* CONFIRMED * Pentagon Says NO Pre-War Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
you know what blackangst1? I take back what I just said about your critical thinking skills..actually you are alright

just wrong in this instance...and thats OK.

:beer:
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: OrByte
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - State of the Union Address

Selective quotes FTW. Let me remind of the rest of the SOTU:
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - State of the Union Address
As I posted, earlier, that's called conflation, and, in speech, it refers to speaking the same words together so many times that the words become associated in the minds of those hearing the speech.
Con·fla·tion
n.

[L. conflatio.]

1. A blowing together, as of many instruments in a concert, or of many fires in a foundry.

2. a fusing together; merger of two or more things or ideas into one.
Seriously, what part of the quote in OrByte's post and the other quotes I and others posted by Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld, and even the quotes you included in your post, do you not understand to be conflating the two issues of Iraq and 9-11? :roll:
Dude. All this sh1t happened in Clinton's watch. Im gonna bang the "Clinton's fault" drum, but Christ gimme a break. There's alot of info that is questionable and cherry picked, but there is also info that is undisputable. THAT WAS COLLECTED BEFORE GWB WAS IN OFFICE!
.
.
At least, you haven't blamed 9-11 on Clinton... yet. :laugh:
 

ElDonAntonio

Senior member
Aug 4, 2001
967
0
0
You know what, when you have ONE reason to do something, it's usually valid. When you have TEN different reasons, it's usually all bullshit.

It's absolutely unbelievable to see everyone that was lied to and supported the war keep their stance once every one of their reasons have been proven to be totally fabricated. The american public was the only one in the world that was lied to enough to believe we needed to go to war with Iraq. The ONLY one. It's been so obvious from the start GWB was intent on starting a war no matter what it's not even funny. Everyone except the americans saw the lies for what they were. And yet even now that they're exposed, americans still cling to them.

It's even more obvious now that the misled public is scrambling to post-justify a war that shouldn't have happened. WMD? hmm...no. AlQuaeda? neither. 9/11? ouch, no. Chemical weapons? crap. Uh...freeing the iraqis? they never asked for it and are certainly not better off now. Well then let's see..."God told me to do it" and "He tried to kill my dad"? Yep, right on!
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Thank you for posting a link for us to read for ourselves.

Read the following and explain it to me please.
This is the very next line, the point at which you stopped quoting him...
In this updating, I'm bound, however, to register some problems. The first are related to two kinds of air operations. While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we plan to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety unless a number of conditions are fulfilled.

As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in Resolution 1441 and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our requests. I hope this attitude will change.

Another air operation problem, which was so during our recent talks in Baghdad, concerned the use of helicopters flying into the no-fly zones. Iraq had insisted on sending helicopters of their own to accompany ours.

This would have raised a safety problem.

The matter was solved by an offer on our part to take the accompanying Iraqi minders in our helicopters to the sites, an arrangement that had been practiced by UNSCOM in the past.

I'm obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of an intelligence character. While I might not defend every question that inspectors might have asked, Iraq knows that they do not serve intelligence purposes and Iraq should not say so.

On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites. The other day, a sightseeing excursion by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. Inspectors went without U.N. insignia and were welcomed in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners. They took off their shoes and were taken around. They asked perfectly innocent questions and parted with the invitation to come again.

Shortly thereafter, we received protests from the Iraqi authorities about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, they were not.

Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq with initiative or encouragement from the authorities. We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not facilitate an already difficult job, in which we try to be effective, professional, and at the same time correct. Where our Iraqi counterparts have some complaint, they can take it up in a calmer and less unpleasant manner.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
More from Blix's transcript.

For those of you who wonder why we expected to find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, read this.
I would now like to turn to the so-called air force document that I have discussed with the council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi air force headquarters in 1998, and taken from her by Iraq minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I'm encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at the storage depot, 170 kilometers southwest of Baghdad, was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved here in the past few years at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding.

Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve, but rather points to the issue of several thousand of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate.

During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and has set up a committee of investigation. Since then, it has reported that it has found four chemical rockets at a storage depot in al-beloved patriot. I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of ... a mustard [gas] precursor.
and more
I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.

Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was indeed destroyed in 1991.
and yet more proof of Iraq not doing what they were suppose to do.
When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents. All existing relevant documents have presented, we are told. All documents relating to the biological weapons program were destroyed together with the weapons.

