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! - Page 4

post #121 of 173
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.
post #122 of 173
Quote:
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.
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 #123 of 173
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.
post #124 of 173
Quote:
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.
post #125 of 173
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.
post #126 of 173
Quote:
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.
post #127 of 173
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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
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 etc etc . .
-yes, all that is true . . . the hieghts of his murderous tyrany were in the mid eighties . . . when we loved his soft sphincter with lubricious kisses moistened by money and armorments . . .
It never bothered us then?
Post 911? . . . he wasn't murdering nearly as many as he had . . . WE WERE doing it for him through sanctions.

I think that this is the best reason for going to war . . . but it was not the reason and it should have been something taken care of even while we were stroking his stiffening barrels: gun barrels, and getting ours stroked in return: oil barrels.

--Sadam was hostile to the US: he hated us.
-So are lots of people . . . we don't go to war for opinions

--Saddam payed the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 each
-Yes that too is bad, but is something that could have been dealt with through other means . . Besides, Iran has supporters of Hezbollah, Lebanon has supporters, Syria has supporters etc . .

The Palastinian terrorists are murderous arseholes . . . but if we worked to change the conditions under-which Palastinians must live there is a stronger chance that the reasons for their hatred would not seem as real: work for peace and equity . . . real work not simply unquestioned support for everything Israel does
I know that seems to be besides the point and is not a real answer to the 25,00$ issue . . . but it is a part of an answer that continues to be swept aside in stupid gestures of 'anti-semitism' . . . which is silly, particularly from me who supports Israel.

So, IMO none of the above mantioned reasons are enough for a wholescale invasion, particularly not an invasion planned in the manner in which it was, sold in the manner in which it was and with the obvious reprecussions that many knew this war would have . .

For instance, If it was thought that the reasons listed above were enough due to the War On Terror after 911, and the war was thought to be a way to solve all of those problems as well as nip-the bud of terror, then it was calamitous idea: it was obvious to anyone who knew the slightest bit about the region that our invasion would not be welcome -not in Iraq and not in the ME at large. . . except for by the Kurds. It was obvious to many, including, unfortunately, OBL, that it would create resentiment and would probably even raise the positive perception of groups like AQ? In fact, I seem to remember OBL predicting o the Arab people through a taped message, that the US would in fact begin to invade the Middle East beyond Afghanistan. . . We made him seem prescient and prophetic, and what is worse, we made many see him as right!

all that is bad for the WOT . . .

The best way for us to have approached post 911 was, Afghanistan and then we should have put incredible resources into rebuilding it.
We should have also put incredible resources into turning the post-911 sympathy from other countries into coalitions, intelligence networks with international agencies and extending our positive impact on the world through commerce and diplomacy and very directed strategic, non-overtly militaristic muscle: money and trade, and intelligence.
In other words: work behind the scenes stridently with re-organized agencies, internationally, to track down and kill terrorists . . . and ramp up power-punching diplomacy that utilizes our economic power and works to reshape our image rather abroad rather than paints posters advertizing for AQ . .
and, work on a long term plans to develop a real method to combat tyrants like Hussein,

. and tyrants like the rulers of our current buddies in Uzbeckistan and Tajickistan and Ukrain and etc
"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 #128 of 173
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.

You're wrong

It is clear that Bush attempted to link 911 to Saddam through association and rhetoric in people's minds

In other words, it only takes having listened to him, and his associates, for the last 3 years, and watched the impact of his statements to see what was going on.
We watched the same speeches that you did

Blame the 'anti-Bush pundits if you want, I tend to think that I blame Bush for my perception of his duplicity.

Iraq was a bad situation that post 9/11 the US should have dealt with far more intelligently.

.
"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 #129 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
This whole idea that Bush said Iraq was behind 9/11 is a media lie.

And this has to do with my post exactly how?

Did I say Bush SAID that Iraq was behind 9/11?

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda"

This is a lie. There were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There were not even any contacts between Saddam and al Qaeda, except in AQ's reported attempt at soliciting help from Saddam, which he ignored. And forget the "reason" behind claiming such things as a "link" between Iraq and Al Qaeda, what was the motivation for insisting there were links, when tho links were of absolutely no significance? It was because the Bush administration wanted America to believe that those links were important, and were a reason for deposing Saddam, which they very clearly weren't. The motivation behind repeating the claim of links was one of deliberate deception. Period.
post #130 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
There were not even any contacts between Saddam and al Qaeda, except in AQ's reported attempt at soliciting help from Saddam, which he ignored.

From the commission:
Quote:
Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.

Just from this here, it looks a lot more like sudan was trying to play matchmaker and neither side was really all about it. Maybe some time tomorrow I'll find time to go through the individual reports and see what the whole story is.
post #131 of 173
Quote:
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.

