FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Hark! What do I hear on CNN? (Page 0)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Hark! What do I hear on CNN?
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
Chris, those are good questions... so I shall climb off my high horse of conservative arrogance long enough to give you what I think the answers to them are. [Wink]

>Where is the proof that nothing but immediate attack would do?

They were in near constant violation of their cease-fire agreement for pretty much 12 years running. How much time is necessary before you beat the snot out of the punk who will not quit throwing rocks at you and publically offers bounties for harm against you... (to be continued)

>Where is the proof that we were right to abandon diplomacy, flip off the U.N., and pull the inspectors away from their jobs?

...when all the police will do is levy fines at him that his parents just pay and he therefore utterly ignores?

>Where is the proof that we were right to squander the goodwill we had after 9/11 and shift the attention to Iraq?

Where is the proof (or any evidence at all) that Hussein had paid *any* attention to the international sanctions or repeated UN and American warnings whatsoever?

>Where is the proof that we were right to strike first?

We didn't strike first. Gulf War II was not a new war but rather the final campaign of Gulf War I in response to repeated and continual violations of cease fire agreements and UN resolutions.

>Where is the proof that we were right to try to hold a warring country without sufficient numbers or a thought-out exit strategy?

Where is the proof that we do not have sufficient numbers or an exit strategy? Op-eds do not count.

Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kayla
Member
Member # 2403

 - posted      Profile for Kayla   Email Kayla         Edit/Delete Post 
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040702/wl_nm/iraq_poland_weapons_dc

quote:

In Baghdad, the U.S. military issued a statement saying that two 122 mm rockets found by Polish forces had tested positive for sarin gas and confirmed that they were left over from the Iran-Iraq war, but said they posed little danger.

The statement said an Iraqi civilian had led the soldiers to the rockets in the town of Hilla, 62 miles south of Baghdad on June 16.

"Due to the deteriorated state of the rounds and small quantity of remaining agent, these rounds were determined to have limited to no impact if used by insurgents against Coalition Forces," the statement said.



Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Kinda like Cheney popping up every few months to disinform/feed the "Saddam caused 9/11" crowd.
OK, can ANYONE show me anywhere where a Bush administration official has claimed that Iraq supported the planning or commission of the 9/11 terrorist acts in any way?

Anyone?

I would hold my breath, but since no one has been able to meet this challenge before I won't bother.

Dagonee
P.S., please don't post links of someone saying because of 9/11 we need to think about terrorism in a different way, or that there were contacts between al-Queda and Iraq.

[ July 02, 2004, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BYuCnslr
Member
Member # 1857

 - posted      Profile for BYuCnslr   Email BYuCnslr         Edit/Delete Post 
Sure, but that leaves one very big question. Why would he have created the weapons? It wouldn't have been in his interest to create and distribute any WMDs. And while he was a ruthless dictator, he is practical, he does whatever gives him power. He attacked Kuwait because he saw them as a possible source of oil, and days before he invaded, his ambassador asked the US ambassador whether or not there would be any reprocussions, and the US ambassador gave them no impression that the United States would act the way it did, in other words: He only attacked when he saw no emminant danger.

And a government compensating the families of dead soldiers (for that what they see their suicide attackers as) is nothing new, pretty much all governments do it, we compensate the families of our soldiers that have died in war, Saddam sees the need to compensate the families of those that died while attacking the Western World, the only thing different is that they're attacking us, but I digress.

The UN team in Iraq has always said that there are no more signs of WMD development in Iraq, and so far, we still can't find any proof otherwise, I really doubt that if we didn't attack Saddam would have started up already, especially with the weapons inspectors still in the country. It wasn't in his interest. To go onto a further tangent, even if Iraq did start to make WMDs again, I'm of the school that believes it's better to know who your enemies are, and taking them out would have most deffinantly drove anybody developing them further into hiding, or those that would have bought from Iraq to build their own instead, after all anybody with a bit of education can do it, hell if a teenager has the ability to develop a nuclear reactor, surely a terrorist can build a bomb. In my eyes, all this did was make people hate the US even more, undercut the authority of the UN, and push the real threats further underground...and we're only starting the feel the repercussions of what this Administration did, the worse is yet to come, I just hope our intellegence is good enough to stop it all before this comes back and slaps us in the face.
Satyagraha

Posts: 1986 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BYuCnslr
Member
Member # 1857

 - posted      Profile for BYuCnslr   Email BYuCnslr         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney
"I have argued in the past, and would again, if we had been able to pre-empt the attacks of 9/11 would we have done it? And I think absolutely. We have to be prepared now to take the kind of bold action that's being contemplated with respect to Iraq in order to ensure that we don't get hit with a devastating attack when the terrorists' organization gets married up with a rogue state that's willing to provide it with the kinds of deadly capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed and used over the years."
Source: Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing terrorists who would attack the United Stateswith weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligene Estimate, the intelligence community had "low confidence" in that scenario, and Iraq appeared to be "drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" against the United States for fear of providing cause for war.

