 sj |
||
|
||
BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Geoduck Date: 06 Dec 05 - 11:34 PM How original Bobert you are a quack. All you do is post horseshit and when someone posts the truth you whine that it is cut and paste. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 05 - 11:52 PM Yeah, Quackster.... How bout you steppin' out from under them feathers an' say that... Yeah, real comfy firing away from GUEST-dom... Like the snipers in Virgina and the DC area... Like real brave!!! You, as well as yer other right winged GUEST, ain't nuthin but a bunch of cowards... Prolly all a bunch or 13 year old girls.... Tell ya what, Quack, I'll take the bunch of you girly-boys GUESTS in the parking lot of the Liberty gas station at New Market on I-81 and put a serious butt whup on all you cowards... Hey, maybe you cowards could pull yer resorces and drive together to save money fir the medical treatment yer gonna need after this ol' hillbilly is done with ya... Yeah, not only can I kicj yer butt's on issues but sho nuff can at the Liberty station.... Bunch of GUEST losers, as far as I can see.... Yeah, why don't you all just gop to D.C. and camp out in front othe White House and have you all a big ol' circle jerk... Make you all feel all warm and fuzzy... Save you a butt whup... But if you want the butt whup, bring yer 13-year-old-girl selves right on to the Liberty station.... I'll meet you there... I-81 and New Market, you crybaby... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 05 - 05:20 AM dianavan - 06 Dec 05 - 10:48 PM Oh Dianavan so you are only talking about intent, something that some people would like to see happen in the future, not something that has already happened. It appears that you can state such things and make inference/refer to supposed deals that have been pushed through, whereas when a certain other person describes a set of circumstances that may lead to something in the future he is lying and guilty of deliberate misrepresentation. How very convenient for those wishing to present that as an arguement. Don't you think its a little suspect that the man who gave false information about Iraq to the U.S. is now the man in power? He is likely to be in power after Dec. 15th too. How coincidental! And Dianavan: "Hassan Awad (Iraq trade unionist) doesn't seem to trust the U.S. either. "The US has decreed that only its companies can bid for oil contracts, sidelining the companies of other countries, whether from Europe or elsewhere. Only two months after their troops crossed the border, US companies —Kellogg Brown & Root and Halliburton — arrived to take control over our industry. These US companies are the real beneficiaries of the invasion." What was being referred to here was essential repair work in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. The CPA days, which have long gone, the US now has absolutely no control over who the current Interim Iraqi Government, or the incoming duly elected Government of Iraq, award contracts to. In the Thread "What is really happening in Iraq" we have been through who has been awarded work and so far it has not gone to one major US or UK Company, and on many Halliburton has not even been invited to tender. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 07 Dec 05 - 07:44 AM Teribus blabbers on: Alas, Arne, my little viking - you have got it exactly 180 degrees out: Oh, yes, Teribus, my little pin-head, I wuv U2! Happy now? [Arne:]"You are demanding that Dubya use precise and very specific words (your "Simon Says" ploy) to assert that Dubya claimed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. But that wasn't the issue, was it? It was whether Saddam and al Qaeda were in cahoots." I have absolutely no doubt that links did exist between Iraq and Al-Qaeda going back years prior to 911. What I said, and what Ron Davies took exception to and contradicted me on, was that very early after the attacks of 911 the Bush Administration came out with very clear statements that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with those attacks. Did they investigate whether he did or not, did they ask people to look into it - I am bloody certain that they did - resulting in the statements made regarding Iraq's non-involvement. Just a FYI, so we have some context here for Teribus's "straw man" stategery, here's what Ron Davies did say, back a year ago:
Here's Teribus's "straw man" (and what he demands as an explicitly stated position of the maladministration): A statement asserting positively that "...there was a link between Saddam Hussein/Iraq and the Al-Qaeda attacks of 911 in the run up to 20th March 2003." (the words of Teribus). Note the use of the conjunction "and" by Ron. And the use of the words "propaganda campaign". Now Teribus is a real stickler for accuracy, and about how words have meaning. But propaganda campaigns are in fact sometimes more successful in what they don't say than for what they do explicitly say. Detailed previously have been many examples of attempts by the maladministration to link Saddam and al Qaeda (that's hard to deny, but Teribus will probably do it). In fact, mentioned above have been details on this effort as a propaganda campaign (not to mention the famous Powerpoint presentation, as well as Andrew Card's unintentionally revealing comment about "introduc[ing] new products in August"). Teribus ignores this. And since al Qaeda and the Sept. 11th attacks are quite obviously linked, once you link al Qaeda to Saddam, you have in fact linked Saddam to Sept. 11th of necessity, even if you didn't say that explicitly! But Teribus does the ol' "Simon Says" game, and demands evidence that Dubya and his handlers tipped their hand by explicitly stating their strategy and desired results (this maladministration be honest and open in their strategery? LOL).... Here's the way Teribus puts it:
Not cricket. Just Teribus hefting that goal post back another 10 yards. Or playing Calvin-Ball. OTOH, Teribus has been asked for a quote that shows that Dubya and the maladministration tried to dissuade people from making such a link. So here's what he proffers:
A). It refers to whether Saddam was linked to the attacks, not to al Qaeda more generally. B). It asks for "evidence". Not whether there was an al Qaeda/Saddam link (a position that Cheney did in fact assert; in fact, Cheney publicly pushed the Mohammed Atta [where have I heard that name before .... hmmm, have to think about it...] supposed Prague meeting with Iraq agents, since discounted). So Cheney here is denying that there is evidence, but not denying the link. C). It had to be pulled out of Cheney; it wasn't volunteered. And hardly a detailed exposition of Cheney's views (except in Teribus's tortured mind). So Teribus's "clear statement" from the maladministration that discounted the Iraq/9-11 tie (or, more to the point, the al Qaeda/Iraq tie) is not any such thing. Instead we have the plethora of quotes that pushed the contrary view(s). So Teribus continues: I have absolutely no doubt that links did exist between Iraq and Al-Qaeda going back years prior to 911. Teribus, clue for you: No one cares what you believe. What I said, and what Ron Davies took exception to and contradicted me on, was that very early after the attacks of 911 the Bush Administration came out with very clear statements that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with those attacks. Hmmmmm. "Statements". Changed my mind, Teribus. How about more than one quote from the maladministration trying to set things straight. Did they investigate whether he did or not, did they ask people to look into it - I am bloody certain that they did - resulting in the statements made regarding Iraq's non-involvement. OK. Out wi' 'em.... Let's hear these quotes, Teribus. Now, since "words have meaning" and we're getting literal, we need at least two!!! But I'd point out that Cheney continued to push the Iraq/al Qaeda connection for quite a while, even after the war, including the supposed Prague meeting with its quite obvious insinuation. More later (sorry, Mirsy, you'll have to wait ... but you seem to enjoy that). Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: CarolC Date: 07 Dec 05 - 09:04 AM Geoduck, I think you are the one who is anti-American, if you approve of having this country and everything it stands for destroyed by the bunch of radical cowboys (and cowgirls) who are now running it. All you have to do is look at the numbers of people who believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11 for your proof of the fact that the country was mislead. And don't invite me to leave the country. If you approve of what the people now in power here are doing to this country, you are the one who should leave (if you're even here). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 07 Dec 05 - 10:42 AM Teribus--- Well,well, you've set a trap fro yourself and obligingly fallen right in it. Well done. Re: 8 Sept 2002 Teribus: 6 Dec 2005 2:38 AM (do you ever get any sleep?)--"You have been given a quote from the Vice President dated 8th September 2002" Fine--let's look at that quote--given to us by Teribus on 3 Dec 2005 7:18 AM Hi Ron Example 1--One Quote as requested--Dick Cheney. From the Sept 8 Meet the Press. Russert: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch" Russert on the Sept 16, 2001-----(NB Sept 16, 2001--2001-do you get it?) "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?" Cheney: No." Now I know this will require careful reading on your part, Teribus--something you're not famous for--I don't want to strain your poor brain--but exactly what have you quoted from 2002 that Cheney said? I'll clue you--precisely nothing, nada, zilch. YOUR CHENEY QUOTE IS FROM 2001, NOT 2002. Therefore it does not fit the time period of the propaganda campaign--mid 2002 to March 2003. That is when Bush and co were beating the drums to attack Iraq. In fact, I have already pointed this out in my 3 Dec 2005 8:33 AM posting, which you choose to ignore. Russert and Cheney watched a CLIP from 2001. You quote nothing Cheney said from 2002. Is it getting through to you? You have therefore still not produced one quote from the mid-2002 to March 2003 period when the propaganda campaign was going on to link Saddam to al Queda and September 11, 2001. However, I did a bit of digging myself. I said a few days ago that it was likely Cheney's stance would have shifted from 2001 to 2002--and I was right. I found the transcript of the 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press. For some inexplicable reason you left out everything that was said AFTER WATCHING THE CLIP FROM 2001. In fact, this is what was said directly afterward--maybe somebody could set up a "blue clicky". You're more than welcome to ignore it again. I will just rub your face in it til you see it. Now, did Cheney reiterate a clear statement that there was no evidence linking Saddam and 11 Sept 2001? Here's the transcript: Mr. Russert: "Has anything happened to change your mind? (since 2001) Vice President Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9-11. