Once again, Bush tries to tie together 9/11 and Iraq

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Pabster
And what was factually incorrect with what he said?

As usual, nothing. Those who suggest we'd be A-OK if we just packed up our tents and left are naive.

That's correct. The OP's topic and the actual quote he used are two different things. Tying the two together is a false insinuation and is a disgrace to the truth.

The decision to go in and f?up Iraq is SEPARATE from the decision of wanting to leave it in ruins for terrorist control. The quote is an argument for staying in to rebuild and repair the mess and nothing more.

Tying together people who want to kill us with people who want to kill us should be a fairly simple conclusion.

Read Bush's quote again...he isn't saying "if we left Iraq", he's saying "if we weren't in Iraq". A poor choice of words to convey his real point, maybe, but it also reminds us that while your point is probably true (that we NEED to leave Iraq in a better state than it is today before we leave), Bush's point is probably false...if we hadn't gone to Iraq in the first place, the situation in the "war on terror" would almost certainly be better. It's a good argument for his goal (not pulling out of Iraq right away), but a poor argument for having him and his party at the helm accomplishing it.

 

[themusgrat]

Like Bush said, there is no evidence to support your point Rainsford. He is making an unprovable claim, but I kind of agree with him. Certainly we, as Americans, wouldn't be directly influenced by terror as much, but there is no reason that the rest of the world wouldn't. After 9/11, I don't think we had any chance at all to stay out of this whole terrorism mess. So it's not that we shouldn't be involved, or that if we ignored attacks like 9/11 (????) that terrorism levels would be lower, the question is whether we are going at it in the right way by invading Iraq.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Like Bush said, there is no evidence to support your point Rainsford. He is making an unprovable claim, but I kind of agree with him. Certainly we, as Americans, wouldn't be directly influenced by terror as much, but there is no reason that the rest of the world wouldn't. After 9/11, I don't think we had any chance at all to stay out of this whole terrorism mess. So it's not that we shouldn't be involved, or that if we ignored attacks like 9/11 (????) that terrorism levels would be lower, the question is whether we are going at it in the right way by invading Iraq.

You're right, that IS the question. And here is the answer, or at least here is what's NOT the answer. It's true, it could be difficult to demonstrate that invading Iraq has made global terrorism worse, but the other side of the issue has never been proven either. In other words, the benefit of invading Iraq on the overall war on terror is largely imaginary at the moment, but Bush continues to defend the original choice for some reason I'm having trouble grasping. Were he to come out and say that it was the WRONG choice, but staying is the RIGHT choice now, that would make more sense. But his refusal to work within the framework of actual facts is very worrying, even dismissing the original decision as a factor in deciding what we should do now would make more sense...but he's stubbornly clinging to this idea that invading Iraq in the first place was somehow a fundamental part of fighting the war on terror "started" on 9/11.

Let's put it this way, I can see the difference between an argument to stay in Iraq and an argument for having invaded in the first place. I'll buy the former, but not the latter, and since Bush and his supporters refuse to let the latter go...I have to question whether or not they are really the people to lead us in "getting the job done" in Iraq.

 

[themusgrat]

I agree with you. So much time has passed since we started the invasion, everybody knows by now that we went in for the wrong reasons, whether or not they were valid at the time, with the given information. But Bush will never concede that point, he will merely ignore it in favor of his "We are doing the right thing." It will be the next election before we see a prominent Republican say that we are in Iraq for the wrong reasons, and that we need to pull out as soon as possible. If not, then we Repubs have pretty much no chance of winning next time,..... come to think of it, not that I'm sure I will vote Repub next time anyway. But for now, I fail to see why so many people spend so much time saying the same thing over and over again, Bush will simply do the same. I stopped posting here for a couple of months because it was so out of hand, lots of people didn't want to listen to any reason- they just wanted to bash Bush; looks like not much has changed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Like Bush said, there is no evidence to support your point Rainsford. He is making an unprovable claim, but I kind of agree with him. Certainly we, as Americans, wouldn't be directly influenced by terror as much, but there is no reason that the rest of the world wouldn't. After 9/11, I don't think we had any chance at all to stay out of this whole terrorism mess. So it's not that we shouldn't be involved, or that if we ignored attacks like 9/11 (????) that terrorism levels would be lower, the question is whether we are going at it in the right way by invading Iraq.

