Bush linking Iraq to 9/11?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Quite possibly! Which is all the more reason why we have to bust our asses to make sure that we succeed in Iraq. If we "infect" the millions in Iraq with a Western ideological outlook and turn them into a culture where achievement, rights, liberty and self expression are the accepted norm, Iraq could potentially become the hub that "poisons" the rest of the middle east and destroys their hyper-religious collectivist culture.

Note: I think destroying their existing culture is a GOOD thing.

Jason

To hold a culture as old as civilization in such low regard is offensive.

What's more, the idea that you Bushies actually believe anyone is swallowing your ridiculous attempt to bait and switch this massive failure from WMD to helping free those poor oppressed Iraqis isn't flying. Bush bears false witness against his neighbor, invades and destroys a nation which poses NO threat on the grounds of a non-existent manufactured threat, and now you have the nerve to insult the intelligence of the entire planet by attempting to switch the reason behind this illegal aggression from Saddam's WMD threat to the humanitarian ideal of bringing democracy to those poor, oppressed Iraqis we're killing by the thousands.

The first lie was WMD. The second lie is the freedom and democracy crap Bush is using to cover the fact that the first lie has been so thoroughly exposed as to force him and you Bushies to completely abandon it.

Look at the news. That isn't freedom and democracy we've brought to Iraq. It's death, suffering, and terrorism.

Nice job.

Mission Accomplished.

You are fooling no one.

Listen, I know you're not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but the bit about helping to free Iraq's people WAS part of the ORIGINAL statement of intent. Whether it was a GENUINE concern on the part of the administration or not is unknowable, but the fact remains they DID publicize that as *A* motivator. Not the PRIMARY motivator, but A motivator.

As for WMD's, there is no reason in the world (except the wishful thinking of intellectual midgets such as yourself) to believe that it was a "lie" so much as a mistake, as flawed intelligence. I don't see any evidence whatsoever to show that the "freedom and democracy" bit is fraudulent. If it WERE fraudulent we'd take the Bill Clinton route and run for cover every time there is a shot fired our way.

Incidentally I'll thank you not to refer to me as a "Bushie". I didn't vote for him the first time out, and the only reason I felt forced to the second time around was because the Democrats are so incredibly STUPID that they chose the WORST of their 4 contenders for the office. I would have voted for ANY of the Democratic offerings EXCEPT Kerry, but who did you fools pick? Kerry.

Your loss, and it's a matter of record. Much like your idiocy, bigotry and irrational hatred of anything within 100 yards of Bush whether it has merit or not.

Jason
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: NeoV
TLC, you are much smarter than this.

If you can't admit that this administration is the reason that people link 9/11 and Saddam, then you've lost the mental battle.
When I see quotes from the Bush administration publicly stating there is no proof of Saddam's involvement in 9/11, I question who is losing the mental battle here.

You are operating on assumptions and conjecture based on the slimmest of evidence. Has any poll yet asked the simple question of these people who claim to believe Iraq was involved in 9/11 - "How do you know or why do you beleive Saddam was involved in 9/11?" I haven't seen that yet and until we get that sort of information, you simply can't know the answers you claim to kow. It's that simple.

So who should be smarter in this case?

Let's talk about the 'links' between Iraq and Al-Q for a moment - you know, the ones that you claim are public knowledge? Do you really think any of these 'alleged' ties was strong or credible enough to even mention prior to the war? Don't tell me about Al-Zarq, who was NOT Al-Q associated until AFTER this war started - and he's the only shred of evidence ever discussed - " he was treated in a Baghdad hospital - see, there are links!" And now nearly every Muslim terrorist group says they are doing Al-Q's work - that doesn't mean they were funded or trained by anyone having anything to do with Al-Q.
You claimed the ties didn't exist. Now you want to dissect them into levels of degrees?

Erm...c'mon dude. You're backpedaling here.

The FACT of the matter is that this is simply another issue that this administration used to try and drum up support (dare I say pass a Global Test?) for this war, at home and abroad...and, just like every other issue they raised, other than "Saddam is a bad guy", has turned out to be bogus.

You, sadly, are one of the people still saying:

1) The WMD's do exist - they are in Syria!..or "They tried to explode a Sarin-filled Shell on our troops!" Sorry, our TOP weapons inspector is done there - they don't have any WMD's, there is no evidence they moved them, there is really no evidence they had the means to produce them.

2) Al-Q and Iraq had ties - just because Saddam and Al-Q weren't linked doesn't mean Al-Q and Iraq weren't linked - how pathetic does that really sound? Wasn't Saddam pretty much in charge of everything other than the Kurdish regions, which we helped protect, in the north?
Let's make a deal here. Don't put words in my mouth and think you know what I'm saying or thinking (because you're wrong), and I won't do the very same thing to you. K?.