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq on the one hand and the al-Queda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen, in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center..." That's what he said in 2002--not what you allege. He raised all sorts of possible connections between Iraq and Sept 11. You are dead wrong again, I'm sorry to say. Feel free to check the transcript of the 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press. Upshot is: you still have no quote from the period mid 2002 to March 2003 in which Bush or one of his minions clearly disassociates Saddam and 11 Sept 2001---and we have plenty that indicate they did try to associate the two---INCLUDING your 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press. Perhaps you also don't undertstand how propaganda works. You need to read some history. I can recommend a few starter books for you. Propaganda does not always need a blatant statement. Just "Before September 11, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained" is more than enough for a lot of Americans both jittery and angry enough to strike back--at anybody. Even after the US attack on the Taliban--which I supported-- the Toby Keith-brand desire for vengeance was not slaked. Nor was the the fear of another 11 Sept. Bush and co played on that fear like true Goebbels star pupils. Teribus--much as it pains me to say it, you've blown it yet again. The propaganda campaign linking Saddam with 11 Sept 2001 is a fact, not a theory. You have no counter-evidence. The more you deny it, the harder it will be on your ego to finally admit it. As I said earlier, you should have picked out a more sea-worthy vessel before lashing yourself to the mast. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: CarolC Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:00 AM You, as well as yer other right winged GUEST, ain't nuthin but a bunch of cowards... Prolly all a bunch or 13 year old girls.... Bobert, I don't think you should be slandering 13 year old girls like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:27 AM Ron, Arne, et al The President having said this on the 29th January 2002: "Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world. Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld -- including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-i-Mohammed -- operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities. While the most visible military action is in Afghanistan, America is acting elsewhere. We now have troops in the Philippines, helping to train that country's armed forces to go after terrorist cells that have executed an American, and still hold hostages. Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. Our Navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia. My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf. But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will. Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security. We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch." Is perfectly entitled to mention any regime or country sponsoring terrorist causes and any terrorist organisation when referring to the United States of America's declared war on terror, he has defined the scope of it in the first paragraph quoted - So why does he need a "propaganda campaign" Ron??? He doesn't have to convince the people of the USA, he has to convince the Senate and the House of Representatives. He doesn't really need to work all that hard to do that because it was the joint house Security Committee and the US intelligence and security services that identified the countries comprising the "axis of evil" - so no "propaganda campaign" required to convince them - they told him that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq posed a threat. Ron seems rather fixed on the period mid 2002 to March 2003 - who did the President of the United States of America have to convince to the extent that a "propaganda campaign" had to be waged: - Not the population of the US, as they have no bearing on the issue - Not the Senate or House of Representatives as they are already on board. - UN Member States on the UNSC? Hardly they will go where directed by their own Governments - UN Member States in General? Same and besides its a UNSC matter the general membership have no bearing on the issue. There was no propaganda campaign because there was absolutely no need for one - it would fulfil no purpose whatsoever - what you did have was a marked degree of spin from the media and a great deal of biased and inaccurate reporting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: CarolC Date: 07 Dec 05 - 01:12 PM Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. What "terror" has the regime in North Korea sponsored? And if it hasn't sponsored any, why was it mentioned in that particular paragraph all by itself, instead of another regime that really has sponsored "terror"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 05 - 01:31 PM Moro Islamic Liberation Front had purchased weapons from North Korea with funds provided by Middle East sources. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: CarolC Date: 07 Dec 05 - 02:31 PM So we're going to define governments that "sponsor terror" according to who buys weapons from those countries? Ok. I can live with that definition. Of course, I don't think there are very many countries that don't fit that criteria. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 07 Dec 05 - 10:47 PM LOL, Teribus. You, just like your icon Dubya, seem to be of the curious opinion that by simply repeating speeches by Dubya over and over again, you'll get the magic results that you didn't achieve the first time around. Don't know where you got this foolish notion, but in fact, the opposite seems to pertain -- people actually start to get bored and irritated after the second or third repetition, and consider you even more a clueless and rather unoriginal berk for having repeated yourself.... So why does he need a "propaganda campaign" Ron??? Dunno. Why don't you ask him? Seems he's the one that thought it necessary.... He doesn't have to convince the people of the USA, he has to convince the Senate and the House of Representatives. He doesn't really need to work all that hard to do that because it was the joint house Security Committee and the US intelligence and security services that identified the countries comprising the "axis of evil" - so no "propaganda campaign" required to convince them - they told him that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq posed a threat. Pack'o'lies, there, Teribus. There was no propaganda campaign because there was absolutely no need for one - it would fulfil no purpose whatsoever - what you did have was a marked degree of spin from the media and a great deal of biased and inaccurate reporting. You conclude (at least in your "logic" here) that Dubya couldn't have engaged in a Rovian propaganda campaign (and therefore that such didn't exist), because such a campaign would have been quite stoopid given the facts as you assume them and set them forth above. However, that assumes facts not in evidence: Namely, that the Dubya maladministration is indeed rational and level-headed and never makes any bone-headed and illogical blunders. But that's clearly not the case. May I submit the following line into the record: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." That's the failure of your supposed logic here, Teribus. You deny an obvious fact by saying that no one could have been stoopid enough to have caused that fact to transpire. You misunderestimate Dubya, I fear. You'd be better served by showing directly that the fact was not indeed the case, rather than indirectly attacking its existence based on someone's supposed motivations and abilities. But you further make the mistake of misstating the surrounding facts. The claims you make for the need for a propaganda campaign are mistaken as well. Good ol' "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out" Dubya was hardly the reluctant warriour being swept up in a tide of anti-Saddam public opinion. Mr. Pump Your Fist In The Air And Yell "Feels Good" On Starting A War hardly bowed to a groundswell of Congressional pro-war sentiment in invading Iraq. The actual facts are that support for the misguided and sanguinary Iraq invasion had to be carefully nurtured by misinformation, distortions, fear-mongering, and outright lies, to swing the public and Congress behind it (but this campaign failed miserably in getting sentiment abroad to swing round to Dubya's side, thus the refusal of the U.N. to sanction the invasions and the massive worldwide protests and opposition to Dubya's belligerence (might have had something to do with their not being under a puppy-dog mainstream media as most of the folks in the U.S. were, and thus better able to see the Dubya propaganda for what it was). Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Geoduck Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:00 PM George Bush or Dick Cheny have never said the Saddam and 9/11 were connected. All I see are quotes such as "I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9-11. I can't say that." This is proof that they specifically avoided saying that Saddam and 9/11 were connected. This is the counter-evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:07 PM The inimitable Tom Tomorrow weighs in. . . . Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:19 PM Geoduck: George Bush or Dick Cheny have never said the Saddam and 9/11 were connected. All I see are quotes such as "I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9-11. I can't say that." You're not looking too hard. You missed the quote where Cheney said we knew that Mohammad Atta had met with the Iraqis in Prague, amongst others. This is proof that they specifically avoided saying that Saddam and 9/11 were connected. This is the counter-evidence. No. Counter-evidence would be them saying: "Despite all the silly rumours, fabrications, and innuendo being floated by the Democrats about how Saddam was the mastermind behind 9/11, we have determined that there is no such link." But sadly for you, this would have been difficult for the maladministration to say, seeing as Laurie Mylroie (search thread above for more on this piece of work) was not a Democrat, but rather a favourite and an intimate of the PNAC folks in the maladministration itself, who were also pushing her line'o'bullshite.... But why so defensive about the maladministration's pre-war efforts (or your alleged lack of effort on their part)? Do you acknowledge that the war itself was (and continues) to be a bloody disaster based on false intelligence? That would be progress of a sort..... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:22 PM Arne, If I repeat the sections of the speeches that I have referenced it is in the hope that you will read then, as opposed to relying on what someone else tells you was said. But no matter, if you remain unconvinced, I will continue to base my view on what was actually said than what I am told second-hand. So the Bipartisan House Security Committee and the intelligence and security agencies of the USA did not Identify the following Countries as posing a possible threat to the US through possible future provision of support (technical, financial, or material) to international terrorist groups: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Cuba. It's all a Pack of Lies is it Arne? Don't think so, FBI definitely thought so on 11th February 2003. There was no propaganda campaign because there was absolutely no need for one Arne and your suppositions and analysis based on second hand information are totally unconvincing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST Date: 07 Dec 05 - 11:50 PM AL: The qoute "we knew that Mohammad Atta had met with the Iraqis in Prague" does not appear in this thread. What does appear is "we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official" I Googled for it and the results were: Your search - "we knew that Mohammad Atta had met with the Iraqis in Prague" - did not match any documents. Evidently you made it up and now you accuse me of not being able to see it. Do you make up quotes by others and try to pass them off as fact often? If so you are suffering from dilusions. Better get a check up from the neck up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 08 Dec 05 - 08:47 PM Guest (AKA Geoduck): The qoute "we knew that Mohammad Atta had met with the Iraqis in Prague" does not appear in this thread. Yeah. You notice the lack of quotation marks around those words in my previous post? That means it's not a verbatim quote. But it is what Cheney stated on more than one occasion, including in the following quote that you recite: What does appear is "we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official" Yepsah. Cheney's saying that he thinks that Atta met with the Iraqis in Prague. I don't think he was insinuating that they liked the dark coffee there either. He repeated this assertion, and even long after the war began kept saying, well, we don't know if he did but we don't know if he didn't. Despite the fact that both the FBI and CIA had determined pretty conclusively that Atta couldn't have been in Prague, and that the sources for the Prague story might not have been all that reliable. I Googled for it and the results were: Your search - "we knew that Mohammad Atta had met with the Iraqis in Prague" - did not match any documents. Your Googling skills need some work. Try "Atta Iraq Cheny Prague". There you'll find the likes of this:
So that's two easily found instances where Cheney's said what I said he said. Evidently you made it up and now you accuse me of not being able to see it. Evidently you don't know what quotation marks are for. But what I was saying was quite correct. You are insisting that he didn't use the precise language that I used ... but that's irrelevant, as I never made any such claim either, but used this language of my own to characterise Cheney's multiple assertions on this subject. You may disagree with my characterisation of his assertions (and if you do, out with it), but don't go calling me a quote fabricator. Do you make up quotes by others and try to pass them off as fact often? Nope. Nor did I do so here. Despite your misunderstanding to the contrary. If so you are suffering from dilusions. Better get a check up from the neck up. I'd suggest that it is you that are seeing things that aren't there ... such as quotation marks. And not seeing what's in pretty plain sight for a nominally capable person. Do pay attention. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 08 Dec 05 - 09:39 PM Teribus: If I repeat the sections of the speeches that I have referenced it is in the hope that you will read then, as opposed to relying on what someone else tells you was said.... I've read 'em. And heard 'em. Big stinkin' piles'o'crap. What I don't know is why you think I should read 'em agin. What am I missing there that's relevant to this discussion? Obviously rather subtle, seeing as you see the need to quote the whole damn thing to try and make your "point" agin. ... But no matter, if you remain unconvinced, I will continue to base my view on what was actually said than what I am told second-hand. Unconvinced by Dubya's speeches. He was shown to be full'o'shite. By his own inspection team after the war. Is there something there that I'm missing other than an example of Dubya's mendacity and cluelessness? Say, what do you think of this: "Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom." -- Duyba (from your quote above). Hate to say it, but Iran actually has elections (albeit the representative governing bodies are under the check of the mullahs in the end if they get too far out of line according to the mullahs). Compare and contrast to our "friends" there in ... say, Saudi Arabia ... and Jordan ... and Kuwait ... etc., etc. As for "export[ing] terror", IIRC, 15 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. Strangely enough, in the U.S., thanks to Dubya's propaganda campaign, less that 20% of the people could correctly answer how many of the hijackers had come from Iraq. Here's a lie, BTW: "This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors." Dubya on Iraq (same source). The actual truth is that the inspectors left after being recalled, on the request of Clinton. Granted, Saddam didn't let them back in until 2002 again, but he wasn't the one that kicked them out (and there was that unfortunate situation with the U.S. using the inspections teams to put their spies into Iraq, which certainly didn't encourage Saddam to let them back in, and in fact gave him an excuse not to....). More Dubya: "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." Not painting a picture of a Saddam/al Qaeda link, eh? No, couldn't be.... Another Dubya lie: "We'll be deliberate,..." OK, well maybe not a total lie, but certainly grossly inaccurate. Then there's this: "Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world." -- Dubya. Which you refer to: Is perfectly entitled to mention any regime or country sponsoring terrorist causes and any terrorist organisation when referring to the United States of America's declared war on terror, he has defined the scope of it in the first paragraph quoted.... Here you're making the fallacy of bifurcation. You assume that Iraq must be one or the other of these in Dubya's mistaken view of things. Not so; logically, Dubya could -- and did try to make the case that Iraq was both of these things. And in fact, Iraq was pretty much neither of these things -- both grounds were pretty much bogus and based on horrible "intelligence". Which is why, for a while, the maladministration started harping on the (so-called) 'humanitarian' rationale for the invasion..... So the Bipartisan House Security Committee and the intelligence and security agencies of the USA did not Identify the following Countries as posing a possible threat to the US through possible future provision of support (technical, financial, or material) to international terrorist groups: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Cuba.... Cuba??? Well. That surely salts it. Nothing as dangerous as good 'ol Fidel, nosirree. Say, I keep forgetting. Where's that terrorist Orlando Bosch hiding out nowadays? Who's giving him asylum and thus supporting international terrorism. What about airplane bomber Luis Posada Carriles? Yep, time to go bomb and invade the country that provided these heinous mass muderers asylum, dontcha think? But are we getting a bit weasely here, Teribus? "possible threat ... through possible future provision of support"? Anything like "weapons of mass destruction program related activities"? As I said way up top, time to go invade the Federated States of Micronesia, never can be too careful, yaknow. Or better yet, the Republic of Palau. I'll volunteer to scout out the beaches there as long as Uncle Sam pays the dime.... It's all a Pack of Lies is it Arne?... No. pack'o'lies is the Dubya maladministration's hyping of piss-poor "intelligence" from people known to be frauds.... ...Don't think so, FBI definitely thought so on 11th February 2003. Ummmm, what did the FBI "definitely th[ink]" on 11th Feb., 2003? Do go on.... There was no propaganda campaign because there was absolutely no need for one Arne and your suppositions and analysis based on second hand information are totally unconvincing. Already addressed this fallacy of yours. That the Dubya maladministration, acting rationally, shouldn't have engaged in a propaganda campaign is hardly evidence that they didn't. OTPH, we have much evidence that they did in fact do precisely this (adn for the reasons I mentioned above). You're sounding a bit like a broken record, Teribus. Time to get into a new groove of the "Dubya Apologia" vinyl Billboard topper.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 08 Dec 05 - 09:51 PM Cheney quote from this past Tueday in addressing the 10th Mountain Divison and the National Guard;s 42nd Infantry Division (Fort Dunn, N.Y): "Some have suggested that by liberating Iraq... we simply stirred up a hornets nest. They over look the fundamental fact: We were not Iraq and the terrorists hit us anyway"... Now I'm not too sure why T-Denial would continue this tact if it were indeed going to land his ship on the coral reef but, hey, that is his problem... I sometimes think that T-Lonely is the only person on the planet who still argues that Buch and Co. haven't made repeated attempts to link "terrorists" to Iraq.... Like what is he missing here??