Bush linking Iraq to 9/11?

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

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.

Actually, Bush never made the claim at all. But that hasn't stopped the brainless from claiming he has done so by using Jedi mind tricks on the public.

Wow!!! Hyperbole is so brainless and easy too.

One more time for those who refuse to read...

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

# # #

One more time for those who refuse to do their research:

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

The statement contained in the Presedential letter is nothing more than a copy of what's contained in the law passed by Congress, including many Democrats.

But I'm sure you knew that already. :roll:

If he didn't mean it why did he include it in his letter?

He's the president. He could have had his buddy Gonzalez take a break from his torture work to edit a simple letter, couldn't he?

WTF? Who said it's not meant to be there?

Read it closly, then explain how the word "including" is used in that context. Is the statement any sort of indictment claiming Saddam's complicity in 9/11? Of course not. This is nothing more than another stupid ploy claiming "OMG, he kind of mentioned Saddam and 9/11 in the same paragraph. The Jedi mind trickery again!"

You Bushies are fond of telling us he didn't actually say this, or he didn't actually say that. Or my favorite, you can't prove it in court.

Well, here are Bush's own words in black and white and you still refuse to admit he said exactly what he said.

(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.

No more excuses. His words in black and white from the White House web site. Period.

Actually, it's a public law originally drafted by Congress. It was not drafted by Bush and it's not his own words so you're wrong in that respect. Let me parse the paragraph for you properly since you seem to want to act ignorant of its actual content and structure:

](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,

This portion of the statement applies to Saddam. He did have well known links to terrorist organizations including providing funding to the PLO for their homocide bombers.

including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

This portion of the statement is a subset of the statement above. Notice the word "INCLUDING?" It's the important word in that clause.

That portion of the statement does not apply to Saddam, at least currently and with the intel we have concerning Saddam and 9/11. Bush has specifically and publicly stated that Saddam was not involved in 9/11. For now that clause does not INCLUDE Saddam. The only reason it's there is because it's part and parcel of existing legal jargon that had been previously drafted for the War on Terror and was tacked into this law. It's standard legalese to cover the bases. Besides that, when this PL was drafted, we didn't have all the intel yet and weren't sure that Saddam may not actually have been somehow involved in 9/11. We still don't know that for an absolute fact either.

If you don't get it, that's not my problem. It's simple enough for an average 5th grader to parse and comprehend the structure of it. I'm sure you're smarter than the average 5th grader so what exactly is your problem understanding this? Instead you have to rely on some wonky theory of guilt by association? Shall I begin breaking down your statements and complain about the individual words or phrases you use in the same paragraph? Please get over this psychological ploy buiness. It's BS and it's such a pathetically weak and tin-foilish reasoning.

And one more time for the comprehension impaired as well - I am not a "Bushie."

 

[NeoV]

there are no credible ties between Al-Q and Iraq, now or before.

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.

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

 

[conjur]

Been over this before:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...did=1420466&arctab=arc

Also, do a Google search for Devon Largio.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: NeoV
there are no credible ties between Al-Q and Iraq, now or before.

The penchant for some to rewrite history is sad. Do you really believe this or have you just not been paying attention? It's already been acknowledged and is public knowledge that there were ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. They were not strong ties but they were there. If you're not aware of that then I suggest you do some research on the subject. If you're going to debate in this thread you should be aware of those facts prior to making such statements as you did above.

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.

It does exist. Can you separate in your mind the fact that Iraq and al Qaeda can have ties but that Saddam was NOT involved in 9/11?

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

I support the truth which is so often in short supply when it comes to those who despise Bush so much they would rather distort facts and create grand conspiracy theories and psychological ploys than actually accept the factsw as they are. When will you guys ever learn that Bush has made enough mistakes in fact that you don't have to distort crap or revise history to make your points? You're an embarrassment to the liberals who do have their ducks in a row.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: conjur
Been over this before:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...did=1420466&arctab=arc

Also, do a Google search for Devon Largio.

Do you refer to this, Conjur?

Or this?

 

[Jhhnn]

Like this-

"Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11."

"Saddam had links to Al Qaeda."

Repeat, repeat, and repeat some more...

Add a bunch of other stuff about terrar, 9/11, orange alerts, 9/11, wmd's, 9/11, duct tape & plastic, 9/11, nuclear programs, 9/11, evil Saddam, 9/11, giving weapons to terrarists, 9/11, drag out the baby incubators, 9/11, etc... More pics of 9/11, beat the drums, keep it up... more iterations, more repetition...

Feed on hurt and vengeful desires for r@ghead blood, any r@ghead blood....

Invade Iraq. Then, for the record-

"We never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11."

Which is quite true, but way off the mark.... Agitprop is an artform, and Bush handlers are some of the best ever. Witness where we are today, and where they intend to lead us.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur
Been over this before:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...did=1420466&arctab=arc

Also, do a Google search for Devon Largio.

And still not a soul has proven that Bush claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11. All they can do is throw out phrases and say, "Oh, look!. Bush said Iraq and 9/11 in the same speech. It's proof they are being tricksy!"

