It’s still filtered and parsed but a little more from the same interview… and I’d still like to read the whole thing… as I think in context it would probably be wholly uncontroversial… But, I can’t find it on line.
White House National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, in an interview aired late Tuesday on ABC’s “Nightline,” said one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in “a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged.” But she insisted, ”We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11.”
Still, continuing even without the whole text… The next problem or question is whether there were links between them. Also, worth noting one more time, Rice usually stuck to the ideological point and may not have even touched on actual tangible links… Despite that, even this report that prompted the thread claims there were tangible links (despite the, no longer ironic, claims of the usual suspects, while again claiming Bushco is the one distorting things). None the less, it’s the next line of pickets… the MSM will claim there were not links… and it’s a gross misrepresentation of the historical record… and available facts…
But, if you do overcome that… the next step is to dissemble about what Al Queda is.
As it is a distributed loose network for groups that often have their own names, it’s easy to claim that ‘well so and so may well indeed be a terrorist mastermind, he was not really al queda you see. He was a member of such and such and not Al Queda [ed note: probably a mistranslation].’… It may be nonsense, all the experts may know that this group was linked into the Al Queda network, but it is cheap and easy to claim…
as to your example Rice quote… do you have more of it?
I’ll be damned if I can find it other than the plethura of anti-war sites around that seem to love the quote. From what I can find, it originated from an AP article by Terence Hunt back in 2003, claimed to be an excerpt from an interview Rice had on “Nightline” sometime in 2003. The only transcript Nightline has on their website is from an interview she had last year.
as to your example Rice quote… do you have more of it?
I’ll be damned if I can find it other than the plethura of anti-war sites around that seem to love the quote. From what I can find, it originated from an AP article by Terence Hunt back in 2003, claimed to be an excerpt from an interview Rice had on “Nightline” sometime in 2003. The only transcript Nightline has on their website is from an interview she had last year.
Yup… that and newpapers in Seattle… and the BBC.... ahem… but what’s the difference really. ;)
And CM’s links demonstrate the hack partisanship of his sources as well as himself.
This is meaningless third grade level garbage. Try mounting an actual argument.
How many of the statements made were based on intelligence sources? How many statements made were accepted as true by the world. How many statements made were repeatedly uttered by democrats? To attempt to go and place it all on Bush and his staff like has been done is dishonest.
No, what is dishonest is to keep ignoring the fact that the statements were carefully worded to mislead, and by no means reflected the whole of what was known and what was not known.
The world didn’t really accept much at all - this was borne out conclusively by the overwhelming opposition to the war.
Honestly there appears be a massive blind spot when it comes to the Iraq invasion . Intelligent and rational people who are usually very (or at least somewhat) cynical about government statements, motives and actions seem to continue to exhibit serious cognitive dissonance. How many times can you give politicians the benefit of the doubt before they lose it? Usually once or twice. 935 times?
CM, regarding your Rice quote, are you saying that the 911 threat didn’t originate in the middle east? That would be a rewrite of history on a grand scale if that’s what you’re saying.
Of course I’m not saying that. And you know that I’m not. I’m confused why you’d try and put across that I did.
Rice’s statement is an example of how the administration took every opportunity to conflate Saddam with 9/11. They took over two years before they were willing to explicitly deny it. For those two years they not only avoided acknowledging it, but instead fed the rumour/belief as best they could.
Also, it appears that your nice little graph is all “evidence” that was culminated with a great deal of hindsight.
No, in order to be a lie/distortion/dishonest statement, the person making it had to know it at the time.
Indirect false statements were not included in the total count of 935 on that site.
How progressive of an existence it must be to live your life based on 20/20 vision.
You’re confused, as above. Unfortunately tacking that stuff on the front makes it fall a hell of a lot flatter.
The entire free world felt that Iraq had WMD,
Bullshit. And the minority that did (mostly Western governments) were largely being fed half-truths and distortions by your government (the ones you are prepared to give a completely free ride on this issue, even though you do the complete opposite on almost every other topic).
in fact they had used them many, many times and even your beloved UN inspectors couldn’t account for the locations of huge stockpiles.
Yawn. Absence of evidence, yada yada yada.