Do I really need to provide links to all of the statements this adminstration has used that STRONGLY hinted at the 9/11/Saddam connection? Heck, 9/11 is listed, as has been posted in this thread about 12 times now in the official 'justification for going to war'!
Do I need to, once again, post the quotes where the administration specifically stated that they've no evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11? Why are those statements ignored wholesale by you and others while you're off on your snipe hunt?

Yes, there are plenty of Democrats who said Saddam was a threat - I'm not arguing that point - and if that was the only point the administration would have went to war on, I'd be ok - but we clearly tried to grab every shred, no matter how credible, and toss it into the mix - the Niger garbage, the tubes, the mobile bio-weapons lab, the remote controlled planes, those awful audio tapes that C.Powell played at the UN (how pathetic were those? I bet it was Rove, Rummy, and Wolfie doing some voice-overs)..and then when you see the obvious failures in planning for the post Saddam era - how can you still cling to the garbage they have handed us?

Wake up!
More conjecture?

"I bet it was Rove, Rummy, and Wolfie doing some voice-overs"

Wake up indeed.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Quite possibly! Which is all the more reason why we have to bust our asses to make sure that we succeed in Iraq. If we "infect" the millions in Iraq with a Western ideological outlook and turn them into a culture where achievement, rights, liberty and self expression are the accepted norm, Iraq could potentially become the hub that "poisons" the rest of the middle east and destroys their hyper-religious collectivist culture.

Note: I think destroying their existing culture is a GOOD thing.

Jason

To hold a culture as old as civilization in such low regard is offensive.

What's more, the idea that you Bushies actually believe anyone is swallowing your ridiculous attempt to bait and switch this massive failure from WMD to helping free those poor oppressed Iraqis isn't flying. Bush bears false witness against his neighbor, invades and destroys a nation which poses NO threat on the grounds of a non-existent manufactured threat, and now you have the nerve to insult the intelligence of the entire planet by attempting to switch the reason behind this illegal aggression from Saddam's WMD threat to the humanitarian ideal of bringing democracy to those poor, oppressed Iraqis we're killing by the thousands.

The first lie was WMD. The second lie is the freedom and democracy crap Bush is using to cover the fact that the first lie has been so thoroughly exposed as to force him and you Bushies to completely abandon it.

Look at the news. That isn't freedom and democracy we've brought to Iraq. It's death, suffering, and terrorism.

Nice job.

Mission Accomplished.

You are fooling no one.

Listen, I know you're not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but the bit about helping to free Iraq's people WAS part of the ORIGINAL statement of intent. Whether it was a GENUINE concern on the part of the administration or not is unknowable, but the fact remains they DID publicize that as *A* motivator. Not the PRIMARY motivator, but A motivator.

As for WMD's, there is no reason in the world (except the wishful thinking of intellectual midgets such as yourself) to believe that it was a "lie" so much as a mistake, as flawed intelligence. I don't see any evidence whatsoever to show that the "freedom and democracy" bit is fraudulent. If it WERE fraudulent we'd take the Bill Clinton route and run for cover every time there is a shot fired our way.

Incidentally I'll thank you not to refer to me as a "Bushie". I didn't vote for him the first time out, and the only reason I felt forced to the second time around was because the Democrats are so incredibly STUPID that they chose the WORST of their 4 contenders for the office. I would have voted for ANY of the Democratic offerings EXCEPT Kerry, but who did you fools pick? Kerry.

Your loss, and it's a matter of record. Much like your idiocy, bigotry and irrational hatred of anything within 100 yards of Bush whether it has merit or not.

Jason

Americans would not have accepted any reason other than the falsified threat of Saddam's WMD to attack Iraq unprovoked. That was the estimation of the Bush administration themselves.

Nice personal attack. I'm unable to retaliate for reasons I've already explained earlier in other threads.

Suffice it to say, if I posted what you just posted I'm certain I'd be out of here either for a long vacation or for good. But I suppose there must be more lenient rules on personal attacks for some members than there are for others.

But I'm sure you can guess, with more accuracy than Bush used to guess about WMD, pretty much what I'm thinking. ;)

 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Sysbuilder05
Originally posted by: ciba
It was mentioned in another thread, but I didn't want to pollute it with too much discussion.

When did Bush claim Iraq was involved in 9/11? I haven't seen anything where he said that made a claim, but some posters are convinced he did. Can anyone help me out with a quote?


Over and over but later changed his tune,but that didn't stop the brainless FOX viewers from STILL believing SH was responsible.

Apparently, Fox is the only news channel on TV that puts out bad stories, false stories, or stories with a slant that makes them less than credible. I mean it's no wonder they had Dan Rather on Fox for so many years until...wait a minute...

Jason

To compare a respected journalist of over 40 years experience, who was IN Vietnam reporting what was actually happening while Georgie boy was refusing to protect the skies over South Texas, is ridiculous.

