Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Phunkie
Oh please, "the very constant and very consistent denial of this rumour by Bush". Yeah, the Bush administration have done absolutely their best from the beginning to separate the issues of Iraq/Saddam and 9/11. Sure. Do you really belive that Bush and/or anyone in his administration have done nothing to link Iraq/Saddam with 9/11?
If you truly believe they haven't I have underestimated you.
|
I'm happy to be underestimated then. I noticed you haven't put together a quote where Bush claims Iraq helped with 9.11. See, in my world, I take people at what they actually say, not at what I think they say.
Quote:
|
And why is a quote like "Saddam has had long established ties with al-Qaida'' not enough?
|
Because it's not the same thing. You obviously think it is the same thing so can you explain to me why? And, since it is the same thing in your eyes, Bush would be perfectly justified in attacking Iraq for 9.11.
Quote:
|
Besides, I think we all know that people can be manipulated to believe things without someone spelling out the exact words.
|
Certainly, they can. And this seems to be a very touchy issue for you. Were you manipulated? How is that Bush's fault? Because you're gullible and believe that nuance is more important than the definite? Because you prefer the subtle over the overt? You jump to conclusions and that's Bush's fault. Yea, makes perfect sense.
Quote:
|
And just because you understand there may not be a link between Saddam and 9/11 doesn't tell nothing about the common public's capability to separate the issues. There must be some reason the public thinks Saddam is to blame for the 9/11 attack. Maybe they just all happened to decide that Saddam is the main culprit while examining some objective information. Right?
|
Maybe they're all just stupid? Maybe they all prefer to be led rather than find out for themselves? Maybe they simply don't have time to research issues and prefer instead to use the conclusions that the press has jumped to? Whatever the reason, I don't know how you can blame Bush. Unless, of course, you always believe there must be someone else to blame. It could never be your fault, right?
Quote:
|
Here's a pretty funny compilation of the convention that shows the main themes pretty well:
|
Why is this important to your argument? Do you know how many times "personal responsibility" was mentioned at the democratic convention. I'll give you a hint, less than 1. What does that mean?
Quote:
|
Now here are a few of the (and these are only some of the first few that came up on Google) links you can read and decide for yourself if the Bush administration has perhaps done a little something to establish a link between Iraq/Saddam and 9/11:.../...Now seriously, can anyone say with a straight face that they don't believe Bush and his administration did not try to link 9/11 and Iraq/Saddam together?
|
That's hilarious. You actually go through what must have been diligent research, come up with articles in which no quote from Bush or his admin indicates an Iraq/9.11 tie, in fact, many of the articles specifically point out that Bush has made no such claim, then claim that Bush did indeed make such a tie. You can keep bemoaning how you were snookered, but in the end I think you've got to wonder who's responsibility it really is for the conclusions you draw.
How come you're not making the same claim that Syria or Iran were involved in 9.11? Bush has said on countless occasions that both countries have ties to al Queda. What made Iraq so special?
BTW: I have a great bridge I want to sell. High income from the tolls and very busy. Know anyone who would like to buy? I'm selling cheap.