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 08 Dec 05 - 10:18 PM Teribus-- Well now, let's see what you've accomplished. 1) You've been forced to admit that the US had no authority from the UN to invade Iraq--therefore your citing of UN resolutions is totally immaterial. 2) You've been caught in either a stupidly careless errror or a lie, of alleging-- several times---that something actually said in 2001 was said in 2002--while ignoring what was really said. Yes, it does in fact matter--in fact it's crucial to the debate--since the propaganda campaign against Iraq was from about mid-2002 to the invasion in March 2003. In 2001, you may just possibly recall, the Taliban was the focus. We'll be charitable and say you were stupidly careless--as well as being a poor reader, not to notice that I had caught your error days before, and said so. I also caught my own error--almost immediately-- in reading your 2002 as 2003 once, and said as much. You however, who make egregious errors in virtually every post, never admit it. It does not help your credibility. 3) You have proven--twice so far--that you can't even keep your temper. (I'm just waiting for the third time.) Had this been a debate, you would have lost long ago. You probably would have been booted off any debate team long since--as a liability. It appears you haven't learned that temper tantrums score few points. Now, it seems, you don't know how propaganda works--that it does not require a blunt statement--sometimes implication or juxtaposition is more effective. So now we have the burning question of whether you are stupid or ignorant. Again, being charitable--"the milk of human kindness by the quart in every vein"--I will say you are just ignorant. You need to spend a lot more time at your public library reading history and psychology--and learning how to research--rather than wasting time here with your, pardon the expression, unmitigated drivel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: CarolC Date: 08 Dec 05 - 10:39 PM The qoute "we knew that Mohammad Atta had met with the Iraqis in Prague" does not appear in this thread. What does appear is "we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official" This is very much the same sort of thing Clinton has been so thoroughly criticized for when he said "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is". It's all about plausible deniability. Don't come right out and say it, but word things in such a way that people get a certain impression in their minds. You can deny you were trying to do it, and you still get the results you were after (convincing people of something that is not true). The proof is in the pudding - in this case, the number of people who held false beliefs about Saddam being all or partly responsible for 9/11. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 08 Dec 05 - 10:43 PM But Ron, don'tr you realize is what you haveordered up is yet another "War and Peace" rebuttal with all kinds of tricks and fancy gadgets?? T-Denial don't cop to jay-walkin', Ron... Hey. like you, I don't have a clue what his motivation is??? If he believes the stuff he says then, yeah, pathology is not out of the asssesment... Like you, I'd rather think that T-Dumbass is just ill informed than to think T-Nutball is a mental case... Either way, he is seriously wrong on this one... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Mirsy Date: 08 Dec 05 - 11:04 PM Oh! Oh! Such marvelously weighty posts. Almost orgasmic in their intensity. I am rivetted to the screen as the hours pass by. I score Arne and Ron Davies in the lead now, with Teribus fighting manfully, but slowly and surely losing ground. I begin to suspect that Bush actually IS the worst liar and scoundrel since...Idi Amin? Hitler? Joe Stalin? Sawney Bean? Satan? I begin to feel the possibility of a resolution to this question of Bush's culpability. I have devoted at least 85 hours already to studying this matter, as it has been debated on Mudcat, and I have sacrificed much in so doing. Surely my dedication will come to fruition, justifying this donation of my time and energy. Surely. I await the post that will nail this one in its coffin and put it finally to rest. Any day now...any day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 08 Dec 05 - 11:20 PM Yo, Mirsy, If yer still awaitin' the final blow then might as well go home... It has been landed and you missed it... T-TKO'd is on the canvas an' the ref is at 7 on the 8 count... Yeah, expect one more vailiant charge with a War-'n-Peace lenght crap-buttle but this one is over... T-Dethroned has met his match here... He should have just said, "Yeah, my guys did link Saddam to 9/11... So what???" but, als he din't an' now he has lost... (But don't tell him. Maybe he'll make that one last valiant post to prove it above anything else he has posted... And we all owe him that last post but, sniff, the great T has been brought down...) I raise my cup to both Ron and T but, like anyhting in life, there's always a new chapter and maybe T will learn a little from his bullheadedness... Maybe not... But he should remember that his premise was defeated here on this thread! Absolutely defeated!!! But good game, T-Came-up-short!!! Heck, considering the hand that younmwere dealt, you know with a lieing bunch of creeps to defend, you did an admirabale job... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 09 Dec 05 - 03:21 AM Ron, Arne, How propaganda works - Example "Olbermann Uses Selective Edits to Show" Cheney Tied Iraq to 9/11 On Wednesday night MSNBC's Chris Matthews refused to concede that he had distorted Dick Cheney's comments about a 9/11 link to Iraq and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann set out to prove that Cheney had drawn such a connection, but Olbermann selectively edited a series of Cheney remarks, leaving out Cheney's specific rejection of any such connection. On Hardball the night after the vice presidential debate, Matthews informed his viewers: "The Republican National Committee today criticized me for saying on the Today show this morning that the taped remarks we showed last night of the Vice President's statement on Meet the Press established the fact that in no uncertain terms that the Vice President has asserted that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. The RNC said we were being selective and cited this clip from the same Meet the Press." Matthews had cited Cheney's reference to how the Iraq war hit at "the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years but most especially on 9/11," as proof that Cheney was blaming Iraq for 9/11. In the fuller clip from the 2003 interview, however, Russert asked Cheney if "the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?" Cheney rejected the notion: "Oh I wouldn't, I was careful not to say that." Nonetheless, the MRC's Geoff Dickens observed, Matthews refused to back down, going only so far as to put it in the hands of the audience: "I'll leave it to you, the viewer to decide on that one." In MSNBC's next hour on Wednesday night, Olbermann insisted on the 8pm EDT Countdown that "Cheney's forceful performance at the debate was also self-sabotaged on this day after by comparisons between his insistence last night that he never implied a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 and the series of times that he has." But to make his case, Olbermann distorted and selectively edited a series of Cheney quotes. First, a rundown of Wednesday's Hardball segment and then a full comparison of Olbermann's Cheney quotes to what Cheney really said. -- Hardball, October 6. Chris Matthews noted: "Also last night after the vice presidential debate we aired a report by NBC's Brian Williams pointing to cases where the candidate said things that were contradicted by previous statements." In fact, the Williams segment ran several times: During NBC's post-debate coverage, a bit later on the Matthews-anchored MSNBC post-debate coverage and again on Wednesday's Today show. Matthews replayed the Williams segment. Williams had asserted: "The first exchange we're gonna show you came during the second round of questions. What you're about to see is Vice President Dick Cheney, who Senator Edwards charged tonight has repeatedly Iraq linked Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. This was the Vice President tonight in his own defense." Dick Cheney in the debate: "The Senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." Williams: "But here is the Vice President on Meet the Press, one year ago, September 14, 2003. He was asked to define success in Iraq." Cheney on the September 14, 2003 Meet the Press: "We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the, the, 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." Williams: "So Vice President Cheney from tonight's debate and from Meet the Press just over a year ago." As I noted in the October 6 morning edition of CyberAlert: "But that doesn't contradict what Cheney said in the debate since in 2003 Cheney was simply arguing that Iraq lies in an area of the world which spawns terrorists, including those who attacked the U.S. on 9/11, not that the Iraqi regime specifically contracted the attack." Tuesday night, Matthews soon harangued Ben Ginsberg of the Bush campaign about it, pounding him incessantly. For those "questions," see the October 6 morning edition of CyberAlert: www.mediaresearch.org On Wednesday's Today, Matthews blasted Cheney: "We have the record from Meet the Press, thank God, to base the truth on. To find the truth. Last night was an argument, the evidence suggests, states in fact, that the Vice President wasn't telling the truth." See the October 6 afternoon edition of CyberAlert for a full rundown of Matthew' rant on Today: www.mediaresearch.org Now, back to Wednesday's Hardball. Matthews acknowledged: "The Republican National Committee today criticized me for saying on the Today show this morning that the taped remarks we showed last night of the Vice President's statement on Meet the Press established the fact that in no uncertain terms that the Vice President has asserted that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. The RNC said we were being selective and cited this clip from the same Meet the