S.S. Cole affected 9/11, how removing the director of central intelligence from running the C.I.A. would work, and how Congress's intelligence oversight failed abysmally.

5. Stop wasting time posturing on television and get involved writing a defensible commission report. _

[pfflam]

What were the not-yet-but-pretty-close-conclusions of the interim report?

hmm?!?!

and Safire keeps pluggin that "Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani' connection even though his capture as well as two years of investigation have turned up nothing :no:

'I wantto believe . . . there's no place like home . . .


Well . . . at least you can rest assured on one point . . . should there prove to be a link that surfaces, and is conclusive, and is really scary, scary enough to merit America turning 180% with regards to pre-emptive invasion of other countries, then I'll eat crow . . . but so far . . .

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
There was no implication that Iraq was tied to 9/11.

Condi Rice made an explicit comment that Saddam was tied to 9/11.

[Scott]

Originally posted by pfflam
What were the not-yet-but-pretty-close-conclusions of the interim report?

hmm?!?!

and Safire keeps pluggin that "Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani' connection even though his capture as well as two years of investigation have turned up nothing :no:

'I wantto believe . . . there's no place like home . . .


Well . . . at least you can rest assured on one point . . . should there prove to be a link that surfaces, and is conclusive, and is really scary, scary enough to merit America turning 180% with regards to pre-emptive invasion of other countries, then I'll eat crow . . . but so far . . .

There is no interim report for the panel.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Scott
There is no interim report for the panel. Oh . . .OK never mind the question then.


Unless I rephrase it:

"What were the not-yet-but-pretty-close-conclusions of the [not-an-]interim report?

[Scott]

It does matter because, I'll quote again for I think the fourth time (did you bother to read it the other three times?), this is a " an interim report of the commission's runaway staff, headed by the ex-N.S.C. aide Philip Zelikow" which was "disavowed by both commission chairman Tom Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton."


So what are we talking about?

[pfflam]

We're talking about Safire, who has an irrational refusal to admit that Samir al-Ani did not meet up with Atta in Prague, as well as other very biased feelings reporting in very biased tones that an [not-an-]interim report was released.

Your talking Safire,
we're talking lack of evidence, very lame idea of 'ties', administrative manipulation of the Mass media in order to get us into an unnecessary war.

[Scott]

So then you concede that this IS NOT! a interim report of the panel?

I thought this (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/) was interesting. Nice for Hitchens to put all down in one place.

That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)


Always remember that Saddam was innocent and BUSH LIED!:rolleyes:

[Scott]

Originally posted by pfflam
We're talking about Safire, who has an irrational refusal to admit that Samir al-Ani did not meet up with Atta in Prague, as well as other very biased feelings reporting in very biased tones that an [not-an-]interim report was released.

...

Oh BTW the people in Prague still say the meeting happened. But I'm sure you don't want to hear that. Just "stop your ears and yell 'No Wann It'"! Head in sand time.

[Harald]

Originally posted by Scott
Oh BTW the people in Prague still say the meeting happened. But I'm sure you don't want to hear that. Just "stop your ears and yell 'No Wann It'"! Head in sand time.

Wow! He was in two places at once!

The FBI can positively ID him in the states at the time; meanwhile the Czechs can't positively ID him in the Czech Republic AT ALL but no matter. He was there, so THERE, and was therefore in two places at once (one with no evidence), which means not only was he a terrorist but a fucking magician.

[Scott]

You go to great lengths to be obtuse don't you? My understanding is that his cell phone was used in the US at the same time the people in Prague say he was there.

Now see if the little hamster running on the wheel inside your head can generate enough power for your brain to figure out how that might happen? RUN HAMPSTER RUN! Harald some thunkin' to do!

[Harald]

Originally posted by Scott
RUN HAMPSTER RUN! Harald some thunkin' to do!

Possibly my favourite Scott typo of all time.

[Harald]

Scott, meet Occam. Occam, this is Scott. You two haven't met.