And that was after a 14 month run up to the war. Or maybe you forgot the images of Powell speaking at the UN. And speaking again and again…
How could anyone forget that little theatre performance. Even he admitted how painful it is that it forms part of the record. He calls it a ‘blot’.
Are you claiming that is a false statement per your graph above?
No, I was responding to a different charge by sl0re. That’s why it was in a different post, with a different link, and responding to something different that sl0re said.
Because technically it’s not a false statement.
Of course not. As above, it’s one of those opportunities to conflate two different things and get people thinking they are closely connected.
It’s one of the hundreds/thousands of ‘technically correct’ statements that you’d never let the other side get away with in a million years. Apparently different rules apply to someone like Michael Moore. How many ‘technicalities’ would you let him get away with?
How many others that make up that graph are similar?
That wasn’t from that graph. It was from the BBC story that I linked.
Yeah but let’s face it crichton that would require understanding of events, intelligence, context, and not having your nose sticking straight up in the air because you’re oh so superior to us neanderthal americans. And really the only time CM has use for context is when he’s playing apologist for bigoted sexist nutjob.
Lazy and meaningless again. At least TRY and put some effort in. Or try and even look like you are.
well no...since anyone with at least basic literacy can see that they aren’t saying (or even attempting to imply) that Saddam had a role in 9/11
they are merely connecting (legitimately) Saddam’s support towards groups who adhere to the ideology that lead to 9/11
And when asked the direct question they refused to provide a straight answer for over two years. They not only let the misconception stand, but fed it as often as possible.
so is what she said wrong or misleading? or does everything have to be dumbed down so the lowest common denominator can understand?
This whole argument comes down to whether you believe the government has a responsbility to present the truth, so that people can make up their own minds whether an invasion is legitimate. Or whether a government should be able to run an orchestrated campaign of misleading statements and lies in order to get what they want. Does everything has to be carefully manipulated because otherwise the lowest common denominator will see through it?
....even more of a misleading statement than any claim CM makes about the Bush Administrations attempt to tie Saddam to 9/11 by refusing to say that he was tied to 9/11
The issue is that for more than two years they refused to just say that he had no involvement. They instead took the opportunity to conflate the two. So it wasn’t at all that they ‘refused to say he was tied to 9/11’. It was that they refused to say he wasn’t. And because they are not idiots, they knew full well what the public conception would be as a result.
Did you read your own quote (the one that starts with ‘Thursday’)?
Um, yeah. I specifically put the date there, to show that it was over two years before the adminstration decided to finally come out and provide an explicit ‘yes or no’ response.
Why?
Anyway, there is valid connection… the shared ideology…
Which is......?
and pointing this out is not out of bounds (except to lefties...first because it was inconvenient to their arguments… now, even worse, because Bin Ladden’s ideology sounds a lot like ‘left wing’ anti globo kook talk...).
Whatever. Sounds very vague. If it sounds a “lot like” then give us examples of how scarily similar some quotes are.
Not out of bounds as far as I’m concerned.
The main problem with that approach is that it wasn’t just ‘lefties’ who opposed the war because they weren’t able to be convinced. Thousands (of not millions) of people the world over who previously had never really been politically aware (let alone gave a shit about, or even knew about, ‘left’ or ‘right’) took an interest and concluded that the invasion was bogus. Thousands of people went on a political march for the first time in their lives. One of the key fallacies of the right is to portray those who were opposed to the war as lefties, let alone extreme lefties. It simply and clearly isn’t/wasn’t true. Yet it remains a key plank in any ‘defence’ of what the Adminstration did.
I am convinced after reviewing his beloved graph that if CM were allowed to choose the Academy Award for Best Documentary 2007, he would have given it to “Loose Change”.
That same joke again? It must be a good one. I’ll have to trust you on that.
How did you ‘review’ the graph?
And what is it with this ‘beloved’ thing? That’s twice I’ve ‘beloved’ something. Surely arguments can stand or fall without anyone ‘beloving’ anything. I would certainly hope so, anyway.
Resorting to saying that suggests the argument needs bolstering with a little misrepresentation.
It’s still filtered and parsed but a little more from the same interview… and I’d still like to read the whole thing… as I think in context it would probably be wholly uncontroversial… But, I can’t find it on line.
White House National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, in an interview aired late Tuesday on ABC’s “Nightline,” said one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in “a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged.” But she insisted, ”We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11.”
