Quote:
Originally Posted by muspell
First, let us look at the importance of the Prague meeting, if it took place.
|
If there is ever any definitive proof that the meeting occurred, then we can talk about how important it is. As it stands now, there's no reason to discuss it because no one is submitting it as evidence that Iraq was connected to 9.11. (Though it sounds as if you are.)
So, I guess I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Really. Do you have a quote from Bush, or any in his administration, that says Iraq was involved with 9.11? Do you have a quote from Bush, or any in his administration, that even says, "There's very good evidence that Iraq may have been involved with 9.11"?
Quote:
There is only a connection to al- Quida(and not 9.11) in the form of an operative that coincidentally had something to do with 9.11.
|
Which no one in the administration has proposed as a link between Iraq and 9.11.
Let me give you a hypothetical and see if you can see my position.
France and America are sworn enemies. The US would like nothing more than to see France in shambles. France does not have nuclear weapons. Germany is no friend of the US either, and also lacks nukes. Germany declares war on France. Germany sends emissaries to the US. The US hosts some of those emissaries. Later, the US sends emissaries to Germany. Do you feel safe? Would you consider the US a threat?
Suppose then that Germany dropped a nuke on Paris. Would you allow your politicians to say, "We knew that Germany was talking with the US, and that the US was talking with Germany, but we had no proof that they had passed nuclear weapons to Germany. C'est la vie!"
Quote:
If you still think that the paragraph you wrote about the different other events had something to do with how insignificant this meeting was in determining how al- Quida had something to do with Iraq, please point out where the other clear and definitive leads between /Iraq/ and al- Quida before the war is.
|
I've posted a few quotes from the 9.11 Commission Report. I have to assume that they have considerably more information at their disposal than anything on the web. Furthermore, I was not just concerned with Iraq's ties to al Queda; I was concerned with Iraq's ties to terrorism.
Quote:
And why is Cheney nursing the rumour of the Prague meeting while still denying that Bagdad had links to the people who carried out the attacks on 9.11?
|
I don't think he is denying that Baghdad had links to the people who carried out the attacks on 9.11. In fact, I think just the opposite: he believes (as do I, as do the 9.11 Commission members, as does the Iraq Survey Group, as does virtually every intelligence service in the world) that Iraq supported terrorism generally and had specific ties to al Queda.
Quote:
Another thing is that if these ties are somewhat insubstantial, what would that make the attack on Iraq? Would it perhaps make it illegal also in regard to the 2002 approval in the Congress for use of force?
|
The 2002 Congressional approval for continued hostilities against Iraq was given to disarm Iraq. Whether or not Iraq had ties to terrorism it would not change the legality.
Quote:
Well, you're very good at demonstrating how it is possible that Bush could win the votes even of people who prize themselves on being rational and critical.
|
You accuse the US of taking action without proof. Then you accuse me of being irrational and uncritical when I won't lay blame without proof. Can you not see the hypocrisy in that?
Quote:
The problem is that it is one the most opinionated reports I have seen ever since I wrote a complaint to the schoolboard about one of my teachers in highschool.
|
Can you point out the opinionated parts and describe to me how they are opinionated? I mean, if you're going to call me arrogant, I sure would like to know how you've come up with more information than hundreds of inspectors who've looked through tens of thousands of pages of Iraqi documents, interviewed hundreds of former Iraqi leaders, and scoured hundreds of thousands of square miles of Iraqi desert.
Did you even read the report? If it claimed that there never were any stockpiles of WMD in Iraq and everything that Bush has said since he was born has been a lie, would it still be opinionated? Would you choose to believe the findings?