His mobile is used in the US. His credit card is used in the US. There's no sign of a ticket to Prague. But discount this evidence, because he was in Prague.

And we know this because ... uh ...

... well, there's no evidence at all. But don't let that stop you.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Harald
Scott, meet Occam. Occam, this is Scott. You two haven't met.

His mobile is used in the US. His credit card is used in the US. There's no sign of a ticket to Prague. But discount this evidence, because he was in Prague.

And we know this because ... uh ...

... well, there's no evidence at all. But don't let that stop you.


So there's no evidence other than the people who say they saw him there. That's "no" evidence. Do you know what "no" means?

Wow is credit card was used in the US? MAN! There's no way that can happen unless he was here. I'm convinced

Saddam is innocent for sure!

[pfflam]

No I think that the FLorida FBI evidence turned ot to not exist, at least one article that I read said that the FBI retracted their evidence, however, the Czeck people do not say that he visited and had a meeting with the Iraqi . . . that is not true.
Atta did go to Prague on the 30th and hung around the airport . . . much of that time ot of security camera range . . . . however, considering that it was after this meeting that money flowed to thier accounts it was probably to meet with a middle man involved with thier money . . . that money was not from Iraq . . . had it been, we would have had it branded onto the insides of our eyelids by now . .

Abu Nidal . . . give dates. Did his precense in iraq happen to coincide with our loving relationship with Hussain.

And yes, I agree that Hussain was not innocent . . . but we aren't talking about Safire, or M Moore in this thread, we are talking about the fact that Bush lied
Saddam may not be innocent of being a miserable murderer with some bad ideas, but the attempts to link him by implication to 911 are worse than weak, and the attempts to find collaborative relationships to AQ are even flimsier . . .

reread the paragraph from the article on Malroie (sp?) i the other thread . . . with 500, 000 interviews, four years of trying, 150,000 troops in his country, the capture of many supposed links and the ransacking of Hussain's records and country and all we come up with is that some Czeck people may say that he came to Prague . . . that is more than inconclusive, it is probable that it is inadmissable in any court . . . and therefor, his guilt at other crimes notwithstanding, the evidence of links not up to the 'links' standard portrayed by the administration.

In effect, they are milking more faulty evidence and information, in order to perpetuate what amounts to a lie . . . only technically it might not be an entire lie . . . but a technicality that is, so far, lame.

Also Hitchens is wrong about the celebrations of 911 I believe . . . i could be wrong but th eHussain offer of humanitarian aid would counter that claim . . . and I have yet to see evudence of that.

Also, I would like to hear from Kay on this suppossed N Korea link . . .NOT from some gruntled right-wing hack, however eloquent . . . I think these 'Syrian meetings' might qualify as urban legend . . . but I could be entirely wrong here . .

[Scott]

Originally posted by pfflam
...
Also Hitchens is wrong about the celebrations of 911 I believe . . . i could be wrong but th eHussain offer of humanitarian aid would counter that claim . . . and I have yet to see evudence of that.

...

Yes he did. Obviously it was a kind gesture. That's the only explanation. You people need to listen up, Saddam is incident.

[pfflam]

That's cute Scott, like so many of your posts . . .

read my post clearly . . . especially where I say he was not an innocent guy

and I sure never said he was 'incident'? whatever that means?

But there are many malicious immoral and outright 'bad-guys' that we don't go after . . . in fact we have alliances with many and are not planning invasions anytime soon.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
Yes he did. Obviously it was a kind gesture. That's the only explanation.

I kind of think it was sarcastic, but it's official none the less.

[Scott]

Originally posted by pfflam
That's cute Scott, like so many of your posts . . .

read my post clearly . . . especially where I say he was not an innocent guy

and I sure never said he was 'incident'? whatever that means?

But there are many malicious immoral and outright 'bad-guys' that we don't go after . . . in fact we have alliances with many and are not planning invasions anytime soon.