quote:

Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney
"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11."
Source: Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004).
Explanation: This statement is misleading because it describes a Czech government report of a meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraq intelligence official Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani in April 2001 and states that there hasn’t been more information on that, despite the fact that Czech intelligence officials were skeptical about the report; U.S. intelligence had contradictory evidence regarding this report, such as records indicating Atta was in Virginia at the time of the meeting; and the C.I.A. and F.B.I. had concluded the meeting probably didn’t occur.

quote:

Statement by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
"MS. RICE: There is plenty to indict Saddam Hussein without a direct link to 9/11. He clearly has links to terrorism. QUESTION: All right. And links to terrorism would include al Qaeda? I just want to be certain. MS. RICE: Links to terrorism would include al Qaeda, yes."
Source: Fox News Sunday, Fox News (9/15/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it asserted that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

I've got many more too, while the Bush Administration has never specifically said that there is a link between al-Qaeda, they most definantly tried to say there was a link.
Want more? Iraq on the Record: Presented by the US House Committee on Government Reform.
Satyagraha

Posts: 1986 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
Why is the US allied with Saudi Arabia when they violate human rights?

Articles-

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0321-02.htm

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
slacker
Member
Member # 2559

 - posted      Profile for slacker   Email slacker         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm still waiting for the link from CNN or a major news outlet about the weapons find that Ryan was talking about (I searched their site and can't find anything about it).

[ July 02, 2004, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: slacker ]

Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
So in other words, no, they didn't say Iraq was involved with 9/11.

Just checking.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Insanity Plea
Member
Member # 2053

 - posted      Profile for Insanity Plea   Email Insanity Plea         Edit/Delete Post 
Dag, stop being nit picky, of course they didn't say there weren't, it would have been political suicide. However, anybody with any sort of intelelgence (including you, because I know you have quite a bit) knows that it doesn't take saying something outright to convince people something, and it is quite obvious that they wanted to convince the public that Saddam did have something to do with the September 11th attacks, they went as close to saying it as they could without saying it. For instance:

quote:

Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney
"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there."
Source: Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

quote:

Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney
"QUESTION: When I was in Iraq, some of the soldiers said they believed they were fighting because of the Sept. 11 attacks and because they thought Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaida. You've repeatedly cited such links. . . . I wanted to ask you what you'd say to those soldiers, and were those soldiers misled at all? VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: . . . . With respect to . . . the general relationship. . . . One place you ought to go look is an article that Stephen Hayes did in the Weekly Standard . . . That goes through and lays out in some detail, based on an assessment that was done by the Department of Defense and forwarded to the Senate Intelligence Committee some weeks ago. That's your best source of information. I can give you a few quick for instances, one the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. QUESTION: Yes, sir . . . . VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: The main perpetrator was a man named Ramzi Yousef. He's now in prison in Colorado. His sidekick in the exercise was a man named Abdul Rahman Yasin. . . Ahman Rahman . . . Yasin is his last name anyway. I can't remember his earlier first names. He fled the United States after the attack, the 1993 attack, went to Iraq, and we know now based on documents that we've captured since we took Baghdad, that they put him on the payroll, gave him a monthly stipend and provided him with a house, sanctuary, in effect, in Iraq, in the aftermath of nine-ele (sic) . . . the 93' attack on the World Trade Center. QUESTION: So you stand by the statements? VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Absolutely. Absolutely. And you can look at Zarkawi, (Abu Mussab) al-Zarkawi . . . Who was an al-Qaida associate, who was wounded in Afghanistan, took refuge in Baghdad, working out of Baghdad, worked with the Ansar al Islam group up in northeastern Iraq, that produced a so-called poison factory, a group that we hit when we went into Iraq. . . . We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions."
Source: Transcript of interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it asserted that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. The statement also refers to the Ansar al Islam group in Northeastern Iraq without acknowledging that this area was not controlled by Saddam Hussein.

quote:

Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney
"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11."
Source: Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004).
Explanation: This statement is misleading because it describes a Czech government report of a meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraq intelligence official Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani in April 2001 and states that there hasn’t been more information on that, despite the fact that Czech intelligence officials were skeptical about the report; U.S. intelligence had contradictory evidence regarding this report, such as records indicating Atta was in Virginia at the time of the meeting; and the C.I.A. and F.B.I. had concluded the meeting probably didn’t occur.

And plenty more. Whether or not they actually said that there was a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq doesn't matter in this case, what does matter is they sure did try damn hard to convince people that there was.
Satyagraha
Satyagraha

Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post 
Dag, they implied it so strongly that at one point more than half of all Americans thought there was a direct link... Even today It's probably around 1/3.

-Bok

Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
Jim-Me - none of the responses you gave me answered my essential question: not why, why then?