You're right, that IS the question. And here is the answer, or at least here is what's NOT the answer. It's true, it could be difficult to demonstrate that invading Iraq has made global terrorism worse, but the other side of the issue has never been proven either. In other words, the benefit of invading Iraq on the overall war on terror is largely imaginary at the moment, but Bush continues to defend the original choice for some reason I'm having trouble grasping. Were he to come out and say that it was the WRONG choice, but staying is the RIGHT choice now, that would make more sense. But his refusal to work within the framework of actual facts is very worrying, even dismissing the original decision as a factor in deciding what we should do now would make more sense...but he's stubbornly clinging to this idea that invading Iraq in the first place was somehow a fundamental part of fighting the war on terror "started" on 9/11.

Let's put it this way, I can see the difference between an argument to stay in Iraq and an argument for having invaded in the first place. I'll buy the former, but not the latter, and since Bush and his supporters refuse to let the latter go...I have to question whether or not they are really the people to lead us in "getting the job done" in Iraq.

Pretty well sums it up.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Like Bush said, there is no evidence to support your point Rainsford. He is making an unprovable claim, but I kind of agree with him. Certainly we, as Americans, wouldn't be directly influenced by terror as much, but there is no reason that the rest of the world wouldn't. After 9/11, I don't think we had any chance at all to stay out of this whole terrorism mess. So it's not that we shouldn't be involved, or that if we ignored attacks like 9/11 (????) that terrorism levels would be lower, the question is whether we are going at it in the right way by invading Iraq.

You're right, that IS the question. And here is the answer, or at least here is what's NOT the answer. It's true, it could be difficult to demonstrate that invading Iraq has made global terrorism worse, but the other side of the issue has never been proven either. In other words, the benefit of invading Iraq on the overall war on terror is largely imaginary at the moment, but Bush continues to defend the original choice for some reason I'm having trouble grasping. Were he to come out and say that it was the WRONG choice, but staying is the RIGHT choice now, that would make more sense. But his refusal to work within the framework of actual facts is very worrying, even dismissing the original decision as a factor in deciding what we should do now would make more sense...but he's stubbornly clinging to this idea that invading Iraq in the first place was somehow a fundamental part of fighting the war on terror "started" on 9/11.

Let's put it this way, I can see the difference between an argument to stay in Iraq and an argument for having invaded in the first place. I'll buy the former, but not the latter, and since Bush and his supporters refuse to let the latter go...I have to question whether or not they are really the people to lead us in "getting the job done" in Iraq.

Pretty well sums it up.

yep

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: sandorski
A little more than 2 more years of the schmuck.

Or less, if we can elect a majority of Democrats with subpoena power to get the facts out in the open. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Yeah, just like Rove going down in Plamegate was a slam dunk! LOL, you lefties make me laugh!

I thought it was Iraq's massive stockpiles of WMDs and reconstituted nuclear weapons program that was the 'slam dunk"

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Pabster
And what was factually incorrect with what he said?

As usual, nothing. Those who suggest we'd be A-OK if we just packed up our tents and left are naive.

Any chance you can show us who has claimed we'd be "A-OK if we just packed up our tents and left?" Otherwise, I'm thinking that's another straw man.

 

[Lemon law]

This thread seems to be missing the central point---the national intelligence assessment came out months ago---but its existance became undeniable only recently---and worse yet for Bush---the national intelligence assessement is not subject to white house manupulation and censorship.

The so ever duplitious GWB Bush makes small parts of it public knowledge---and does not disagree with the facts stated therein.---but says--for his base---that while GWB brain knows
its an honest report---GWB gut knows it wrong and we are winning the war on terrorism.

Its really no different from the swift boat veteran for the truth attack adds on Kerry in 04---and while GWB would praise Kerry's military service during VietNam---GWB never would condemn the swift Boat Veterans for the truth for using lying and shameless tactics.

