This time it's Condi. It's simply bizarre what they're claiming. And completely wrong.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5460863
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5460863
More attempted spin by the Bush administration
- Thread starter Nasarius
- Start date
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
Notice the immediate second reference to an operational relationship. Sounds like people making a mountain out of a molehill.
Let's do a factcheck:
1. the sept 11 commission investigated whether or not Iraq was involved with 911, despite no apparent reason to look into it
2. the sept 11 commission discussed all the same Iraq/AlQ links we've all seen reported before
3. the commission found no hard evidence of Iraq governement members collaboration with Al Q. to pull off terrorist attacks in America
4. Dick Cheney once again mentioned Iraqi/AlQ ties and was lambasted for it despite the fact that there were ties.
5. AP and Reuters both reported that the Sept 11 commission rejected administration claims that Iraq was involved with 911. However, there never was a claim. The dubious wording AP used made it seem like the commission proved there were no ties despite the evidence presented and put on record before the commission.
And my opinion? There are a bunch of marks on this forum that hate bush so badly they gladly put on blinders to reject all links between Baathist Iraq and Bin Laden's network. Nobody is saying these guys were in cahoots to stage attacks, but there were links between them. Get over it. Hate Bush for legitimate reasons. Be mad about stem cell research or something. Just get a friggin life and stop help perpetuating the "big lie".
Just remember, there's no such thing as a smart mark.
My problem is that nobody in the goverment can seem to agree on what the definition of "is" is.
Instead of these Frickin parsing of word games, can we PLEASE figure out WHICH particular contacts the Bush Administration alleges, and whether or not those exact meetings or contacts were looked into by the Commission?
So far, the Administration has been talking generalities, and were sit parsing the differences between the words "ties" "relationship" "control" and "contacts".
Buncha clusterfrickers on both sides.
Should we just surrender to Osama now and get it over with?
Instead of these Frickin parsing of word games, can we PLEASE figure out WHICH particular contacts the Bush Administration alleges, and whether or not those exact meetings or contacts were looked into by the Commission?
So far, the Administration has been talking generalities, and were sit parsing the differences between the words "ties" "relationship" "control" and "contacts".
Buncha clusterfrickers on both sides.
Should we just surrender to Osama now and get it over with?
TillEulenspiegel
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 30, 2003
- Messages
- 2,302
Tampa Tribune AP report..................
"Although they never directly accused Saddam of complicity in the attacks, Bush, Cheney and other top officials repeatedly connected the former dictator with the terrorist network as they prepared the country for war. For example:
* In a Sept. 12, 2002, speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Bush warned that if Saddam supplied biological, chemical or nuclear weapons to his ``terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.''
* The next month, the president declared that Saddam and al-Qaida ``share a common enemy - the United States of America,'' that a senior al-Qaida leader received medical care in Baghdad, and that ``we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.''
* In another speech in October 2002, Bush said Saddam ``is a man that we know has had connections with al-Qaida. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al- Qaida as a forward army.''
* In his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address, Bush said that Saddam ``aids and protects ... members of al-Qaida'' and could arm the Islamic extremist network with chemical or biological weapons ``or help them develop their own.''
* Cheney, in a December 2002 speech in Denver, charged that Saddam's ``regime has had high-level contacts with al-Qaida going back a decade and has provided training to al-Qaida terrorists.''
Two prewar publications compiled under White House direction went further, citing claims by Iraqi defectors that Iraq was training Islamic extremists in hijacking techniques at a secret facility in Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.
The White House's ``A Decade of Deception and Defiance'' was released as a background paper in conjunction with Bush's Sept. 12, 2002, U.N. address.
Three U.S. officials said that several State Department officials tried to block the paper's release because the defectors' claims about the terrorist training and Iraq's banned weapons programs were unsubstantiated by intelligence reports"
Full article here:http://www.tampatrib.com/News/MGBOSLGTLVD.html
Late word : Russians said they had intelligence that Saddam had plots to attack America, which were supplied to the Administration.
That really has nothing to do with a Saddam -Al-Quida relationship, I just thought I'd bring it up to preclude Presidents Pinocchio's parrots from trying to re-establish the justifacation for war in the never shifting morass of lies and misdirection.
"Although they never directly accused Saddam of complicity in the attacks, Bush, Cheney and other top officials repeatedly connected the former dictator with the terrorist network as they prepared the country for war. For example:
* In a Sept. 12, 2002, speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Bush warned that if Saddam supplied biological, chemical or nuclear weapons to his ``terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.''
* The next month, the president declared that Saddam and al-Qaida ``share a common enemy - the United States of America,'' that a senior al-Qaida leader received medical care in Baghdad, and that ``we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.''
* In another speech in October 2002, Bush said Saddam ``is a man that we know has had connections with al-Qaida. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al- Qaida as a forward army.''
* In his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address, Bush said that Saddam ``aids and protects ... members of al-Qaida'' and could arm the Islamic extremist network with chemical or biological weapons ``or help them develop their own.''