However, Iraq has all the archives of the government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports and how they have been used. They should also have letters of credit and bills of lading, reports and production and losses of material.

In response to a recent UNMOVIC request for a number of specific documents, the only new documents Iraq provided was a ledger of 1,093 pages which Iraq stated included all imports from 1983 to 1990 by the Technical and Scientific Importation Division, the importing authority for the biological weapons programs. Potentially, it might help to clear some open issues.

The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the lacing enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side which claims that research staff sometimes may bring papers from their work places.
geee Remember the parts of the nuclear program found buried in someones garden?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: OrByte
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - State of the Union Address

Selective quotes FTW. Let me remind of the rest of the SOTU:
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - State of the Union Address
As I posted, earlier, that's called conflation, and, in speech, it refers to speaking the same words together so many times that the words become associated in the minds of those hearing the speech.
Con·fla·tion
n.

[L. conflatio.]

1. A blowing together, as of many instruments in a concert, or of many fires in a foundry.

2. a fusing together; merger of two or more things or ideas into one.
Seriously, what part of the quote in OrByte's post and the other quotes I and others posted by Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld, and even the quotes you included in your post, do you not understand to be conflating the two issues of Iraq and 9-11? :roll:
Dude. All this sh1t happened in Clinton's watch. Im gonna bang the "Clinton's fault" drum, but Christ gimme a break. There's alot of info that is questionable and cherry picked, but there is also info that is undisputable. THAT WAS COLLECTED BEFORE GWB WAS IN OFFICE!
.
.
At least, you haven't blamed 9-11 on Clinton... yet. :laugh:

Seriously, what part of the quote in OrByte's post and the other quotes I and others posted by Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld, and even the quotes you included in your post, do you not understand to be conflating the two issues of Iraq and 9-11? :roll

I guess the part where Bush blamed someone besides AlQaida?

At least, you haven't blamed 9-11 on Clinton... yet. :laugh:

Blame? I have NEVER blamed anyone except the group responsible...kinda like GWB did in his above quoted SOTU address: AlQaida. As far as Iraq goes, all I've said is the tie has been made between Iraq and AlQaida. I guess all these quotes were based on lies told by GWB while he was governing Texas?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

In February 1998, politicians debated the Clinton administration's plans to launch air attacks against Iraq in an effort to coerce Saddam Hussein into cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors. As the Washington Post noted at the time:

Foreign leaders and diplomats may be urging restraint on the Clinton administration in the showdown with Iraq, but a growing chorus at home is calling for stronger measures than the air attacks currently being planned, with the objective of bringing down President Saddam Hussein.

Prominent members of the foreign policy establishment and some leading members of Congress say they are convinced that air attacks aimed at coercing the Iraqis into cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors would not succeed, and would result in too narrow a victory even if they did.

Instead, they argue, the United States should go beyond the objective of curtailing Iraqi weapons programs and adopt a far-reaching strategy aimed at replacing the Baghdad regime. Although they are far from consensus on what that strategy should be, a few openly advocate the possible use of U.S. ground forces, a much greater commitment than the options being pursued by the administration.

Many supporters of a more forceful strategy are conservative Republicans and longtime defense hard-liners, such as Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and former Pentagon official Richard L. Armitage. But they also include former representative Stephen J. Solarz (N.Y.), a liberal Democrat who with former Pentagon official Richard Perle is circulating a letter in Congress and foreign policy circles seeking bipartisan support for a more ambitious policy.

In addition to a crushing bombing campaign or the possibility of ground troops, some advocates of tougher measures are suggesting seeking Iraq's expulsion from the United Nations, indicting Saddam Hussein as a war criminal, or blockading the port of Basra to halt illicit oil exports ? an action that would infuriate Iran, which shares the Shatt al Arab waterway with Iraq.

