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

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Are we still talking about al-Qaeda and Iraq pre-war?

No. Were talking about me and my mother.
Ya know -- That would explain a lot of your posts. I'm sure your mom didn't send those 3,300 American troops to die for lies.

If you've been talking about your mom all this time, give her my best, and tell her I'm sorry I said all those mean things because I thought you were talking about George Bush and his war of lies in Iraq. :cool:
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: Gaard
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

George W Bush, 5/24/05

Think how many people were killed by Dub's propaganda catapults. They are the real WMDs.
Weapon of Mindless Destruction?

Whoppers of Moron Dub
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This is exactly the sort of dishonesty that made you the target of such disdain. As has been pointed out dozens of times, those quotes generally fall into one of two categories: (1) spoken before Clinton's highly effective bombing campaign in 1998, or (2) spoken after being deceived by BushCo's cooked intel. (No, Congress did NOT see the exact same intel as Bush/Cheney/et al. Period.) That you continue to spout these quotes out of context only confirms your agenda is pointless partisan misdirection.

That Iraq had WMDs in 1998 is not in dispute, but it is completely irrelevant to BushCo's claims five years later. You're trying to rationalize Bush invading Germany to stop the Holocaust, citing quotes from Democrats from the early 1940's. Guess what? Things change. Insinuating otherwise is dishonest. The intel supporting anti-Iraq claims in 1998 is not the same as the intel of 2003. The Bush administration made dozens of claims that were not supported by the intel available in 2003. That is a fact. They misrepresented both the certainty about Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities -- "There is no doubt." -- and the extent of those capabilities. THEY LIED.

Finally, to preemptively squash the standard follow-up claiming bad intel, it's yet another empty diversion. Not only did BushCo claims not match the intel available, but the intel was incomplete precisely because Bush was in such a rush to invade. We finally had U.N. inspectors back in Iraq, gathering current information. Bush effectively sent them packing before they could finish the job. Why? My belief is he did it precisely because the longer they were there, the more intel they got that contradicted his lies about Iraq's WMDs. The last thing in the world BushCo wanted was better intel. They wanted a full-scale shootin' war, and they were going to have it, truth be damned.
What is the factual basis of that statement?
How do we know that Clinton?s 1998 bombing campaign did anything at all?

There were no weapons inspectors in the country for four years after the campaign stopped. How can you be so sure that his campaign did anything at all, besides distract attention from impeachment.
ROFL. That's a lovely diversion, but it evades the points I raised. You presented those quotes dishonestly -- again -- without critical context. You are trying to cover BushCo deception by insinuating things that were once true must be true forever, and by reversing cause and effect, misrepresenting Democrats duped by BushCo's fairy tale intel as evidence the intel was accurate.

I do appreciate you corroborating two of my points, however. By your own admission, there was uncertainty about exactly how effective Clinton's bombing campaign was. This suggests that if one could get you to remove your partisan blinders momentarily, you would agree BushCo was lying when claiming certain knowledge about Iraq's current WMD capabilities. Statements like "There is no doubt." and "These are facts, not assertions." were lies.

You've also confirmed why forcing the Blix inspection team out of Iraq was irresponsible. We did not have current information about Iraq's remaining WMD capabilites. Blix & co. were getting this information. They should have been allowed to finish the job, though that would have denied the neo-cons the big war they craved. Bummer. Sucks to be a war-monger once your boogeyman is exposed.

Finally, I love the blatant hypocrisy of your last sentence. You blame Clinton for not taking care of Iraq, yet you simultaneously blame him for doing so. That's pretty much the definition of partisan shilling. It must just kill you Clinton-haters to know he handled Iraq infinitely better than Bush 43, without squandering hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and hundreds of billions of American dollars. One of the reasons Clinton looks so good today is because GWB is such a global failure.
Hey PJ, I was reminded of this while watching Bill Moyers' Journal on PBS tonight. It was an excellent review of how the Bush administration misrepresented their intel, and about how a compliant media largely abdicated their responsibility to expose BushCo decpetion. I'm sure you didn't watch it, but it pretty effectively deconstructs the talking points about "bad intel" or "everybody knew ...".

Anyway, I realized you never stopped back to acknowledge that by your own admission, the Bush admin lied about Iraq. How about it. Willing to take that baby step yet?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Did not watch it, was not home.