Rather made ONE mistake, not checking that the document he was provided was a copy of the original, WHILE THE INFORMATION IN THAT DOCUMENT HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY THE WOMAN WHO TYPED THE ORIGINAL AS THE TRUTH. Fox news is owned by a right wing billionaire who has contributed a fortune to the Republican Party and had the FCC regulations on foreign ownership as well as saturation in a market perverted for him so he can spew his twisted version of the news in every U.S. market.

Kinda' like Armstrong Williams on steriods.

But hey, control of the media is one of their tactics.

Of course, it's always A-OK when one of the "Left" journalists does it. Tell me, what do you suppose are the odds that this is the ONLY fabrication Rather ever reported? To me, 40 years in journalism is precisely WHY not to excuse this behavior. With that much experience he should have KNOWN better than to take that jackass on his word and to RESEARCH the documents first.

Clearly, Rather had a BIASED, politically motivated agenda. I'm not saying that Fox doesn't, maybe they in fact DO. But a spade's a spade, and if you don't have the balls to call it honestly, I will.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
I want to see verified, documented numbers on the number of civilians killed by Saddam. Not just out of your ... claims, DMA.

No one has verified any of these claims although the Bush administration, just as in the WMD and Iraq-9/11 connection lies, keeps putting unverified information out there so that later they and you Bushies can deny you ever said Saddam killed as many civilians as the U.S.A.

Alright, here you go: 400,000 corpses in 270 MASS GRAVES, and guess what? That was a YEAR ago.

Just when I think you can't show yourself to be any more of an imbecile you go and imply that the mass graves and the murdered victims of Saddam somehow don't exist? It's only been reported EVERYWHERE, what frickin' cave are you living in, man? And how the hell did you get internet access in a cave, anyway?

Jason
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: BBond
I want to see verified, documented numbers on the number of civilians killed by Saddam. Not just out of your ... claims, DMA.

No one has verified any of these claims although the Bush administration, just as in the WMD and Iraq-9/11 connection lies, keeps putting unverified information out there so that later they and you Bushies can deny you ever said Saddam killed as many civilians as the U.S.A.

Alright, here you go: 400,000 corpses in 270 MASS GRAVES, and guess what? That was a YEAR ago.

Just when I think you can't show yourself to be any more of an imbecile you go and imply that the mass graves and the murdered victims of Saddam somehow don't exist? It's only been reported EVERYWHERE, what frickin' cave are you living in, man? And how the hell did you get internet access in a cave, anyway?

Jason

More personal attacks? Where are those mods???

Read your own link. Those are estimates.

Show me some proof of the hundreds of thousands Saddam supposedly killed. The Bush administration suggesting Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis carries as much weight as his WMD lies. I don't trust liars and Bush has proven himself, although an idiot, to be a consumate liar.

I can show you proof of the Iraqis America killed. Just turn on your TV.

PS
If you'd like to live in a cave like mine it will cost you ~$500,000 in today's market.


 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Aside from the 100,000 number that you're just pulling out of your ass, I understand your point. However, even at this stage, after all this loss, Iraq is STILL ahead if you want to turn this into a numbers game. If there ARE 100,000 dead civilians (and there is NO official count) over the last 2 years, that's still HALF what would have been killed under Saddam. Maybe the WMD's were there, maybe they weren't: I don't know and you don't know, either. The fact is that we weren't there, we have no idea. Whatever else this may have been, including a badly planned (or at least woefully underestimated) war, it wasn't simply "naked aggression", though I note that you enjoy bandying that catch-phrase about.

As a matter of infrastructure, the fact is that Iraq's infrastructure was *already* in ruins when we arrived. Hell, I know people who are STILL in Iraq who have told me that they were shocked on the way in by how torn up the country already was and they hadn't even hit major combat yet.

People like you are, simply enough, impatient. Wars are not things from which you recover overnight. Nations who have been oppressed for ages do not simply turn over and decide to be free overnight. These processes take TIME, and it is far, FAR too early to predict ANY outcome with certainty.

Jason
How many were killed in the decade-or-so of fighting in Vietnam? Millions...probably 3-4 million. 100,000 Iraqi civilians is a fair estimate given 2 years' of fighting.

As for the numbers of dead under Saddam, most of them were in a couple of incidents: the slaughter of the Kurds following the Iran/Iraq war and the slaughtering of rebel effots following the 1991 Gulf War in which the US encouraged uprisings but failed to offer support, leaving the rebels to be slaughtered by the remains of Saddam's military.

Also, it took 34 years for the ~300,000 to be killed during Saddam's reign. We've managed to hit 1/3 of that in less than 2 years. Quite the accomplishment.

Um, no, Saddam was in power for 22 years, not 34. And it's well over 400,000 that are *verified* at this point.

You're right that Vietnam had far more casualties (though WWII had far, FAR more than that!), but what you aren't taking into account is that our weapons are more precise, and we're unfortunately slave to this politically correct (and foolish) notion that war should be as bloodless as possible. Our refusal to strike hard and fast is costing us lives every day.