Yes, he'd taunted us for 12 years. Yes, he was an evil dictator that rode his country like a tired horse. Yes, there are as many reasons to bring him down as anyone could ever need.

But we had just - just - been attacked on our own soil by terrorists. Terrorists with no connection to Saddam. We went after them in Afghanistan, took out their bases of operations but missed the leaders. Most of the world was on our side, we had an unparalleled opportunity to build a strong task force against terrorism, one that could cross boundaries and show that terrorism of any kind will not be tolerated.

Instead it was somehow imperative that this particular dictator be attacked, right then. This one, not the others that still exist and operate without even the sanctions against them. This one, even though investigators had more freedom and strength to search his country than at any other time. This one, even though it pissed off a good chunk of the world because of the heavy-handed way we went about it. This one, even though our surplus was gone and our debts were rising. This one, not a country we knew for a fact has a nuclear program and was making threats. This one, even though it pulled forces away from Afghanistan which slid quickly back into warring factions.

I do not and have not said that bringing Saddam down is a bad idea. But the war was sold to us by a fast talker that convinced us we had to go right now, no delays, and we agreed, and now I'm still waiting to find out what the damn hurry was. Why was attacking Saddam more important than finishing the job in Afghanistan, using our international support to ferret out al Queda pockets, and using the money spent to instead prop up our economy?

[ July 02, 2004, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alai's Echo
Member
Member # 3219

 - posted      Profile for Alai's Echo           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
OK, can ANYONE show me anywhere where a Bush administration official has claimed that Iraq supported the planning or commission of the 9/11 terrorist acts in any way?

Anyone?

I would hold my breath, but since no one has been able to meet this challenge before I won't bother.

Dagonee
P.S., please don't post links of someone saying because of 9/11 we need to think about terrorism in a different way, or that there were contacts between al-Queda and Iraq.

In other words, you aren't going to admit that on multiple occasions, Bush and others blatantly and wantonly mentioned Iraq and al Qaeda in such a manner as to imply far more than just mentioning the two as facts. There are numerous occasions where Bush plainly mentioned the two in a manner linking them as responsible for 9/11.

As follows:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
quote:
Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: About the nature of the threat. About the urgency of action -- and why be concerned now? About the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror.
Just the tip on the iceberg of implications made in just this speech alone.

Later

quote:
And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliances with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Bush is claiming post-hoc here that Hussein celebrated the 'success' of the 9/11 attacks as verification that he could supply al Qaeda and other groups with chemical and biological weapons. Bush forgot to mention that not only was there no alliance between Iraq and al Qaeda, but that al Qaeda hated the Baath party, and repeatedly raged against it. Also, with the exception of a few traitorous members of the party, the Baath regime was completely at odds with al Qaeda.

But let's continue with the speech.
quote:
Some citizens wonder: After 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now?

There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people.Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

So, because of 9/11, which Iraq was not involved in, we need to attack Iraq to prevent another 9/11-like attack? How is Bush not making an obvious connection here? Because he's not saying the exact phrase "Iraq collaberated on 9/11" for you to claim legal purjory? It's okay to defend if he's only implying, and not saying it in a manner that would later get him tried and removed from office, right?

But let's not stop there. To continue...
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2003/05/17/89888-ap.html
quote:
"With the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan, we have removed allies of al-Qaida, cut off sources of terrorist funding, and made certain that no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime," he said.
Once again with the placing the two strategically close.

What is the point where constantly strategically placing two unrelated things in a manner which are used to make them seem related stops becoming "not SAYING it.... outright," and begins being a lie?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021005.html
quote:
Iraq has longstanding ties to terrorist groups, which are capable of and willing to deliver weapons of mass death. And Iraq is ruled by perhaps the world's most brutal dictator who has already committed genocide with chemical weapons, ordered the torture of children, and instituted the systematic rape of the wives and daughters of his political opponents.

We cannot leave the future of peace and the security of America in the hands of this cruel and dangerous man. This dictator must be disarmed. And all the United Nations resolutions against his brutality and support for terrorism must be enforced.

Once again, "Iraq has ties with terrorists, look at evil things Iraq has done." Without saying it outright, he once again places Iraq and "terrorists" (euphemism for al Qaeda) in the same argument for the same thing.

But it gets a little more blatant.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030208.html
quote:
One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad.

Of course, a report from the 9/11 Commission conclusively states that there were no ties between the Baathists and al Qaeda as described above.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030503.html
quote:
The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that still goes on. al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist networks still operate in many nations. And we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend our homeland and, more importantly, we will continue to hunt the enemy down before he can strike.
The Iraq War is but one battle in the fight against terror, then right to "al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed." Can you get any more blatant with the innuendo than that?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020928.html
quote:
The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year
Iraq is a danger to our allies. al Qaeda is in Iraq. These people will have a nuke in a year.

