Why Did Bush Win? - Page 6 - Video Games Forum

genius · #51 (**permalink**) 11-08-2004, 03:13 AM

your persistence in standing up for the truth is admirable, fatboy, but it will have no merit, as people like Phunkie and muspell dont care about facts since they just feel so strongly about what they have come to believe.

T.F.B.M · #52 (**permalink**) 11-08-2004, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatboy

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?

This is a very interesting statement displaying one hard leaning in democracy: acting on their government comes last.

Reading democracy from the papers leads to think that people are evoluating independently and have by no way an obligation to justify their personal motivations to other equal in status people.
But, definitively, the government has a duty to justify its motivations and a democratic person to ask the justication of those motivations.

A blatant example of the opposite situation.

fatboy · #53 (**permalink**) 11-08-2004, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob_G

I think Bush won because he didn't neglect the extremely conservative evangelical christians, who stayed home 4 years ago.

Interesting --> http://www.reason.com/hod/jh110804.shtml

Phunkie · #54 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatboy

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.

My 'examples' were to prove the point that you don't have to say something out loud to make people believe it.

What Bush and his administration are doing with their communications is a deliberate strategy. They say Iraq has stockpiles of wmd and they are willing to give it to anyone, they say Iraq has ties to al Queda - the group that attacked you, they say Iraq is the worlds biggest safe haven for terrorists etc. And they also remember to use 9/11 in all the same speeches with Iraq and Saddam, so that the audience remembers that something was said about 9/11 and Iraq....

They don't have to say it out loud, it's enough that they make constant innuendos and say half-truths and use certain words in same paragraphs and speeches. And give contradictory information, like Cheney's "we don't know" statements when everyone knew and even others in the government were saying the opposite. You think these things just slipped their tongue, that they are simple mistakes? I don't, they have enough communications pros working for them to ensure all communications are in line with their strategy and to look into every word in every speech. (The speeches of the Republican Convention were a good example of this). They don't make mistakes unless they intend to.

And they have used it with the post-war situation too. Some time ago Bush made the impression that things in Iraq were pretty good and democracy was just around the corner. Now, this obviously wasn't true, and interestingly a few days after the statement the secret internal report was leaked to the press, the report that stated the chaotic situation in Iraq. Do you think Bush really believed Iraq was doing just fine, or could he have perhaps lied intentionally?

Quote:

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.

Didn't you constantly demand a quote from the administration saying "Iraq is linked to 9/11"?

Quote:

Yea, they even went so far as to fool the 9.11 Commission:

"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

"but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request"

Quote:

"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

Wow, "reportedly" Saddam may have even met Bin Ladin in the late 1990's. Now that proves Iraq had strong ties with Al Queda...

Quote:

"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

"This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998."

Quote:

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.

Here is also a quote from the report that I also used in my previous post:

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,"

The fact that Iraq and Al Queda may have had a few meeting during the last decade does not prove Iraq had in Cheney's words "had long-established ties with al Qaeda"´, or that Iraq had any ties with the organization when the US attacked the country.

And when Cheney said "the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks", he just probably meant the late 90's, right? He surely didn't mean to give the impression that Iraq might have had anything to do with 9/11.

Since you also seem to like to quote Mr. Clarke, here's a few more quotes from him:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in607356.shtml

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it."

------------------

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."

--------------------

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Quote:

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.

Again you seem to believe that Bush couldn't have implied a link between Iraq and 9/11 without saying the exact words "Iraq was involved with 9/11".

Quote:

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.

I know you won't believe it. We can continue this argument forever and neither of us is going to change his mind....

Quote:

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.

Iraq wasn't a threat to the US.
Where's the proof of Iraq being the centre of terrorist operations and the huge support it gave to terrorists who threatened the US?

Iraq didn't have wmd. Whether they wanted to have or not is speculation, but they did not have wmd.

"Posed a risk that she would give or sell these weapons to terrorists."
You mean these imaginary weapons? So they may have wanted wmd, and if they at some point had gotten them, they might have sold them to bad people? Sounds very solid proof....

Quote:

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.

As I said earlier, the speeches are written (or at least edited) by professionals. Do you think it's a mistake that all the things are mentioned in the same speeches over and over again until the audience is confused enough?

Quote:

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.

