BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 09:41 PM

Teribus--

Interesting--you can find precisely zero evidence or even logic to contradict any of what I've just said.

Perhaps you don't like your own words quoted back to you. But there is an alternative----you could think before hitting "send".   Then perhaps you wouldn't have so many words to eat.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 08:25 AM

Nice try, T, but I haven't defended Iran as some beacon of democracy... Might of fact, you seem to see democracy as the perfect system for everyone... It isn't if a country has not developed a "culture" of understanding how it works and for what each voter is responsible...

As for the Johns Hopkins' study, yeah, I'm sticking with it... Heck, it far more credible than all youre various debunked reasons why we are in Iraq... You know, aluminum tubes, uraniam cakes for Niger, Saddam was a bad man, WMDs, Iraq wants US there, etc, etc. etc...... Take about the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny??? Sheesh, T... You are a riot...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 01:31 AM

Lot of words there Ron - very little substance - did you feel that you just had to say something?

As usual regarding your selection of quotes quote the whole sentence or paragraph to put what has been said in context.

With regard to, "...anything is possible in politics given the right timescale and circumstances" - Prove that it is not Ron. Oh and you never did stipulate over what timescale your question was tied to did you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 10:10 PM

Teribus-

Maybe we should have a lottery based on whether--if ever-you will admit what you've just said. You're almost as good as Bill Clinton--who denied 24 hours later what he had said about who played the "race card". Too bad he was on video saying it.

Case in point for you: 9 June 2008   10:13 "...anything--
(in this case an al-Qaeda takeover of Iraq)-- is possible in politics given the right timescale and circumstances". You did say it. Your words are still there.

I repeat: that is a singularly flimsy pretext to keep US troops in Iraq. We actually have better ways to spend money, amazing as that might seem to you. And the families of the troops would like them back home more often.

Interesting that you're now backing away from your earlier threat--supporting GWB and now McCain---that al-Qaeda can take over. Your reasoning--they're not in the business of governing. That's putting it mildly. They're in the business of firebrand sectarianism--which is alienating Sunnis every day, with al-Qaeda's thuggish enforcement of their perversion of Islam. That's why they are not supported by Sunnis in general--and never will be. And as I've pointed out--and you have not denied--even Sunni states like Saudi Arabia feel under threat by them.

Your apocalyptic--if somewhat nebulous--predictions of doom if the US combat troops are removed from "rump Iraq" are unfortunately not graced by logic or evidence.

There is no chance al-Qaeda can take over in Iraq. You have given no remotely plausible scenario as to how they could--ever. And no reason why US combat troops should sit there as potential targets in any terror attacks or Shiite-Sunni friction or, just as likely, Shiite-Shiite unrest.

And you are also wrong about the bases. It is not a leftist invention. WSJ: 17 June 2008: the Iraqi foreign minister says the one of the biggest points of contention is "how many bases the US would be allowed to maintain in Iraq longterm". And I have said there should be bases in "Kurdistan"--where the Kurds actually want us. Just not in "rump Iraq"--since "Kurdistan" will go its own way regardless of what the US and Maliki decide.

For somebody who complains about words being put in your mouth, you are both showing rather poor reading skills, and somewhat reluctant to admit what you actually say. Perhaps you'd like to try running for office--those are very useful skills, it seems--at least on the Bush "team".

But your entertainment value is still high. Congratulations.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 12:47 PM

"percentages mean nothing if the slate of candidates is rigged, T..."

You mean like in Iran? Faulty logic when applied to Iraq, given any candidates how do you force voters to vote for them?

Still peddling the Old John Hopkins lie then Bobert? Ah well give my regards to the Easter Bunny, Tooth fairy and Santa Claus.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 12:28 PM

The percentages mean nothing if the slate of candidates is rigged, T...