And sorry but I am not ready to admit that he ?lied?
I would have to see proof that Bush KNEW what he was saying was false.

I believe most of the so called lies come down to POV and opinion.
The British still claim that Saddam did in fact try to buy yellow cake from Niger.
They even go so far as to say that Joe Wilson actually helped their story by bringing to light trade relations between Iraq and certain people (or something like that.)
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Did not watch it, was not home.

And sorry but I am not ready to admit that he ?lied?
I would have to see proof that Bush KNEW what he was saying was false.

I believe most of the so called lies come down to POV and opinion.
The British still claim that Saddam did in fact try to buy yellow cake from Niger.
They even go so far as to say that Joe Wilson actually helped their story by bringing to light trade relations between Iraq and certain people (or something like that.)
I'll simply note that you again evaded the issue posed -- the Bush administration lying -- by moving the goal posts to whether Bush personally lied. By your own admission, the Bush administration lied. "There is no doubt," "These are facts, not assertions," "We know where they are," etc.? All lies.

If you want to excuse Bush himself as an ignorant dupe, a wooden marionette for Cheney & company, I'm willing to accept that. Either way, liar or puppet, neither he nor his corrupt, lying administration deserve the support of real Americans. You would see that were you not so blinded by partisanship.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Bush or Admin my opinion is the same.
Find me proof that they knew what they were saying was false and then we can talk.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
No, weapons of mass destruction were not found nor were they there.

There was a number of underground bunkers, most fully known before the beginning of hostilities, were not secured by American forces, despite the pleading of leading elements on the ground. These bunkers contained large numbers of artillery rounds, small arms and ammunition and explosives.

Many of the neighboring Iraqis "believed" there were weapons of mass destruction contained in these bunkers, because that?s what they had been told. Most of the bunkers were quickly inspected for WMD but not secured.

This administration was so preoccupied with finding WMDs that the basic task of securing munitions from falling into the hands of insurgent forces was neglected.

Our soldiers are now playing the price in terms of IED made from cache's located within these bunkers, and the Administration is embarrassed and tries to cover up its incompetence.

Like all conspiracies, this one takes a small element of truth out of context in order to justify its conclusion....

Let's review...

Democrats in Congress "know" about all this, but they aren't willing to spill the beans because it would prove that Bush's claims about WMDs were incorrect.

Two things wrong here:

1) Finding out there WERE WMDs would have gotten a lot of Dems in congress off the hook for giving authorization for war. Right? "We read the reports, realized there was trouble... and look -- Trouble!"

There would have been no reason - none - for Dems to hide this.

The only reason imaginable - and it is an act of imagination, a paranoid imagination - is that Dems are so crazy they'd be unhappy about finding proof for a war they helped start. And that's the craziness of the wingnuts.

2) If the weapons were lost before they could be "found" this wouldn't be a problems for the Dems. The Prez is the commander in chief (as he always tells us). They would just turn it around and say, "And this dolt "lost" the WMDs after we invaded."

It's that simple. There's no reason for the Dems to lie about this: It would have been to their advantage to find the weapons, and it would have been to their advantage (cynically) to wrap Bush with the loss of the weapons.






 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bush or Admin my opinion is the same.
Find me proof that they knew what they were saying was false and then we can talk.

When it comes to murder paranoia is no excuse.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
Bush or Admin my opinion is the same.
Find me proof that they knew what they were saying was false and then we can talk.
I already did that in my reply to the same lies you posted in the tenth post in this same thread. What makes you think that proof has changed since then? :shocked:
Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
I shudder to enter this thread knowing that Harvey will respond to any post that does not agree with him with another of his cut and paste automated responses, but?

Go read the joint resolution that congress approved. Call this the ?official? reasons that we entered Iraq.
There is no mention of any Iraq al Qaida connection as a reason to going to war. In fact al Qaida is only mentioned ONCE in the whole thing.

Here are the only parts dealing with terrorists and Iraq.
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Both of these were 100% true.
You should shudder to enter this thread if the best you can do is to post yet more of your LIES OF OMMISSION. This time, there's the small matter of the context of, and sources for, the statements you quote in the Congressional Authorization, all of which parrot the disinformation and stovepiped, selected "intelligence" spewed to Congress by the Bushwhackos, as documented in the 9-11 Commission Report from 2004:
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.[/b]

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The finding challenges a belief held by large numbers of Americans about al Qaeda's ties to Hussein. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found."

