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 3

post #81 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Prove that statement false.

In order for you to prove that it's true, you're going to have to make an argument about what the meaning of "is" is.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #82 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Prove that statement false.

The 9/11 commission says it's false.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joker.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #83 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
According to MSNBC, it says "bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps in Iraq as well as Iraqi assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded, the staff report said."

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

If I remember correctly, I think that Sudan was the key there. Sudan's relationship with Iraq was pretty rocky at the time, and they wanted to see if they could bolster it a little by establishing some kind of relationship through AQ. Iraq wasn't interested.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #84 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
The 9/11 commission says it's false.

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

...

No it doesn't. You on the sophism (media lie?) that the 9/11 commission has made a final report. It hasn't.
post #85 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
No it doesn't. You on the sophism (media lie?) that the 9/11 commission has made a final report. It hasn't.

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

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

By the way, look up 'sophistry.'
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #86 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
By the way, look up 'sophistry.'

Heh. I thought that was ironic, too.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #87 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
The 9/11 commission says it's false.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joker.

Now you're arguing the nature of the ties. The point is that there was at least some ties between the two. Anything else you're offering above is supposition. And really...of course "senior bin laden aides" have denied a relationship. A confirmed relationship would add more legitimacy to our actions in Iraq, and that's the last thing bin Laden would want.
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 #88 of 173
SDW, the ties were that bin Laden was helping people who wanted to destroy Saddam, according to the 9/11 commission.

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

You're digging holes for youself, joker.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #89 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
SDW, the ties were that bin Laden was helping people who wanted to destroy Saddam, according to the 9/11 commission.

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

You're digging holes for youself, joker.

That's a complete mischaracterization of what the commission reported. That's more like what you wanted them to report.
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 #90 of 173
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Now you're arguing the nature of the ties. The point is that there was at least some ties between the two. Anything else you're offering above is supposition. And really...of course "senior bin laden aides" have denied a relationship. A confirmed relationship would add more legitimacy to our actions in Iraq, and that's the last thing bin Laden would want.

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

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

Because the NATURE of the ties are akin to saying that I have a link to the McDonald's Corporation because I used a restroom in a McDonald's Restaraunt . . . . and then saying that my link to McDonald's merits a CEO salary . . .
"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 #91 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
We've always been arguing the nature of the ties . . . what is it with you?!?! . . .

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

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

There was no implication that Iraq was tied to 9/11. None. And really...I don't see how you're so confidant that these ties were inconsequential. In the very least, Saddam allowed terrorists to operate within Iraq freely.
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 #92 of 173
Thread Starter 
especially those trying to overthrow him . . . \
"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 #93 of 173
Quote:
Prove that statement false.

What? "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY."

Oh, and prove Bush didn't do crack. Or skip out. Or murder my grandmother. Prove that Karl Rove doesn't wear women's underwear or that Cheney didn't have secret dealings with Halliburton and his other Energy Task Force buddies. Prove you're not a douche.
"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 #94 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
SHOCK REPORT: 9/11 Commission Reports: "Forget the interim findings, they didn't mean anything! We've totally changed our mind for Scott!"



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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

By the way, look up 'sophistry.'

I already did ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS THREAD. You must have failed reading comprehension in school like so many others here. You may want to apply that word to yourself.
post #95 of 173
Scott can you sum up what you think the panel said, and then what they said, objectively? Tell us what they said, and then give us your interpretation, and we will grade you on reading comprehension. Thanks for your time. If you don't want to, then don't hold everyone else to the same standards.
"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 #96 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
Scott can you sum up what you think the panel said, and then what they said, objectively? Tell us what they said, and then give us your interpretation, and we will grade you on reading comprehension. Thanks for your time. If you don't want to, then don't hold everyone else to the same standards.

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

Quote:
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 #97 of 173
Thread Starter 
What were the not-yet-but-pretty-close-conclusions of the interim report?

hmm?!?!

and Safire keeps pluggin that "Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani' connection even though his capture as well as two years of investigation have turned up nothing

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


Well . . . at least you can rest assured on one point . . . should there prove to be a link that surfaces, and is conclusive, and is really scary, scary enough to merit America turning 180% with regards to pre-emptive invasion of other countries, then I'll eat crow . . . but so far . . .
"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 #98 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
There was no implication that Iraq was tied to 9/11.

Condi Rice made an explicit comment that Saddam was tied to 9/11.
"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 #99 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
What were the not-yet-but-pretty-close-conclusions of the interim report?

hmm?!?!

and Safire keeps pluggin that "Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani' connection even though his capture as well as two years of investigation have turned up nothing

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


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

There is no interim report for the panel.
post #100 of 173
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
There is no interim report for the panel.

Oh . . .OK never mind the question then.


Unless I rephrase it:

"What were the not-yet-but-pretty-close-conclusions of the [not-an-]interim report?
"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 #101 of 173
It does matter because, I'll quote again for I think the fourth time (did you bother to read it the other three times?), this is a " an interim report of the commission's runaway staff, headed by the ex-N.S.C. aide Philip Zelikow" which was "disavowed by both commission chairman Tom Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton."