But, yeah, I would have to agree that the American percentage is disappointing... Part of the problem is systematic in that we have only one day to vote... If we had a week to vote, or at the very least a Saturday and Sunday to vote the percentages would, IMO, increase dramatically... We also play games with registrations and voting processes and have even gone so far as to drop people from the roles for no other reason but they have names which are siomilar to others who might have feloniy convictions... Upwards of 57,000 such people were dropped from the roles just prior to the 2000 election in Florida...

I'm glad you are optimistic, T, about Iraq's future... You were also optimistic before Bush & Co. killed off upwards of a million Iraqis, thousands of American and destabilized the entire region???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 11:38 AM

"Ahhhhh, what governemnt, T??? The bogus one that we set up thru rigged elections???" - Bobert

Well Bobert likes talking about millions of Iraqi civilians, but somehow I don't think that he's going to like the following numbers.

The United States of America:
National voter turn out for US Federal Elections from 1960 to 2006 give the lowest turn out in 1986 and 1998 with only 36.4% of those eligible to vote turning out to do so. The highest was in 1960 with a turn out of 63.1%. Voter turn out in the USA for the 2004 Presidential Election, supposedly the most polarised and bitterly fought Presidential contest ever was only 56.69%. Hey Bobert you're goin' to love this

The Republic of Iraq:
Voter turn out for the 2005 elections to elect the first democratically elected Government of Iraq was 79.6% Bobert, some 12,396,631 Iraqi voters braved threats of death and violence to cast their votes. The UN plus the world and its dog were there all in the wishful expectation of pouring scorn on the result, just like you Bobert, but that is not how it played out Bobert was it? The UN representatives sent to oversee the conduct of the election stated that it met all internationally recognised standards. Now Bobert one minute you are broadcasting to all and sundry that the US is hated as infidel occupiers, and next you are telling us that those same hated intruders have managed to somehow persuade 79.6% of all the voters in Iraq to vote in a certain way - Yeah Right!!!

"Iraqi sects ain't been too good at getting along" - the Kurdish Shiia and Sunni's seem to rub along quite well together Bobert. Will the others come to find common ground - Yes I am optimistic enough to believe that they will, as soon as they assist their government in getting rid of the insurgents and criminals in their midst.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 09:05 AM

Ahhhhh, what governemnt, T??? The bogus one that we set up thru rigged elections???

And let me see if I have this right??? The other reason for being there is because we broke it and must fix it before we leave??? Hey, Iraqi sects ain't been too good at getting along unless there has been a "bad man" in control... Are you suggesting that Sunnis and Shites will one day get along and live in harmony??? If so, I believe that you have been downwind of the hash burnin' 'cause that ain't gonna happen meaning...

...yeah, if that is our goal then that $3B a week sucking sound on the US Treasury will go on for the next 100 years and as a consequence the average American's standard of living will continue to rapidly decline...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 01:34 AM

Why are "we" in Iraq? We are in Iraq at the request of the Government of Iraq and at the behest of the Security Council of the United Nations. Having effected regime change in Iraq it is the duty and responsibility of those who brought about that change to ensure that the nascent democracy established in Iraq to replace the regime of Saddam Hussein is given a chance to survive its birth pains.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 09:30 PM

Ahhhh, exactly what would make sane adults destroy hash... Okay, I have destroyed a little in my day but I did it responsibly...

...one hit at a time...

Now back to the subject, T... Would you like to take a stab at the "Why are we in Iraq" question??? One, okay 2 paragraphs, por favor...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 02:12 AM

Bobert, Just recently in Kandahar the Afghan Police, Army and the SBS found 273 tons of Hash which they had to set fire to to destroy it. From your last post you must obviously have been standing down wind of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 09:00 PM

'...secure employment opportunities, Dianavan..."

This is the friggin' point I have made over and over... With the American working class going backwards why is it our job to be creating "secure [friggin'} employment opportunities" to Iraqis??? Like I have said, "The Surge" has been nothing but US giving my tax dollars to Iraqis not to shoot at US...

