No way im doin that. No way. Why dont you do it ?

These are not even remotely similar to what we're talking about. If I say, "Iraq is developing WMD. al Queda has made contact with Iraq over the years. There is a danger that Iraq will give, or sell, WMD to al Queda." How do you get, "Iraq was involved in 9.11"? I didn't even mention 9.11.

Would it make a difference if I said, "Iraq is developing WMD. al Queda, the group that attacked us on 9.11, has made contact with Iraq over the years. There is a danger that Iraq will give, or sell, WMD to al Queda - the group that attacked us on 9.11"? Does that make a difference in the information I provided? It shouldn't.
Did I say that?! Good fucking God! I need to not only say what I want to say but I also have to clarify everything that I didn't say.

1) The Bush administration never said that Iraq was involved in 9.11. In fact, the Bush administration has clearly stated that there is no evidence to support an Iraq/9.11 connection.
2) The Bush administration never propagated the theory that Iraq was linked to 9.11, other than to say that al Queda had ties to Iraq. So, there are three degrees of separation there: 9.11 - al Queda - Iraq. Doesn't mean 9.11 - Iraq just as I don't know Kevin Bacon.
Yea, they even went so far as to fool the 9.11 Commission:

"To protect his own ties with Iraq,Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy." - p.61

"With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections." - p.61

"In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December." - p.66

"The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led [Richard] Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.” This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998." - p.128

There are many more references if you would like them. Including much of Richard Clarke's testimony (which you like to quote) that specifically undermines his own criticisms of Bush. There are also references to how Bush first investigated the possibility that Iraq was involved but dismissed that possibility when no evidence could be found.

The really interesting part is how many "news" organizations use this very same document to claim that Iraq and al Queda had no ties. They are part of perpetrating this rumour that Iraq had ties to 9.11. In one breath they say, "The 9.11 Report says there were no operational ties between Iraq and al Queda. See? The President lied when he said that Iraq had ties to al Queda." The first statement is true, the second is false based on a false premise. Had Bush said that Iraq was involved with 9.11 then the second statement would be true. But that's not what he said. A conclusion is drawn for the reader that has no basis in the premise and the rumour that Bush advanced this theory of an Iraqi/9.11 link lives on.
The government never told anyone that Iraq was involved in 9.11. No matter how many times you say it, until you find proof that it did, I'm not going to believe it. Others will, but that will be their problem.
Iraq was a threat to the US and we did have evidence. Iraq supported terrorism, had the ability and desire to produce WMD, did not prove she no longer had these weapons, and posed a risk that she would give or sell these weapons to terrorists.
No, I know where they got it. They heard terrorism, axis of evil, al Queda, and 9.11 all mentioned in the same 2 hour speech. They read the biased news reports that blur what was actually said and either accept the conclusions drawn for them by the reporter(s) or tenaciously hang onto their devotion to the President. Either way, they're both wrong because they're arguing a point that was never made.
It is if you want to pin the blame on Bush. Mentioning these things in the same speech is not drawing a link between them. As I said, he also mentioned Iran and N. Korea in the same speech but I don't hear anyone claiming that Bush convinced them Iran and N. Korea were responsible for 9.11.
That's funny. You want proof and I'm expected to give it. I want proof and you say it's not necessary to prove your point.
Yes, I do. Here's your proof:
2) Nearly every intelligence service in the world, including UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, believed that Iraq still had chemical and biological weapons. http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/

Now, in hindsight, we find that Iraq was just waiting to reconstitute its chemical and biological weapons programmes. Meaning that even if she didn't have them, she was going to produce them no matter what the UN said. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...y_Findings.pdf

3) Iraq had extensive ties to terrorism, including providing safe harbor for terrorist training camps. (ibid)

4) Given the veracity of all of the above, and the fact that Iraq, by her own admission, was an enemy of the US, it would be nearly criminal neglect for any leader to propose that Iraq was not a threat.

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."