What is that kind of crap countered with? It's countered with actual public statements by Bush and others in his admin specifically stating that there is no evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11. Somehow though, statements direct and to the point are completely discarded and disregarded by those harping on the spectacular mental magic foisted upon an unsuspecting public by Bush and co. Amazingly and through some strange psychic prestidigitation, the public has been swayed by the Bush admin's Jedi mind tricks and has completely ignored the statements to the contrary and which are in direct contradiction to the suppositions of the RBHrs.

::shakes head::

You guys are really so sad in your stretches of figmentary imagination. Just pitiful.

 

[conjur]

Have you read Devon Largio's paper, TLC?

The intimation was out there. How else do you explain something like 70% of FAUX News viewers believing Saddam had a hand in 9/11?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur
Have you read Devon Largio's paper, TLC?

The intimation was out there. How else do you explain something like 70% of FAUX News viewers believing Saddam had a hand in 9/11?

Ever heard the phrase correlation!=causation, conjur?

Have you ever stoppd one moment to think that's what people believe because IT"S WANT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE? Many people go off of gut instinct instead of actual fact. Most of the RBHrs act on the same sort of instinct in here - They just know this and that about Bush without ever doing any sort of research or relying on any actual facts whatsoever. Their suppositions are manyfold, often involving large quantities of tin-foil. How do you explain that conjur? Shall I assume you and others can't actually formulate your own opinions and that Democratic Underground, the NY Times, or Talking Points Memo has brainwshed all of you?

Man, the ignorance in here is really getting stale and pathetic.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: dahunan
If I had to choose where the Islamic Radicals were and which Government supported and preached Death To America

A) Iraq
B) Iran

It would not have been very hard to pick Iran

with any luck, they'll be next

Jason

I'd like to see the Iranian people implement regime-change before someone else has to do it.

As would I! But as a matter of world history (and as noted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration),

"all
experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

They CAN do it, they SHOULD do it, they have the MORAL RIGHT to do it...but it's highly unlikely that they WILL do it. Like a woman who stays steadfast at the side of a man who abuses her, so will an entire nation remain firmly planted under the despot they know than to venture into the unknown alternative.

Sometimes, you NEED help whether you realize it or not.

Jason

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
Have you read Devon Largio's paper, TLC?

The intimation was out there. How else do you explain something like 70% of FAUX News viewers believing Saddam had a hand in 9/11?

Ever heard the phrase correlation!=causation, conjur?

Have you ever stoppd one moment to think that's what people believe because IT"S WANT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE? Many people go off of gut instinct instead of actual fact. Most of the RBHrs act on the same sort of instinct in here - They just know this and that about Bush without ever doing any sort of research or relying on any actual facts whatsoever. Their suppositions are manyfold, often involving large quantities of tin-foil. How do you explain that conjur? Shall I assume you and others can't actually formulate your own opinions and that Democratic Underground, the NY Times, or Talking Points Memo has brainwshed all of you?

Man, the ignoraqnce in here is really getting stale and pathetic.

OMG, one more time...

The numbers

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

And...

the aforementioned Presidential Letter in his own words which you can read above.

I can't see how ANYONE can put these two together and come up with any conclusion other than Bush used 9/11 and the threat of WMD, BOTH FALSE, as his excuse to illegally, immorally, unnecessarily invade Iraq.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: dahunan
If I had to choose where the Islamic Radicals were and which Government supported and preached Death To America

A) Iraq
B) Iran

It would not have been very hard to pick Iran

with any luck, they'll be next

Jason

If you want to overturn the governemnt in Iran the best way would be to open up the country to outside money and thought. If you normalize relations anddon't give military aid to iran, the existing governemnt will be gone within 5 years. It will be exactly like how the soviet union fell. Gorbechav (sp?) opened up the government, and it could no longer survive. Invasion will only unifiy the people against us.

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

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex


They CAN do it, they SHOULD do it, they have the MORAL RIGHT to do it...but it's highly unlikely that they WILL do it. Like a woman who stays steadfast at the side of a man who abuses her, so will an entire nation remain firmly planted under the despot they know than to venture into the unknown alternative.

Sometimes, you NEED help whether you realize it or not.

Jason

What is that phrase they use for helping someone who doesn't ask for your help...then your "help" ends up killing them?

It's kinda' like the old joke about the boy scout who wants to do a good deed so he helps an old lady cross the street. Only instead of the punch line being, she didn't want to cross the street, if the boy scout was Bush and the old lady was Iraq, he gets her run over by a bus.

Oh, I remember, it's called naked aggression. Invading someone's nation on trumped up charges of a non-existent to help them become free while you destroy their infrastructure and murder a hundred thousand or so of the people you purport to help -- after your initial lie about the threat their WMD poses proves to be a complete and total fabrication.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
Have you read Devon Largio's paper, TLC?

The intimation was out there. How else do you explain something like 70% of FAUX News viewers believing Saddam had a hand in 9/11?