As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq.

Bush's Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), sought to profit from the commission's finding. "The administration misled America, and the administration reached too far," Kerry told Michigan Public Radio. "I believe that the 9/11 report, the early evidence, is that they're going to indicate that we didn't have the kind of terrorists links that this administration was asserting. I think that's a very, very serious finding."

A Bush campaign spokesman countered that Kerry himself has said Hussein "supported and harbored terrorist groups." And Cheney's spokesman pointed to a 2002 letter written by CIA Director George J. Tenet stating that "we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade" and "credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression." Cheney's office also pointed to a 2003 Tenet statement calling Zarqawi "a senior al Qaeda terrorist associate."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the commission finding of long-standing high-level contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq justified the administration's earlier assertions. "We stand behind what was said publicly," he said.

Bush, speaking to troops in Tampa yesterday, did not mention an Iraq-al Qaeda link, saying only that Iraq "sheltered terrorist groups." That was a significantly milder version of the allegations administration officials have made since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the meeting could not be proved or disproved.

Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding."

In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Speaking about Iraq's alleged links to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney connected Iraq to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by saying that newly found Iraqi intelligence files in Baghdad showed that a participant in the bombing returned to Iraq and "probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven." He added: "The Iraqi government or the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s."

Shortly after Cheney asserted these links, Bush contradicted him, saying: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th." But Bush added: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."

In January, Cheney repeated his view that Iraq was tied to al Qaeda, saying that "there's overwhelming evidence" of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. He said he was "very confident there was an established relationship there."

The commission staff, in yesterday's report, said that while bin Laden was in Sudan between 1991 and 1996, a senior Iraqi intelligence officer made three visits to Sudan, and that he had a meeting with bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden was reported to have sought training camps and assistance in getting weapons, "but Iraq never responded," the staff said. The report said that bin Laden "at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan."

As for the Atta meeting in Prague mentioned by Cheney, the commission staff concluded: "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred." It cited FBI photographic and telephone evidence, along with Czech and U.S. investigations, as well as reports from detainees, including the Iraqi official with whom Atta was alleged to have met. On the 1993 trade center bombing, the staff found "substantial uncertainty" about whether bin Laden and al Qaeda were involved.

At yesterday's hearing, commissioner Fred F. Fielding questioned the staff's finding of no apparent cooperation between bin Laden and Hussein. He pointed to a sentence in the first sealed indictment in 2001 of the al Qaeda members accused of the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; that sentence said al Qaeda reached an understanding with Iraq that they would not work against each other and would cooperate on acquiring arms.

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, now a U.S. attorney in Illinois, who oversaw the African bombing case, told the commission that reference was dropped in a superceding indictment because investigators could not confirm al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq as they had done with its ties to Iran, Sudan and Hezbollah. The original material came from an al Qaeda defector who told prosecutors that what he had heard was secondhand.

The staff report on Iraq was brief. Though not confirming any Iraqi collaboration with al Qaeda, it did not specifically address two of the other pieces of evidence the administration has offered to link Iraq to al Qaeda: Zarqawi's Tawhid organization and the Ansar al-Islam group.

In October 2002, Bush described Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, as "one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks."

Zarqawi wrote a January 2003 letter to bin Laden's lieutenants, intercepted at the Iraqi border, saying that if al Qaeda adopted his approach in Iraq, he would swear "fealty to you [bin Laden] publicly and in the news media."

In March, in a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Tenet described Zarqawi's network as among groups having "links" to al Qaeda but with its own "autonomous leadership . . . own targets [and] they plan their own attacks."

Although Zarqawi may have cooperated with al Qaeda in the past, officials said it is increasingly clear that he has been operating independently of bin Laden's group and has his own network of operatives.