So what are we talking about?
post #102 of 173
Thread Starter 
We're talking about Safire, who has an irrational refusal to admit that Samir al-Ani did not meet up with Atta in Prague, as well as other very biased feelings reporting in very biased tones that an [not-an-]interim report was released.

Your talking Safire,
we're talking lack of evidence, very lame idea of 'ties', administrative manipulation of the Mass media in order to get us into an unnecessary war.
"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 #103 of 173
So then you concede that this IS NOT! a interim report of the panel?

I thought this was interesting. Nice for Hitchens to put all down in one place.

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


Always remember that Saddam was innocent and BUSH LIED!
post #104 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
We're talking about Safire, who has an irrational refusal to admit that Samir al-Ani did not meet up with Atta in Prague, as well as other very biased feelings reporting in very biased tones that an [not-an-]interim report was released.

...

Oh BTW the people in Prague still say the meeting happened. But I'm sure you don't want to hear that. Just "stop your ears and yell 'No Wann It'"! Head in sand time.
post #105 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Oh BTW the people in Prague still say the meeting happened. But I'm sure you don't want to hear that. Just "stop your ears and yell 'No Wann It'"! Head in sand time.

Wow! He was in two places at once!

The FBI can positively ID him in the states at the time; meanwhile the Czechs can't positively ID him in the Czech Republic AT ALL but no matter. He was there, so THERE, and was therefore in two places at once (one with no evidence), which means not only was he a terrorist but a fucking magician.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #106 of 173
You go to great lengths to be obtuse don't you? My understanding is that his cell phone was used in the US at the same time the people in Prague say he was there.

Now see if the little hamster running on the wheel inside your head can generate enough power for your brain to figure out how that might happen? RUN HAMPSTER RUN! Harald some thunkin' to do!
post #107 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
RUN HAMPSTER RUN! Harald some thunkin' to do!

Possibly my favourite Scott typo of all time.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #108 of 173
Scott, meet Occam. Occam, this is Scott. You two haven't met.

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

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

... well, there's no evidence at all. But don't let that stop you.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #109 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Scott, meet Occam. Occam, this is Scott. You two haven't met.

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

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

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


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

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

Saddam is innocent for sure!
post #110 of 173
Thread Starter 
No I think that the FLorida FBI evidence turned ot to not exist, at least one article that I read said that the FBI retracted their evidence, however, the Czeck people do not say that he visited and had a meeting with the Iraqi . . . that is not true.
Atta did go to Prague on the 30th and hung around the airport . . . much of that time ot of security camera range . . . . however, considering that it was after this meeting that money flowed to thier accounts it was probably to meet with a middle man involved with thier money . . . that money was not from Iraq . . . had it been, we would have had it branded onto the insides of our eyelids by now . .

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

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

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

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

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

Also, I would like to hear from Kay on this suppossed N Korea link . . .NOT from some gruntled right-wing hack, however eloquent . . . I think these 'Syrian meetings' might qualify as urban legend . . . but I could be entirely wrong here . .
"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 #111 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
...
Also Hitchens is wrong about the celebrations of 911 I believe . . . i could be wrong but th eHussain offer of humanitarian aid would counter that claim . . . and I have yet to see evudence of that.

...

Yes he did. Obviously it was a kind gesture. That's the only explanation. You people need to listen up, Saddam is incident.
post #112 of 173
Thread Starter 
That's cute Scott, like so many of your posts . . .

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

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

But there are many malicious immoral and outright 'bad-guys' that we don't go after . . . in fact we have alliances with many and are not planning invasions anytime soon.
"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 #113 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Yes he did. Obviously it was a kind gesture. That's the only explanation.

I kind of think it was sarcastic, but it's official none the less.
"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 #114 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
That's cute Scott, like so many of your posts . . .

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

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

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


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


Saddam is innocent. BUSH LIED. There's no proof or link or anything. No war for oil. blah blah blah.
post #115 of 173
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
AH! The old "so many bad guys why this one" defense. That questions been answered a billions fucking times over again. It wouldn't have to be answered if you were a smarter person. I'm sure it's not as if there was another one on your list you'd rather the US take out first?


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

The answers are insufficient.

and perhaps Bush did lie.
"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 #116 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
What? "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY."

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

Oh come on! Are you actually suggesting we apply a goddman criminal judicial standard here? Christ Almighty! The principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty only applies in US criminal matters! The standard is completely different even if it's a civil trial.
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 #117 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Condi Rice made an explicit comment that Saddam was tied to 9/11.

Bullshit. Find the quote.
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 #118 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
The answers are insufficient.

and perhaps Bush did lie.

The answers are insufficient for leftist Bush haters like yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


None of the above takes into account our changed perception of threats in a post 9/11 era, nor does it take into account the notion that Democracy itself could help to eliminate terrorism in the Middle East. Now I ask you: If any other nation on Earth had done what Saddam had in the past ten years, would we not have invaded them too? North Korea looks like Disney World compared to Saddam's Iraq.
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 #119 of 173
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.

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

And really that's all that matters because I don't think he could have got this to fly otherwise.
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 #120 of 173
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
But hey! That's not why Bush said we were going over there.

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

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