Such moves, if made unilaterally, would almost certainly draw the ire of most of the United States's U.N. partners and frame the crisis even more starkly as a conflict between Washington and Baghdad. But public opinion polls may indicate support for such a route. A Los Angeles Times poll published on Monday showed that by 68 percent to 24 percent, Americans favor airstrikes provided they are designed to remove Saddam Hussein from power, not just force him to accept the commands of the U.N. Security Council.1
That same article also reported a statement made by President Clinton the previous day (4 February 1998):

Yesterday, Clinton reiterated that he would prefer a "diplomatic solution" to the standoff with Iraq but added, "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." Clinton met with Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, just back from a trip to Europe and several Arab countries to outline the U.S. position, and is to discuss Iraq with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who arrived in Washington yesterday.1
On 17 February 1998, President Clinton delivered a speech at the Pentagon. Excerpts from that speech include the following comments:

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution . . .

But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. . . .

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.2
On 18 February 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright appeared along with Defense Secretary William Cohen and White House National Security Adviser Sandy Berger at an internationally televised "town meeting" at Ohio State University. Protesters shouted from the stands throughout the meeting, and Secretary Albright attempted to quiet them by inviting some of them down to the floor to pose questions to her directly. As the Columbus Dispatch reported:

Few actually got the opportunity, but one ? Jon Strange, a substitute teacher in Columbus ? eventually took the microphone.

He repeatedly challenged Albright on whether Clinton policy is consistent or fair ? attacking Saddam while acting favorably to American allies charged with atrocities against their own people, such as Indonesia and Turkey.

Albright said the United States had expressed its concerns in all of the occasions Strange mentioned. "What we ought to be thinking about is how to deal with Saddam Hussein," she added.

"You're not answering my question, Madam Albright!" Strange shouted, causing the secretary to momentarily back from the lectern.

At that point, Woodruff followed his question by asking why Iraq was branded an outlaw nation for manufacturing chemical and biological weapons that other nations also possess.

"It is a question of whether there is a proclivity to use them," Albright said. "Saddam Hussein is a repeat offender."

Many who attended yesterday's town meeting, while supportive of the nation's position on Iraq, said they are uncertain whether a military attack is the proper response.

Before the forum, Rob Aiken, a North Side resident and student at Ohio State, said he wanted to know what other options had been considered.

"I don't think killing a lot of folks will change a regime," he said.

Leandra Kennedy, a political science major from Philadelphia, said her biggest concern is that an attack has not received congressional approval.

"Saddam needs to comply," she said. "But I'm not sure about the way we're going about it, not taking into consideration how it will affect the international community in the long run."

Calling Saddam a bully who has terrorized his Middle East neighbors and tortured his own people, the officials said the administration's aim is to reduce his capacity to manufacture and deliver weapons of mass destruction.

"I am absolutely convinced that we could accomplish our mission," Berger said.

"The risks that the leader of a rogue state can use biological or chemical weapons on us or our allies is the greatest security risk we face," Albright said.3
During that same meeting National Security Adviser Sandy Berger also spoke about how to make Saddam Hussein comply with United Nations weapons inspectors:

Berger won strong applause when he insisted Washington is still hoping for a peaceful way to persuade Saddam to give United Nations inspectors free access to suspected weapons sites. But Berger re-used a warning delivered Tuesday by President Bill Clinton: "The only answer to aggression and outlaw behaviour is firmness. . . He (Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983."4



EDIT: God I hate reposting this crap reminding you it wasnt GWB's scheme...and that it started way before he was in office. /sigh how quickly you forget inconvenient facts.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Wasn?t it Clinton who signed the law stating our official policy in Iraq was the removal of Saddam?

You have to admit that if Clinton had not been so forceful in his use of language about Iraq or in calling for the removal of Saddam it would have been much harder for Bush to make his case.
But since Clinton had said nearly everything that Bush was saying it was not much of a stretch for many people to believe him.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Is there any prowar person who agrees that Bush often gave the impression of a link between Iraq and 9/11?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Yet another example of gross incompetence at best and outright lying at worst. The American people are overwhelmingly against this administration's policies, and so is anyone sane. I can only hope for accountability and reasoned competence from the next U.S. president.

Hell we havent even held Bush Sr, or Clinton responsible for their crap what makes this prez so different? lol
Clinton and the Smart Bush didn't lead us into a quagmire or a war based on Bullsh!t.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Thank you for posting a link for us to read for ourselves.

Read the following and explain it to me please.
This is the very next line, the point at which you stopped quoting him...
In this updating, I'm bound, however, to register some problems. The first are related to two kinds of air operations. While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we plan to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety unless a number of conditions are fulfilled.