Why yes, yes I am. Read the news lately? I think the "liberal bastions" hehe, of the Supreme Court, know a little bit more about the law than you do. Have you seen the thread Guantanamo suspects CAN appeal?

Besides it's more of a ethic than legal question. Although I'm partly playing Devil's Advocate, as it's not that hard to not feel sorry for Saddam.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #132 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.

Very, very well said. In fact, that's the whole argument right there. sometimes a clear and simple statement says it better than any 10,000 word post could Let's post it again for all to see:

Iraq was a bad situation that post 9/11 the US could not allow to continue.
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 #133 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
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.

Right giant...Safire is garbage unless he agrees with you. He's not exactly a conservative you know.

And when, when oh when will you stop with the bullshit? The panel DID NOT conclude that there was "no collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda". They didn't conclude that unless you leave out some of the words.

What they "concluded" was that there was no collaborative relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq for the 9/11 attacks.
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 #134 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Very, very well said. In fact, that's the whole argument right there. sometimes a clear and simple statement says it better than any 10,000 word post could Let's post it again for all to see:

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


But uh, I hate to harp on this same situation THAT'S NOT THE MAIN REASON HE LISTED FOR GOING TO WAR. HE LET EVERYBODY THINK THAT SADDAM WAS GOING TO ATTACK US WITH HIS AWFUL WOMD!!!!!!!!!!

Nonexistant I might add.

And if he had said this was the reason do think for one second everybody would have gone for this?

I'll answer for you.

NO!

That's what's wrong with this.

Putting it in big block letters won't make it right.

There is no way he's going to wriggle out of this one or that someone is going to make an acceptable excuse for it.


Now that we've cleared that up for about the billionth time........


By the way......

If this is true
-----------------------------------------------------------

" What they "concluded" was that there was no collaborative relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq for the 9/11 attacks. "

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

It kind of makes your big block letter assumption about 911 null and void.
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 #135 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001 a year ago
And...you don't believe Iraq has any WOMD? WTF? He is already arming his troops with them in th South. I have not even heard the most ardent anti-war protestor say he does not have any WOMD. That's just an unbelievable statement.

Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001 a year ago
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Before you start about WOMD where are they? And how can you be sure they exist?

Yes, I can be sure. Anyone who is not an idiot can. And no, I don't think you are an idiot. I think your just being jimmac.

Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001 a year ago
And really....is there anyone here (regardless of whether or not you support attacking) that honestly believes Saddam is NOT deveoping WOMD? I don't see how any reaonable, well informed person could disagree that he is. Perhaps you don't support attacking...I can deal with that.

And there are hundreds more of your posts just like this.
post #136 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by giant ( from SDW's post )
Yes, I can be sure. Anyone who is not an idiot can. And no, I don't think you are an idiot. I think your just being jimmac.

" And there are hundreds more of your posts just like this. "

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

" I think your just being jimmac. "

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

And they say I pick on him.

SDW,

I guess the past is catching up with you.
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 #137 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
But uh, I hate to harp on this same situation THAT'S NOT THE MAIN REASON HE LISTED FOR GOING TO WAR. HE LET EVERYBODY THINK THAT SADDAM WAS GOING TO ATTACK US WITH HIS AWFUL WOMD!!!!!!!!!!

Nonexistant I might add.
...

No he didn't. You are a liar. Go back and review what he said at the state of the union. Stop spreading lies.
post #138 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
No he didn't. You are a liar. Go back and review what he said at the state of the union. Stop spreading lies.

No!

I don't have to. I know what he said.

He also said he had proof but they couldn't reveal it due to endangering their source.


Get over it Scott.
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 #139 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
No!

I don't have to. I know what he said.

He also said he had proof but they couldn't reveal it due to endangering their source.


Get over it Scott.

What's your proof? Moore said so?
post #140 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
What's your proof? Moore said so?


My own ears.

-----------------------------------------------------------
" Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace. "

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

Read the first part. What do you think people would think about that?

It doesn't say threat to our men overseas or Israel. It says " our country ".

This one's laced with 911 references when talking about " The threat from Iraq ".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

If he wasn't saying that Iraq was part of 911 why bring it up so many times? Why the multiple insinuations?

And of course you have to love the backpeddling months later.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Get over it Scott. You're trying to dance on the head of a pin with words. Your position on this has no defense.

Pretty cut and dried.
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 #141 of 173
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
No he didn't. You are a liar. Go back and review what he said at the state of the union. Stop spreading lies.

The denial is unbelievable.