Is that your final answer, T??? 'Cause if it is it is the most stupid excuse yet for being in Iraq that you have offerd over the last 6 years of offering up stupid reason for US to be in Iraq...

I mean... ssssssttttttttuuuuuuuuupppppppppiiiiiiiiidddddddddddd!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 05:51 PM

Bases provide fairly secure employment opportunities Dianavan - Something that is in much demand in Iraq at present, No?

The rest of your post made absolutely no sense at all.

The only member of my family who has got any connection with the military at all is my youngest son, so neither myself or any other member of the family is entrenched in a thing dependent on war, or anything to do with the military.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, if you had a brain you'd be dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 02:34 PM

"...if the Iraqis living around any projected sites for those bases had a word with their counterparts in Germany, they would find out that it would be like living on top of a gold mine." - teribus

I'm sure the Iraqis are quite capable of communicating with their "counterparts in Germany". How arrogant and out of touch you are. What makes you think Iraq and Germany can be compared? Apples and Oranges cannot be compared. You are so entrenched in the military that your livelihood and the well-being of your own family is dependent on war. What a pity.

Its really sad the way you talk in circles to justify your own existence at the expense of so many others.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 07:25 PM

Good question, d...

Why are we still in Iraq???

Just yesterday Maliki said that the Iraqi governemnt has no interest in meeting US demands that private contractors cannot be held liable for killing or maiming Iraqis...

And al-Sadr said the ceasefire is off...

(Hmmmmmm, Bobert??? I thought the reason that casualties were down was because of "The Surge"... Ain't that right???)

No, the reason that causulties are down is because the US taxpayers are having their tax dollars diverted to pay off people who want to kill US... You know, protection money...

This is the reality that the Teribuses and the beardedbruces of the world cannot get into their little barinwashed heads...

But back to d's excellent question... Why are we in Iraq???

Can I get a one paragrah answer that ordinary people can understand or not...

(You know the answer to that question, Boberdz... Of course you won't get a concise one paragraph answer... What you will get ie reams and reams of pure unalterated bullshit... Nothing more and nothing less...)

Normal...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 04:40 PM

teribus,

A) Why should the U.S. remain in Iraq?

B) Why not let Iraq choose their own allies?

C) Why is the U.S. so unpopular in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 07:24 AM

Ah Ron, can you only ever debate any point by putting words into other peoples mouths and taking them to task over them?

Let's see what was it you eventually managed to come up with:

1) "You conveniently ignore the fact that the UK contingent in the "Coalition" in Iraq is already down from its peak." - Now of what relevance is that Ron? In the past on Iraq threads I have drawn attention to the rapid drawdown of UK troops when the leftist anti-Bush brigade were howling about US & UK establishing permanent military bases in Iraq. UK involvement peaked at 43,000 troops in the South of Iraq in March 2003 within six months that number was down to around half that, in a year it was down to 15,000, steadily reduced since then it now stands at about 4,000.

2) "For some reason the UK doesn't believe that it's worth putting yet more troops in Iraq to support the "surge". Now I wonder why that is." Could it possibly be because the situation facing the MNF troops in the Southern part of Iraq is totally different to the situation faced by the MNF troops in the Central parts of Iraq which is totally different from the situation faced by the MNF troops in the Northern part of Iraq? Please note Ron out of the eighteen Governates that comprise Iraq the "surge" only applied to about four including Baghdad. There was absolutely no requirement for a "surge" in the South or North of Iraq - could that possibly be the reason?

3) "You tell us that if we pull our combat troops out of "rump Iraq" we are in grave danger of consigning Iraq to domination by Iran." - Did I Ron? Don't think so, I did however say perfectly clearly that should the US quit Iraq prematurely in any way that could be taken as being the result of actions by the insurgents, militias or more importantly Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq then that would have extremely serious consequences not only in Iraq itself but for the middle-east region as a whole and throughout the world in general. You on the other hand seem to deny that would be the case and insist that the problems would only be local - in believing that you are deluding yourself.