Still, continuing even without the whole text… The next problem or question is whether there were links between them. Also, worth noting one more time, Rice usually stuck to the ideological point and may not have even touched on actual tangible links… Despite that, even this report that prompted the thread claims there were tangible links (despite the, no longer ironic, claims of the usual suspects, while again claiming Bushco is the one distorting things). None the less, it’s the next line of pickets… the MSM will claim there were not links… and it’s a gross misrepresentation of the historical record… and available facts…
But, if you do overcome that… the next step is to dissemble about what Al Queda is.
As it is a distributed loose network for groups that often have their own names, it’s easy to claim that ‘well so and so may well indeed be a terrorist mastermind, he was not really al queda you see. He was a member of such and such and not Al Queda [ed note: probably a mistranslation].’… It may be nonsense, all the experts may know that this group was linked into the Al Queda network, but it is cheap and easy to claim...
Even Rice’s words there are careful - “We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11”. Not ruling out that they made repeated strongly suggestive comments that Saddam and act of 9/11 were linked. Hell, they could even have made direct links between Saddam and the hijackings that day and she still would have been ‘technically’ correct.
What are the tangible links between Saddam Hussien and the hijackings that occuring on 9/11?
Your second argument seems to be exactly the one you and others are using, just in reverse. The 9/11 hijackings were organised and undertaken by Middle Eastern terrorists. Saddam funded some Middle Eastern terrorists. Ergo they are linked. Ergo, it’s legitimate to invade Iraq. Cheap, easy and weak.
Even Rice’s words there are careful - “We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11”. Not ruling out that they made repeated strongly suggestive comments that Saddam and act of 9/11 were linked. Hell, they could even have made direct links between Saddam and the hijackings that day and she still would have been ‘technically’ correct.
What are the tangible links between Saddam Hussien and the hijackings that occuring on 9/11?
Your right… to a point. She is a diplomat and speaks in generalities and in non committal ways… about most everything… and that comes through here. Its why I’d like to see her entire set of remarks to see if she nailed down her point to mean she was not implying even a tactical or financial connection (which she has in all the unedited interviews I’ve read from that time period)…
Your second argument seems to be exactly the one you and others are using, just in reverse. The 9/11 hijackings were organised and undertaken by Middle Eastern terrorists. Saddam funded some Middle Eastern terrorists. Ergo they are linked. Ergo, it’s legitimate to invade Iraq. Cheap, easy and weak.
Hey, how many relationships does he need to have with terror groups until it is valid point (re: that he had relationships with terrorist orgs… and that this might, actually, be bad)? Your the one trying to connect that argument to 9/11… not me… not Rice.
Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they’re all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East....
I think it’s hard to see from some POVs… but I see it. I also agree with it. This is an ideological struggle.. and the best way to win will be to change the ME… I spent part of the day reading old Nazi propaganda… the boilerplate German complaints about the US (both system and culture) today are virtually the same as then… but… democracies (even social democracies) don’t tend to go to war against other democracies… They just bit*h nonstop. ;)
oh, and of course, the usual suspects tend to only quote the first sentence from the quote above.... It’s why I’ll be skeptical of your quote unless you can find the entire interview…
Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11
i think this quote (in whole, cutting it down like this just makes me laugh at people like CM who seem she’s somehow trying to create direct involvement, even though she clearly states its not) is probably the best example of what the US government was meaning when they would bring Saddam and 9/11 up in the same sentence.
They were constantly linking Saddam not to the specific 9/11 act, but to the groups who were responsible for terrorists acts, the most relevant being 9/11…
Its painfully clear
Christopher Meyer, DC Confidential: British Ambassador Christopher Meyer Transmits Condolences to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice
After my council of war on the morning of 9/11 I called Condi [Condoleezza] Rice. I offered condolences to the thousands of Americans who must have died. We feared that British casualties could run into the hundreds. We were ready to help in any way we could with the search for victims at the World Trade Center (which was rapidly rechristened Ground Zero). Who did she think had been responsible? The names Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were already in circulation. She said that the early evidence suggested that it was them. But there could also be a connection with Iraq. That would need investigating.
Rice said there could be a connection with Iraq on September 12th, 2001 and that’s a false statement?