The funniest part? When confronted with the conclusion of the 9/11 commission, Bush states defensively:
quote:
He said: "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of Al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two."
He's using the very same "I didn't SAY it like that" defense, even though I clearly showed his habit of putting 9/11 side-by-side with Iraqi relations with al Qaeda, often within the same sentence. We can qibble for hours or days about whether he really said "9/11 was helped by Iraq" or not in exactly those words, but the citations above, as well as dozens more that can be found on official speeches by the president on whitehouse.gov as well as other sources throughout the web, clearly show Bush using 9/11 in a direct causal relationship as an argument for going to war with Iraq. If you seriously think that he was not creating a direct causal relationship with his statements, I question both your understanding of the English language and your sanity.

I wish I had a video clip of the interview the day following the commission report, when Cheney was asked why he claimed an Iraq/al Qaeda alliance in connection with 9/11, which he replied very forcefully that he never said such a thing. Right after that clip, an earlier recording from the previous year was played, where Cheney directly stated that there was a link between Iraq and al Qaeda with 9/11. However, I don't have TIVO and I seriously doubt the two clips are circulating the web together. It's amazing how deep denial can go in human beings.

Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
Googling Cheney Saddam 9/11 pops up 250thousand articles, Dagonee.

[ July 03, 2004, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fishtail
Member
Member # 3900

 - posted      Profile for Fishtail   Email Fishtail         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Googling Cheney Saddam 9/11 pops up 250thousand articles, Dagonee.
This proves absolutely nothing, aspectre, if you know how Google works.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
OK, folks. Listen up. The working thesis of the Bush administration was that A) iraq had WMDs. B) Iraq hates us because we kicked them out of Kuwait. C) Iraq has associated with the same organization who drove 3 airplanes into buldings to kill 3,000 people. D) Iraq might give the weapons mentioned in A to the organization mentioned in C for the motive listed in B. E) If he did, the carnage in a 9/11-scale attack would be even greater.

Granted, the intelligence on WMDs was wrong. However, the argument above cannot be made without mentioning Iraq (or Sadaam), Al-Queda, and 9/11 in the same paragraph. Show how the quoted administration remarks (not the intelligence) were inconsistent with this thesis and you may have something.

It's a hell of a lot more plausible argument than Iraq has oil, Bush and Cheney worked for an oil company, therefore we invaded because of oil.

Dagonee

[ July 03, 2004, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
As far as I can tell, we have no evidence of Iraq ever giving weapons to terrorists, or supporting them beyond possible monetary contributions to families of terrorist attackers.

Given that there are numerous countries we have evidence of giving far more support, the use of this argument as a motivation for attack on Iraq would seem specious.

Its like supposing that the guy down the street who occasionally gives the drug dealers some candy is going to hook them up with an arsenal of automatic weaponry.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
And your "its a lot more plausible" shtick is a false dichotomy. There's also the choice that the Bush admin didn't like Iraq, (correctly) thought Iraq was a thorn in the US's, and in particular the administration's side, and that the War on Terror gave a semi-plausible reason for taking them on (despite the relatively small connection between Iraq and terrorists) provided they hyped the "evidence" enough regardless of its doubtful origins and leaps of unsubstantiated connection.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
It's not 'possible' contributions to families. It was rather public, Fugu.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fishtail
Member
Member # 3900

 - posted      Profile for Fishtail   Email Fishtail         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
we have no evidence of Iraq ever giving weapons to terrorists, or supporting them beyond possible monetary contributions to families of terrorist attackers.
This is not true.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry, I was intending to emphasize the non-certainty of the situation, you're correct, we know of certain contributions to families.

Care to cite evidence for anything else, Fishtail?

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Promethius
Member
Member # 2468

 - posted      Profile for Promethius           Edit/Delete Post 
It bothers me that people blame Bush for this war. It was voted and approved by the house. Bush acted on the same intelligence the house of reps and senate had. And we have already discussed all of this so much. Nobody convinces anyone differently.

Edit- What was the first post talking about? The only thing I have seen on CNN is a weapons stash that was found with some Iraqi currency. But they didnt say anything about WMD's. I dunno if this is the same story or not.

[ July 03, 2004, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Promethius ]

Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
The war was sprang on the House and Senate post 9/11. They truly believed at the time that striking Iraq and rallying behind the president was the right thing to do.
It's just like passing the Patriot Act. Many did not read it. Many were caught up in the post 9/11 shock and alarm.
Really, it would have been better if they had used some sort of forethought and courage (Democrats) and said no to Bush's foolish war.

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Considering that the much of the evidence presented the Congress was filtered through the Bush administration, and that furthermore a lot of it was merely given on the word of the Bush administration without the Congress seeing the evidence itself (the yellowcake evidence is one prominent example), I think its fair to say you're glossing the situation with too broad a brush. Even the national security committee members that get to see more stuff than other members of congress have come out and say the evidence they saw was not presented in a proper context, with the high uncertainty associated with it, but was instead presented as solid evidence.

