Bush Administration Strikes Back

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: conjur

And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

You don't think that was an intentional comment aimed at Americans' fears of Al Qaeda, post-9/11? That is certainly an implication that Iraq had a hand in the 9/11 attacks and was meant to elicit fear that Iraq would be apt to attack us on our soil again (although it never had before.)

Perhaps you've forgotten the statements that have come from former Bush administration members re:Bush's push to find a link between Iraq and 9/11.

I see where you got your name, "conjur".


I think that line says "Iraq has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda."

I am sorry I am ignorant and therefore do not see the clear mention of 9/11 or the implication that Iraq is planning on attacking US soil. I cannot and would not guess if that was meant to imply something of a more specific nature, but apprently you will. Not only that, you will use your perception as justification for your insistence that the people of America were lied to by President Bush. You have his exact words as he addressed the nation and overwhelmingly won their approval. I am asking you to PROVE any of that is a known lie by Bush.

Lets jump ahead to what will happen, you wont find anything, you will disregard the direct questions, you will imply I am a neocon and a sheep, and you will still carry the same misguided view of reality you have today....

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
I print his exact words, and you just want to twist and read things that are not even there. The motives were clear and honest, refute them please if you think you can.

The genius of a good speechwriter is what can be inferred by his/her words. You know darn good and well what those words were meant to do in the minds of the American public: Equate Iraq with culpability in the 9/11 attacks and meld the war on terror with an invasion of Iraq.

Provide me ANY country that was willing to state before the war that Iraq had fully complied to disarmament, and there was no connection between Iraq and any terrorism/terrorists worldwide.

Those are two disparate points. The latter of which being completely irrelevant to the justification for the invasion of Iraq.

You will not find one, in fact you will find the general consensus is the exact opposite. Care to address the corruption being investigated within the Food for OIl Program? Why don't you question the motives of the objectors considering they profitied at the expense of the people they claimed to care so much about......

The Oil-for-Food program has nothing to do with this conversation.

 

[Alistar7]

"Equate Iraq with culpability in the 9/11 attacks and meld the war on terror with an invasion of Iraq."

Once again that is your OPINION of what that MEANT, youre entitled to it but it does not make it fact. I really doubt anyone reading the sentence in question would think that was a direct statement that Iraq was linked to 9/11, or that they were plaaning attacks on US soil.

Harboring/training/supplying terrorists was part of the justification for the war, we have the right to act to protect our nation. His connection to terrorist organizations were well documented, and his desire to attack on US soil was presented to Bush before the war.


I think it's rather comical you don't feel the motives of the 3 major objectors should be questioned, but Bush's words should be individually dissected for inherent/implied/and hidden meanings. The point is there was no LEGITIMATE reasonable objection to removing Saddam other than GREED. The millions that died due to sanctions and the corruption the UN allowed are on their heads as much as Saddams. Our motives were clear, what were theirs?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
"Equate Iraq with culpability in the 9/11 attacks and meld the war on terror with an invasion of Iraq."

Once again that is your OPINION of what that MEANT, youre entitled to it but it does not make it fact. I really doubt anyone reading the sentence in question would think that was a direct statement that Iraq was linked to 9/11, or that they were plaaning attacks on US soil.

Harboring/training/supplying terrorists was part of the justification for the war, we have the right to act to protect our nation. His connection to terrorist organizations were well documented, and his desire to attack on US soil was presented to Bush before the war.


I think it's rather comical you don't feel the motives of the 3 major objectors should be questioned, but Bush's words should be individually dissected for inherent/implied/and hidden meanings. The point is there was no LEGITIMATE reasonable objection to removing Saddam other than GREED. The millions that died due to sanctions and the corruption the UN allowed are on their heads as much as Saddams. Our motives were clear, what were theirs?

If it's just my opinion, then why did the rhetoric work on you:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1019260&arctab=arc&highlight_key=y

Originally posted by: Alistar7
9/11 was an act of terrorism, Iraq has committed acts of terrorism. link.

or maybe here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1005609&arctab=arc&STARTPAGE=6&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

Originally posted by: Alistar7
I don't think for a second after 9/11 the US would have ever let Saddam maintain power. I feel more and more countries will change their position as more evidence , especially those of WMD, comes out of the conflict. This is definitely a regime change.