This is counted -
By late in the evening of September 11, the president had addressed the nation on the terrible events of the day. Vice President Cheney described the president’s mood as somber. The long day was not yet over. When the larger meeting that included his domestic department heads broke up, President Bush chaired a smaller meeting of top advisers, a group he would later call his “war council.” This group usually included Cheney, Secretary of State [Colin] Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, General Hugh Shelton, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (later to become chairman) General [Richard] Myers, DCI [Director of Central Intelligence] [George] Tenet, Attorney General [John] Ashcroft, and FBI Director Robert Mueller. From the White House staff, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Chief of Staff [Andrew] Card were part of the core group, often joined by their deputies, Stephen Hadley and Joshua Bolten. In this restricted National Security Council meeting, the president said it was a time for self-defense. The United States would punish not just the perpetrators of the attacks, but also those who harbored them. Secretary of State Powell said the United States had to make it clear to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Arab states that the time to act was now. He said we would need to build a coalition. The president noted that the attacks provided a great opportunity to engage Russia and China. Secretary Rumsfeld urged the president and the principals to think broadly about who might have harbored the attackers, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, and Iran. He wondered aloud how much evidence the United States would need in order to deal with these countries, pointing out that major strikes could take up to 60 days to assemble.
October 2001 -
Dr. Rice: The president has made very clear that the war on terrorism is a broad war on terrorism. You can’t be for terrorism in one part of the world and against it in another part of the world. We worry about Saddam Hussein. We worry about his weapons of mass destruction that he’s trying to achieve. There’s a reason he doesn’t want U.N. inspectors—it’s because he intends to acquire weapons of mass destruction. But for now, the president has said that his goal is to watch and monitor Iraq, and, certainly, the United States will act if Iraq threatens its interests.
That’s a false statement in relation to what we knew about Iraq in 2001? Come on, CM, you can’t honestly think that graph can claim any validity. I could come up with thousands of ‘false statements’ made by Democrats and world leaders from 91-2004 using those rules. I would dare say sometime during the 90’s you made at least one “false statement” sometime when talking about Iraq using those guidelines.
Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11
i think this quote (in whole, cutting it down like this just makes me laugh at people like CM who seem she’s somehow trying to create direct involvement, even though she clearly states its not) is probably the best example of what the US government was meaning when they would bring Saddam and 9/11 up in the same sentence.
They were constantly linking Saddam not to the specific 9/11 act, but to the groups who were responsible for terrorists acts, the most relevant being 9/11…
Its painfully clear
Moore used the video from this in F911… except… he used just this part (of course)....
Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.
Even Rice’s words there are careful - “We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11”. Not ruling out that they made repeated strongly suggestive comments that Saddam and act of 9/11 were linked. Hell, they could even have made direct links between Saddam and the hijackings that day and she still would have been ‘technically’ correct.
What are the tangible links between Saddam Hussien and the hijackings that occuring on 9/11?
Your right… to a point. She is a diplomat and speaks in generalities and in non committal ways… about most everything… and that comes through here. Its why I’d like to see her entire set of remarks to see if she nailed down her point to mean she was not implying even a tactical or financial connection (which she has in all the unedited interviews I’ve read from that time period)…
Your second argument seems to be exactly the one you and others are using, just in reverse. The 9/11 hijackings were organised and undertaken by Middle Eastern terrorists. Saddam funded some Middle Eastern terrorists. Ergo they are linked. Ergo, it’s legitimate to invade Iraq. Cheap, easy and weak.
Hey, how many relationships does he need to have with terror groups until it is valid point (re: that he had relationships with terrorist orgs… and that this might, actually, be bad)? Your the one trying to connect that argument to 9/11… not me… not Rice.
So the connection is........things are bad.
Can you find a unequivacle answer from the administration within 2 years of Sept 11, 2001? Or is it the case that every single time the opportunity to taken to not actually answer the direct question?
Let’s pretend that I (and others) did find it reasonable to turn it into an opportunity to sell a war at every opportunity.
If you need to take it back that far, then it’s just creating a vague pretext. And most people didn’t/don’t see it as legitimate enough (not nearly) to attack anyone. Which is why so few were convinced. Who not go after all leaders that have ties with terrorists? Iran was a MUCH more significant target in that sense - did they have less ties to the attacks of 9/11?