In any case, it sounds a lot like you're trying to justify what Saddam did as the tyrant of Iraq. I wouldn't have expected you to express sympathy for a mass murderer.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Quite possibly! Which is all the more reason why we have to bust our asses to make sure that we succeed in Iraq. If we "infect" the millions in Iraq with a Western ideological outlook and turn them into a culture where achievement, rights, liberty and self expression are the accepted norm, Iraq could potentially become the hub that "poisons" the rest of the middle east and destroys their hyper-religious collectivist culture.

Note: I think destroying their existing culture is a GOOD thing.

Jason

To hold a culture as old as civilization in such low regard is offensive.

What's more, the idea that you Bushies actually believe anyone is swallowing your ridiculous attempt to bait and switch this massive failure from WMD to helping free those poor oppressed Iraqis isn't flying. Bush bears false witness against his neighbor, invades and destroys a nation which poses NO threat on the grounds of a non-existent manufactured threat, and now you have the nerve to insult the intelligence of the entire planet by attempting to switch the reason behind this illegal aggression from Saddam's WMD threat to the humanitarian ideal of bringing democracy to those poor, oppressed Iraqis we're killing by the thousands.

The first lie was WMD. The second lie is the freedom and democracy crap Bush is using to cover the fact that the first lie has been so thoroughly exposed as to force him and you Bushies to completely abandon it.

Look at the news. That isn't freedom and democracy we've brought to Iraq. It's death, suffering, and terrorism.

Nice job.

Mission Accomplished.

You are fooling no one.

Listen, I know you're not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but the bit about helping to free Iraq's people WAS part of the ORIGINAL statement of intent. Whether it was a GENUINE concern on the part of the administration or not is unknowable, but the fact remains they DID publicize that as *A* motivator. Not the PRIMARY motivator, but A motivator.

As for WMD's, there is no reason in the world (except the wishful thinking of intellectual midgets such as yourself) to believe that it was a "lie" so much as a mistake, as flawed intelligence. I don't see any evidence whatsoever to show that the "freedom and democracy" bit is fraudulent. If it WERE fraudulent we'd take the Bill Clinton route and run for cover every time there is a shot fired our way.

Incidentally I'll thank you not to refer to me as a "Bushie". I didn't vote for him the first time out, and the only reason I felt forced to the second time around was because the Democrats are so incredibly STUPID that they chose the WORST of their 4 contenders for the office. I would have voted for ANY of the Democratic offerings EXCEPT Kerry, but who did you fools pick? Kerry.

Your loss, and it's a matter of record. Much like your idiocy, bigotry and irrational hatred of anything within 100 yards of Bush whether it has merit or not.

Jason

Americans would not have accepted any reason other than the falsified threat of Saddam's WMD to attack Iraq unprovoked. That was the estimation of the Bush administration themselves.

Nice personal attack. I'm unable to retaliate for reasons I've already explained earlier in other threads.

Suffice it to say, if I posted what you just posted I'm certain I'd be out of here either for a long vacation or for good. But I suppose there must be more lenient rules on personal attacks for some members than there are for others.

But I'm sure you can guess, with more accuracy than Bush used to guess about WMD, pretty much what I'm thinking. ;)

Yes, I am certain there is a big conspiracy against you. Maybe you're right that Americans would have only accepted a WMD threat, maybe not. Since the other story wasn't used as a primary motivator, we'll never know. I can tell you that *I* would have found it perfectly acceptable to overthrow Saddam purely on his "merits" as a dictator. I would also support the removal of the government of Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Rwanda and any other country where the rights of individuals are crushed by their own government. Unlike you, though, I actually give a damn about peoples' RIGHTS.

Jason
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Quite possibly! Which is all the more reason why we have to bust our asses to make sure that we succeed in Iraq. If we "infect" the millions in Iraq with a Western ideological outlook and turn them into a culture where achievement, rights, liberty and self expression are the accepted norm, Iraq could potentially become the hub that "poisons" the rest of the middle east and destroys their hyper-religious collectivist culture.

Note: I think destroying their existing culture is a GOOD thing.

Jason

To hold a culture as old as civilization in such low regard is offensive.

What's more, the idea that you Bushies actually believe anyone is swallowing your ridiculous attempt to bait and switch this massive failure from WMD to helping free those poor oppressed Iraqis isn't flying. Bush bears false witness against his neighbor, invades and destroys a nation which poses NO threat on the grounds of a non-existent manufactured threat, and now you have the nerve to insult the intelligence of the entire planet by attempting to switch the reason behind this illegal aggression from Saddam's WMD threat to the humanitarian ideal of bringing democracy to those poor, oppressed Iraqis we're killing by the thousands.

The first lie was WMD. The second lie is the freedom and democracy crap Bush is using to cover the fact that the first lie has been so thoroughly exposed as to force him and you Bushies to completely abandon it.

Look at the news. That isn't freedom and democracy we've brought to Iraq. It's death, suffering, and terrorism.

Nice job.