Press." MSNBC then played a lengthy 1:50 excerpt from the September 14, 2003 Meet the Press which showed that Cheney was talking about making the Middle East region less hospitable to terrorists: Tim Russert: "Can we keep 150,000 troops beyond next spring without, in effect breaking the Army?" Dick Cheney: "Tim we can do what we have to do to prevail in this conflict. Failure is not an option. And, and go back again and think about what's involved here. This is not just about Iraq. Or just about the difficulties we might encounter in any one part of the country in terms of restoring security and stability. This is about a continuing operation on the war on terror. And it's very, very important we get it right. If we're successful in Iraq. If we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the, 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. They understand what's at stake here. It's one of the reasons they are putting up as much of a struggle they have is because they know if we succeed here that, that's gonna strike a major blow at, at their capability-" Russert: "So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?" Cheney: "Oh I wouldn't, I was careful not to say that. With respect to 9/11, 9/11 as I said at the beginning of the show changed everything. And one of the things it changed is we recognized that time was not on our side, that in this part of the world in particular, given the problems we've encountered in Afghanistan which forced us to go in and take action there as well as in Iraq that we, in fact, had to move on it. The relevance for 9/11 is that what 9/11 marked was the beginning of a struggle in which the terrorists come at us and strike us here on our home territory. And it's a global operation." Matthews then opined: "So when the RNC says that when the Vice President said quote, '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,' he wasn't saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. When I first heard the Vice President say that on Meet the Press of September of last year I was struck by the assertion that the tragedy of 9/11 was based in Iraq, that the Vice President was pointing a finger at Saddam Hussein's role in 9/11. The RNC says that's not true. I'll leave it to you, the viewer to decide on that one." Minutes later, Hardball repeated the same slap at Cheney using the same clip in question. David Shuster checked in: "Chris, it was indeed a feisty debate but it was also a one where the experts say the truth got stretched most prominently by the incumbent Dick Cheney. From Vice President Cheney the misleading statements started with this." Dick Cheney during the debate: "The Senator's got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." Shuster: "But Cheney suggested exactly that a year ago on Meet the Press when he described Iraq as: "Cheney, on Meet the Press in 2003: "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." -- Countdown with Keith Olbermann, October 6. Olbermann claimed that Cheney was "self-sabotaged on this day after by comparisons between his insistence last night that he never implied a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 and the series of times that he has. "Cheney, during Tuesday night debate: "The Senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and the 9/11." Olbermann then played a series of four Cheney clips: #1: Cheney, from September 14, 2003 Meet the Press: "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." #2: Cheney, from September 8, 2002 Meet the Press: "Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions, and on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center." #3: Cheney, from March 24, 2002 Meet the Press: "One of the lead hijackers, Mohammed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague." #4: Cheney, from December 9, 2001 Meet the Press: "It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague, and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service." Olbermann's distortion of Cheney's point in #1 was fully outlined earlier in this item in the section on Chris Matthews. For the others, MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth tracked down the original interviews and compared the full text to what Olbermann and his MSNBC producers selectively played. The portions run by Olbermann on Wednesday's Countdown are displayed in ALL CAPS. On #2, Olbermann left out how Cheney emphasized that "I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that," and how Cheney described as "unconfirmed" reports of an Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence. From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press: Russert: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:" Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?" Cheney: "No." Russert then asked on the 2002 show: "Has anything changed, in your mind?" Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, MOHAMED ATTA, WHO WAS THE LEAD HIJACKER, DID APPARENTLY TRAVEL TO PRAGUE ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. AND ON AT LEAST ONE OCCASION, WE HAVE REPORTING THAT PLACES HIM IN PRAGUE WITH A SENIOR IRAQI INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL A FEW MONTHS BEFORE THE ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business." Russert: "What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?" Cheney: "It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be IT'S UNCONFIRMED AT THIS POINT." On #3, in fact it was Russert, not Cheney, who raised the question of a Saddam Hussein/al-Qaeda link. Cheney, in parts of his answer Olbermann didn't share with his viewers, declared that "with respect to the connections to al-Qaeda, we haven't been able to pin down any connection there," and HE (CHENEY)LABELLED THE ATTA MATTER AN "ALLEGATION." From the March 24, 2002 Meet the Press: Russert: "Iraq's Saddam Hussein. When we spoke on September 16, five days after the tragic day of September 11, I asked you if any evidence of linkage between Saddam Hussein and Iraq and al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. At the time you said no. There's an article in The New Yorker magazine by Jeffrey Goldberg which connects Iraq and Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda. What can you tell me about it?" Cheney: "I've read the article. It's a devastating article I thought. Specifically, its description of what happened in 1988 when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds in northern Iraq, against some his own people. I was aware that he had used chemical weapons against the Kurds. That's been general knowledge, but what the article is very good at is pointing it out in depth that he may have struck, if the article's correct, as many as 200 towns and villages over a 17-month period of time and killed upwards of 100,000 Iraqis. What's even more depressing is the apparent medical legacy that's left of continuing increased rates of infertility, birth defects, rates of liver cancer among children, etc., as a result of these attacks. It demonstrates conclusively what a lot of us have said is, that this is a man who is a great danger to the region of the world, especially if he's able to acquire nuclear weapons. With respect to the connections to al-Qaeda, we haven't been able to pin down any connection there. I read this report with interest after our interview last fall. We discovered, and it's since been public, the ALLEGATION that ONE OF THE LEAD HIJACKERS, MOHAMED ATTA, HAD, IN FACT, MET WITH IRAQI INTELLIGENCE IN PRAGUE, but we've NOT BEEN ABLE yet from our perspective TO NAIL DOWN A CLOSE TIE BETWEEN THE AL-QAEDA ORGANIZATION AND SADDAM HUSSEIN. We'll continue to look for it." On #4, which took place just three months after the 9/11 attacks, so well before debate over going to war with Iraq started, Cheney did state his belief that Atta met with the Iraqi intelligence service, but in a caveat excluded by Olbermann, Cheney cautioned: "Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point." In addition, Cheney was responding to a challenge from Russert not to defend the position that Iraq was involved with 9/11, but to evidence that it had been. Russert cited a series of claims about ties to al-Qaeda and then pressed: "Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?" From the December 9, 2001 Meet the Press: Russert: "Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no. Since that time, a couple articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: 'The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out.' And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: 'We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses -- three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors have said, and now there are aerial photographs to show it -- a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives.' And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck -- and there it is, the plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers. Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?" Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that -- IT'S BEEN PRETTY WELL CONFIRMED THAT HE DID GO TO PRAGUE AND HE DID MEET WITH A SENIOR OFFICIAL OF THE IRAQI INTELLIGENCE SERVICE in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue." It looks like Olbermann "self-sabotaged" his accuracy with such selectively misleading soundbite clips. END OF ARTICLE Now Ron, Arne - who was doing the editing of those clips? Cheney or MSNBC? Clear example of why you read and establish what was actually said, and the get the context in which remarks are made, rather than read what somebody else says was said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 09 Dec 05 - 03:55 AM Incorrect Ron Davies - 08 Dec 05 - 10:18 PM This is what has been accomplished 1) It has been established that, counter to what you obviously believe, the US requires the authority from NOBODY to take steps to defend itself at its national interests. It has been established that Iraq's failure to comply with the terms of the Safwan Ceasefire Agreement was sufficient reason for military intervention in 1998, thereby setting the precedent. If it was good enough for the US under Clinton it must be good enough for the US under Bush. 2) In such matters as making errors I suppose you deem yourself to be infallible. I believe that the date 16th September 2001 appeared in my posts - TRUE? But it was an example of what was being discussed on 8th September 2002 - TRUE? That interview that you rushed into print and condemning because according to you it took place on 8th September 2003 - Then again that can't be right because you are incapable of such stupidity or making such a careless errror. No lies told repeatedly Ron - fact is you can't read - you certainly seem incapable of understanding what your eyes must surely tell you. Just to refresh your memory and a little test in honesty - Does the date 16th September 2001 appear in the following: "From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press: Russert: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:" Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?" Cheney: "No." Well - Does it Ron???? 3) "In 2001, you may just possibly recall, the Taliban was the focus." (Ron Davies). Fortunately for the population of the United States of America and the world in general, unlike Ron Davies, the US Administration in office during the period in question proved to be capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time. No Ron the focus post 911 was the security of the United States of America, a focus that required quite a number of complex things to be investigated and established in a fairly short period of time. My contention still stands and both yourself and Arne have failed to answer it - In the period mid 2002 to March 2003 why did the US Government need to wage a propaganda campaign to convince people of a link that that same Administration had already publically stated did not exist? 4) As to the rest of your post, that is purely a personal attack - No skin off my nose - the more you concentrate on those and refuse to address the points raised, the weaker your arguement becomes. By the bye, anyone who relies solely on reported sources as opposed to actual text has very little credibility to start with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 09 Dec 05 - 09:48 AM And finally what did our little viking have to say: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo - 08 Dec 05 - 09:39 PM Not a damn thing, still from a person who believes that Al-Jazeera is a reputable media source of information, what the hell could you expect. By the way Arne Saddam kicked the UNSCOM Inspection teams out of Iraq in 1997 having previously withdrawn all co-operation with those teams (violation of Safwan Agreement). Having returned in 1998 Saddam again started to give them the run around once again (Repeated violation of the Safwan Agreement), that is when Bill Clinton felt that enough was enough, advised the UN Team to withdraw and launched "Desert Fox". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 09 Dec 05 - 11:13 AM Ever read the Marc Antony eulogy in Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar"? Cheyney saying he never claimed a Saddam-9/11 connection is exactly like Antony saying "...but Brutus and Cassius are honorable men". Yes, context of all quotes is very important. So do let's consider it whenever we see a GWB or Cheyney quote. Cheyney spent months saying "{we don't have proof of a connection between 9/11 and Saddam, BUT so-and-so reports this meeting in Prague}", and "{we attacked Saddam to strike at the terrorists who hit us on 9/11, BUT I'm not saying one thing had anything to do with the other}", and "{the people who hit us on 9/11 have their geographic headquarters in Saddam's region, BUT I've never claimed that they are connected}". Now Teribus, I would never accuse you of being naive, BUT I own this bridge in Brooklyn that you might be interested in purchasing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Mirsy Date: 09 Dec 05 - 11:25 AM Oh, merciful heavens! What a stunning turnaround, as Teribus strikes BACK with a veritable Oddyssey of quotable material, carefully set out in typical didactic fashion, sparing no effort in presentation!!! Be still, my beating heart. This is the sort of thing I can really get my teeth into. I am now leaning strongly to the notion that George W. Bush is a seriously misunderstood and great man, a man who will lead humanity out of darkness into in a new light of freedom and abundance. And Cheney must be a real peach too. If I ever have children, I am going to name them after Bush and Cheney. My eyes are red. I've been up all night, studying every word exhaustively. I am impressed. But what will his opponents come up with now? That is the question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Peace Date: 09 Dec 05 - 12:35 PM After 580 posts, the answer is: NO weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. So, the title is bullshit. Have a nice argument, folks, and a good day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST Date: 09 Dec 05 - 01:10 PM CarolC: A little nit-pick: This is very much the same sort of thing Clinton has been so thoroughly criticized for when he said "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is". While Clinton might be derided for carefully parsing words (such as "sexual relations", where he took advantage of a strangely curtailed and corcumscribed legal definition of such that was asymmetric; Judge Wright, after an objection by Bennett, trimmed a more standard legal definition to exclude contact by others with one's own genitalia), the most famous 'example' of this 'careful parsing' was not really an example of such, but was rather an example of his not taking the opportunity to do so. The questioners had used the present tense in asking whether there "is/was" a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. At that time, Clinton had (finally) called it off with Lewinsky, so that a flat-out negative answer might have been reasonable. Clinton pointed out for the benefit of the questioners that there was a difference between the past tense and present tense of "is" (and implicitly indicated that a correct answer might well depend on which was used). It may be that the questioners were simply inept in their questioning. I'd point out that the Bronston v. U.S. case points out that it is the responsibility to the questioner to ask the pertinent question and to make sure it's answered, not the responsibility of the person being questioned to figure out what the questioner may be driving at and answer that instead (in fact, one could make a case that an answer to what is not asked -- but which should have been asked -- if different from the answer to the actual question and false, could potentially be perjury). Just as the questioner doesn't get to determine the answers, the deponent doesn't get to choose the questions. Or it may be that the questioners were purposefully being obtuse or unclear, hoping to generate an answer that might be portrayed as inaccurate, either legally or politically. Nonetheless, Clinton pointed out (for whatever reason) that the question itself was unclear. Can't fault him for that (particularly since this was a legal proceeding and any unclarity as to what was asked and to what was answered might cause legal problems). You might think him picky there, but that's not quite fair when the actual situation was such that there was a difference in the answer which did depend on "what the meaning of 'is' is"..... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST Date: 09 Dec 05 - 01:32 PM Clinton taught the world that blowjobs aren't sex. (Try telling that to your significant other when you get back from a folk festival or late night out. However....) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 09 Dec 05 - 02:37 PM Teribus: On Wednesday night MSNBC's Chris Matthews refused to concede that he had distorted Dick Cheney's comments about a 9/11 link to Iraq and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann set out to prove that Cheney had drawn such a connection, but Olbermann selectively edited a series of Cheney remarks, leaving out Cheney's specific rejection of any such connection. One flaw in this "logic", Teribus (and I've already pointed it out, but you either ignored it or missed it zipping 10Km above your head): The maladministration is not logically required to be consistent. They can indeed talk out of both sides of their mouth (and frequently have done so). When we say they have made a "link" of Saddam and al Qaeda, or insinuated a link between Saddam and 9/11, or engaged in a propaganda campaign to stoke up sentiment for an attack on Iraq by tying Saddam in the public mind to the 9/11 attacks, this in no way precludes them from saying on other occasions (and different venues, to different and perhaps more sceptical audiences) that there were no definite ties, no clear evidence, etc. Your claim that they didn't make such a link is immediately refuted by a single quote where they did so, even if they said something else at some other time. And propaganda has no requirement for logical consistency to be effective. As I and others have noted, the propaganda was effective; majorities of the U.S. public thought that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and an alarming number thought that WoMD were found (or even used by Saddam) during the war. We shouldn't have to have a preznit whose words require a careful and minute parsing in order to glean the truth from what they say. If what's being said is seriously slanted, and what is being implied or insinuated is outright false, they are doing us a disservice and are a bit behind the game in the honesty department. I understand that a detailed disquisition of the evidence "fer and agin" a proposition may not be appropriate in a public speech, but surely the uncertainties and caveats known to exist should have been indicated. Nonetheless, the Dubya maladministration was certain in its pronouncements despite the horribly bad quality of the 'intelligence' behind these pronouncements (i.e., Rummy's "we know where" the WoMD are, Powell's detailing of the various prohibited weaponry before the U.N. complete with 8X10 colour glossies, Dubya's "absolutely", Cheney's "it's been pretty well confirmed, etc.). If nothing else, this certainty constitutes a horrible malfeasance if not a lie. We know now (with far greater certainty than I had before the war when I thought it a pile'o'crap) that the 'intelligence' was "garbage, garbage, and more garbage" and just outright wrong (which I beg to remind the readers here was the original subject of this thread). We're also finding out more evry day about how even people in the gummint knew that this stuff was shoddy, and that there was far more uncertainty than the maladministration portrayed even in the run up to the war. Top that