Iran and North Korea have been mentioned a few times, but Iraq is mentioned all the time. And mentioning these things in the same speech over and over and over again is implying there's a link between them.

Quote:

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.

Well, at least I only accuse someone of lying and misleading people, I don't try to defend an attack of a nation against another sovereign nation.

Quote:

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.

2. That is why they sent the inspectors there. The inspectors who didn't find anything. But the US government naturally said the inspectors have done a terrible job, since they didn't find anything....

"Now, in hindsight, we find that Iraq was just waiting to reconstitute its chemical and biological weapons programmes"

We do? And like has been said, I wouldn't call an intelligence report of the CIA an objective report.

3. Now where's the proof of Iraq being the centre of terrorist operations and being the safe harbour of terrorists, especially for those who threatened the US?

4. You see those statements as proof of Saddam being a threat to the US?

You claim to objective and say you don't let others do the thinking for you, yet you believe all this crap about Iraq being a threat to the US that was spoonfed to you by your government. (And I'm not talking about the two quotes.)

Quote:

No, they don't. But here you've once again said that the administration lied when it has not.

Iraq had no wmd, had no connections to Al Queda, hadn't attacked the US, had nothing to do with 9/11, yet somehow it became the most important issue in your government's war against terrorism that started with the 9/11 attack. Anyone remember Afghanistan, the little country that actually was linked to the attacks? Or Osama Bin Ladin, the man who, unlike Saddam, actually had something to do with the attacks?

Quote:

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.

Can't you see what's going on here? It had already been acknowledged that Iraq had no ties with Al Queda yet still Cheney implies it did. And he uses, very deliberately I believe, the word 9/11 in the same sentence. You don't think that statement gives the impression that Iraq had perhaps something to do with the 9/11 attack?

And they don't say the meeting didn't happen, just that "they don't know". By keeping the rumours alive and giving contradictory information they manage to confuse and mislead people.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...11.commission/

"The panel also dismissed reports that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in the Czech Republic on April 9, 2000. "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred."

Quote:

And this is borne out by the 9.11 Commission Report and the Iraqi Survey Group Report.

They may have had possibly some ties with the organization before, but not when the US attacked the country. The statement leds to believe otherwise.

Quote:

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.

I thought Afghanistan was "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." But instead he used the statement linked with Iraq (even if he meant the region). They are saying that by securing Iraq they can secure the region. Doesn't that mean the Iraq was the one nation in that region that was the base of "the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." He was talking about Iraq but only added the word region to one place.

"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."

You can shout conspiracy all you want, but I don't believe for a second that his phrasing wasn't carefully considered to again keep the audience confused and make Iraq sound a lot worse than it actually was. They are communications professionals and they know how to get your message heard.

T.F.B.M · #55 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 09:28 AM

I cant believe a democratic person wasted so much time in so useless research.
A quick search at sr forum about 'what is a democratic proof?' would save people invaluable life hours that could have spent on more enjoyable stuff.

emsilva · #56 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 10:57 AM

Bush won because he mentions "God" more often than Kerry.

USA is a conservative country (majority), and for this reason, Bush can destroy whatever he feels like, charge whatever taxes he fee like, lie whenever he feels like, and people will keep up with him while the other candidate is not as religious, against abortion, against gay people as Bush is.

Regards,

fatboy · #57 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phunkie

My 'examples' were to prove the point that you don't have to say something out loud to make people believe it.

And mine was to prove that just because you say two things in one speech doesn't mean they're related. Your argument is this: Bush said the words "Iraq", "al Queda", and "9.11" in such close proximity that people interpret his meaning to be that Iraq helped (or was involved) in 9.11. Yet, as I've pointed out before, Bush has also said the words "Iran", "Syria", "N. Korea", "al Queda", and "9.11" in the same close proximity yet you don't claim that Bush is trying to get everyone to believe that either one of these countries was involved in 9.11.

Regardless, let's assume your argument is correct and Bush et. al. intentionally used "Iraq", "al Queda", and "9.11" in an effort to get people to believe Iraq helped al Queda pull off 9.11. First, I don't see how anyone with half a brain could interpret the quotes you have provided as "Iraq helped al Queda attack us on 9.11". Can you? Is that what you believed Bush was saying, that Iraq was involved?

Second, how can you blame Bush for another's inability to listen to what is being said? Especially when he's repeatedly denied any link between Iraq and 9.11?