I'll let you figure out who made these quotes.
No, they don't. But here you've once again said that the administration lied when it has not.
Only if you're not listening. Or if you're prepared to let others do your thinking for you.
Yes. It's how conspiracy theory gets its start. Somebody makes a claim, another makes a tenuous connection between that claim and something closely related, then someone else builds on that relationship, and another, and another, until the result is so far away from the original claim that the original claim is forgotten. Everyone spends their time arguing the false claim and the seemingly logical conclusions it leads to. What a collosal waste of time.
You give me no choice, Phunkie. You repeatedly put words in my mouth when it's in blue and white that that's not what I wrote. In context of the discussion we're having it's particularly frustrating. If you wish to assert that the important thing is not what people say but what we believe they say then there's nothing I can do. Rather than defend my point, I'm forced to correct your misinterpretations. That certainly does nothing to advance our discussion.
And there you go again. I'm the one being objective by actually evaluating what was said and not bringing my own personal views into the equation. You're being subjective by first filtering what was actually said through your own hatred for Bush. I can be critical of my government, and have been, when it warrants it. But I'm not going to criticize it for something it never did.
Why would the administration not look for links? Iraq was the only place where the US was involved in military operations and was a recognized sponsor of terrorism. Had Bush not looked for links we would be hearing cries of why Bush didn't explore every avenue. In fact, we've heard many argue that the US jumped too quickly to accuse al Queda. As the 9.11 Commission found, Iraq was off the table by 9.15 because no link could be found.
Can't you see what's going on here? Look at the title of that report, "Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged". Yet nowhere in that article is Cheney saying that Iraq was involved in 9.11. He doesn't deny that it was possible, but that's not a confirmation that Iraq was involved in the attack.

Read through the article and notice how seemlessly the reporter moves from talking about Iraq/al Queda and Iraq/9.11. The reporter gives all this information about discredited ties between Iraq and al Queda and then talks about Iraq/9.11. The reporter is making the connection. The administration is either denying it ("But there is no evidence proving the Iraqi regime knew about or took part in the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush officials said."), or saying it doesn't know whether Atta met with Iraqi intelligence ("We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know.") And even that has nothing to do with 9.11.
And this is borne out by the 9.11 Commission Report and the Iraqi Survey Group Report.
And here's the actual quote in context:
CHENEY: "...If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. They understand what’s at stake here. That’s one of the reasons they’re putting up as much of a struggle as they have, is because they know if we succeed here, that that’s going to strike a major blow at their capabilities.

MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that."

When taken in context, it's clear that Cheney is saying the MidEast is a base for terrorism, not Iraq as the CNN reporter would like you to believe.

Now, who's responsible for the misconception (if there is one)? Cheney, for answering the question as he did? Or, the CNN reporter for taking the quote out of context? And yes, this is a good way to confuse the public.
Yes. There are links between Iraq and al Queda. What does this have to do with 9.11?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Why not? Don't you think this is serious?
I don't have any proof. I don't even have any circumstantial proof. But you do, right? I mean, you wouldn't just say something without proof would you? There's got to be a reason for your accusations, right?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

My reason for accusation is anger. Seriously, if you have been here long enough, you should know I am almost never serious . But im actually..mad? Well anyways. I shall shutup now fatboy*

*that was not an insult to your appearance. The reason I called you that is obvious.

I hope you don't "shutup", thedevilf. Anger is certainly a valid enough reason for expressing your opinion, but expect others (me?) to ask you to support your opinion.

Perhaps, with more information, you could actually question your teachers when they try to indoctrinate you. Then they could focus on teaching instead.

And never shutup.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Er. I'll try again, one small bit at a time. Without the sarcasm and the bad and ill- timed jokes this time(if I can help it).

First, let us look at the importance of the Prague meeting, if it took place. This was before sept.11 and it involved someone who was an al-Quida operative. The man at this meeting, if this information is correct, would later steer a plane into the twin towers. What is it about this meeting that is important then? This means that Iraq had connections with al- Quida operatives before 9.11, and that Bagdad had ties to the actual people that steered the planes into the twin towers. In other words, as clear evidence as you can get that Iraq was a threat to the US, and that they were working with terrorists.