As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in Resolution 1441 and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our requests. I hope this attitude will change.

Another air operation problem, which was so during our recent talks in Baghdad, concerned the use of helicopters flying into the no-fly zones. Iraq had insisted on sending helicopters of their own to accompany ours.

This would have raised a safety problem.

The matter was solved by an offer on our part to take the accompanying Iraqi minders in our helicopters to the sites, an arrangement that had been practiced by UNSCOM in the past.

I'm obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of an intelligence character. While I might not defend every question that inspectors might have asked, Iraq knows that they do not serve intelligence purposes and Iraq should not say so.

On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites. The other day, a sightseeing excursion by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. Inspectors went without U.N. insignia and were welcomed in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners. They took off their shoes and were taken around. They asked perfectly innocent questions and parted with the invitation to come again.

Shortly thereafter, we received protests from the Iraqi authorities about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, they were not.

Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq with initiative or encouragement from the authorities. We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not facilitate an already difficult job, in which we try to be effective, professional, and at the same time correct. Where our Iraqi counterparts have some complaint, they can take it up in a calmer and less unpleasant manner.

I've already stated "...with the exception of a few minor disagreements between the inspectors and Iraq..." Overall, Blix testified that the inspectors had major cooperation on the inspections and unfettered access.

And remember - Bush was the one calling out the inspectors, not allowing them to complete their mission. It's only too bad that Blix didn't raise a banner behind him during his exit from Iraq that read "MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED"

So your whole tactic of going back to the cease-fire agreement is complete and utter BS.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For those of you who wonder why we expected to find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, read this.
Gee, if only the UN inspectors had more time to complete their mission and find the answers to those questions! Except our war-monger in chief realized that nothing was being found and the likelihood of finding something was becoming more and more slim. Well, that and summer was coming. Oh, and he had to launch his war in sufficient time before the 2004 elections. I'm sure there are more lame excuses too.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
Wasn?t it Clinton who signed the law stating our official policy in Iraq was the removal of Saddam?
AR-R-R-RGH!!! Once again, PrevaricatorJohn tells us it was Clinton's fault. I'm expeting him to tell us Clinton is the cause of global warming, too.
You have to admit that if Clinton had not been so forceful in his use of language about Iraq or in calling for the removal of Saddam it would have been much harder for Bush to make his case.
We don't "have to admit" any such thing. Did Clinton start a full blown war based on nothingt but lies? Are you going to tell us every one of 3282 (as of this post) American troops who died in Iraq is named Vince Foster and is the victim of a nefarious Clinton plot? :shocked:
But since Clinton had said nearly everything that Bush was saying it was not much of a stretch for many people to believe him.
Believing ANYTHING your Liar In Chief says is a stretch. Stretching doesn't begin to describe the outrageous contortions we'd have to go through to believe YOU. If you're going to make such stupid assertions, you're going to have to prove them. :roll:
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Is there any prowar person who agrees that Bush often gave the impression of a link between Iraq and 9/11?
It was four years ago so I don?t recall everything perfectly.

But I believe that most of the statements were not ?Iraq had something to do with 9-11.?
They were more along the lines of ?After 9-11 we can?t risk leaving Saddam in power with his WMD and past history of terrorism connections.?

Most of the quotes posted in this thread seem of that variety as well.
Sadly there are a LOT of Americans who don?t follow this stuff closely and some how they ended up believing that Iraq had something to do with 9-11 directly.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For those of you who wonder why we expected to find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, read this.
Gee, if only the UN inspectors had more time to complete their mission and find the answers to those questions! Except our war-monger in chief realized that nothing was being found and the likelihood of finding something was becoming more and more slim. Well, that and summer was coming. Oh, and he had to launch his war in sufficient time before the 2004 elections. I'm sure there are more lame excuses too.
How much time should we have given them?
Iraq already had 10+ years to disarm and they had still not done so.

As the Blix statements show. They found chemical warheads in weapons shelters that were built AFTER the Iraq war. Meaning that Iraq moved shells to these shelters even though they were not even suppose to have these weapons.

Go ahead and question whether we should have gone to war over Iraq and its WMD programs. But don?t question whether Iraq was living up to its ceasefire requirements, they clearly were not.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
How much time should we have given them?