AH! The old "so many bad guys why this one" defense. That questions been answered a billions fucking times over again. It wouldn't have to be answered if you were a smarter person. I'm sure it's not as if there was another one on your list you'd rather the US take out first?


Saddam is innocent. BUSH LIED. There's no proof or link or anything. No war for oil. blah blah blah.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Scott
AH! The old "so many bad guys why this one" defense. That questions been answered a billions fucking times over again. It wouldn't have to be answered if you were a smarter person. I'm sure it's not as if there was another one on your list you'd rather the US take out first?


Saddam is innocent. BUSH LIED. There's no proof or link or anything. No war for oil. blah blah blah. The answers are insufficient.

and perhaps Bush did lie.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Aquatic
What? "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY."

Oh, and prove Bush didn't do crack. Or skip out. Or murder my grandmother. Prove that Karl Rove doesn't wear women's underwear or that Cheney didn't have secret dealings with Halliburton and his other Energy Task Force buddies. Prove you're not a douche.

Oh come on! Are you actually suggesting we apply a goddman criminal judicial standard here? Christ Almighty! The principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty only applies in US criminal matters! The standard is completely different even if it's a civil trial.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by bunge
Condi Rice made an explicit comment that Saddam was tied to 9/11.

Bullshit. Find the quote.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by pfflam
The answers are insufficient.

and perhaps Bush did lie.

The answers are insufficient for leftist Bush haters like yourself.

What this is really about is the overall justification for war. The fact is that there were a thousand good reasons to invade Iraq. I'll list them again.

--Saddam violated every UN resolution thrown at him, including his "final chance" resolution. The final resolution threatened "serious consequences" if he failed to comply. No reasonable person can argue that Saddam fully complied. We had tried every other means of getting him to cooperate..including inspections, sanctions and even limited military strikes. What else was left?

--Saddam made a mockery of the inspection process for ten years.

--Saddam had at least some ties with Al-Qaeda and openly let terrorists train and meet on Iraqi soil.

--Saddam's intelligence services tried to assasinate former President Bush.

--Saddam's military fired on allied aircraft every day for ten years.

--Saddam was a brutal and murderous dictator who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people.

--Saddam was openly and consistently hostile to the US and praised the 9/11 attacks.

--Saddam payed the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 each after they're beloved sons and daughters slaughtered innocent civilians.


None of the above takes into account our changed perception of threats in a post 9/11 era, nor does it take into account the notion that Democracy itself could help to eliminate terrorism in the Middle East. Now I ask you: If any other nation on Earth had done what Saddam had in the past ten years, would we not have invaded them too? North Korea looks like Disney World compared to Saddam's Iraq.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The answers are insufficient for leftist Bush haters like yourself.

What this is really about is the overall justification for war. The fact is that there were a thousand good reasons to invade Iraq. I'll list them again.

--Saddam violated every UN resolution thrown at him, including his "final chance" resolution. The final resolution threatened "serious consequences" if he failed to comply. No reasonable person can argue that Saddam fully complied. We had tried every other means of getting him to cooperate..including inspections, sanctions and even limited military strikes. What else was left?

--Saddam made a mockery of the inspection process for ten years.

--Saddam had at least some ties with Al-Qaeda and openly let terrorists train and meet on Iraqi soil.

--Saddam's intelligence services tried to assasinate former President Bush.

--Saddam's military fired on allied aircraft every day for ten years.

--Saddam was a brutal and murderous dictator who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people.

--Saddam was openly and consistently hostile to the US and praised the 9/11 attacks.

--Saddam payed the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 each after they're beloved sons and daughters slaughtered innocent civilians.


None of the above takes into account our changed perception of threats in a post 9/11 era, nor does it take into account the notion that Democracy itself could help to eliminate terrorism in the Middle East. Now I ask you: If any other nation on Earth had done what Saddam had in the past ten years, would we not have invaded them too? North Korea looks like Disney World compared to Saddam's Iraq.