Cheney does not say this much. He is very clear that there is no evidence that Bagdad had anything to do with the 9.11 incident. But he says that we don't know for sure, what happened there, at the meeting in Prague, if it took place. He says that we do not know. But what he does know is that the link between al- Quida and Iraq exists, even though the actual physical evidence for this is very slight. In fact, the more specific evidence becomes, the less accurate and more general it is. Yet, we all know that Iraq had long connections to terrorist groups. It is very unfortunate that there is so much evidence that follow this pattern, and not one bit of evidence which is clear. Worse, much of the evidence must be interpreted before it reads the correct conclusion. The Prague meeting is a prime example.
Really? 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. 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. You have said yourself on occation that the evidence is the issue, or something to that effect. So, what does it all mean? Why is there only assessments and not clear evidence for this al- Quida connection? 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?

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?
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.
And then you quote this: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...y_Findings.pdf
and you call it "proof". Honestly, I can't even act that arrogant.
(and no, I don't think it's a problem that it says CIA on it. 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.)

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"?
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

[QUOTE=fatboy]
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]

You believe so on what evidence? Would you honestly say there was not enough "reasonable doubt" to pause to think before invading Iraq without a UN mandate and in the face of massive international opposition ?

But then, we already know that GWB had plans for Iraq before the whole 9/11 thing, and they had nothing to do with al Qaida. It's shocking to see that the current administration has so much contempt for their citizens that they don't even bother making up credible lies, they know they'll get away with anything. The worse thing is, they're right, they just got reelected.

I don't believe Bagdad was linked to the people who performed the sept. 11 attacks, no. I'm pointing out that the only substantial evidence in existence, "if the meeting took place", that might link Bagdad to al-Quida operations from before the war is implying this. Stronger than implying, really.
Exactly. So why would Cheney happily use this rumour to substantiate that there were links between Bagdad and al-Quida? It doesn't add up, and it is very disturbing that the administration dissects evidence like this, picking out the pieces that are useful and scrapping the rest. Even one example of this do bring up difficult questions, don't you agree?
But now I have related to you a bit of the small history of the evidence for this meeting. I readily admit that I would be scared as hell of another terrorist attack if I lived in the US, but still - the evidence and so on. Should not the evidence for the meeting, if it exists, be clear enough to come to a conclusion?
What I read in the report, and what I heard Clarke drone on about in the hearing is that it is the intelligence community's job to be suspicious. To follow up every possible lead. But as Clarke insists, to act without substantial evidence, to turn suspicion into evidence, that should not be done. And the 9.11 panel says consistently - "it is said", "it is probable". They do not say that there exists evidence. In fact, they are relating the info the panel extracted from the interviews - they do not judge, as I believe one in the panel said. Several of the interviewed subjects also submitted testimonies that state there was no credible evidence to tie Bagdad to al- Quida, which should be mentioned as well, and it is also in the report. But I do see that the suspicion should've lead to more investigation, of course. The suspicions could turn out to be true.

As for the link to terrorism in general, what real evidence is there? Payments to the families of palestinian martyrs? Is there anything else apart from being generally the enemy of the US (at least lately)? There was rumours of terrorist training camps with high tech equipment in the desert in Iraq as well, I remember. That turned out to be a pilot academy, and the high tech equipment was a radar detector in one of the security doors. Another thing is that al- Quida, as well as Ansar al Islam for instance are very religious groups, and not really something to expect would be helped by Saddam. Of course, the report, I didn't get who made that claim, states it is possible that a deal was made with al-Quida on a weapons programme to stop attacks on Iraq. That at least shows intent and will from Bagdad to help terror groups with their goals, if it is true. But where is the evidence? Someone claimed it, and the report says it is likely or something similar, but it is also disputed by others. Does this mean there are no convincing evidence?
I think that is a bit strong. There are several leads that might suggest it. Powell for instance claimed this was so in the UN adress, but his evidence - the best they had - was not substantial either. And as mentioned, one piece of (possibly)perfect evidence that Cheney is currently saying is "uncertain" is disputed by both the CIA and FBI, as well as most others(beside the Czech foreign minister, if I remember correctly). Now if they are so certain, why is there no evidence?
The legislation reads something like this: if Iraq does not submit to the UN's demands. That leaves the harbouring terrorist clause, in my opinion.