Furthermore, the act of Congress you're referring to did not declare war, it gave Bush the discretion to make war. The decision to actually do so is still firmly on his head, he merely convinced Congress enough to free him to make the decision. Remember, Congress is perfectly able to declare war. If it wanted to, it could have. It did not, it left the decision in the hands of a person with more access to evidence than they.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Syn -- almost no Congressman who voted for the PATRIOT act (who did not propose it) read it. It was dropped in the box the previous night and voted on the next day. Understanding the implications of an act that large in a day isn't possible.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And your "its a lot more plausible" shtick is a false dichotomy.
I didn't mean only one or the other could be true, or that both couldn't be false. I simply meant that it's a hell of a lot less misleading than some of the attacks on Bush have been.

I'm sorry if I can't get upset because the Bush administration didn't dispel misunderstandings about the clear language of what they were saying to your satisfaction.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alai's Echo
Member
Member # 3219

 - posted      Profile for Alai's Echo           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
OK, folks. Listen up. The working thesis of the Bush administration was that A) iraq had WMDs. B) Iraq hates us because we kicked them out of Kuwait. C) Iraq has associated with the same organization who drove 3 airplanes into buldings to kill 3,000 people. D) Iraq might give the weapons mentioned in A to the organization mentioned in C for the motive listed in B. E) If he did, the carnage in a 9/11-scale attack would be even greater.

Granted, the intelligence on WMDs was wrong. However, the argument above cannot be made without mentioning Iraq (or Sadaam), Al-Queda, and 9/11 in the same paragraph. Show how the quoted administration remarks (not the intelligence) were inconsistent with this thesis and you may have something.

It's a hell of a lot more plausible argument than Iraq has oil, Bush and Cheney worked for an oil company, therefore we invaded because of oil.

First off, no one here has argued that oil argument in this thread, and your bringing it up as any kind of defense to the posts disputing your claim that Bush/Cheney didn't link Iraq and al Qaeda with 9/11 is a blatant straw man. You're bringing up a completely unrelated argument that was not used against you here to strengthen your own argument.

Second, did you even read the quotes I gave? There are even more statements in the links, and more on links I haven't even given. The "thesis" is pretty simple to anyone who has a high-school reading level. But since you are being so intentionally obtuse (because he didn't actually SAY THOSE WORDS outright, just implied them repeatedly)...

_________________________________________

A yard has ants, slugs, and weeds.

The house in the yard recently dealt with an ant infestation. Ew.

The owner wants to get rid of the yard pests.
_________________________________________

Recently, the house experienced a horrible attack by ants. The house has been cleared of them, but the threat remains.

We don't want another attack like this, so we must take action. We have evidence that the weeds facilitate the ants. We must clear the weeds, because we don't want another attack like the recent one. The ants probably fed off the slugs. We must kill off the slugs, because we do not want another ant attack. We must terminate the ants and all of their allies, to prevent another attack like the recent infestation.

________________________________________

In the above statement, a pretty clear association between the ants, weeds, and slugs was made. Also in the association, the infestation was mentioned. As a means to prevent another infestation, the recent ant infestation is constantly brought up in direct correlation with both the weeds and the slugs. The weeds are mentioned to have facilitated the ants, and that we must destroy them to prevent another attack. Providing the causal relationship and then using the word "another" in the same statement is important here, because without actually saying it, I've tied the weeds in with the recent ant infestation as active facilitators. Ants and slugs do not coexist in a friendly manner, in case you were wondering. However, by mentioning one of the possible situations between the two--with ants attacking, killing, and devouring some slugs--in such a manner as to imply a relationship, I am not lying outright by saying flatly that slugs and ants are working together. Instead, I am deftly placing the two in a causal situation that can imply a relationship without saying "there is a relationship."

This is what Bush and Cheney did repeatedly throughout speeches and statements in 2002 and 2003. They would mentione Iraq, then switch to 9/11 or al Qaeda, then mention that Iraq was either working together with al Qaeda or that Iraq was harboring the 9/11 terrorists. Always, a causal relationship was implied by not only placing Iraq and al Qaeda in the same sentence, but by placing those two in the same sentence as 9/11 in a manner like the following: Iraq-al Qaeda-9/11-Iraq. It was always in a manner to imply that Iraq was partially culpable in the 9/11 tragedy. Imply, but not accuse outright. Imply, but not commit a statement that they could not substantiate with proof.

And it worked. Numerous surveys taken at the end of 2002 showed between 60 to 75 percent (possibly more) of the United States believing that Iraq played a part in 9/11. This is not just an example of the public being stupid and uninformed, either. By examining the constant statements inside of speeches made by the president and other members of his administration, the source for such a high percentage of the public believing this fallacy is fairly obvious. With the president and his administration constantly making causal statements between Iraq and al Qaeda using 9/11 as an example, it is easy to see how the incorrect picture was formed without having a single administrator saying "Iraq helped in 9/11" outright.