But hey! That's not why Bush said we were going over there.

And really that's all that matters because I don't think he could have got this to fly otherwise.;)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
But hey! That's not why Bush said we were going over there.

And really that's all that matters because I don't think he could have got this to fly otherwise.;)

Ummm..that IS why Bush said we're going over there. Except that when he did, he was accused of switching justifications for the war. And therein lies the double standard. When Kerry uses multiple justifications he's "forming a complex position". When Bush does it, he's a wandering, lying fool. When Kerry switches his position, he's "gutsily revealuating his position on multi-faceted issue". When Bush does it, he's flip-flopping. Whatever.

[tonton]

Scott and SDW have an agenda and will adhere to the concept of "Plausible Deniability" to push that agenda to the death. But it's becoming sad. It couldn't be more clear that Scott, SDW, and GWB are equally dishonest.

If any of you had integrity you would admit that the Bush administration actively, deliberately tried to, and continue to try to mislead Congress and the American public into supporting this war. But you still feel like you can deny it, so you do.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by tonton
Scott and SDW have an agenda and will adhere to the concept of "Plausible Deniability" to push that agenda to the death. But it's becoming sad. It couldn't be more clear that Scott, SDW, and GWB are equally dishonest.

If any of you had integrity you would admit that the Bush administration actively, deliberately tried to, and continue to try to mislead Congress and the American public into supporting this war. But you still feel like you can deny it, so you do.

And there it is. I knew it had to come down the above statement eventually. In your world, no thinking person could ever honestly support Bush. He must either be intellectually dishonest, stupid or a just a partisan attack dog. That's a very convenient way to dimiss your opposition.

But your post gets even better. In you world, the Evil and All Knowing Bush Administration (who somehow is also simultaneously stupid), mislead the poor unsuspecting members of Congress who voted for the war. Those poor Democrats...they never saw it coming. And worse..Bush...GASP...tried to convice the American public that he was right. He talked about Iraq's toying with the inspectors (true) and how the UN would not back its own resolutions (true). He talked about Saddam's assasination attempt on his father (true) and how Iraq fired on aircraft in the no-fly zone every single day for ten years (all true). And when he was done talking and trying to work with the pacifist anti-semite UN and duplicitous French...he was accused of having...wait for it...TOO MANY different justifications for war.

Let me tell you what really happened in Congress. Members of Congress were not deceived in any way. Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry et al were all on record making the same kind of statements Bush made. They knew about the same intel. They voted for the war because they were scared to NOT support it prior to the midterm elections. First, they gave the President the authorization to use force. Then, they criticized him for actually using it. And gee...I wonder why. Do the words "Election 2004?" mean anything?

It does not matter how many times someone like me makes an honest criticism of the President. You won't hear it, because while you accuse people like Scott and me of being partisan hacks...you yourself are all wrapped up in your nice fluffy Bush hating blanket and can give him credit for nothing. When I disagree with Bush, I say so. When you disagree with Bush, it's because he's a stupid war mongering tool of big oil with an IQ of 97.

[Scott]

But you all concede that the panel has made no interim conclusions now right? You ate the media lie because you wanted to and were not smart enough to think for yourselves.

[tonton]

Originally posted by SDW2001
In your world, no thinking person could ever honestly support Bush.

Dude, that's not what I said at all. What I am implying is that no honest, intelligent person can claim that there was no intent to deceive the public into supporting the war based on the idea that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11.

[Scott]

This whole idea that Bush said Iraq was behind 9/11 is a media lie. Bush never argued that Iraq was an "imminent threat" either. In fact he said the opposite. You're just too caught up in what you've bought hook line and sinker from the likes of Moore and other anti-Bush pundits.

Iraq was a bad situation that post 9/11 the US could not allow to continue.