4) "You also tell us how popular the US is in Iraq." - Really Ron? Where have I ever told you how popular the US is in Iraq?

5) "US pressure for permanent bases in Iraq." - Leftist, anti-war, anti-Bush myth that is rapidly approaching it's sell by date. Your eagerly awaited President-of-choice-to-be Barak Obama has I believe rather unclearly said that he would not seek to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. Which is a pity because if the Iraqis living around any projected sites for those bases had a word with their counterparts in Germany, they would find out that it would be like living on top of a gold mine.

So Ron please tell me:

A) Where exactly did I say that, "we should keep US combat troops in Iraq because "anything is possible"?

B) Where exactly did I say that if we pull our combat troops out of "rump Iraq" we are in grave danger of consigning Iraq to domination by Iran?

C) Where exactly did I tell you, or anybody else, how popular the US is in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 09:57 PM

Teribus--

1) You conveniently ignore the fact that the UK contingent in the "Coalition" in Iraq is already down from its peak. For some reason the UK doesn't believe that it's worth putting yet more troops in Iraq to support the "surge". Now I wonder why that is. It couldn't possibly be since the UK leadership doesn't believe it's worth it for the result--or worth the grief they would get from their own electorate if they tried it--now could it?

2) You tell us that if we pull our combat troops out of "rump Iraq" we are in grave danger of consigning Iraq to domination by Iran. Yet one of the reasons for Maliki's current temporary popularity is that he is seen as standing up to Iran--WSJ 13 June 2008. Gee, that doesn't fit with your analysis. I wonder why.

3) You also tell us how popular the US is in Iraq. Yet one of the other main reasons for Maliki's current popularity is that he is seen as standing up to the US against US pressure for permanent bases in Iraq. That doesn't fit your description of the situation either.

Gee, that's 2 strikes against you. Sure sounds like your crystal ball is getting cloudier with every posting.

And with your ego-bound insistence, against all sense and evidence, that there was no propaganda campaign to get the US public to back Bush's planned Iraq war--as per the past 500-plus postings---I'd say that's 3 strikes-- you're definitely out---way out.

But you still continue to be entertaining--if close to a perfect negative indicator. So if you denigrate Obama's foreign policy ideas, that's high praise for him--please keep it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 01:50 AM

I think Ron that as far as the presence of British troops in Iraq goes, GB will listen very carefully to what goes on between now and November with regard to the stances of McCain and Obama.

Personally if Obama wins in November, which is by no means the certainty some here imagine, then UK troops will be out of Iraq as soon as possible after that election result is announced.

If McCain wins, then they will remain until their presence is no longer required by the Iraqi Government and/or the UN Mandate expires.

On matters of policy Barak Obama appears to be as much of an ill-informed, idealistic fool as Jimmy Carter, but Barak Obama will be operating in much more dangerous times. Carter's major screw-ups could be recovered, not so now.

By the bye Ron where exactly did I say that, "we should keep US combat troops in Iraq because "anything is possible"?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 09:19 PM

So, Teribus, we should keep US combat troops in Iraq because "anything is possible"?

What a cogent foreign policy analysis.

Don't give up your day job.






Sorry, there are more pressing needs for the US budget than keeping combat troops in Iraq because "anything is possible".

And now McCain says that when the troops come back is actually not that important. It's remotely possible the families of those troops might disagree. A few more brilliant statements like that from Mr. McCain and his "experience" approach will crash and burn.

After all UK, troops are coming back from Iraq--and numbers going down. You have given precisely no logical reason why US combat troops should not also come back---now.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 10:13 AM

1. "So you finally admit there is absolutely no evidence that al-Qaeda can take over Iraq--ever." - Ron Davies

Eh, No Ron, go back and read what I said - basically boils down to - anything is possible in politics given the right timescale and circumstances - After all a minority political party took control of Iraq before in 1956 and succeeded in ruling it for 47 years - why not again. Probability is against Al-Qaeda "ruling" Iraq, but that does not discount Iraq being governed by a political party extremely sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and extremely anti-US.