Ever heard the phrase correlation!=causation, conjur?

Have you ever stoppd one moment to think that's what people believe because IT"S WANT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE? Many people go off of gut instinct instead of actual fact. Most of the RBHrs act on the same sort of instinct in here - They just know this and that about Bush without ever doing any sort of research or relying on any actual facts whatsoever. Their suppositions are manyfold, often involving large quantities of tin-foil. How do you explain that conjur? Shall I assume you and others can't actually formulate your own opinions and that Democratic Underground, the NY Times, or Talking Points Memo has brainwshed all of you?

Man, the ignorance in here is really getting stale and pathetic.

Then how did they get those initial thoughts? No one was talking about Saddam right after 9/11. It was all about bin Laden and Al Qaeda and going to Afghanistan and routing out the Taliban and killing bin Laden.

Amazingly, over the course of the next year, the talk turned to Saddam thanks to the Bush regime's propaganda.

You've fallen for it hook, line, and sinker and the hook is *still* firmly entrenched in your gills.

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[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 in such a way that a sloppy person such as yourself might jump to the conclusion that Saddam and Iraq were directly involved with 9/11. 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.

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

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

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.

Actually, Bush never made the claim at all. But that hasn't stopped the brainless from claiming he has done so by using Jedi mind tricks on the public.

Wow!!! Hyperbole is so brainless and easy too.

Perfect! I owe you a :beer: Chicken, for demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about. Those "brainless" voted overwhelmingly for your feckless leader.

ROFL

Look, if there is one thing clear, it's this: If the whole damn country weren't brainless we'd have elected a third party candidate and Kerry and Bush would be scratching their asses wondering when the American public figured out that Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same party.

Fortunately for both major parties, Americans are largely stupid (mostly thanks to Democrats who don't want students to actually LEARN anything at school, and Republicans who only want them to learn NONSENSE about Faith and tradition.)

Jason

 

[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.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur
Have you read Devon Largio's paper, TLC?

The intimation was out there. How else do you explain something like 70% of FAUX News viewers believing Saddam had a hand in 9/11?

Ever heard the phrase correlation!=causation, conjur?

Have you ever stoppd one moment to think that's what people believe because IT"S WANT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE? Many people go off of gut instinct instead of actual fact. Most of the RBHrs act on the same sort of instinct in here - They just know this and that about Bush without ever doing any sort of research or relying on any actual facts whatsoever. Their suppositions are manyfold, often involving large quantities of tin-foil. How do you explain that conjur? Shall I assume you and others can't actually formulate your own opinions and that Democratic Underground, the NY Times, or Talking Points Memo has brainwshed all of you?

Man, the ignoraqnce in here is really getting stale and pathetic.

OMG, one more time...

The numbers

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

And...

the aforementioned Presidential Letter in his own words which you can read above.

I can't see how ANYONE can put these two together and come up with any conclusion other than Bush used 9/11 and the threat of WMD, BOTH FALSE, as his excuse to illegally, immorally, unnecessarily invade Iraq.

Are you familiar at all with polling methodolgies and how they can skew results? Right after Sept. 11, Americans were asked "open-ended questions." iow, they were asked who they believed was involved with no prompting whatsoever. Unsurprisingly, there were very few responses of any type whatsoever. Subsequent polls provided guidance though by listing potential answers and allowing the people being polled to select from that small group. If people don't know something, they don't like to appear stupid, so they act as if they do know and pick the one that seems most likely to them.

There is plenty of stupid polling data available concerning 9/11. A poll shows that half of New Yorkers believe that the US goevrnment knew of the attacks and "consciously" permitted them to happen. I suppose Bush and Co. mind-melded with these folks too to force that belief on them? Or is it possible they're just conspiracy minded dumba55e5? I'd believe the latter, particular considering NY is so blue.

Once more, correlation!=causation and so far you have proven nothing except that you are willing to ignore public statements to the contrary made by Bush and others in order to advance some ridiculous mind-control theory that can't even be substantiated except through the utmost conjecture. You can put 2 and 2 together and come up with 17. Very clever indeed.

 

[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

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex


They CAN do it, they SHOULD do it, they have the MORAL RIGHT to do it...but it's highly unlikely that they WILL do it. Like a woman who stays steadfast at the side of a man who abuses her, so will an entire nation remain firmly planted under the despot they know than to venture into the unknown alternative.

Sometimes, you NEED help whether you realize it or not.

Jason

What is that phrase they use for helping someone who doesn't ask for your help...then your "help" ends up killing them?

It's kinda' like the old joke about the boy scout who wants to do a good deed so he helps an old lady cross the street. Only instead of the punch line being, she didn't want to cross the street, if the boy scout was Bush and the old lady was Iraq, he gets her run over by a bus.

Oh, I remember, it's called naked aggression. Invading someone's nation on trumped up charges of a non-existent to help them become free while you destroy their infrastructure and murder a hundred thousand or so of the people you purport to help -- after your initial lie about the threat their WMD poses proves to be a complete and total fabrication.

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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

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?

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'!

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!