It is more of a stretch to try to paint their "Iraq is bad; al Qaeda is bad; Iraq helps al Qaeda; remember 9/11; let's go to war with Iraq" statements as not trying to imply Iraq as an accomplice to the worst attack on US soil in the last century. Had Bush and Cheney and others only used this technique once or twice or so in their numerous speeches, it could easily be argued that they didn't mean it. But since this is a constant, recurring, and consistent habit for them in all of their speeches and statements to press, it can hardly be attributed to accidental associative mentioning. There was nothing accidental about placing the Iraq-al Qaeda-9/11-War with Iraq connection when lobbying for sanction to conduct war.

Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
What he said outright repeatedly is the thesis I outlined. Explain how he could advance that thesis without mentioning them together.

Dagonee

edit:

quote:
Recently, the house experienced a horrible attack by ants. The house has been cleared of them, but the threat remains.

We don't want another attack like this, so we must take action. We have evidence that the weeds facilitate the ants. We must clear the weeds, because we don't want another attack like the recent one. The ants probably fed off the slugs. We must kill off the slugs, because we do not want another ant attack. We must terminate the ants and all of their allies, to prevent another attack like the recent infestation.

But what he really said was:

We don't want another attack like this, so we must take action. We have evidence that the weeds facilitate the ants. We must clear the weeds, because we don't want another attack like the recent one.The slugs also don't like us, and could make the ants' future attacks more dangerous. The danger posed by the slugs is one we have tried to eradicate peacefully for 12 years. We must kill off the slugs, because we do not want another ant attack to utilize the means we believe the slugs to have. We must terminate the ants and all of their allies, to prevent another attack like the recent infestation.

[ July 03, 2004, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alai's Echo
Member
Member # 3219

 - posted      Profile for Alai's Echo           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'm sorry if I can't get upset because the Bush administration didn't dispel misunderstandings about the clear language of what they were saying to your satisfaction.
Wow, what a sickening statement.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Wow, what dumb thing to say.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alai's Echo
Member
Member # 3219

 - posted      Profile for Alai's Echo           Edit/Delete Post 
No, I'm done trying to show you that they lied through implication and omission. You know full well what they did, but are using legal-ese to defend the statements with the juvenile "didn't SAY IT outright!" defense. Yes, you are correct, they never said those exact words that would have implicated them in a scandal. They instead used deceptive measures in their statements to place A and B in a causal relationship to C. In other words, they used Iraq and al Qaeda in a causal relationship to 9/11, as a justification to go to war with Iraq. It's been quoted, outlined, and shown how it was done, and all you can say to defend it is still the "didn't say it outright" defense. While that may be fine in a courtroom, can you seriously say that you do not see the pattern of causal association being placed within each mention of Iraq and al Qaeda?

That is what makes me sick. Sick enough to really not want to bother arguing it with you any longer. You are not going to change your mind because you have no desire to change it or admit your mistake. That's fine, but that just means this is an exercise in futility.

Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Right, because there's certainly no way you're wrong, right?

Edit: I'm not attempting to say, "They didn't say it outright." I'm saying they said something else, something similar but with a very crucial difference.

Accept for a second the thesis I've outlined is the one the administration attempted to advance. Please explain how any of those statements are inconsistent with it. Just because you refuse to accept a subtle but important difference in meaning doesn't mean it's not there.

Go ahead, dismiss it as legalese. It's the accepted way to accuse someone of saying something other than what they said.

Dagonee
Edit: And you really should stop trying to restate other people's positions. You're very bad at it. Believe it or not, you have to actually read what others say in order to refute it.

[ July 03, 2004, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Insanity Plea
Member
Member # 2053

 - posted      Profile for Insanity Plea   Email Insanity Plea         Edit/Delete Post 
Dagonee: The way you stated Bush's justification for going to war in Iraq is because Saddam was a known supporter of terrorists, we should go after him. If that is the case, I fail to see why he hasn't continued to go after more Middle Eastern countries such as Sudan and Saudi Arabia. Instead I would like to present a completely new hypothesis that isn't the one stated by the Administraction, nor is it a war for oil. Instead, I think it Bush is taking this war something akin (but not completely as) a personal vendetta (to be explained lower), and a just war that he has been made president to wage.

First, I'll state why this can't be a war for oil: it costs too much. To put it bluntly, it'll take us decades to recover the cost of what we've spent in waging this war even if we milked Iraq dry.

Instead, I'd say the reason for this war is the exact reasons Bush has laid out. To him, he is doing just as he says, he honestly believes that he is doing the right thing in unilaterally declaring war on a nation and completely rendering international law moot in an act of defiance to the United Nations and attacking a sovereign nation unprovoked. And that is what I'm against. Yes it is a good thing that Saddam has been removed from power. Yes, it had to happen sometime. However, it was not right to do it without the approval of the international community. However, I digress.