off with the new information coming in from the U.N. inspectors from the ground, based on checking out the specifics of this 'intelligence', that the 'intellignece' was seriously flawed and that there was little if any chance of there actually being any significant WoMD, the dcision to rush into war at that point based on a rationale of protecting from WoMD simply constitutes criminal malfeasance. Say, Teribus, what's the source for that huge ol' "clip'n'paste" of yours?... But I do like this part: Olbermann then played a series of four Cheney clips: As I said before, saying that Cheney denied an explicit tie at any other time (even if that is indeed true) still does nothing to disprove the fact that these quotes do show Cheney making an explicit Saddam/9-11 tie ... repeatedly. On #2, Olbermann left out how Cheney emphasized that "I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that," and how Cheney described as "unconfirmed" reports of an Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence. So it was a weasely, non-specific insinuation, based on "unconfirmed" (but shoddy and later disproven) 'evidence'. More Cheney from the (apparntly MRC) article: With respect to the connections to al-Qaeda, we haven't been able to pin down any connection there. I read this report with interest after our interview last fall. We discovered, and it's since been public, the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague, but we've not been able yet from our perspective to nail down a close tie between the al-Qaeda organization and Saddam Hussein. We'll continue to look for it." My emphasis there, instead of the MRC's.... He admits to some remanent uncertainties, but the thrust of Cheney's point is still there, quite clearly. This is a far cry from maintaning that there were in fact no ties (which, as I pointed out, would still not disprove that Cheney had at other times made such ties). Now Ron, Arne - who was doing the editing of those clips? Cheney or MSNBC? Clear example of why you read and establish what was actually said, and the get the context in which remarks are made, rather than read what somebody else says was said. You'll see my response to this claim of "selective editing" above.... Here's the start of your article: On Wednesday night MSNBC's Chris Matthews refused to concede that he had distorted Dick Cheney's comments about a 9/11 link to Iraq and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann set out to prove that Cheney had drawn such a connection, but Olbermann selectively edited a series of Cheney remarks, leaving out Cheney's specific rejection of any such connection. Nonsense. The full quotes don't show Cheney "specific[ally] reject[ing] ... any such connection". The full quotes simply qualify the certainty of the 'evidence', but leave such a "connection" as not only a disticnt possibility, but based on Cheney's inference about the supposedly 'known' meeting, a quite serious likelihood (I don't think that Cheney was suggesting that Atta met the Iraqi guy for tea and small talk). Cheney at the time may have been persuaded by this 'evidence', but in fat the evidence was wrong, and Cheney should have known that, or at least found that out, before making these insinuations. This is what has been accomplished 1) It has been established that, counter to what you obviously believe, the US requires the authority from NOBODY to take steps to defend itself at its national interests.... Nope. The U.S. (and other countries) may take steps to defend itself if their national interests are in fact at stake. Simply doing so for the purpose of "defend[ing] ... national interests" is subject to a bit of a "reasonable person" standard, e.g., shooting at hallucinations is not "reasonable". It's a fact based determination. ... It has been established that Iraq's failure to comply with the terms of the Safwan Ceasefire Agreement was sufficient reason for military intervention in 1998, thereby setting the precedent.... Nonsense. ... If it was good enough for the US under Clinton it must be good enough for the US under Bush. The "tu quuque" logical fallacy hardly works in a court of law. But there's a difference in scale between Tomahawk attacks and the invasion and occupation of another country, too. By the bye, anyone who relies solely on reported sources as opposed to actual text has very little credibility to start with. From someone who cut'n'paste quotes the MRC (apparently) at length. My, my, my, the hypocrisy.... ;-) Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Mirsy Date: 09 Dec 05 - 06:40 PM Gad! That's an angle I had not considered. Oh dear. Back to the old drawing board... (worry, worry, fret, fret!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST Date: 09 Dec 05 - 06:48 PM Teribus: And finally what did our little viking have to say: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo - 08 Dec 05 - 09:39 PM Not a damn thing, ... For those that choose to snip it and/or ignore it. Which may explain why you're so bone-headedly obtuse here about the real world as well. But in point of fact, I said a fair bit (for which I earned the grateful thanks of Mirsy, it seems....). "Brave, brave Sir Robin, bravely turned his..." Why does that scene keep popping into my head every time I read your posts, Teribus? ... still from a person who believes that Al-Jazeera is a reputable media source of information, what the hell could you expect. Bit of the ol' "argumentum ad hominem" logical fallacy here, eh? But FWIW, I don't think I quoted al Jazeera here. But perhaps you'd put more faith in the captive press that the U.S. gummint inserts paid propaganda into, no? Or you'd put forth the screechifying RWer Reed Irvine's Media Research Center as some icon of 'fair and balanced' "reputable" reporting? Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Mirsy Date: 09 Dec 05 - 06:54 PM I am going pie-eyed. I can no longer determine who is the indicated speaker, the one in italics or the one who is quoting the one in italics or the other one after that! I am experiencing mental meltdown. I cannot determine who is winning the argument or even whose thoughts I am reading or when. What will happen now? Could this be the end of my search to verify once and for all whether Bush is good or evil? Perhaps I should eat. And drink water. Yes, that could be it. But I might miss something if I get up from the computer. Oh dear. I shall order Chinese food. That's it. Ha! I will yet find balm in Gilead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 09 Dec 05 - 07:15 PM Mirsy: There aren't any italics here. Perhaps what you should be drinking is a good beer to set your eyes right again. Yes, I'm sure that's the ticket! Cheers! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 09 Dec 05 - 07:52 PM And, fir the record, Mirsy: Don't get confused my T-Pontificates quanity.... Like what's the difference if he does go on for days if that all he's doing... Like, ahhhh, goning on and on but if you ask T-Evader simple yes/no questions, don't look fir any answers becasue yes/no makes T-Nervous nervous and because his dad punished him badly when his dad caught T-Experienmenter experiementin' at age 13 T isn't going to give too many yes/no answers... But, now listen Mirsy, as in mercy, hey, lets just do a short review here... Hey, it doesn't have to be a "War 'n Peace" lenght review but just a short one... Ahhh, first let me ask you if you have been in a coma for the last 3 or so years??? I'm going to assume that is not the case... Irregardless of the volumes og bull-feathers that T-Bullfeathers has writtten let me ask you a sinmple question... This has nothing to do with the actual words byu the implications that words carry with them and the inferences that are taken away by the listener of these words... So here is the entire debate in a nutshell... Doid you come away with the feeling that the Bush/Blair folks wanted you to think that invading Iraq would make you safer from the terrorists??? Yes______ No_______ You see, that is crux of the debate here... It isn't about actual words, though there are plenty that are purdy danged damning when it come to looking at the actual words that Bush and Cheney spoke, but as much about what impressions were left in the listener after hearing these words... The PR campaign was so successfull that even after "Mission Accomplished" the majority of Americansd still believed in the BIG TTHREE: Nukes, WMD and Al Qeada.... Its only now that folms are going, "Hey, wait just a danged minute! Those things turned out to be lies!!!" Now about the same percentage of Americans who were still believers of the BIG THREE as of Mission Accomplished are now firmly in the "Hey, you lied" camp... But T-Determines will, as I predicted, continue with evn longer anf longed and longer posts with more of the same old thread-bare crap thinkin' that he might just might convince one person who just awoke from a three coma that Bush never implied that one of the reason he wanted to invade Iraq was because Saddam was linked to Al Qeada??? Of course the Bush war machine implied it!!! Unless you were brain dead at the time you know they did... And in not so disguised wording either, gol dang it... But now come T-Revisionist who would act as if everyone in Mudville was barindead during the mad-dash to the invade Iraq???? Like, can he actaully believe the stuff he writes??? I can't come close to concieving that T actually believes anything that he writes.. Hey, it's his job!!! Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: CarolC Date: 09 Dec 05 - 08:01 PM I stand corrected, Guest, 09 Dec 05 - 01:10 PM, in a fairly amused kind of way... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 09 Dec 05 - 08:21 PM Teribus: (going back a few posts to unfinished business): Remember my comment..."you have totally grown accustomed to relying on what somebody else has reported and commented on." Arne's own words...."no, I rely oon what reputable media (and even disreputable media, such as "www.whitgehouse.gov") report on what the maladministration said." Therin lies the difference Arne - I read and listen to what the person says, you, on the other hand, read and listen to what somebody else has reported. Ummmm ... (sans typos) "www.whitehouse.gov" happens to be the official web page for the maladministration. You're saying they're not particularly accurate??? Be still, my beating heart, I'm sooooooooo let down, can I ever believe the maladministration's blandishments and sweet nothings again?... OK Arne maybe we are getting somewhere after all - You now apparently accept that the idea of regime change in Iraq came not from George W Bush but from the previous administration under Bill Clinton. Clue fer ya: "Regime change" ain't the same thing as military invasion and occupation. [Teribus]: "But after the US has been attacked, the President and his Administration are pilloried for exercising the power at their disposal to act in the best interests of the country, even after having gone to both houses of Congress, even after having gone to the United Nations." [Arne]: "News flash: Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11!!!!" Arne, would you like to point out exactly where in that sentence of mine quoted above where I have said, inferred, alluded to Iraq attacking the US. And also tell us exactly how the following paragraph of that post of mine started - "Afghanistan...." correct? So in your twisted mind, when Colombia attacks Argentina, Argentina can go kick the shite outta Peru??? You seem to think that being attacked is somehow license to invade another country, any country, even one that had nothing to do with the attack. That's nonsense, of course. But as an aside, going to the United Nations isn't sufficient for any attack to bear their imprimatur of legitimacy. They have to approve. But Dubya in fact didn't go to the United Nations to get the sign-off on the invasion (as I've pointed out several times) despite Dubya's promise to force at least a vote just for a show of hands ... precisely because saner heads told him that the vote would be an enbarrassing (and delegitimising) one of 5-13 against military action despite the U.S. efforts to strong-arm and bribe the countries on the Security Council. UNMOVIC is irrelevant Arne? - How so Some context for the reading impaired here:
Your reading skills need some work, Teribus. Do you deny that the only reason UNMOVIC were eventually invited back into Iraq (Oh yes Arne they had to be INVITED BACK IN) was because the President of the United States of America parked a quarter of a million members of the armed forces of the US on his doorstep, with the clear message comply, co-operate or you will be removed irrespective. No. Nor did I above. I already told you that the resolution did the job, and that the inspectors were there (with unanimous Security Council approval) and doing what was needed to be done. And when Saddam did allow them in, it was no longer necessary to "remove him from power". Unless Dubya had decided before Saddam let the inspectors back in that it would be necessary, because Saddam "wouldn't let them in ... therefore, after a reasonable request, [he] decided to remove him from power". But that would make Dubya's claims about not having made a decision, and about war being the last resort, a big passle of lies, no? With regard to the words spoken by Dr. Hans Blix, Arne flounders around alot here, mainly because there's nobody telling him what to think, but he does come up with this absolute GEM: [Arne]: ....."Words have meaning." Well, Teribus, only if you ignore what I did say about what Blix had said. You may think I was "flounder[ing]", but simply making that assertion is hardly an argument (except perhaps on Monty Python....). Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 09 Dec 05 - 08:44 PM CarolC: I stand corrected, Guest, 09 Dec 05 - 01:10 PM, in a fairly amused kind of way... OBTW (if it wasn't obvious from the style), that was me at 1:10 PM). Maybe I should sign up for Mudcat so I can get my milk and cookies.... ;-) Who do I pay my dues to? Does membership come with that neat "nude folkie guitar players" calendar (IIRC) that I heard people talking about a couple years ago? Or should I wait for the "nude tin whistles" edition? Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Bobert Date: 09 Dec 05 - 09:05 PM Bad news fer yous, Arne... Ain't no milk 'n cookies... And worser news... It does come with the nudie calendar 'cept its of a bunch of agin' folk singers... It ain't purdy sight... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Arne Date: 09 Dec 05 - 10:43 PM Bobert: Ain't no milk 'n cookies... Dunno about the milk, but I did get my cookie. Now howzabout that calendar; for an aging folkie like myself, a bunch of nudie ol' folkies may be about as much as I can hope for.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Ron Davies Date: 09 Dec 05 - 10:57 PM Well, let's see if I can imitate Cheney's style. Teribus--I'm shocked that you would consider my post of 8 Dec 10:18 PM to be an attack on you. After all, I took pains to establish that I believed you were just stupidly careless, not a liar. (End of imitation) Your carelessness continues--as in your acccusation that I consider myself infallible--when I have in fact caught, acknowledged and corrected my own mistake--something you have yet to do, despite a long history of error. "In the period mid-2002 to March 2003 why did the US government need to wage a propaganda campaign to convince people of a link that that same administration had already publicly stated did not exist?" Good question--except that we've told you many times already---how many more times til it finally sinks in? The answer, yet again, is that in 2001 the focus was the Taliban. By mid-2002 the Bush regime had decided to attack Iraq--and wanted it to seem justified in the eyes of the US public. Hence the propaganda campaign was necessary--and eventually successful. And you STILL have no evidence that it did not take place. Your only clear statement by a member of the Bush regime that there was no evidence of a link between Saddam and 11 Sept 2001 is from 16 Sept 2001, the date of a clip watched by Russert and Cheney on 8 Sept 2002. What was actually said on 8 Sept 2002 supports, rather than disproves the propaganda campaign allegation. In fact we have given you a blizzard of quotes linking Saddam and 11 Sept 2001 by members of the Bush "team" during the mid-2002 to March 2003 period. So far, you still have absolutely not one shred of evidence of a CLEAR statement by a Bush spokesman during the above period that there was no link between Saddam and 11 September 2001. I repeat, yet again--the propaganda campaign during the above period to link Saddam and 11 September 2001 is a fact, not a theory--with the obvious goal that I cited. Though you have provided much evidence that you don't understand how propaganda works--you still have to visit your local library-- you have provided absolutely no evidence that Bush and co did not carry out the above-cited propaganda campaign between mid-2002 and March 2003. Nor will you ever be able to come up with the needed evidence of a clear disassociation by a Bush "team member" of Saddam from 11 Sept 2001 during the time of the above-cited propaganda campaign- which was ( yet again)--mid 2002 to March 2003------because such evidence doesn't exist. Sorry about your crushed ego. Next time when you make a foolish statement, recognize it and back off. Nobody's perfect. Congratulations, however, for keeping your temper in check. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST Date: 09 Dec 05 - 11:17 PM You missed the quote where Cheney said we knew that Mohammad Atta had met with the Iraqis in Prague Yeah Arne, I missed it and I am still missing it because it is not there in quotation marks or otherwise. Proving you make things up as you go and deny you made anything up. Then you lecture on how stupid we must be to find your mistakes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 10 Dec 05 - 12:08 AM It will sink in when you can produce a quote by the administration stating Saddam and 9/11 were connected. All the quotes I can find state the opposite. I never heard any administration officail say they were connected on TV or radio. I can't understand why some people think GWB said they were connected. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Teribus Date: 10 Dec 05 - 05:01 AM OK Ron, let's approach it from this direction. Hypothetically we go along with what you say, and that there was this massive, but subtle, campaign on the part of the Bush Administration to convince people of a link between Saddam Husein and the attacks of 11th September 2001. When did the the population of the US give their President the go ahead to act? How did the population of the US give their President the go ahead to act? I would be very interested in reading your response to those questions. Because Ron, unless there was some way of the population being able to give their President the go ahead and unless there was a clear indication that the majority of US citizens approved action against Iraq then there would be absolutely not point at all in going to all that trouble - would there? You mention the Taleban as being the focus in 2001 - They were not, or do you deny the work of the House Internal Security Committee tasked with conducting an assessment of all potential threats to the US in the aftermath of the attacks of the 11th September 2001. That work on assessment and evaluation was the focus Ron, not the Taleban, who after all were only Al-Qaeda's hosts. Any combat veteran going all the way back to WWII could tell you that in Afghanistan, once the Northern Alliance was hooked-up and co-ordinated with US air power, the Taleban would be driven from power, it was a foregone conclusion. It did not need the focus of the US administration to direct that. To attempt to put forward, as fact, that the Taleban was the sole focus of the US Government in the wake of the 911 attacks, is incorrect and irrational. Everything I have read, seen and heard with regard to US policy, strategy, and tactics so far with regard to the war on terror is perfectly in accordance with what your President clearly stated in his State of the Union Address on the 29th January 2002. For Arne Langsetmo's benefit - if someone now comes along and part edits the first paragraph (like MSNBC) and cuts and pastes it somewhere else - it does not mean that - Teribus states that, "...there was this massive, but subtle, campaign on the part of the Bush Administration to convince people of a link between Saddam Husein and the attacks of 11th September 2001." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Leadfingers Date: 10 Dec 05 - 06:20 AM Oh how I DO love the political 'discussions' in here ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs WERE found in Iraq! From: Leadfingers Date: 10 Dec 05 - 06:21 AM As long as I can get the 600tyh post ! |