Mission Accomplished.

You are fooling no one.

Listen, I know you're not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but the bit about helping to free Iraq's people WAS part of the ORIGINAL statement of intent. Whether it was a GENUINE concern on the part of the administration or not is unknowable, but the fact remains they DID publicize that as *A* motivator. Not the PRIMARY motivator, but A motivator.

As for WMD's, there is no reason in the world (except the wishful thinking of intellectual midgets such as yourself) to believe that it was a "lie" so much as a mistake, as flawed intelligence. I don't see any evidence whatsoever to show that the "freedom and democracy" bit is fraudulent. If it WERE fraudulent we'd take the Bill Clinton route and run for cover every time there is a shot fired our way.

Incidentally I'll thank you not to refer to me as a "Bushie". I didn't vote for him the first time out, and the only reason I felt forced to the second time around was because the Democrats are so incredibly STUPID that they chose the WORST of their 4 contenders for the office. I would have voted for ANY of the Democratic offerings EXCEPT Kerry, but who did you fools pick? Kerry.

Your loss, and it's a matter of record. Much like your idiocy, bigotry and irrational hatred of anything within 100 yards of Bush whether it has merit or not.

Jason

Americans would not have accepted any reason other than the falsified threat of Saddam's WMD to attack Iraq unprovoked. That was the estimation of the Bush administration themselves.

Nice personal attack. I'm unable to retaliate for reasons I've already explained earlier in other threads.

Suffice it to say, if I posted what you just posted I'm certain I'd be out of here either for a long vacation or for good. But I suppose there must be more lenient rules on personal attacks for some members than there are for others.

But I'm sure you can guess, with more accuracy than Bush used to guess about WMD, pretty much what I'm thinking. ;)

Yes, I am certain there is a big conspiracy against you. Maybe you're right that Americans would have only accepted a WMD threat, maybe not. Since the other story wasn't used as a primary motivator, we'll never know. I can tell you that *I* would have found it perfectly acceptable to overthrow Saddam purely on his "merits" as a dictator. I would also support the removal of the government of Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Rwanda and any other country where the rights of individuals are crushed by their own government. Unlike you, though, I actually give a damn about peoples' RIGHTS.

Jason

Does that extend to the RIGTHS of those illegally incarcarated by the Bush regime?


 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Aside from the 100,000 number that you're just pulling out of your ass, I understand your point. However, even at this stage, after all this loss, Iraq is STILL ahead if you want to turn this into a numbers game. If there ARE 100,000 dead civilians (and there is NO official count) over the last 2 years, that's still HALF what would have been killed under Saddam. Maybe the WMD's were there, maybe they weren't: I don't know and you don't know, either. The fact is that we weren't there, we have no idea. Whatever else this may have been, including a badly planned (or at least woefully underestimated) war, it wasn't simply "naked aggression", though I note that you enjoy bandying that catch-phrase about.

As a matter of infrastructure, the fact is that Iraq's infrastructure was *already* in ruins when we arrived. Hell, I know people who are STILL in Iraq who have told me that they were shocked on the way in by how torn up the country already was and they hadn't even hit major combat yet.

People like you are, simply enough, impatient. Wars are not things from which you recover overnight. Nations who have been oppressed for ages do not simply turn over and decide to be free overnight. These processes take TIME, and it is far, FAR too early to predict ANY outcome with certainty.

Jason
How many were killed in the decade-or-so of fighting in Vietnam? Millions...probably 3-4 million. 100,000 Iraqi civilians is a fair estimate given 2 years' of fighting.

As for the numbers of dead under Saddam, most of them were in a couple of incidents: the slaughter of the Kurds following the Iran/Iraq war and the slaughtering of rebel effots following the 1991 Gulf War in which the US encouraged uprisings but failed to offer support, leaving the rebels to be slaughtered by the remains of Saddam's military.

Also, it took 34 years for the ~300,000 to be killed during Saddam's reign. We've managed to hit 1/3 of that in less than 2 years. Quite the accomplishment.
Um, no, Saddam was in power for 22 years, not 34. And it's well over 400,000 that are *verified* at this point.

You're right that Vietnam had far more casualties (though WWII had far, FAR more than that!), but what you aren't taking into account is that our weapons are more precise, and we're unfortunately slave to this politically correct (and foolish) notion that war should be as bloodless as possible. Our refusal to strike hard and fast is costing us lives every day.

In any case, it sounds a lot like you're trying to justify what Saddam did as the tyrant of Iraq. I wouldn't have expected you to express sympathy for a mass murderer.

Jason
Saddam was, essentially, the leader of Iraq from 1969-2003...that's 34 years. Yes, al-Bakr was technically the president, Saddam was the power behind the party

And, the US government estimates 300,000 dead under Saddam. 240,000 of that in the two incidents I cited above.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: BBond
I want to see verified, documented numbers on the number of civilians killed by Saddam. Not just out of your ... claims, DMA.