* Cheney, in a December 2002 speech in Denver, charged that Saddam's ``regime has had high-level contacts with al-Qaida going back a decade and has provided training to al-Qaida terrorists.''
Two prewar publications compiled under White House direction went further, citing claims by Iraqi defectors that Iraq was training Islamic extremists in hijacking techniques at a secret facility in Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.
The White House's ``A Decade of Deception and Defiance'' was released as a background paper in conjunction with Bush's Sept. 12, 2002, U.N. address.
Three U.S. officials said that several State Department officials tried to block the paper's release because the defectors' claims about the terrorist training and Iraq's banned weapons programs were unsubstantiated by intelligence reports"
Full article here:http://www.tampatrib.com/News/MGBOSLGTLVD.html
Late word : Russians said they had intelligence that Saddam had plots to attack America, which were supplied to the Administration.
That really has nothing to do with a Saddam -Al-Quida relationship, I just thought I'd bring it up to preclude Presidents Pinocchio's parrots from trying to re-establish the justifacation for war in the never shifting morass of lies and misdirection.
Cain
Straussian
corplinx said:
Yeah, no apparent reason whatsoever. Over 50% of the population believes Saddam was involved (thanks in no small part to the Bush administration).
Yes, Cheney rabid left-wing publications like _The Economist_ have criticized Cheney for his false claims on Iraq (especially WMD), even calling on Bush to get a new running mate. Bush haters, the bunch of 'em.
I'm sorry you've been played for a patsy. That's gotta be tough. In terms of propaganda your post isn't very impressive. But the mental gymnastics, the efforts taken to prevent the harsh weight of reality from crashing down on your delicately constructed dream world, it amuses me to no end.
I mean, you do realize that the U.S. had significant and real links with Saddam's regime in the 80s, arguably at the height of its terror. We supplied them with arms, recall the infamous photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with good ol' Saddam. The same holds true for what would morph into al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. But maybe supplying arms isn't so bad after all.
Returning to the parent post's on-topic alternatives: Rice is either grossly incompetent or lying.
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
Cain said:
Cain, I think you would agree with me though that a position founded on ignorance won't be dispelled by a government report since facts didn't found that opinion in the first place.
I think the whole commission was a waste of money, but the time spent investigating if Iraq was involved (even if only to debunk the onetime widespread misconception) was government excess at its worst.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Finding out if the President lied... ahem.. misled us into sending hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis to death is a waste of money? No, Cor. Government excess at it's worst is investigating a blowjob. By comparison, this is government at its best.corplinx said:
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
as opposed to Bush aplogists?
Call this an appeal to authority, but when comes to you or the 9/11 commission, I'll take my chances with the commission, thanks. Got any of those signs left, I think you'd look good in one about now
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,583
corplinx said:
I agree with much of what you wrote, but the reasons to investigate this possibility should have been obvious. The FBI believed that Iraq was involved with the first WTC bombing, and Saddam was a sworn enemy of the US and used terrorists before. To not investigate the possibility of a connection would have been irresponsible.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't see any real difference between what the 9/11 commision said and what Bush said.DavidJames said:as opposed to Bush aplogists?Call this an appeal to authority, but when comes to you or the 9/11 commission, I'll take my chances with the commission, thanks. Got any of those signs left, I think you'd look good in one about now
Both agree that there were contacts between al-Qaida and Saddam's intelligenceervices. Both agree that Iraq was not involved in the planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks.
What is clear is that these contacts weren't to discuss distributing candy to little children, they were about working together to attack America. Thankfully, they will never have this chance now.
bin-Ladin has shown a willingness in the past to work w/ those he despised against a common enemy, there's no reason to think that a Saddam collaberation was not a possibility.
The Iraq war was preventive, not retaliatory.
WildCat said:
I think that George W. also knew that he, a man of deep faith, worked with people outside his faith when they had a common enemy.
It's not such a far-fetched idea. That's why everyone bought it.
The old Iraqi regime members may still be collaborating with people who share the hate.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
They both returned findings that the people of the US were misled by the Bush administration in matters critical to national interests.Ziggurat said:
Perhaps that is not the absolute best use of our tax dollars, but it is certainly a better investment than the money spent on certain other investigations into marital infidelity.
corplinx said:
Both sides are manipulating these facts (well summarized, btw). The big problem is that people equate "connection" with "collaboration," and both sides are exploiting this leap of logic. Sure, a connection would provide opportunity for collaboration, but it doesn't necessarily follow that collaboration must occur.
The right keeps dropping factual but potentially misleading references to the connection. At the same time, the left is putting words in their mouth, making it sound like they're saying something they're really not.
Nasarius, both sides are spinning the bejeezus out of this, but the right is technically correct in spite of the fact that Cheney's statements may be too easily misinterpreted. The left is the only one publicly decrying "collaboration."