As I stated, I think president Bush honestly believes that he is doing completely justified. He believes he is using his chance at power to do what he thinks is right, and I do respect that quality in him...however, I also see him as deeply misinformed and blind to the common man, that's why I don't like him, I have deep fundimental disagreements with what he is doing. This man has thrown away 50 years of international law and peace. The human world is made up of laws that keep some sort of order. We were at an impass at a chance for taking the next step towards global peace, and instead of grabbing that chance...he struck it away and threw humanity a few rungs down the social ladder and told the world that international law does not matter.
Satyagraha

Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
First, none of those countries have WMDs - that was what made the invasion necessary short of actual terrorists on the ground (assuming there had been some - I'm talking about what was known at the time). Second, Saudi, at least, is not officially sponsoring terror, at least not from the whole government. I think it's perfectly valid to say that in one instance war is appropriate and in the other, where there is hope, to work with parts of the government to stop the sponsoring. As far as Sudan goes, we have humanitarian grounds to go in right now, but not the manpower or equipment to do it alone.

There are some very colorable legal arguments that the invasion was justified under international law. I've posted them before in the form of briefs from England, Australia, and the U.S. on the subject. There's no international body able to adjudicate such matters, so there's no better way to resolve it than to say, "You're wrong!" "No, you're wrong!"

I would have preferred a larger coalition. I think Bush Sr. could have gotten one under these circumstances. But with the way veto power is allocated, I do not think Security Council approval is needed for every use of military force. Had the Soviets not been boycotting when North Korea invaded South Korea, the U.S. would have had to go without UN approval, and it would have been the right thing to do.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Insanity Plea
Member
Member # 2053

 - posted      Profile for Insanity Plea   Email Insanity Plea         Edit/Delete Post 
And I'd still hold to the fact that laws are laws and need to be followed. You're studying to be a lawyer, you know that.
Satyagraha

Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
I do. I'm contending that the laws were followed in this case.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
This is the theory that President Bush set out.

1) The US is vulnerable to attacks from Terrorist groups. (Proven by 9/11)
2) Hussein does not like the US (Proven by Hussein's speaches and attacks on US planes)
3) Hussein has WMD. (BAD INTELLIGENCE that should have been obvious, but was overlooked because of a desire to prove this theory right)
4) Hussein has connections with terrorists including Al-Queda. (Accept for his publicity stunt of giving away small amounts of money to the families of Palestinean suicide bombers, this is BAD INTELLIGENCE that should have been obvious, but was overlooked because of a desire to prove this theory right. I say small amounts because with Iraq's oil revenues, $25,000 is nothing.)

HENCE: Hussein will seek to get revenge on the US by giving Al-Queda WMD that will be used in the US. (There is NO intelligence or evidence supporting this fear.)

In October of 1991 the President of the United States started publically pressuring congress to allow him to go to war with Iraq if needed. Congress was given information based on faulty intelligence and almost crimminally optimisitic descriptions about what the costs of the war and rebuilding after would be.

In the two and a half years since, the faults with that intelligence has come to the surface. The facts are now known. Yet when anyone, Democrat or the occasional Republican, claims that based on these new facts there support of the war has changed, the Presidents administration claims that they have flip-flopped.

Of course they have.

The facts have flip-flopped.

In fact, its the inability to change ones position when new facts are discovered that makes me question either the administrations inability to recognize fact from fiction, or their honesty.

They claimed A.
They claimed if A then B.
Instead we have C.
They respond, B anyway.
Either they don't recognize that C is the fact, not A, or they knew C was the fact, but lied to us about A so they could do B.

It is this type of factual mismanagement that has stirred up the anger of many people. We don't like being lied to and we don't trust a fanatic who won't change his position when the facts used to support that position are proven to be in error.

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Insanity Plea
Member
Member # 2053

 - posted      Profile for Insanity Plea   Email Insanity Plea         Edit/Delete Post 
But how can you say international law has been followed, it is acting unilaterally that is against international law. Taken from the Charter of the United Nations:
quote:

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective [u]collective[/u] measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the supression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about [u]by peaceful means[/u], and in in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of internationa...

Article 2
The Organization and its Membvers, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shalla ct in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the [u]sovereign equality[/u] of all its Members...

...3. All Members shall settle their international disuptes by [u]peaceful means[/u] in such ma manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not engangered.

4. All Members shall [u]refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force[/u] against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations...

Article 27
1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.

[u]2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.[/u]

3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

Perhaps I'm reading the language incorrectly (after all I've only had a single year of college education), but it seems to me we didn't follow the laws when we attacked Iraq without Security Council approval.

(edit: failed to provide linkage)
Satyagraha

[ July 03, 2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Insanity Plea ]

Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
First, you need to read the whole document: it does not preclude all use of force.