No one has verified any of these claims although the Bush administration, just as in the WMD and Iraq-9/11 connection lies, keeps putting unverified information out there so that later they and you Bushies can deny you ever said Saddam killed as many civilians as the U.S.A.

Alright, here you go: 400,000 corpses in 270 MASS GRAVES, and guess what? That was a YEAR ago.

Just when I think you can't show yourself to be any more of an imbecile you go and imply that the mass graves and the murdered victims of Saddam somehow don't exist? It's only been reported EVERYWHERE, what frickin' cave are you living in, man? And how the hell did you get internet access in a cave, anyway?

Jason

More personal attacks? Where are those mods???

Read your own link. Those are estimates.

Show me some proof of the hundreds of thousands Saddam supposedly killed. The Bush administration suggesting Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis carries as much weight as his WMD lies. I don't trust liars and Bush has proven himself, although an idiot, to be a consumate liar.

I can show you proof of the Iraqis America killed. Just turn on your TV.

PS
If you'd like to live in a cave like mine it will cost you ~$500,000 in today's market.

Tell you what. You go find me "hard proof" of how many Jews Hitler killed in WWII. Otherwise it's just a fabrication.

Observe a simple fact about mass graves anywhere they have EVER been discovered: All we have are ESTIMATES as to how many corpses are in them. It doesn't make the fact any less true.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr

Yes, I am certain there is a big conspiracy against you. Maybe you're right that Americans would have only accepted a WMD threat, maybe not. Since the other story wasn't used as a primary motivator, we'll never know. I can tell you that *I* would have found it perfectly acceptable to overthrow Saddam purely on his "merits" as a dictator. I would also support the removal of the government of Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Rwanda and any other country where the rights of individuals are crushed by their own government. Unlike you, though, I actually give a damn about peoples' RIGHTS.

Jason

Does that extend to the RIGTHS of those illegally incarcarated by the Bush regime?


[/quote]

And who would those be? Are you going to suggest now that Saddam was just a cute little innocent teddy bear who never did anything wrong? That big, mean Bush just came to pick on poor Saddam for no reason?

I didn't realize we had CHILDREN posting here.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur

Jason
Saddam was, essentially, the leader of Iraq from 1969-2003...that's 34 years. Yes, al-Bakr was technically the president, Saddam was the power behind the party

And, the US government estimates 300,000 dead under Saddam. 240,000 of that in the two incidents I cited above.[/quote]

"Essentially" the leader, eh? Not exactly the same as "I'm in charge and what I say goes", now is it? He was the president of Iraq for 22 years, period.

Most of the mass graves discovered to date are the results of one or more of five major atrocities perpetrated by the regime. It started with the 1983 attack against Kurdish citizens belonging to the Barzani tribe, 8,000 of whom were rounded up by the regime in northern Iraq and executed in deserts at great distances from their homes.

Chemical attacks against Kurdish villages between 1986 to 1988, including the Halabja attack, when the Iraqi Air Force dropped sarin and tabun chemical agents on the civilian population, killing 5,000 people, and then the thousands killed later in the Shi'ite uprising in the south.

During the 1988 Anfal campaign as many as 182,000 people disappeared. Most of the men were separated from their families and were executed in deserts in the west and southwest of Iraq. The remains of some of their wives and children have also been found in mass graves.

?By conservative estimates, at least 290,000 people are missing in Iraq, and the answer to their whereabouts likely lies in these graves,? according to a Human Rights Watch (HRW) statement. ?The US-led coalition must take the lead, not only in securing gravesites, but quickly communicating its commitment to exhume and identify the remains,? the statement said.

The CPA said the second step of the plan for mass graves investigations involves formally gathering evidence. The forensic site assessment involves gathering information such as precise location, number of remains in the grave, approximate date of the grave, origin of victims and other information regarding site conditions such as soil, weather and security.

The graves must be generally undisturbed and have probative value as evidence for a crime against humanity, for example, bullet holes in 100 skulls.
http://www.irinnews.org/report...ctRegion=Iraq_Crisis&S

According to the article the biggest of the mass-murders occurred starting in 1983. If you want to get down to the specific numbers then, these atrocities occurred in just 19 years of Saddam's rule, with the largest ones occuring within 10 years of his coming to power.

In any case, your argument that "well, it took him 34 years to kill those 300,000 though!" is patently absurd. What does it matter if it took 30 years or 3 hours? The fact is that he MURDERED a minimum, bare number figure of 300,000 PEOPLE. What kind of sicko does it take to defend a MASS MURDERER?!

I suppose next you'll say that Hitler was just a misunderstood prosecutee, too?

Jason
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
Saddam was, essentially, the leader of Iraq from 1969-2003...that's 34 years. Yes, al-Bakr was technically the president, Saddam was the power behind the party

And, the US government estimates 300,000 dead under Saddam. 240,000 of that in the two incidents I cited above.