A: You’d want a smoking gun in Saddam’s hand to throw him in along with groups like Al Queda.
B: Otherwise your going to believe any comparisons are attempts to play association games.
Your entitled to that view.
I don’t agree. The ideological cesspool that enables ME dictators is the same that breeds ME terrorism… We coddled the dictators over there since FDR and ended up with terrorists… I doubt we can get rid of one or the other without both going down…
If anything, this hyper sensitivity to comparisions is another level of lefty blame America… for everything… regardless.
First we support dictators so we deserved terrorism, chickens came home to roost and such (which to some degree, I think is true!).
Then, we try to over throw dictators and it’s a war for oil, haliburnton, Bush=Hitler… we still suck…
Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they’re all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East....
I think it’s hard to see from some POVs… but I see it. I also agree with it. This is an ideological struggle.. and the best way to win will be to change the ME… I spent part of the day reading old Nazi propaganda… the boilerplate German complaints about the US (both system and culture) today are virtually the same as then… but… democracies (even social democracies) don’t tend to go to war against other democracies… They just bit*h nonstop. ;)
oh, and of course, the usual suspects tend to only quote the first sentence from the quote above.... It’s why I’ll be skeptical of your quote unless you can find the entire interview...
So it was just bad luck for Iraq that it was decided that it was the place to start? Bummer.
She’s even admitting that Iraq is the central front because........the US administration has decided it is.
So it was just bad luck for Iraq that it was decided that it was the place to start? Bummer.
She’s even admitting that Iraq is the central front because........the US administration has decided it is.
Somewhat true… new American century and all that.
Then again, Al Q decided to take them up on it (being the central front)…
Also, even if Iraq works totally… and liberalism spreads… there will probably be civil wars in order to bring it to power in other states…
I think i get what you are saying (ie the ‘left’ whoever that may be are the ones creating the perception that the admin has blamed Saddam for 9/11), i hope thats what you meant
i just want to clarify that when i cut the quote down, i was merely trying to emphasise the absurdity of claims that the Bush admin were trying to implicate Saddam for 9/11 when the reality is that they couldn’t have been more clear about his involvement.
Bathory says : “Lions are like tigers, not because they have stripes, but because they are both big cats”
Retard says : BUT LIONS DON’T HAVE STRIPES, YOU ARE A LIAR!
Bathory:
I think i get what you are saying (ie the ‘left’ whoever that may be are the ones creating the perception that the admin has blamed Saddam for 9/11), i hope thats what you meant
i just want to clarify that when i cut the quote down, i was merely trying to emphasise the absurdity of claims that the Bush admin were trying to implicate Saddam for 9/11 when the reality is that they couldn’t have been more clear about his involvement.
Bathory says : “Lions are like tigers, not because they have stripes, but because they are both big cats”
Retard says : BUT LIONS DON’T HAVE STRIPES, YOU ARE A LIAR!
Bathory:
Yeah, I’m not debating with you… just bouncing off my opinions in conversation.
Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11
i think this quote (in whole, cutting it down like this just makes me laugh at people like CM who seem she’s somehow trying to create direct involvement, even though she clearly states its not) is probably the best example of what the US government was meaning when they would bring Saddam and 9/11 up in the same sentence.
They were constantly linking Saddam not to the specific 9/11 act, but to the groups who were responsible for terrorists acts, the most relevant being 9/11…
Its painfully clear
I’m not going to defend quoting things out of context, but it’s a tenuous ‘tie’. And in terms of justifying/legitimising an invasion, very very weak.
What was the date that she said that? I’m trying to find something within 2 years of 9 Sept 2001 that comes even close to agreeing that Saddam had no involvement at all in 9/11.
Chart detailing exactly the number of lies per month regarding (a) possession of WMDs, and (b) Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda.
now I’m not saying that government officials haven’t linked Saddam to the 9/11 attack in terms of involvement, but i for the life of me can’t recall any quotes, nor is it consistant with the overall message that the admin has put out for the last 7 years
to say that the admin lied about Iraqs links to al qaeda, to create the impression that the admin tried to implicate the iraqi government with the 9/11 attacks, it just doesn’t gel with reality.
*edit*
the condi quote (according to Dave Kopel) was taken in Nov. 28, 2003