Iraq was a bad situation that, post 911, we could have and should have dealt with intelligently and without an overly hasty agenda motivated by unstated, underlying ideological reasons.

Invading another country is a vast and gigantic committment, in terms of resources and moral re-adjustment, and, so happens to be something that the US never believed in doing pre-emptively: our self-image as the 'good-guys' precludes unprovoked aggression
(and don't give me this idiotic line that we were 'provoked' . . . that's lame)
"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 #142 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
This whole idea that Bush said Iraq was behind 9/11 is a media lie.

Condi did say that Hussein was tied to 9/11. That's Bush, unless Bush makes her recant.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #143 of 173
Quote:
To the best of our knowledge, the Hussein regime had no meaningful or as the recent Sept. 11 Commission staff report put it, collaborative relationship with al Qaeda. In this case too, theres still a debate. Every couple of months we hear of a new finding that someone who may have had a tie to Saddam may have met with someone connected to al Qaeda.

But as in the case of WMD, its really mock debate, more of a word game than a serious, open question, and a rather baroque one at that. Mostly, its not an evidentiary search but an exercise in finding out whether a few random meetings can be rhetorically leveraged into a relationship. If it can, supposedly, a rationale for war is thus salvaged.

The Hill
post #144 of 173
~pokes~Hey SDW did you see my post? ~/pokes~
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #145 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
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.

So then you agree with me. The commission made no conclusion.
post #146 of 173
And your Bill Safire article (and subsequently the basis for your kool-aid comment) is wrong and deceitful.
post #147 of 173
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #148 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
But uh, I hate to harp on this same situation THAT'S NOT THE MAIN REASON HE LISTED FOR GOING TO WAR. HE LET EVERYBODY THINK THAT SADDAM WAS GOING TO ATTACK US WITH HIS AWFUL WOMD!!!!!!!!!!

Nonexistant I might add.

And if he had said this was the reason do think for one second everybody would have gone for this?

I'll answer for you.

NO!

That's what's wrong with this.

Putting it in big block letters won't make it right.

There is no way he's going to wriggle out of this one or that someone is going to make an acceptable excuse for it.


Now that we've cleared that up for about the billionth time........


By the way......

If this is true
-----------------------------------------------------------

" What they "concluded" was that there was no collaborative relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq for the 9/11 attacks. "

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

It kind of makes your big block letter assumption about 911 null and void.

Exactly my point. When Bush DID list other reasons, people like you accused him of swtiching justifications for war.

Which is it, jimmac? Too many reasons or not enough?
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 #149 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Yes, I can be sure. Anyone who is not an idiot can. And no, I don't think you are an idiot. I think your just being jimmac......

And there are hundreds more of your posts just like this. [/B]

Yes there are. And I stand by them. Any reasonable person would have concluded the same thing at the time. There was zero evidence that Saddam had fully cooperated and destroyed his weapons. There was no reason whatsoever to think he had stopped pursuing them.
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 #150 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
My own ears.

-----------------------------------------------------------
" Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace. "

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

Read the first part. What do you think people would think about that?

It doesn't say threat to our men overseas or Israel. It says " our country ".

This one's laced with 911 references when talking about " The threat from Iraq ".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

If he wasn't saying that Iraq was part of 911 why bring it up so many times? Why the multiple insinuations?

And of course you have to love the backpeddling months later.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Get over it Scott. You're trying to dance on the head of a pin with words. Your position on this has no defense.

Pretty cut and dried.

jimmac, this may surprise you, but bringing something up and insinuating [sic] involvement in 9/11 are two different things.

Bush brought up Iraq in the 9/11 context because it was his belief that we had to deal with the threat of Iraq differently post 9/11. That's why.
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 #151 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Condi did say that Hussein was tied to 9/11. That's Bush, unless Bush makes her recant.

Lie. A total fucking lie.
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 #152 of 173
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Exactly my point. When Bush DID list other reasons, people like you accused him of swtiching justifications for war.

Which is it, jimmac? Too many reasons or not enough?

Bush, paraphrased over time:

"we go in because of immanant threat of Iraq and AQ"
"we go in because of WMD by Iraq and AQ and we will relieve the people"
"we go in because of WMD and when we do it we will liberate the Iraqi people"
"we went in because of WMD and when we do it will liberate the Iraqi people"
"we went in to liberate the Iraqi people and bring democracy"

Somewhare along the line the reasons changed . . . . all along in the background was thins notion that Democracy would fall around like Lincon-logs and dominos but that was not the reason . . . that would not have flown and you know it . . . and it wouldn't have because it shouldn't have . ..
"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 #153 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Bush, paraphrased over time:

"we go in because of immanant threat of Iraq and AQ"
"we go in because of WMD by Iraq and AQ and we will relieve the people"
"we go in because of WMD and when we do it we will liberate the Iraqi people"
"we went in because of WMD and when we do it will liberate the Iraqi people"
"we went in to liberate the Iraqi people and bring democracy"

Somewhare along the line the reasons changed . . . . all along in the background was thins notion that Democracy would fall around like Lincon-logs and dominos but that was not the reason . . . that would not have flown and you know it . . . and it wouldn't have because it shouldn't have . ..