The other group, Ansar al-Islam, began in 2001 among Kurdish Sunni Islamic fundamentalists in northern Iraq, fighting against the two secular Kurdish groups that operated under the protection of the United States. At one point, bin Laden supported Ansar, as did Zarqawi, who is believed to have visited their area more than once. Tenet referred to Ansar as one of the Sunni groups that had benefited from al Qaeda links.
The Bushwhackos have conflated Saddam and Iraq with Al Qaeda and 9-11 since the day they started beating the war drums about Iraq, and they haven't stopped.
Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
Finally... in your list of people that began the thread why didn't you leave out any Democrats who were saying the same thing?
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Hillary Clinton and every other member of Congress were fed the same LIES your still trying to shove at us years after they've been discredited. STOP THE RERUNS, STOP THE RERUNS and GET OVER IT!
  • The "intelligence" fed to Congress and the American people was cherry picked and directed from the top.
  • Rumsfeld set his own parallel "intelligence" operation within DOD when the CIA and FBI couldn't tell him what he wanted to hear.
  • There was no yellow cake uraniium in Niger.
  • There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
  • There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  • There were no long range rockets.
  • There were no WMD's.
They ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:
  • They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.

    The Bushwhackos didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  • They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.

    The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  • Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed that the reports were false.

    The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.
Cheney hasn't lied about connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda since... umm.. day before yesterday.
Cheney reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam link as latest Pentagon report

Last Update: Apr 6, 2007 1:36 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney and the Pentagon are offering conflicting views about whether al-Qaida had links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Cheney continues to insist there is a connection but a declassified Defense Department report cites more evidence that Saddam's regime did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

Speaking to radio host Rush Limbaugh, Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces. He says terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned Nine-Eleven.

But the Pentagon report released Thursday says seized documents, along with interrogations of Saddam and two of his former aides, confirm that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.

The 9/11 Commission report also found no evidence of a connection.
If you can get beyond regurgitating the Bushwhackos' last six years of criminal lies and pathetic excuses, maybe you'd like to explain what justifies over 3,200 dead American troops in their WAR OF DECEIT AND DECEPTION. :thumbsdown: :( :thumbsdown:

If you want people to stop calling you on your lies, you could always STOP LYING... for a change. :p
If you're going to insist on lying, you might at least try to make up some new ones. Reposting the same ones in the same thread don't give you much cover. :laugh:
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
Harvey, you're wasting your time.
I don't even read you mile long cut and paste posts.
Yeah. I know. You never let little things like facts and documented history get in the way of your repeated LIES.

I just thought it was even more pathetic than usual when you couldn't avoid repeating the same lies in the same thread, especially since my earlier reply directly addressed your later request for proof the Bushwackos lied. :roll:

You really should quit lying, if only because you're so piss poor at it. :laugh:
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
My guess is Bush & Cheney will flee to Mexico.
Nah! They wouldn't bother with Mexico when Halliburton is already paving the way for them in Dubai. :disgust:
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Harvey, you're wasting your time.
I don't even read you mile long cut and paste posts.

ProfJohn, I don't get you sometimes... Actually, most of the time.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bush or Admin my opinion is the same.
Find me proof that they knew what they were saying was false and then we can talk.

When it comes to murder paranoia is no excuse.

Youre exactly right. I mean, following up on previous intel, even if it somewhat different than the truth, and even though we have no clue whatsoever it is false, is no predication for war. We need to REact, not ACT. Pearl harbor for example. Thats what we need. A direct attack on us or an ally.

/nod
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The great news is Congress is going after Cheney first, then Bush.

We may have a woman President very soon.

My guess is Bush & Cheney will flee to Mexico.

Too bad Pelosi wont let it pass.

Unless, of course, her campaign promises are full of sh1t. But we know that cant be, coz she's a democrat.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The great news is Congress is going after Cheney first, then Bush.

We may have a woman President very soon.

My guess is Bush & Cheney will flee to Mexico.

Too bad Pelosi wont let it pass.

Unless, of course, her campaign promises are full of sh1t. But we know that cant be, coz she's a democrat.
BUHAHAHAHA! Don't you just love an intellectually well reasoned response? :laugh:
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Harvey, you're wasting your time.
I don't even read you mile long cut and paste posts.
ProfJohn, I don't get you sometimes... Actually, most of the time.
What don?t you get?

The left has been trying to say that Bush/Cheney LIED in the run up to the war, but can never post a real actual lie.

Post for me a nice concise lie by either of them. And by lie I mean a statement by them that they knew without a shadow of a doubt was false.
Most of the so called lies are based on interpretation of the facts and evidence.

Typical example of a left ?lie?
Bush said Saddam tried to by yellow cake!! That?s a LIE!!! And Joe Wilson proved it to be a lie.