"Essentially" the leader, eh? Not exactly the same as "I'm in charge and what I say goes", now is it? He was the president of Iraq for 22 years, period.
No, you still have it wrong. On July 16, 1979, Saddam became the official president of Iraq. So, *officially*, 24 years...in reality...34 years.

But, it was nice of you to ignore the facts about the deaths under American occupation, though.

You are also ignoring that those Shiites killed in 1991 were because of US intervention and encouragment. Saddam was the rightful ruler of Iraq at that time, no matter how evil he was. Was he supposed to lay down his arms and let a rebellion take him out? How ignorant can you be?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
Saddam was, essentially, the leader of Iraq from 1969-2003...that's 34 years. Yes, al-Bakr was technically the president, Saddam was the power behind the party

And, the US government estimates 300,000 dead under Saddam. 240,000 of that in the two incidents I cited above.

"Essentially" the leader, eh? Not exactly the same as "I'm in charge and what I say goes", now is it? He was the president of Iraq for 22 years, period.
No, you still have it wrong. On July 16, 1979, Saddam became the official president of Iraq. So, *officially*, 24 years...in reality...34 years.

But, it was nice of you to ignore the facts about the deaths under American occupation, though.

You are also ignoring that those Shiites killed in 1991 were because of US intervention and encouragment. Saddam was the rightful ruler of Iraq at that time, no matter how evil he was. Was he supposed to lay down his arms and let a rebellion take him out? How ignorant can you be?
You also ignored that the "100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq" are based on a faulty methodolgy as well. If yo'ure going to do that, seems fair that others should as well.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
Saddam was, essentially, the leader of Iraq from 1969-2003...that's 34 years. Yes, al-Bakr was technically the president, Saddam was the power behind the party

And, the US government estimates 300,000 dead under Saddam. 240,000 of that in the two incidents I cited above.
"Essentially" the leader, eh? Not exactly the same as "I'm in charge and what I say goes", now is it? He was the president of Iraq for 22 years, period.
No, you still have it wrong. On July 16, 1979, Saddam became the official president of Iraq. So, *officially*, 24 years...in reality...34 years.

But, it was nice of you to ignore the facts about the deaths under American occupation, though.

You are also ignoring that those Shiites killed in 1991 were because of US intervention and encouragment. Saddam was the rightful ruler of Iraq at that time, no matter how evil he was. Was he supposed to lay down his arms and let a rebellion take him out? How ignorant can you be?
You also ignored that the "100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq" are based on a faulty methodolgy as well. If yo'ure going to do that, seems fair that others should as well.
I never said it was foolproof. I just said 100,000 is plausible given several million were killed in Vietnam.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
Saddam was, essentially, the leader of Iraq from 1969-2003...that's 34 years. Yes, al-Bakr was technically the president, Saddam was the power behind the party

And, the US government estimates 300,000 dead under Saddam. 240,000 of that in the two incidents I cited above.
"Essentially" the leader, eh? Not exactly the same as "I'm in charge and what I say goes", now is it? He was the president of Iraq for 22 years, period.
No, you still have it wrong. On July 16, 1979, Saddam became the official president of Iraq. So, *officially*, 24 years...in reality...34 years.

But, it was nice of you to ignore the facts about the deaths under American occupation, though.

You are also ignoring that those Shiites killed in 1991 were because of US intervention and encouragment. Saddam was the rightful ruler of Iraq at that time, no matter how evil he was. Was he supposed to lay down his arms and let a rebellion take him out? How ignorant can you be?
You also ignored that the "100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq" are based on a faulty methodolgy as well. If yo'ure going to do that, seems fair that others should as well.
I never said it was foolproof. I just said 100,000 is plausible given several million were killed in Vietnam.
Stalin killed 20,000,000. So I suppose it's plausible that Saddam killed 35,000,000 since he was in charge longer than Stalin?

Gawd I love the new-liberal math.

:laugh:

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
-- or --
  • (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243.
If he really wanted to be honest. Of course, Congress wouldn't have approved had he told the truth, so he pulled out all the stops in smearing Iraq with disinformation. (Ask Kerry and McCain how that works.)

Be fair, Bow: BOTH Bush AND Kerry waged dirty, slanderous, underhanded campaigns that they should be ASHAMED of. NEITHER candidate waged an honorable, positive, forthright campaign. BOTH preyed on the fears of Americans, just with slightly different emphasis.

Trying to even IMPLY otherwise is pure dishonesty.

Jason
While I personally believe Bush out-slimed Kerry about 4 to 1, that really isn't relevant to my comment above. I wasn't comparing Bush and Kerry, nor was I implying anything of the sort you suggest. I was simply pointing out that Bush couldn't have sold his war on Iraq if he'd stuck to the truth instead of their full-court smear.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: BBond
Bush linking Iraq to 9/11?

