A: You’d want a smoking gun in Saddam’s hand to throw him in along with groups like Al Queda.
To invade a nation it needs to be self-defense, or you need a smoking gun. Let’s not pretend that the case being made was for invasion. Some vague association isn’t enough. Yes, you need a clear and obvious bottom line in order to justify invading a nation.
B: Otherwise your going to believe any comparisons are attempts to play association games.
Yes, that’s what they are - association games. Get people thinking about both together. Under the pretence that all you were doing was talking about how bad people are.
Your entitled to that view.
Thanks. And you’re perfectly entitled to yours (and you’re willing to discuss it without descending to abuse unlike others). I just wish I understood it. I’m still thinking I must be missing something huge, to make it all fall into place (possibly like with the whole God thing!).
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…
Well at least you admit that Iraq just happened to be unlucky. You seem ok with it, which is what I don’t really understand, but lots of people don’t seem to even want to admit that. If I was an Iraqi who had lost his family, I would have a difficult time understanding that if those terrorists didn’t hijack planes on 11 Sept 2001, my family would still be alive.
If anything, this hyper sensitivity to comparisions is another level of lefty blame America… for everything… regardless.
Saying that someone is blaming America for everything seems to be lazy way out, and happens more and more I’ve noticed.
I don’t see the connection. My opinion is: To invade a nation it needs to be self-defense, or you need a smoking gun. Let’s not pretend that the case being made was for invasion. Some vague association isn’t enough. Yes, you need a clear and obvious bottom line in order to justify invading a nation.
I don’t see how America being America is relevant to that. Seems like something that should apply equally to everyone.
Anyway, comparisons are thrown at me all the time.
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…
That’s very simplistic and misleading I would say.
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.
We cannot pretend that this regime is one that can be trusted not to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is a problem that the world had better get serious about very soon.
I’m not defending Moore or his methods. I’m saying if you attack Moore’s methods then you should apply to same standards to the Bush adminstration. At the very least, given the ramifications not holding them to account.
You’re willing to accept that virtually any talking about 911 or terrorism or even WMD in the same breath as Iraq and Saddam is a automatically a deception… I don’t.
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
So we’ve got ‘beloved’ twice and now ‘lovely’. I think I’ll keep a count!
The overall message between 11 September 2001 was making sure that when people thought of 9/11, they also thought of Iraq. The easiest way to do that was to talk about both of them as often as possible, within the same sentence being the ideal. And for the first two years they got away with never giving a straight-out ‘no’ answer. The date you’ve given is not within that 2 year gap.
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.
We cannot pretend that this regime is one that can be trusted not to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is a problem that the world had better get serious about very soon.
I’m not defending Moore or his methods. I’m saying if you attack Moore’s methods then you should apply to same standards to the Bush adminstration. At the very least, given the ramifications not holding them to account.
You’re willing to accept that virtually any talking about 911 or terrorism or even WMD in the same breath as Iraq and Saddam is a automatically a deception… I don’t.
Not at all, and I didn’t say that so, don’t try and start misrepresenting me.
If a pattern emerges where officials constantly talk about how bad 9/11 was and, oh, by the way we should be real scared of Iraq and Saddam, then yeah, I don’t accept it is anything other than an attempt to dishonestly manipulate.
If I was an Iraqi who had lost his family, I would have a difficult time understanding that if those terrorists didn’t hijack planes on 11 Sept 2001, my family would still be alive.
Why? Kaffiyeh wound too tight around your neck?
What would be easier to believe? That it happened over oil? Cuz if you did you’d have plenty more “friends” patting you on the back, feeling your pain, urging you to take a stand against tyranny as they once urged you to accept Saddam’s.
Saying that someone is blaming America for everything seems to be lazy way out, and happens more and more I’ve noticed.
Well, its about time you looked away from the mirror you gaze wistfully into as you type:
Latin America is essentially one big country. In fact, by September 15, 1821, when colonial Spain pulled out of the region, Guatemala, El-Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Costa Rica and Nicaragua were provinces of a single country.
Therefore, events in one country is bound to affect others.
But United States President, George Bush, sought to stoke the fires of war. He gave the invasion pass marks and announced that U.S. fully supports Colombian “democracy” and will help defend her.
Same thing is happening to the indigenous villagers of the Middle East, Africa, Europe, Asia. Everyone spared is but a puppet of the Regime.
So you gonna take the time and “go” to Nigeria to correct the above commentator’s assertions as being lazy and misleading? If not, you’re being, well, lazy. Thing is, you partially agree with him on, so you lazily let it stand.
To invade a nation it needs to be self-defense, or you need a smoking gun. Let’s not pretend that the case being made was for invasion. Some vague association isn’t enough. Yes, you need a clear and obvious bottom line in order to justify invading a nation.
9/11 was an act of self-defence, and Palestine the clear and obvious justification for it.