It just goes to show you that the Karl Rove spin machine is alive and well----and surely has a trick or two left up its sleeve.

But when you get down to the really damning statistic---20,000 Al-Quida pre-911---and 50,000 now---only a 250% increase---its really hard to equate GWB's brain or gut and mention
thinking or intelligence in the same breath. But we can quantify with fair accuracy things like the number of US personnel killed and the number of US personnel severly wounded thus far---more difficult is accessing tangable and intangable monitary costs--more difficult still is figuring out that cost of dominished US international presteige. Things like winning in Iraq are in the unknowable future---but I have been lied to in the past by far more credable politicians than GWB.---and I believe that old adage---how do you tell if a politician is lying?
The answer is when their lips move.

And the national intelligence assessment coming out and the necessity to restate the lies linking Iraq and Al- Quida are linked---Bush does need his base more than ever. Whats one more lie between friends?

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: dahunan
oil fields
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml
http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml

OK.. I will have to find "pre 9/11" info - this is on the day of 9/11 before anyone ever knew who in the hell was even responsible for 9/11
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

Quite frankly, I don't see how the maps prove anything like a predetermined division of oil fields for a post war Iraq. They also released maps for Saudi Arabia and the UAE. You don't think an energy taskforce would want detailed descriptions of current oil production and expansion projects that were in the works?

The way you make it sound, there was a big map with the words Exxon / Mobil / Texaco written all over it.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: sandorski
Bush gonna go for 3 terms?

I dunno, supposedly Bush wipes his ass with the constitution....it could happen!

QFT.

I just wish he'd get to work on that 16th amendment.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: glugglug

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: sandorski
Bush gonna go for 3 terms?

I dunno, supposedly Bush wipes his ass with the constitution....it could happen!

QFT.

I just wish he'd get to work on that 16th amendment.

An amendment to make the Constitution pillowy soft?

 

[ntdz]

What the hell are you talking about OP? Your quotes don't have Bush trying to tie 9/11 to Iraq AT ALL.

All he's saying is that there were terrorists before we invaded Iraq, and there will be terrorists after we leave.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Pabster
And what was factually incorrect with what he said?

As usual, nothing. Those who suggest we'd be A-OK if we just packed up our tents and left are naive.

Or they learned from Vietnam... People like to read history and actually LEARN from our mistakes.. not repeat them over and over and over because we are in love with our political party more than we love our country.

The difference in Vietnam and Iraq is that Vietnam was taken over by communists unable to hurt us, whereas Iraq will be taken over by terrorists currently killing us that are willing to strike us at home and abroad, including outside of Iraq, if we leave.

 

[ProfJohn]

Two great quotes from the released National Intelligence Estimate that prove the need to stay in Iraq.

The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

You mean if the terrorist lose in Iraq there will be less of them inspired to carry on the fight... wow would have never thought that looking at this board and all the "we need to leave now" people in Washington.

If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit.

So if we succeed in Iraq on our goal of establishing a working democratic government it will eventual lead to a wedge between crazies who want to kill us and those who want to work within their own government to improve their lives.


Waiting for all you people who talked about this document as gospel when it attacked Bush to start bashing it now that we see it supporting Bush.

 

[straightalker]

Once again, Bush tries to tie together 9/11 and Iraq

The guy can't even tie together his shoe laces.

It's Cheney coaching Bush or else it's that sound feed in his ear telling him what to say.

 

[Sheepathon]

Ummm from a press conference not so long ago, scroll to 3:00.

3:00
Bush: "The terrorists attacked us and killed 3000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East! They were-...what did Iraq have to do with what?"
Reporter: "The attacks on the World Trade Center."
Bush: "Nothing!"

Yeeeeaaahhh.

 

[Gaard]

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.

link

Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link

US President George W Bush has explicitly stated for the first time that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

Bush maintains Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda are connected
Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two.

A recent opinion poll suggests that 70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.

Despite his stated rejection of any clear link between Saddam Hussein and the events of that day, Mr Bush continues to assert that the deposed president had ties with al-Qaeda, the terrorist network blamed for the 11 September attacks.