And you know it's not the first time that type of excuse has been used.

The excuse for Vietnam was that democracy would fall and communism would over run asia.

Just like that time totally meaningless in that area of the world.


It's very clear from his actions Bush has never stated the real reasons for this unnecessary war.
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 #154 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac, this may surprise you, but bringing something up and insinuating [sic] involvement in 9/11 are two different things.

Bush brought up Iraq in the 9/11 context because it was his belief that we had to deal with the threat of Iraq differently post 9/11. That's why.

You know, this gets at something that hasn't really been addressed:

Why does 9/11 change how we deal with Iraq?

If Iraq and al Qaeda are not cooperating (and there was never any credible evidence of this), how does the attack on the world trade center make Iraq "more of a threat"?

There seems to be some vaguely articulated notion that "Iraq supported terrorists" ala payments to the families of suicide bombers and camps in Kurdish controlled areas, but the other "connections" were always tenuous and disputed at best.

So what is the logic of "9/11 changed everything and now we have to deal with Iraq differently"? Ireland has terrorists and we didn't decide to change how we deal with that country. Ditto South America, Pakistan, Chechnya, etc.

My point is that there seems to be an effort to blur the distinction between what 9/11 actually meant (we have a problem with al Qaeda) and some larger notion of "terror" that can be pressed into service to justify pre-emptive war. Thus, it becomes possible to claim that, even if there were no strong ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, it became necessary to "deal" with Iraq because, post 9/11, we no longer can rely on "the good will" of Saddam.

And again, why? What does the one have to do with the other? Did Saddam suddenly, on 9/12, find himself stronger, or more lethally equipped, or somehow in a better position to strike at America, or possessing more resolve to do evil? Did his "hatred of freedom" suddenly increase?

I think there is something slippery about backing away from the al Qaeda connection while at the same time acting as if 9/11 means it doesn't really matter if they were in cahoots or not.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #155 of 173
Thread Starter 
I think that the reasoning goes like this: we saw that terrorist have no feeling for Us and would, if they had the capabilities, blow up a major city.
"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 #156 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
I think that the reasoning goes like this: we saw that terrorist have no feeling for Us and would, if they had the capabilities, blow up a major city.

Right, but did Iraq abruptly become something it wasn't once that became evident?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #157 of 173
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Right, but did Iraq abruptly become something it wasn't once that became evident?

But now we're "AT WAR!"

and they're as good a target as any . . . in fact, at least we know where the target is --kinda satisfies that need for good old fashioned army versus army warfare!! . . . .none of that dispersed, asymmetric, leaderless cellular rhizomatic kinda thing . . . just poor-guys in uniforms blowin up standing targets in the open field, gives you the sense that yer doin somethin solid and purposeful . . . er. . . ah . . . well, it was supposed to be like that anyway

\
"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 #158 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Lie. A total fucking lie.

Now that would make your life easier, but unfortunately for you you're assertion is incorrect.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #159 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac, this may surprise you, but bringing something up and insinuating [sic] involvement in 9/11 are two different things.

Bush brought up Iraq in the 9/11 context because it was his belief that we had to deal with the threat of Iraq differently post 9/11. That's why.

Oh please! When reading over the text that is the lamest excuse I've ever heard. You really must be getting desperate. And if Bush uses it he must be also.
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 #160 of 173
Thread Starter 
From Salon:

Quote:
Does Dick Cheney have information about "long-established ties" between Iraq and al-Qaida that the 9/11 commission doesn't have? He must, right? Because he's still [lying] appearing before audiences telling tales of a Saddam al-Qaida collaboration, including a bit about "a brigadier general from the Iraqi intelligence service to Sudan in the early 1990s to train Al Qaeda in bomb-making and document forgery."

The 9/11 commissioners, you'll remember from two weeks ago, were so surprised by this story they asked Cheney for any new information he might have that they weren't privy to. The Los Angeles Times reported today that the 9/11 staff had not, indeed, reviewed any new material that had led it to revise its findings that there was not a productive, collaborative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida prior to the 9/11 attacks.

"We believe we have seen all the information the vice president has seen, and stand by the staff statement released at the last hearing," the commission spokesman said.
"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
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!