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.
With a pause for people to laugh…
Who’s pushing the false connection?
I’m not defending Moore or his methods. I’m saying if you attack Moore’s methods then you should apply to same standards to the Bush adminstration. At the very least, given the ramifications not holding them to account.
But you’re defending your beloved (graph), your precious; which appears to do the moore thang.
Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.
Maybe not a single smoking gun, but a whole flock of derringers, each one emitting an occasional puff of smoke.
If I remember correctly, the closest connection between Saddam and al Qaida that Bush & Co. made was that al Zawahiri was allowed into northern Iraq to recuperate from a severe war injury and that there also seemed to be some sort of al Qaida training facility up in that general area that Saddam had no control over. The actual argument made was that Saddam either had actual WMD or the capacity to make them at short notice, he had used them in the past, and he could not be trusted not to share them with various terrorist organizations.
And as for Bush hanging Colin Powell out to dry by sending him to the UN with false information to drum up support for an Iraqi invasion: Over the past few years, it has become abundantly clear that the State Department has been waging an insurgency against Bush since the day he took office. The President of the United States has the power to change a couple of people at the top, but every one else is a civil servant whose jobs are protected. No, I am not suggesting that Colin Powell fed Bush, then the UN disinformation to promote a State Department agenda. I think the exact opposite. Colin Powell was a Bush appointee, therefore the enemy in the State Dept’s eyes. The underlings at State and the CIA passed bad and misleading intel to the administration.
And lest we forget: At the time of the Iraqi invasion, the vast majority of the Senate—including Mrs. Bill Clinton—believed Saddam either had or could rapidly produce WMD. Two years into his second term, Slick Willie introduced the doctrine of “regime change” in Iraq, and gave every indication of being willing to go to war to induce said regime change. Why? Saddam’s possession or capacity to rapidly produce WMD. And a lot of the world agreed with him at the time.
Since the time of the invasion, it has been shown that Germany, France and Russia’s objections to the invasion were not based on conviction, but that Saddam paid them very handsomely to be against the invasion. Saddam paid lots of people lots of money to be against the invasion.
Another reason to invade: Saddam’s money was also helping lots of people to lose the will to inforce sanctions against Iraq. Those sanctions had been imposed by the UN itself—not the US—at the end of Desert Storm. But somehow, UN sanctions morphed into US sanctions, and suddenly everyone was pissed at the United States for starving the children of Iraq, and denying them lifesaving drugs. Everyone conveniently forgot that Saddam got to decide how to spend the Food For Oil money, and it was Saddam who decided to spend his money on troops, Sunni who were loyal to him, spiffy new palaces and a humongous new mosque rather than the children of Iraq.
I’m not defending Moore or his methods. I’m saying if you attack Moore’s methods then you should apply to same standards to the Bush adminstration. At the very least, given the ramifications not holding them to account.
You’re willing to accept that virtually any talking about 911 or terrorism or even WMD in the same breath as Iraq and Saddam is a automatically a deception… I don’t.
Not at all, and I didn’t say that so, don’t try and start misrepresenting me.
Oh phleeease… your words and sources show that is your point…
This is what is called a shit-stirring thread. Deus pops in and opens a thread about old controversy that has been hashed out ad-nauseum, then bails as soon as it gets some action. Nothing new at all, just the same old shit.
They have a foregone conclusion, they want “evidence” to support it, they take any old quote and call it a lie knowing most people won’t actually look into, just look at the graph.
Is that right, CM?
Because in the examples given I don’t see any lies. Can you please explain to all of us how the database works instead of simply saying we don’t understand it? If we don’t and you do then please enlighten us so we can carry on.
CM. I like you. You’re a rational guy. You’re very intelligent, and generally level headed. I even find myself agreeing with you on some things I never thought I could compromise on. But on this graph, and these 935 “lies”, you’re wrong. The more you insist on it (like your last response to me), the more I don’t get what it is driving this in you. The statements used as evidence in that graph are for the vast majority that I’ve seen not lies when taken into context, and taken out of hind-sight. The graph and the premise behind it is a lie.
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.
With a pause for people to laugh…
Who’s pushing the false connection?
I’m not defending Moore or his methods. I’m saying if you attack Moore’s methods then you should apply to same standards to the Bush adminstration. At the very least, given the ramifications not holding them to account.
But you’re defending your beloved (graph), your precious; which appears to do the moore thang.
Maybe it does. Give me some examples of that though.
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.
With a pause for people to laugh…
Who’s pushing the false connection?
I’m not defending Moore or his methods. I’m saying if you attack Moore’s methods then you should apply to same standards to the Bush adminstration. At the very least, given the ramifications not holding them to account.
But you’re defending your beloved (graph), your precious; which appears to do the moore thang.
I’m using it to show something. That doesn’t mean I’m “defending” my “beloved” anything. Good grief. Try another tack.