Presidential Letter

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

# # #
Beat me to it. I'm always amazed that, even though this letter from Bush, on the White House web site, clearly insinuates a connection between Iraq and 9/11, and even though this letter has been posted here a dozen times, there are still people who vehemently insist the Bush administration never suggested a link between Iraq and 9/11. Some even blame "stupid liberals" for inferring a connection (conveniently ignoring the fact that surveys show it's Bush's supporters who overwhelmingly believe the deception).

Let this one go, for crying out loud. Heck, Cheney still suggests a connection when the subject comes up.

As usual, Bow, you're exaggerating the situation. I don't think anyone denies there was implication or at least some phrasing done
Then you need to read these threads more closely. There are plenty of people who seem to be insisting exactly that. I don't think they honestly believe it, but they will say just about anything to deny criticism of King George.


in such a way that a sloppy person such as yourself
Straight to the ad hom. :roll:


might jump to the conclusion that Saddam and Iraq were directly involved with 9/11.
I never believed him. I realized Bush was a pathological liar in the 2000 primaries -- one of the "benefits" of living in Iowa -- and I've taken everything he's said since then with a grain of salt.


What's been repeatedly said is that no one ever came out and clearly, plainly, SPECIFICALLY said "Iraq committed the 9/11 attacks and we are going to retaliate." And that's TRUE.
That's disingenuous and you know it. The Bush administration in general, Karl Rove in particular, are much too skilled as liars to to lie so blatantly if they can avoid it. They know full well that the most effective and least risky way to deceive the public is relentleesly hammer the same carefully-phrased deceptions over and over and over until most people have accepted them as truth. That is exactly what happened with the lie suggesting a connection between Iraq and 9/11, and the vast majority of Bush's supporters were "sloppy" and "STUPID" enough (your words) to fall for it. Which is exactly what Bush & Co. knew would happen, and intended to happen.

A lie is any statement or action intended to deceive. The Bush administration clearly lied to the American public, suggesting a link between Iraq and 9/11 they knew did NOT exist.


Bush is enough of a moron that I don't think he needs YOUR help to get people to think that Saddam and Iraq committed the attacks on 9/11; the American People are STUPID enough that they can stumble into that fallacy all on their own.

Jason
Not sure what you thought you were talking about here, since my comments re. Iraq and 9/11 have always focused on refuting the lie about thier connection.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
When I see quotes from the Bush administration publicly stating there is no proof of Saddam's involvement in 9/11, I question who is losing the mental battle here.
[ ... ]
I know you love to use this claim to divert attention from the case against Bush, but I believe you've conveniently omitted one key detail: Bush didn't make this admission until long after we invaded Iraq. (You know, when it was too late to do anything about it.) In fact, IIRC, the first time Bush admitted this in something televised was in September of 2003. It was a few days before Cheney showed up on one of the Sunday shows to override his "boss" and insist there was a connection (though carefully worded, as always, to allow deniability). The issue remained mostly in the shadows for the next year, until finally Bush got cornered during one of the debates and had to admit it again, very publicly.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: GrGr

Yes, I am certain there is a big conspiracy against you. Maybe you're right that Americans would have only accepted a WMD threat, maybe not. Since the other story wasn't used as a primary motivator, we'll never know. I can tell you that *I* would have found it perfectly acceptable to overthrow Saddam purely on his "merits" as a dictator. I would also support the removal of the government of Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Rwanda and any other country where the rights of individuals are crushed by their own government. Unlike you, though, I actually give a damn about peoples' RIGHTS.

Jason

Does that extend to the RIGTHS of those illegally incarcarated by the Bush regime?

And who would those be? Are you going to suggest now that Saddam was just a cute little innocent teddy bear who never did anything wrong? That big, mean Bush just came to pick on poor Saddam for no reason?

I didn't realize we had CHILDREN posting here.

Jason[/quote]

No I was refering to the American citizens incarcarated and denied their RIGHTS by the Bush administration. You know, habeas corpus, due process that sort of thing.
 

ciba

Senior member
Apr 27, 2004
812
0
71
Originally posted by: NeoV
1) there are no credible ties between Al-Q and Iraq, now or before.

2) Ciba, come on - TLC, you too - Clearly, this administration - Cheney in particular, have tied Iraq to Al-Q. Yes, the trans property does apply here when you are dealing with terrorist groups - there is a reason the Al-Q connection was consistently brought up, even though it doesn't exist.

3) Just because you might support this administration doesn't mean you can't admit when they have been in the wrong.

I'll handle these one at a time.

1) Yes there are. Just not Iraq and 9/11. Being tied to an organization does not mean they are tied to a specific action. This is a subtle, but critically important difference.

2) I never said they didn't. They brougt it up all the time. Iraq harbored members of Al Qaeda. Iraq had at least one training camp within its borders. These Al Qaeda "members" (organizational structure makes that the best, but not entirely accurate term), to which Iraq had ties, had nothing to do with 9/11.

3) Bush has done plenty of stupid shit. NCLB, for starters. I will criticise him for his failings, but I will also support him against lies.