Second, the briefs laid out a case based on U.N. resolutions for the invasion. It's the rare legal issue that can be resolved by quoting three Articles from a charter.

This link provides a good starting point: http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/Iraq.html.

Dagonee

[ July 03, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Insanity Plea
Member
Member # 2053

 - posted      Profile for Insanity Plea   Email Insanity Plea         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, I have read the entire charter, I just used those three because they do very plainly resolve the issue, actually I only needed one:

quote:

Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

We didn't have the affirmative vote of nine members, thus we weren't allowed to go in.
Satyagraha

Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
No, that assumes that Security Council approval is required for any use of force, something the Charter does not require.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Insanity Plea
Member
Member # 2053

 - posted      Profile for Insanity Plea   Email Insanity Plea         Edit/Delete Post 
If you go by that assumption, then the United Nations Security Council has no reason for existance. Thus effectively removing one of the few entities that provide some source of order in an otherwise chaotic system of near anarchy. Because the United Nations along with it's security council is seens as the overarching governing forum for nation-states, it's rules and decisions should be seen as law because we don't have anything else governing the actions of governments. Thus any action overriding the United Nations is an action overriding the basis of International Law. Mind you, that's my way of interpreting it, obviously you have a different one, while I won't say that you're wrong, I will say that the way I see it would be ideal because it then allows for checks and balances of countries of greater power (such as the US). To compare it to the United States...we wouldn't want California to break off and attack...say...Florida.
Satyagraha

Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know - it could be fun: The Orange Juice Wars.

California could get Idaho as an ally to counter Florida's growing potato production, as well.

Disney and SeaWorld have parks in both states - it'd be brother v. brother.

"No Shamu! He's you're fifth cousin once removed!"

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Insanity Plea
Member
Member # 2053

 - posted      Profile for Insanity Plea   Email Insanity Plea         Edit/Delete Post 
:: laughing very hard ::

It is a good thing I was already lying down in bed when I read that...otherwise i would've fallen off of my chair onto an open power supply and shocked myself on the capacitor (with my luck) and CONTINUED to laugh, as it is I almost dropped my laptop!

I can just imagine hippy surfer dudes going "Hey man...we've all got beaches and waves man...share surf it's all cool." :: giggles :: Only reason I wouldn't be one of them is because I sink...hmm...I should always carry scuba gear around with me whenever I'm near water....ya...
Satyagraha

Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
I didn't misunderstand them at all. They said quite clearly "Iraq almost certainly has WMDs! Iraq is a clear and present danger to the US! Iraq's presence helps the terrorists out significantly!"

I have yet to see that any of these three were true. Would you like to address any of my other points in the several posts I made?

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
No, because they weren't about what I was talking about.

I know there were no WMDs found. I've presented my thesis on the original justification for the war.

Dagonee
Edit: In other words, based on your very last post, the Bush Administration did NOT say that Iraq helped w/ 9/11.

[ July 03, 2004, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blacwolve
Member
Member # 2972

 - posted      Profile for blacwolve   Email blacwolve         Edit/Delete Post 
Even if that was the administration's reasoning as you laid out, it was pathetic. Iraq's support for terrorism that we know about is penny ante compared to several other countries. Iraq's possession of WMD was tenuous at best throughout the entire affair, and multiple experts in the administration knew it, yet weren't listened to.

It was atrocious reasoning, and it represents a failure in their representation of American interests.

[This fugu, btw]

[ July 04, 2004, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: blacwolve ]

Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
That may be. Obviously you and I disagree on that, at least to some extent. I believe Iraq represented a unique nexus of association with terrorists, high potential danger in the type of operation they could support, high potential for success of the mission, and a justification under international law.

But it's impossible to have THAT discussion when people are outright lying about what the administration said, and then storming off because someone refuses to accept their version of reality. (Not you.)

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't see it on google now, but wasn't there a story just a few weeks back showing one of Saddam's lieutenants spent time in Al-Qeida training camps?

I think OSC said it best. Two Dangerous Fantasies about the War

We wanted to knock down all the governments that actively support terrorism. We picked Iraq first cause no one really liked them anyway. It seemed like the best choice politically if not militarily. I don't think anyone could have predicted the war would be such a partisan issue.

As for the WMDs, Saddam ran a good bluff. He needed all his neighbors to think he still had them so they wouldn't attack. He needed to convince everyone he had them. [Dont Know] I just don't follow the reasoning that our intel in a vast and openly hostile bit of the world should have known better.

Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
fugu,

I was in a rush this morning. I didn't mean to dismiss your points, I'm just not prepared to have a discussion on them in depth, so I gave you the outline of what my thinking is.

I'd have to do a lot of research to be able to document all my supporting evidence, and I don't have time to do it justice. I pick the topics I go in depth on partly from how much I know about the primary source material and how to get at it quickly, since I prefer not to post without cites when possible.

You raise good points that need to be addressed by the administration.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
We cool, Dags, we cool [Smile]
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2