I seriously think that a very unfriendly investigation on just exactly what grounds the war- decision was made upon would have been launched if a government here had done the same. I mean, I can agree as much as I like about that the world is a better place without Saddam in Iraq, but would you feel very good if you know that a war can, and apparently should, be started based on hunches and guesses?
I agree it would be hypocritical of me to say you should lay blame without proof, but I am not asking that. I'm not even saying that you are irrational and uncritical - in fact I believe the very opposite - but I do not think that it is commendable to shy away from difficult questions. Specially when there is a pretty good amount of them piling up. This way, none of the evidence you're looking for in order to find an informed opinion will ever show up.
I haven't read the entire Dulfer report. I would guess that not very many people have. But reading the overview, it must be difficult not to spot that from the outset it will prove that undoubtedly it must follow that Hussein wanted to construct illegal wmds. Quote from "key findings":
"Saddam recognized that the reconstitution of Iraqi WMD enhanced both his security and image. Consequently, Saddam needed to end UN-imposed sanctions to fulfi ll his goals."
And what does this mean, then? That Saddam would cheat the inspection regime and then make wmds. Period. Yet, no possible evidence - the key findings even says this clearly - exists that would show if there were any wmds, or any intent to produce(this is explained by yet another "shrewd" maneuver from Saddam by avoiding to create a paper trail) the illegal stockpiles and so on. In other words, the report makes plain that we so suspect and even know the motives of Saddam (consequently explaining the entire policy, as explained during several pages of assessments that of course might have merit, but still..), that no such evidence is necessary. In other words, no wmds or evidence, but that is just because Saddam was too smart for us. I don't know what you would call a report that states things like that other than opinionated (but then, I'm no native english speaker). Bull, perhaps? Circumstantial evidence at best? It is not made any better by the fact that the report will use actions taken during the war with Iran to further draw conclusions about what Iraq's goals were more recently. Consequently, as the report says many times, we now know several things.

And so, the report and it's explanation on the physical evidence clearly finds that the claims made by the Bush- administration were incorrect - but they took a good look in the crystal ball and guessed right, and so everything is all right it seems. The senate hearings on the report also seems to have come to that conclusion. It is all right to lie a little, as long as it is discovered to be necessary in the end. I wonder, where have the american pragmatism and objectivity gone to rest this time?

Getting back to the democratic fundamental mecanisms is needed.

The president and his administration cant be said to be at fault.
The president could have been blamed in two cases:

-he linked iraq to 9/11 in an absolute manner, leaving himself and the democratic us no withdrawal option.

-he didnt seize the opportunity of associating iraq's behaviour to the terrorist factions who stroke iraq, missing an opportunity to increase the amount of private property to secure the democratic rights.

The president did not commit either mistakes hence the quality of his democratic job, the satisfaction of his people and his reelection.

The president (and his administration with personalities like collin powells whose only use has been to use his credit to give authority to the democratic us version) acted to merge iraq and al qaeda up to 99,9 %, allowing them again to display a comfortable attitude when they said that they had convictions, even very strong convictions but that they were wrong and that's why democracy is so great because leaders can recognize they had wrong prejudices after taking a course of course of actions at no cost and the usual blabla about democracy.

But even if the president said 'I'm one hundred per cent sure that iraq and al qaeda plotted together 9/11', indeed a very bad democratic move, this could have not cleaned the us democratic people from their self proclaimed attitudes.

Nothing in democracy tells them to take one of their leaders' word. On the contrary, they maintain certain social decisions on the behalf of distrust of their leaders.
The us democratic us have a large and easy access to information. It is easy to bypass the official information channels to seek a personal version.
Now considering the importance of the issue and the obvious communauty of interests existing between the administration and corporations they are in deep contact with, the bell should have been rung if something was felt as an alert.
One could conceive that in such case and considering the fare of world travel, they could have gone to investigate personally in the concerned world area for say 1 per cent of what they earn per year.
But since nothing was going wrong democratically, they reacted accordingly.

That's all part of a now well identified feature of democracy called the democratic masquerade.

Of course the use of datas like the former sharereactor forum could for sure shed light of who say what in those times but it is also well known that democratic people need here and then a new virginity to maintain a shallow consistency.