Iraq already had 10+ years to disarm and they had still not done so.

As the Blix statements show. They found chemical warheads in weapons shelters that were built AFTER the Iraq war. Meaning that Iraq moved shells to these shelters even though they were not even suppose to have these weapons.

Go ahead and question whether we should have gone to war over Iraq and its WMD programs.

But don?t question whether Iraq was living up to its ceasefire requirements, they clearly were not.
Until he actually used WMD outside "his" Country.

What is it about "Soviern" Nation you and your GOP radicals do not understand???
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Gaard
Is there any prowar person who agrees that Bush often gave the impression of a link between Iraq and 9/11?
It was four years ago so I don?t recall everything perfectly.
AT LAST, he speaks some truth! :laugh:
But I believe that most of the statements were not ?Iraq had something to do with 9-11.?
They were more along the lines of ?After 9-11 we can?t risk leaving Saddam in power with his WMD and past history of terrorism connections.?

Most of the quotes posted in this thread seem of that variety as well.
Sadly there are a LOT of Americans who don?t follow this stuff closely and some how they ended up believing that Iraq had something to do with 9-11 directly.
In this thread, many of us, including you, have quoted numerous statements by Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld containing the words, Iraq, Saddam, Al Qaeda and 9-11. As I posted, earlier, that's called CONFLATION. In speech, it refers to speaking the same words together so many times that the words become associated in the minds of those hearing the speech.
Con·fla·tion
n.

[L. conflatio.]

1. A blowing together, as of many instruments in a concert, or of many fires in a foundry.

2. a fusing together; merger of two or more things or ideas into one.
Communication includes not only the words that are spoken, but also what is understood by the listeners. Do you not believe the words in their public statements were chosen carefully for their intended effect? What part of those repeatedly droned combinations of words from do you not understand to be conflating the issues? :roll:
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For those of you who wonder why we expected to find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, read this.
Gee, if only the UN inspectors had more time to complete their mission and find the answers to those questions! Except our war-monger in chief realized that nothing was being found and the likelihood of finding something was becoming more and more slim. Well, that and summer was coming. Oh, and he had to launch his war in sufficient time before the 2004 elections. I'm sure there are more lame excuses too.
How much time should we have given them?
Iraq already had 10+ years to disarm and they had still not done so.

As the Blix statements show. They found chemical warheads in weapons shelters that were built AFTER the Iraq war. Meaning that Iraq moved shells to these shelters even though they were not even suppose to have these weapons.

Go ahead and question whether we should have gone to war over Iraq and its WMD programs. But don?t question whether Iraq was living up to its ceasefire requirements, they clearly were not.

You're nitpicking. We were getting overall cooperation on the inspections. You don't go to war over a paperwork error and you certainly should allow weapons inspectors to fully do their job before going to war.

While you're entitled to your opinion, it's certainly a weak one. Blix's testimony demonstrates that on the whole, we were getting cooperation on the inspections. Was it perfect? No, but again the rush to war took precedence over level-headed logical thought patterns.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
How much time should we have given them?
Iraq already had 10+ years to disarm and they had still not done so.

More than 5 months (Nov 02 - Mar 03) would have been nice. You really expect the weapon inspectors to be able to comb through an entire country like Iraq in 5 months. WTF are you smoking?!?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
How much time should we have given them?
Iraq already had 10+ years to disarm and they had still not done so.
More than 5 months (Nov 02 - Mar 03) would have been nice. You really expect the weapon inspectors to be able to comb through an entire country like Iraq in 5 months. WTF are you smoking?!?
You are ignoring the fact that Saddam was given 10 years to disarm and cooperate with inspectors and during that time he did neither.

You are ignoring the fact that Saddam had a history of responding to threats by cooperating with inspectors for a while. And then when the worlds attention turned away he returned to playing games and throwing up smoke screens.

You are using 20/20 hindsight, see he had no WMD, as evidence that the inspections were going to be successful. You ignore the fact that at the time of the war EVERY nation in the world believed that Saddam still had WMD. The only thing the world disagreed upon is how to deal with Saddam and his WMD stockpiles.

The US, UK and Spain thought we should go to war, France, Russia and China thought we should allow more inspections. But no matter which side of the fence they sat on they all agreed that there were still unanswered questions when it came to Saddam and his WMD programs.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Gaard
Is there any prowar person who agrees that Bush often gave the impression of a link between Iraq and 9/11?