BBC News Online looks at some of the remarks made by Mr Bush and members of his administration both in the run-up to war and after hostilities had officially ended.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. "

President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2002. The speech was primarily concerned with how the US was coping in the aftermath of 11 September.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On 11 September, 2001, America felt its vulnerability - even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America. "

President Bush speaking in Cincinnati, Ohio, in October, 2002, in which he laid out the threat he believed Iraq posed.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. "

President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime."

President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"For America, there will be no going back to the era before 11 September 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength.

They are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans.

We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities. "

President Bush in a televised address to defend his administration's policy on Iraq, September 2003.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September."

US Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime, February 2003.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We don't know."

Vice-President Dick Cheney when pressed on whether there was a link between Iraq and 11 September during a TV interview, September 2003.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. "

Mr Cheney in the same interview, commenting on the war against Iraq.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it."

Mr Cheney in the same interview, while recounting the controversial claim that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, met an Iraqi official in Prague before the attacks.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"[Saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged."

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice defending the reasons why the US went to war against Iraq, September, 2003.

link

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: dahunan
Do you see the decision to kill 3000 of our troops and steal $300,000,000,000 as a success or failure on the part of the neocons and bush..

Are you insinuating that there was some "master plan" that called for those things?

If so, you've brought Bush-hating to a new low.

Oh, so they just stupidly bungle along doing things willy-nilly then? Well. THAT fills me with confidence. You pick, retards or dirty bastards who should be impeached? I'm going for the latter, thanks.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: dahunan
Iraq is worse off than before we ever went in and at the same time we lost 3000 of our strongest and most proud citizens because of the warmongers you defend

I'm going to call you out (again) on this notion. Others here have made the same lame claims in the past. Where is the evidence to suggest Iraq is worse off than before? Each and every poll or survey I've seen suggests quite the opposite. If you have some credible evidence to the contrary, by all means, present it.

I'd also like some evidence to support your ludicrous claims that the invasion of Iraq was pre-planned. And I'm talking credible evidence, not some whispering from DailyKOS, RawStory, et al.

You must have missed this poll:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Iraqi_Opinion.html

and this poll:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

They long for the days when they had a strong, sovereign nation. They want us out. SO you feel you can say "fvck you, we're not leaving"?

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: sandorski
A little more than 2 more years of the schmuck.

Or less, if we can elect a majority of Democrats with subpoena power to get the facts out in the open. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Yeah, just like Rove going down in Plamegate was a slam dunk! LOL, you lefties make me laugh!

I thought it was Iraq's massive stockpiles of WMDs and reconstituted nuclear weapons program that was the 'slam dunk"

Here, I'll pull an "intelligent" Pabster response to that:
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Two great quotes from the released National Intelligence Estimate that prove the need to stay in Iraq.

The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

You mean if the terrorist lose in Iraq there will be less of them inspired to carry on the fight... wow would have never thought that looking at this board and all the "we need to leave now" people in Washington.

If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit.

So if we succeed in Iraq on our goal of establishing a working democratic government it will eventual lead to a wedge between crazies who want to kill us and those who want to work within their own government to improve their lives.


Waiting for all you people who talked about this document as gospel when it attacked Bush to start bashing it now that we see it supporting Bush.

The U.S. failed Iraq when their plan was exposed for what it was, a bald faced power grab. There were no WMD, there was no terror link, Iraq was NOT involved in the 9/11 attacks.
/that particular pathetic attempt to deflect, defend, obfuscate.
Also, remember the polls that say 6 in 10 Iraqis SUPPORT the Jihadists blowing U.S. troops up! THEY WANT US OUT! HELLO????

 

[randym431]

Bush is just, again, wearing his little black dress.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: glugglug

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: sandorski
Bush gonna go for 3 terms?

I dunno, supposedly Bush wipes his ass with the constitution....it could happen!

QFT.

I just wish he'd get to work on that 16th amendment.

An amendment to make the Constitution pillowy soft?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvi.html

16th amendment allows the IRS to exist.