Quote:

What Bush and his administration are doing with their communications is a deliberate strategy. They say Iraq has stockpiles of wmd and they are willing to give it to anyone, they say Iraq has ties to al Queda - the group that attacked you, they say Iraq is the worlds biggest safe haven for terrorists etc. And they also remember to use 9/11 in all the same speeches with Iraq and Saddam, so that the audience remembers that something was said about 9/11 and Iraq....

I agree to all of this. Doesn't have anything to do with 9.11 though (other than 9.11 was a terrorist act).

Quote:

They don't have to say it out loud, it's enough that they make constant innuendos and say half-truths and use certain words in same paragraphs and speeches.

Then why don't you believe that Bush was trying to make a link between Iran and 9.11?

Quote:

And they have used it with the post-war situation too. Some time ago Bush made the impression that things in Iraq were pretty good and democracy was just around the corner.

Unbelievable. Really, I'm almost speechless. Bush said, and has always maintained, that the Iraq war would take a long time. Now, whenever anything good happens, and he trumpets it, you accuse him of claiming that everything's wine and roses. Unbelievable.

Quote:

Didn't you constantly demand a quote from the administration saying "Iraq is linked to 9/11"?

Let me take you through it slow. I said, "Bush never said Iraq was involved with 9.11." Then you said, "You really think it's impossible for Bush's administration to have linked Iraq to 9/11 without saying 'Iraq is linked to 9/11'?" Are you able to differentiate between the two statements? I'm willing to break down the sentences for you if you'd like.

Quote:

"but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request"

"As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections."

Quote:

Wow, "reportedly" Saddam may have even met Bin Ladin in the late 1990's. Now that proves Iraq had strong ties with Al Queda...

Oh, I see. You want just one thing that points to a tie. Well, unfortunately, that seldom comes along in intelligence. Many different sources need to be collated into a final assessment. Should that be the case, or should only one piece of information be used to make decisions?

Quote:

"This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998."

"Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq."

Quote:

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,"

Okay, since this is the phrase that everyone wants to misinterpret in the 9.11 report, let's analyze this.
"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan..."
I interpret this as, "Iraq and al Qaeda continued to make contact after bin Laden returned to Afghanistan". Meaning that Iraq and al Qaeda were in contact before that since the word "also" was used.

"...but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." First, my interpretation above that Iraq and al Queda continued to meet, is given support by the assumption by the committee that these meetings did actually take place. The statement does not equivocate and the prior and following text does not imply that these meetings never took place (in fact, both assume the intelligence is correct). Secondly, it can not be proved that Iraq was involved in any terrorist acts committed by al Queda. Therefore, Iraq was not involved in 9.11.

No where in this statement do I get the impression that Iraq and al Queda would not talk to each other. In fact, I get the opposite impression - they would and have talked to each other. Nor do I get the impression that Iraq and al Queda would never have worked collaboratively. And that is what Bush et. al. have been positing from the start: the danger lies in regimes like Hussein's, with the ability and desire to strike at the US, will employ terrorists to strike at the US. Their position has never been, "Iraq helped al Queda with 9.11 and we must strike at Iraq for this act."

Quote:

And when Cheney said "the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks", he just probably meant the late 90's, right? He surely didn't mean to give the impression that Iraq might have had anything to do with 9/11.

Whatever his intention was, I have an obligation to listen to what is said to me and what I read. Don't you? I interpret this as, "we're learning more about the connections between Iraq and al Queda". How you get "9.11" out of this I will never know.

Quote:

Since you also seem to like to quote Mr. Clarke, here's a few more quotes from him:

I have actually changed my opinion of Mr. Clarke since he first hit the national scene. It's interesting that you like to quote primarily from his interview with CBS; the same news organization that has a problem vetting its sources; the same organization that is related to the company that published his book. Nevertheless, let's take some more statements from Mr. Clarke but use a more unbiased source - the 9.11 Report:
"Clarke commented that Iraq and Libya had previously discussed hosting Bin Ladin, though he and his staff had their doubts that Bin Ladin would trust secular Arab dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Muammar Qadhafi." - p.125

"[Clarke] wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin’s having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.” Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually impossible” to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared. Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight, but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and “Pak[istan’s] intel[ligence service] is in bed with” Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: “Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.” Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight." - p.134

Quote:

