• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Impeach Bush

The Bush administration's long-running attempts to link Iraq and Al Qaeda were dealt a serious blow when the September 11 commission's June 16 interim report indicated that there did not appear to be a "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, and that there was no evidence that Iraq was involved in the September 11 attacks.


Its hard to take them seriously when they print crapola like that. Maybe if they got rid of partisan moveon type stuff and went with a more legal and circumstance based presentation I would give it a second glance.
 
The story you quote comes from:

http://www.fair.org/activism/fox-commission.html
In fact, it's Hume that is misrepresenting the AP story-- quoting from the story's lead, but then changing its meaning through an inaccurate paraphrase. The story actually begins: "Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the September 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was 'no credible evidence' that Saddam Hussein had ties with Al Qaeda."

http://www.fair.org/whats-fair.html
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.
 
corplinx said:



Its hard to take them seriously when they print crapola like that.

Where is the crap? Saddam and Bin Laden not only have no connection but Bid Laden always hated Saddam because he gave the USA an excuse to come to the Middle East after he invaded Q8. BinLaden also wasn't crazy about the fact that Iraq had the most secular-leaning govt. in the region.

BinLaden and AlQueda had stronger documented connections with Bush than with Saddam.

Share and Enjoy - Aaron
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/11/i...partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=
Panel Describes Long Weakening of Hussein Army

WASHINGTON, July 10 — The Senate's report on prewar intelligence about Iraq, which asserts that warnings about its illicit weapons were largely unfounded and that its ties to Al Qaeda were tenuous, also undermines another justification for the war: that Saddam Hussein's military posed a threat to regional stability and American interests.

In a detailed discussion of Iraq's prewar military posture, the report cites a long series of intelligence reports in the decade before the war that described a formerly potent army's spiral of decay under the weight of economic sanctions and American military pressure.
 
For those seeking a sea-change in US administration, wouldn't it be better to simply ensure that Bush and his cronies are voted so far out of government they are over the horizon?

If Bush was indeed successfully impeached prior to November, who becomes president? Chaney? At least he can try to intelligently distance himself (weasel-fashion) from the Iraq train-wreck, and thus offer the Reps a chance of retaining the office in a close election.

But if the impeachment process did not complete before November or it was unsuccessful, the situation becomes very muddy, I would imagine.

The alternative - giving Bush the window of opportunity to stand - would seem to make more room to swing the boot harder.
 
evildave said:

Believe it or not, I am a big fan of FAIR's Jeff Cohen. He has interesting viewpoints (though I don't agree on many) and sometimes because of his anti-corporate frame of mind he finds angles that I realize I could not.

However, that said, I don't consider FAIR a good arbiter of what is fair. Of the many media watchdog groups, I am not sure why people who usually espouse left of center views always go to FAIR.
 
Let me just say this now that his name has been brought up.

Jeff Cohen is a god among men.
 
... and the Intelligence Committee found no evidence of coercion by the administration. They interviewed many analysts and every one denied any kind of pressure was applied by the administration. In Woodward's book, Bush seemed to have doubts about the quality of the intelligence, but Tenet was adamant that the intel was bulletproof.
Tenet was wrong, as were the estimates and conventional wisdom of the CIA for a decade. The CIA has been quite consistent over the years in its assessment of Saddam's WMD... Bush's statements were exactly what the CIA had been saying since the Cliniton years. To pin the intel failure on Bush is absurd.
 
Saddam and Bin Laden not only have no connection but Bid Laden always hated Saddam because he gave the USA an excuse to come to the Middle East after he invaded Q8. BinLaden also wasn't crazy about the fact that Iraq had the most secular-leaning govt. in the region.


The scary thing is that GWB is still insisting that there is a connection between the two.
 
Ladewig said:
The scary thing is that GWB is still insisting that there is a connection between the two.
If you think that's scary, go listen to Cheney. Where Bush will often times just strongly insinuate a connection between Hussein and Al-Qaeda, Cheney will flat out say it.
 
And the 9/11 Commission agrees. Is stating the truth scary to you people? If so, I think I understand your politics a bit better...
 
Batman Jr. said:

If you think that's scary, go listen to Cheney. Where Bush will often times just strongly insinuate a connection between Hussein and Al-Qaeda, Cheney will flat out say it.

You mean because its true? Why do you people put yourself in the position of flat earthers because you hate Bush so much.

A. there are links between Iraq/Al Q.
B. to date, we have no evidence that they collaborated directly
C. Iraq collaborated with other terrorist groups that had links to Al Q.
D. to date, there is no evidence that Iraq was involved with 9-11

Now, why is it that when the people on this forum who rabidly hate Bush are presented with these facts, they always get into semantics games and cognitive dissonance. The ignore point A and look at point D and say "see, no link between Iraq and Al Q".

You can't play ostrich and put your head in the sand if you expect people to consider you an intellectual equal who is worth conversing with on deep and serious topics.
 
corplinx said:
You mean because its true? Why do you people put yourself in the position of flat earthers because you hate Bush so much.

A. there are links between Iraq/Al Q.
B. to date, we have no evidence that they collaborated directly
C. Iraq collaborated with other terrorist groups that had links to Al Q.
D. to date, there is no evidence that Iraq was involved with 9-11

Now, why is it that when the people on this forum who rabidly hate Bush are presented with these facts, they always get into semantics games and cognitive dissonance. The ignore point A and look at point D and say "see, no link between Iraq and Al Q".

You can't play ostrich and put your head in the sand if you expect people to consider you an intellectual equal who is worth conversing with on deep and serious topics.
So, when was the last time a vague, transitive argument was good enough evidence for us to dissolve long held philosophies on foreign policy and to rush into war without completely following through on all avenues of investigation regarding reasons for going to war such as terrorist activity, nuclear and chemical weapons capability, etc.?

I don't need that haughty stuff at the end of your post either.
 
A. there are links between Iraq/Al Q.
B. to date, we have no evidence that they collaborated directly
C. Iraq collaborated with other terrorist groups that had links to Al Q.
D. to date, there is no evidence that Iraq was involved with 9-11

Now, why is it that when the people on this forum who rabidly hate Bush are presented with these facts, they always get into semantics games and cognitive dissonance. The ignore point A and look at point D and say "see, no link between Iraq and Al Q".


I am willing to consider the possibility of my dislike for Bush clouding my judgement. I have a hard time seeing "A" because of of al Qedea's stated goals is the "purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity." Given that Hussein was the embodiment of depravity in an Islamic country (e.g. paintings of nude women in the palaces), why would a fundamentalist like bin Laden have anything to do with him. I would expect bin Laden to want to remove Hussein from power.

What are the links that are being spoken of here?
 
Originally said by Osama Bin Laden
Allah, we bring you praise. Our mortal enemy will at last be vanquished. No more will he will a threat. We have long dreamt of the day he will be persecuted and destroyed, just as he has persecuted and destroyed the lives of others. His weapons destroyed, his guns silent. His power no more the corruption and decadence that he has lavished on himself crushed like the sands of the desert. Allah be praised. Allah deliver us of the enemy that has poisoned the Arab lands.

Who was he talking about?

Yep, Saddam. From

here.
 
Iraq collaborated with other terrorist groups that had links to Al Q.

Is this a reference to Ansar Al Islam? If so I thought that
Kurdish and American officials insist it is linked to al-Qaeda, although they have not produced hard evidence.

Which is what you pride yourself on isn't it?

From here.
 

Back
Top Bottom