[giant]

Originally posted by Scott
But you all concede that the panel has made no interim conclusions now right?
The 9/11 commission, which is made up of 80 people, did indeed come to the conclusion (although not stamped and final) that there was apparently no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. It was the finding of the commission's work team assigned to this task.

The safire article you keep repeating is pure garbage. First of all, there is nothing "runaway" about the that part of the commission's staff doing their job. Secondly, I have yet to see where Kean or Hamilton "disavowed" anything. From what I see there, they are just repeating the findings expressed in the staff statement. Maybe there's more to the quote, so if there is let's see it.

Amazing that you attack moore for doing exactly the same thing as bill safire here.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The answers are insufficient for leftist Bush haters like yourself.

What this is really about is the overall justification for war. The fact is that there were a thousand good reasons to invade Iraq. I'll list them again.

--Saddam violated every UN resolution thrown at him, including his "final chance" resolution. The final resolution threatened "serious consequences" if he failed to comply. No reasonable person can argue that Saddam fully complied. We had tried every other means of getting him to cooperate..including inspections, sanctions and even limited military strikes. What else was left?

--Saddam made a mockery of the inspection process for ten years.

--Saddam had at least some ties with Al-Qaeda and openly let terrorists train and meet on Iraqi soil.

--Saddam's intelligence services tried to assasinate former President Bush.

--Saddam's military fired on allied aircraft every day for ten years.

--Saddam was a brutal and murderous dictator who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people.

--Saddam was openly and consistently hostile to the US and praised the 9/11 attacks.

--Saddam payed the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 each after they're beloved sons and daughters slaughtered innocent civilians.


None of the above takes into account our changed perception of threats in a post 9/11 era, nor does it take into account the notion that Democracy itself could help to eliminate terrorism in the Middle East. Now I ask you: If any other nation on Earth had done what Saddam had in the past ten years, would we not have invaded them too? North Korea looks like Disney World compared to Saddam's Iraq. Yes, many good reasons to get rid of Saddam, but not in the manner nor in the timing.

Let's see:

-=Violating sanctions?
Either the UN is legit and you act according to its council votes or you think they are illigitimate and you therefor discount the validity of the sanctions in the first place? Conundrum . . . it is easy to see how simply doing something seems like the right course of action (even if it wasn't) But then again, the actions chosen were ill advised, the supposed 'reasons' for doing them were false or 'faulty'
and as far as cooperating . . . . If I remember well, and I'm sure that you do too, there were inspectors doing their job quite well before the war?

Not as much of a 'mockery' as many think .. . at the end there they were proceeding well . . . particularly considering there was nothing to find that hadn't been found and destroyed in the first round of inspections
. . .oh . . . except for the few odd mortar rounds filled with expired residue.

--assassination attempt?
Yeah, that's bad . . .it was also eight years before hand, was the reason for a resounding bombing campaign by Clinton, and, did not actually amount to any actual aggression on the part of the Iraqis . . .as far as I can tell, the issue of the certainty of this attempt is still up for grabs and was always up for grabs.
At the time, Clinton got shiite from the right and the left for his bombing campaign . . . after all the supposed attempt never materialized, it was supposed to have happened in Kuwait, and there was never any hard-'fact' type evidence that was not questionable . . . .

The truth of the matter is that many on the anti-war side never look at this question because it was a 'positive' anti-terror action taken by Clinton . . . but really his case was not strong

a good article from the time:

NEW YORKER ARCHIVE (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02)
I am not trying to deny that the attempt took place . . . my main contention with that excuse for an INVASION (which is far larger in scale than I think you understand) is the timing and the apparent unnecessariness of it after the earlier, and quite deadly, bombing campaign.

--Firing on aircraft?
-Yeah, and if you had paid any attention at the time, it was considered quite a strange joke: why would these Iraqi soldiers lock radar on American planes? they NEVER EVER came close to doing anything and they ALWAYS were in turn OBLITERATED . . . over and over and over.

--Saddam was a brutal e