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

"Roger Cressey, Clarke’s deputy, recalls this exchange with the President and Clarke concerning Iraq shortly after 9/11, but did not believe the President’s manner was intimidating." - p.559

Quote:

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

It's interesting that you would quote this, since Clarke's position is disproved in the same episode of 60 Minutes. Clarke asserts three times that the memo came back to him saying "Wrong answer... Do it again." Yet, later, Stahl produces the memo and says, "So he's [Stephen Hadley] not denying the President asked for another review, nor is he denying that Clarke wrote a memo stating once again that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. In fact the White House showed us the memo dated September 18th. As Clarke said, it was bounced back. The notation reads, 'Please update and resubmit,' and it was written by Steven Hadley."

Perhaps Mr. Clarke also has trouble reading more into what is not there?

Quote:

Again you seem to believe that Bush couldn't have implied a link between Iraq and 9/11 without saying the exact words "Iraq was involved with 9/11".

If your interpretation of "imply" is using various words in the same speech or even paragraph then there's nothing I can say. Again, I ask why you don't believe Bush was making a connection between Iran and 9.11?

Quote:

Iraq wasn't a threat to the US.
Where's the proof of Iraq being the centre of terrorist operations and the huge support it gave to terrorists who threatened the US?

No one ever said that Iraq was a center of terrorist operations (before the war), nor that it gave "huge" support. Iraq did fund terrorists, did have terrorist training camps, did harbor terrorists and provide asylum, did maintain its ability to produce chemical and biological weapons, and did not like the US. As I've quoted so many times in the past, virtually everyone on the planet considered Iraq a threat before the US said we should do something about it.

Quote:

Iraq didn't have wmd. Whether they wanted to have or not is speculation, but they did not have wmd.

According to Iraqi documents uncovered by the Iraq Survey Group (who also found starter colonies of biological weapons), Iraq clearly intented on restarting its weapons programmes after the international heat was off.

Quote:

"Posed a risk that she would give or sell these weapons to terrorists."
You mean these imaginary weapons? So they may have wanted wmd, and if they at some point had gotten them, they might have sold them to bad people? Sounds very solid proof....

Well, unlike Europe, I'm not comfortable waiting until a couple million people die before I think others might find the means to carry out an attack.

Quote:

As I said earlier, the speeches are written (or at least edited) by professionals. Do you think it's a mistake that all the things are mentioned in the same speeches over and over again until the audience is confused enough?

No. Do I think it's my responsibility to understand what I read and what I hear? Yes. Is it anyone else's responsibility? I don't see how it can be since no one else can do my thinking for me.

Quote:

Iran and North Korea have been mentioned a few times, but Iraq is mentioned all the time. And mentioning these things in the same speech over and over and over again is implying there's a link between them.

Please. Iraq was mentioned all the time because we wanted them to abide by the UN resolutions, then we were going to attack them, then we attacked them. Iraq has been mentioned so much because we've been dicking around with them for the past 12 years.

Quote:

Well, at least I only accuse someone of lying and misleading people, I don't try to defend an attack of a nation against another sovereign nation.

Yea, okay.

Quote:

2. That is why they sent the inspectors there. The inspectors who didn't find anything. But the US government naturally said the inspectors have done a terrible job, since they didn't find anything....

This is what I don't get about Europe at all. What do you think the inspectors were supposed to do? What do you think their job was?

Quote:

"Now, in hindsight, we find that Iraq was just waiting to reconstitute its chemical and biological weapons programmes"

We do? And like has been said, I wouldn't call an intelligence report of the CIA an objective report.

Great. Then give me a more unbiased report. Give me a report that has spent more time and investigated more sources.

Quote:

3. Now where's the proof of Iraq being the centre of terrorist operations and being the safe harbour of terrorists, especially for those who threatened the US?

I never said Iraq was the center of terrorist operations. How did I imply that? As for Iraq providing safe harbor for terrorist training camps (which is what I actually wrote), the term "ibid" means "the last quoted reference". In this case, the last quoted reference was http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq...ey_Findings.pdf . But you won't believe that report becuase it's from the CIA. So, here are some more (which you won't believe because they're not sufficiently critical of the US): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/khodada.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...salman_pak.htm

Quote:

4. You see those statements as proof of Saddam being a threat to the US?

Yes. Let me make it clear for you: I believe that any government which has WMD, or the ability to make WMD, and hatred for the US is a threat.

