or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bush denies panels finding: stop your ears and yell 'No Wann It" it works 4 children!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #1 of 173
Thread Starter 
Bush is still denying the lack of a link between Iraq and Al Quaida despite the well researched findings of the Panel (ARTICLE)

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!!!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #2 of 173
You know my opinion about Bush.

I am more concerned by your cardio-vascular system : i fear that too much is bad for your health
post #3 of 173
Quote:
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)

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!!!


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.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #4 of 173
Quote:
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
post #5 of 173
Thread Starter 
EDITORIAL suggests that Bush apologize to the nation for feeding it misleading information.

from the article:
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #6 of 173
Thread Starter 
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.""




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!!!!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #7 of 173
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.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #8 of 173
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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:
Quote:
"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.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #9 of 173
I wish they would just "find" some anthrax or something so they could stop the charade.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #10 of 173
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?
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #11 of 173
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.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #12 of 173
Quote:
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.
post #13 of 173
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.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #14 of 173
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/...p?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.....

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #15 of 173
Quote:
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.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #16 of 173
Quote:
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.
post #17 of 173
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.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #18 of 173
Quote:
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.
post #19 of 173
Quote:
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,"

Quote:
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.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #20 of 173
ahhh double posts
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #21 of 173
Quote:
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
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #22 of 173
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."

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #23 of 173
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
"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.
post #24 of 173
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.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #25 of 173
Quote:
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.
post #26 of 173
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #27 of 173
Yeah, that commission was a failure because it's making Bush and Co. look pretty bad.

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.
post #28 of 173
Quote:
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.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #29 of 173
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:

Quote:
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?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #30 of 173
Thread Starter 
There are some good points in that article that say clearly what I have been trying to say:

Quote:
Critics of the war on Iraq have accused the US administration of deliberately encouraging public confusion to generate support for military action..

Quote:
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!!!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #31 of 173
Thread Starter 
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!!!

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

Quote:
"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!!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #32 of 173
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
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
post #33 of 173
Woops! Looks like everyone here drank the kool aid before it was ready.

The Zelikow Report
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. _
post #34 of 173
Quote:
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."


Ha. That's funny.

Dick Cheney seems to be really good at it too: "I never said that"

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.
post #35 of 173
Thread Starter 
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

this is great:
Quote:
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 . . . "
Quote:
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."
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #36 of 173
Quote:
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.
post #37 of 173
Quote:
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....".
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #38 of 173
Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #39 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Now where the hell did we get that idea from?

The monkey in the White House maybe?



Joker.


Good post!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #40 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Now where the hell did we get that idea from?

The monkey in the White House maybe?



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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bush denies panels finding: stop your ears and yell 'No Wann It" it works 4 children!