Im pro-war in this case, college educated, and a Mensa member.

I NEVER read his words for anything other than what he said. Also, because I happened to remember how the majority of congress and the public wanted to go to war in 1997-1999 to dethrone Sadaam, I considered this war to be the one Clinton didnt have the balls to start.

But who the hell am I right?
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
How much time should we have given them?
Iraq already had 10+ years to disarm and they had still not done so.
More than 5 months (Nov 02 - Mar 03) would have been nice. You really expect the weapon inspectors to be able to comb through an entire country like Iraq in 5 months. WTF are you smoking?!?
You are ignoring the fact that Saddam was given 10 years to disarm and cooperate with inspectors and during that time he did neither.

You are ignoring the fact that Saddam had a history of responding to threats by cooperating with inspectors for a while. And then when the worlds attention turned away he returned to playing games and throwing up smoke screens.

You are using 20/20 hindsight, see he had no WMD, as evidence that the inspections were going to be successful. You ignore the fact that at the time of the war EVERY nation in the world believed that Saddam still had WMD. The only thing the world disagreed upon is how to deal with Saddam and his WMD stockpiles.

The US, UK and Spain thought we should go to war, France, Russia and China thought we should allow more inspections. But no matter which side of the fence they sat on they all agreed that there were still unanswered questions when it came to Saddam and his WMD programs.

I think that you should try your hand at critical thinking for a change instead of the above example of letting others do the thinking for you.

You are right that Saddam had ten years to disarm. Now that we have been in there, what have they (weapons inspectors and/or US troops) found? They found old, antiquated shells that were more harmful as blunt objects than as tactical weapons. They found that we wouldn't be greeted at liberators. And, that's about it. Oh wait....that isn't it. They did find that he actually followed the UN orders and disarmed but Bush didn't allow enough time for that fact to come to light.

If you have any proof or documentation that backs up your claims that doesn't come in the form of a talking head's opinion, now would be the time to present it.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Yet another example of gross incompetence at best and outright lying at worst. The American people are overwhelmingly against this administration's policies, and so is anyone sane. I can only hope for accountability and reasoned competence from the next U.S. president.

Hell we havent even held Bush Sr, or Clinton responsible for their crap what makes this prez so different? lol
Clinton and the Smart Bush didn't lead us into a quagmire or a war based on Bullsh!t.

Because Clinton didnt have the balls to heed the advice and the requests of his cabinet, the congress, and thee majority of Americans. Refresh yourself on the issue starting in Congressional hearings on the Iraq in 1997.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For those of you who wonder why we expected to find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, read this.
Gee, if only the UN inspectors had more time to complete their mission and find the answers to those questions! Except our war-monger in chief realized that nothing was being found and the likelihood of finding something was becoming more and more slim. Well, that and summer was coming. Oh, and he had to launch his war in sufficient time before the 2004 elections. I'm sure there are more lame excuses too.
How much time should we have given them?
Iraq already had 10+ years to disarm and they had still not done so.

As the Blix statements show. They found chemical warheads in weapons shelters that were built AFTER the Iraq war. Meaning that Iraq moved shells to these shelters even though they were not even suppose to have these weapons.

Go ahead and question whether we should have gone to war over Iraq and its WMD programs. But don?t question whether Iraq was living up to its ceasefire requirements, they clearly were not.

You're nitpicking. We were getting overall cooperation on the inspections. You don't go to war over a paperwork error and you certainly should allow weapons inspectors to fully do their job before going to war.

While you're entitled to your opinion, it's certainly a weak one. Blix's testimony demonstrates that on the whole, we were getting cooperation on the inspections. Was it perfect? No, but again the rush to war took precedence over level-headed logical thought patterns.

So you are calling the inspectors and the Internation Atomic Agency liars throughout the 90's? Pretty brave of you...
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
How much time should we have given them?
Iraq already had 10+ years to disarm and they had still not done so.

More than 5 months (Nov 02 - Mar 03) would have been nice. You really expect the weapon inspectors to be able to comb through an entire country like Iraq in 5 months. WTF are you smoking?!?

WTF are YOU smoking...inspectors were denied access all throughout the 90's. Read a little it'll do you good.