Quote:

You claim to objective and say you don't let others do the thinking for you, yet you believe all this crap about Iraq being a threat to the US that was spoonfed to you by your government. (And I'm not talking about the two quotes.)

Have you disproved any of my facts? Why do you continue to ignore the facts that are there?

*Edit - Also, I thought my government was spoonfeeding me crap about Iraq being involved in 9.11?

Quote:

Iraq had no wmd, had no connections to Al Queda, hadn't attacked the US, had nothing to do with 9/11, yet somehow it became the most important issue in your government's war against terrorism that started with the 9/11 attack.

Iraq did, at one point, have WMD. When it no longer had WMD no one knows. Iraq did have connections to al Queda. And no one in the administration ever said Iraq attacked the US or had anything to do with 9.11.

Quote:

Anyone remember Afghanistan, the little country that actually was linked to the attacks? Or Osama Bin Ladin, the man who, unlike Saddam, actually had something to do with the attacks?

What you fail to understand is that the US did not go after Iraq because of al Queda. I know you would like that to be the case because it would be an easy argument to shoot down. What you have to contend with is that the US went after Iraq because: she had not proved she no longer had WMD, she had ties to terrorism, her leadership despised the US, and she would not respond to diplomatic measures. Given all of this, she was a threat to the world and specifically the US. The US believed her to be a threat, and so did virtually every country in the world.

Quote:

Can't you see what's going on here? It had already been acknowledged that Iraq had no ties with Al Queda yet still Cheney implies it did.

When has it been acknowledged that Iraq had no ties with al Queda? Are you getting confused again? Are you mixing up "Iraq had no ties with 9.11" and "Iraq had no ties with al Queda"?

Quote:

And he uses, very deliberately I believe, the word 9/11 in the same sentence. You don't think that statement gives the impression that Iraq had perhaps something to do with the 9/11 attack?

Absolutely not. How much more specific can you get than, "there is no evidence proving the Iraqi regime knew about or took part in the Sept. 11 attacks"? Do you just pick out certain words that you want or do you read entire articles?

Quote:

And they don't say the meeting didn't happen, just that "they don't know". By keeping the rumours alive and giving contradictory information they manage to confuse and mislead people.

Have you considered that, hmmm, maybe they don't know? Would you rather the leadership say one thing because it will avoid confusion and then come out later and say the opposite when they have more information?

Still, given that you're predisposed to look deeper into someone's words than is justified, I'm absolutely confused how you can't look at this reporter's article and not recognize the misdirection.

Quote:

"The panel also dismissed reports that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in the Czech Republic on April 9, 2000. "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred."

Yes?

Quote:

They may have had possibly some ties with the organization before, but not when the US attacked the country. The statement leds to believe otherwise.

Oh. So, it would need to be the day of, day before, year before, what? What time frame has to pass before you can say, "Ahhh, those guys aren't tied anymore"?

Quote:

I thought Afghanistan was "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." But instead he used the statement linked with Iraq (even if he meant the region). They are saying that by securing Iraq they can secure the region. Doesn't that mean the Iraq was the one nation in that region that was the base of "the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." He was talking about Iraq but only added the word region to one place.

Well, I don't read it like that. Especially when Cheney specifically states he's not talking about the people who attacked us. It has always been the position of the administration that the ME is a breeding ground for terrorism and we need to fix it. Bush specifically stated that Afghanistan was not the only place and would not be the last.

As I said at the beginning of this whole thing, you claim that the Bush administration has implied a link between Iraq and 9.11. I have proved that the administration has categorically denied such a link. You place more credence in what was not said, I place more credence in what is said. That's your prerogative.

fatboy · #58 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lulu

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 ?

You're so right, lulu. Now, I see the light. No country should ever invade another without UN approval.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/co....asp?aid=10993

fatboy · #59 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genius

your persistence in standing up for the truth is admirable, fatboy, but it will have no merit, as people like Phunkie and muspell dont care about facts since they just feel so strongly about what they have come to believe.

You're absolutely right, genius. I'm done.

thedevilf · #60 (**permalink**) 11-10-2004, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emsilva

Bush won because he mentions "God" more often than Kerry.

I cant believe that. Look at me im a prophet :meh:, I have come to rule you all and take back our motherland?
[/sarcasm]