Originally posted by: Alistar7
unfortunately Saddam's timeline was greatly reduced by 9/11, I'm somewhat baffled by everyones admission he still has WMD, yet their reluctance to stop him from not only using them on his own people and neighboors, but from furnishing them to terorists, his connections are well knwon. Al-Queda is hardly the only group to worry about, there are many more that would be equally happy using WMD on the US. We are not going to let the sheer certainty that Saddam would have no problem morally or physicaly supplying them actually happen.

Originally posted by: Alistar7
The point of the rest of the arguement is the driving force behind America's actions, our unwillingness to allow him any more time to furnish his KNOWN WMD to terrorist groups who might use them AGAINST US.
Had he complied and gotten rid of them previous to 9/11, this wouldn't be happening...

Originally posted by: Alistar7
There are legitimate concerns the WMD he is known to posses could be given to others who would use them against us. I honestly believe if 9/11 had not happened we would not be there, Saddam would be contained and eventaully forced to comply along a uniformly agreed upon timetable, however the knowledge of his links to terrosists, coupled with his complete refusal to comply and destroy or even account for his WMD leaves us little choice other than remove him, or allow him to remain and possibly unleash chemical/biological/nuclear destruction on the world, through his own hands or those he armed.

Originally posted by: Alistar7check out the al-queda/iraq thread and read the interview from the former Iraq military member, then tell me there is no link. That alone justifies US action, we will always reserve the right to defend ourselves, evewn proactively if needed.

 

[Alistar7]

What do my opinions have to do with what you think he MEANT or what was IMPLIED by that statement? So far you have dodged the direct questions, tried labeling me in some way, sounds like I was right on target, lol, thanks for being so predictable...

Of course 9/11 had an effect on the way Iraq was viewed, especially in relation to their sponsorship of terrorism, but you are still reading way too much into a very simple and truthfull statement....

 

[Alistar7]

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

No mention of 9/11, no mention of known impending Iraq terrorist attacks on US soil (even though they were advised that was the case by Russia). Tell me what part of that statement is NOT TRUE in light of what was thought before the war.

 

[chrisms]

Sounds like a good movie title

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: TheBDB
BAaaaaaaaaa

What is sad is there really are simple-minded Bush-hating sheep on this forum....but I'm not one of them, which only shows your lack of intelligence.

I readily admit, I am not an expert on the political stances of every poster on P&N. If that's your gauge of intelligence, well, then, I just don't know what to tell you other than to unplug.

Nevertheless, the whole point of the article is that people refuse to believe anything other than that Bush lied even when faced with evidence to the contrary...then you chime in and give a perfect example. It was too ironic for me to pass up.

Wow you are making yourself look worse by the minute. What does "It is always ironic when this administration bitches about someone misleading people about something" have to do with me refusing to believe anything other than Bush lied? I never even said Bush lied in my statement, much less that I refused to believe anything else. Jumping to conclusions is something you need to work on.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

No mention of 9/11, no mention of known impending Iraq terrorist attacks on US soil (even though they were advised that was the case by Russia). Tell me what part of that statement is NOT TRUE in light of what was thought before the war.

Saddam has never aided, trained, nor harbored Al Qaeda operatives.

Where do you come up with this crap?

The only Al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to 9/11 was the camp under Kurdish control (protected by the U.S. no-fly zone.) Rather intriguing that the U.S. has been allied with the Kurds but yet the Kurds allowed Al Qaeda to flourish in their area.

The posts of yours I pointed show you trying to intimate a correlation between 9/11 and Iraq. That is just not the case. Nor will it ever be the case.

And, if you don't see that this administration was trying to do the same with the way the speeches were worded, you're really quite the blind person. Of course they were worded so as to give themselves "plausible deniability" but we all know what Bush was trying to do: equate Saddam and Iraq with Al Qaeda.

I should know. I fell for that deception last year. Remember?

 

[SuperTool]

Bush keeps striking back at reality and common sense. It's the media's fault that they don't buy into his too good to be true fairy tales.