No, Bush said that the British believe that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake. And the British also claim the Joe Wilson actually HELPED their case by bringing other contacts between Saddam and Nigeria to light.

Instead of trying to post a mile long lists of supposed lies just give me their statement and proof they the KNEW it was false when they said it.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
ProfJohn said:
Bush or Admin my opinion is the same.
Find me proof that they knew what they were saying was false and then we can talk.

The majority (if not the vast majority) of todays "new" GOPer's do not believe in climate change for one reason and one reason only: Because Al Gore does.

But it is merely a single, paradigmatic, instance of a more general problem:

That "new" GOPer's believe all aspects of politics reduce to a matter of opinion, as opposed to grounded in fact.

Many of my Republican friends are aware of how the current administration has let them down, but they still accept all the rhetoric, primarily, it seems, because "denying" the rhetoric implies "agreeing" with the Democrats.

Take any issue: if a Democrat gets out front and speaks the truth, Republicans (even the non-venomous ones) will ultimately reject that view, presumably because of a political identification.

The problem, it seems to me, is the tendency of average people to be seduced by the meta-rhetorical point hammered home by Neocons, Nixonians, GOPers all the way back: there are no facts, only beliefs.

And the flip side as well: facts can always be disputed, but beliefs are unshakable.

The difference between the left and the right is no longer found in the opposing political philosophies each side embraces. Rather, the characteristic which increasingly characterizes 'the left' is merely expressing what would otherwise be obvious and inarguable statements of fact.

Prior to gaining power, the modus operandi of the conservative movement was the conspiracy theory. The enemy within. The 5th column. Socialists/communists trying to take over. Black helicopters. The New World Order. The list goes on and on.

While conservatives held power the babbling about such things subsided. It's hard to say that you're fighting to stop the evil core of the evil government when you ARE the government.

But it just shows how ingrained this meme is with the right wing that it returns now, when they've lost some of their power.

It's paranoia, pure and simple, and it's so powerful within their mindset that it's triggered the moment they don't have absolute control. Or at least the perception of absolute control.

It's this fundamental insecurity that makes them authoritarians, so it doesn't surprise me at all that this "enemy within" meme has sprung back up.

I expected it to be back when/if democrats took back the white house, but I guess this means it'll just be extra strong once that happens.



 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
ProfJohn said:
Bush or Admin my opinion is the same.
Find me proof that they knew what they were saying was false and then we can talk.

The majority (if not the vast majority) of todays "new" GOPer's do not believe in climate change for one reason and one reason only: Because Al Gore does.
And the fact that there are dozens of very well known scientists saying the same thing has no sway on our views right? :roll:
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
ProfJohn said:
Bush or Admin my opinion is the same.
Find me proof that they knew what they were saying was false and then we can talk.

The majority (if not the vast majority) of todays "new" GOPer's do not believe in climate change for one reason and one reason only: Because Al Gore does.
And the fact that there are dozens of very well known scientists saying the same thing has no sway on our views right? :roll:

Who, and what kind of scientists?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
What don?t you get?

The left has been trying to say that Bush/Cheney LIED in the run up to the war, but can never post a real actual lie.
What don?t you get? I've posted the same string of documented Bushwhacko lies twice in this thread, alone, and your only reply was that you didn't read them. :roll:

Didn't your mother ever tell you, if you didn't stop that, you'd go blind? :laugh:

Either refute my list of Bushwhacko lies, or STFU! :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

You really should quit lying, if only because you're so piss poor at it. :laugh:
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
ProfJohn said:
Bush or Admin my opinion is the same.
Find me proof that they knew what they were saying was false and then we can talk.

The majority (if not the vast majority) of todays "new" GOPer's do not believe in climate change for one reason and one reason only: Because Al Gore does.
And the fact that there are dozens of very well known scientists saying the same thing has no sway on our views right? :roll:
Dozens out of tens of thousands who say the opposite.

There are also "dozens" of epidemiologists who maintain the HIV virus does NOT cause aids.

There are "dozens" of historians who claim the holocaust didn't occur.

There are "dozens" of physicists who think the general theory of relativity is incorrect.

Pick ANY area of science, no matter how "settled", and you will find handfuls of scientists who are on the fringe.

Which leads to the question: What is so compelling about the claims of the fringe scientists who maintain climate change has little to do with human activity that you believe their claims over those of the overwhelming consensus that thinks the opposite?