By the bye, Ron, where is your "evidence" that they won't - I find it rather like talking to a five year old when they insist that they want evidence that something will happen - Bit of advice Ron, invest in a "crystal ball". Fact is Ron, that neither you or I have got any idea of what will happen, neither of us can provide any "evidence" regarding what may happen at some time in the future, we can only hypothesise, which comes down to personal opinion. You state that US Forces could withdraw now without there being any serious consequences, I strongly disagree with that to the point of view and believe that such a withdrawal would be catastrophic in terms of consequences that would affect the country, the region and the world.

2. "the revulsion by Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis at the thuggish " Islamic Puritanism" of al-Qaeda." - Ron Davies

I believe that quite some time back I identified this as a possible outcome of Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq's attempts at fomenting the "civil war" that you and your fellow-travellers here were always chattering about. Other lynch-pins were realisation that it would be essential to become part of the political process, that they had to work with their elected government if they wanted things to improve. All of that by and large has happened and things are improving every day.

3. "Therefore, as I have said more than once, US combat troops have no role to play in Iraq--aside from in "Kurdistan". And so should come home." - Ron Davies

What role do US Forces have to play in "Kurdistan"? How do they propose and argue the case to disengage and withdraw troops from the Arab Sunni centre and Arab Shiia South, yet keep troops in the most peaceful governates of the country? Might they not be accused of attempting to "steal" the Kurds oil?

I will make a prediction Ron should Obama win the Presidential Election and put his withdrawal plan into effect - It goes something like this:

1. Obama announces his "staged withdrawal of US Forces.

2. As the first withdrawal is underway attacks by remaining Sunni Insurgents, Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq and the Medhi Army and associated militias will increase.

3. Obama is trapped he cannot break his election promises so his only alternative is to alter his withdrawal plans to get the boys home quicker - i.e. the same rout that leaving Vietnam resulted in.

4. Massed broadcasts from some hole in the ground way up there in the Hindukush, by Al-Qaeda, proclaiming to the world and its aunt that they have done exactly what they said they were going to do and driven the forces of the "Great Satan" from sacred Islamic soil - Now both you and I, Ron, know that that is a load of old Tosh, but yer average "ready to be radicalised muslim youth" in "the muslin street", well he's going to lap it up big time. Is the US out of hot water - No, not in the slightest, you were firmly in their sights in the early 1990's and you will continue to be in their sights after all your troops are safely back home - The only thing now is, is that they have the initiative, and possibly an extrmely secure base from which to plan and operate.

Guest Dianavan - Petal - I know that you will really hate to learn of this but, "big bad multi-national oil companies" actually control very little of the oil and gas on this planet. I believe that it amounts to less than 7% of the total available. The rest, the vast bulk of oil and gas resources of this planet are "nationally" owned and controlled - What a bummer Eh, especially considering some of your more dearly held myths.

"Control of the Persian Gulf/control of oil distribution - whats the difference?" - Dianavan.

The US neither controls the Persian Gulf, nor does it control oil distribution. If it did can you explain why on earth the US would want to see oil at the price per barrel that it is? Oh Yes!! to generate profits for Russia, Venezuela, etc, etc. I forgot that "out of the box" thinking behind the "US Master Plan for World Domination", seems to be a winner, make money for everybody bar ourselves, talk about the strategy of "indirect approach".

"Why shouldn't the people of the Persian Gulf control the flow of oil?" - Dianavan

Psssst! Dianavan - they already do, or hadn't you heard of OPEC?

Good post BB, very informative.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 07:49 AM

You can fool most of the people most the time, and those are the ones taht will keep giving contributions to elect "anyone else" than the incumbant.

The entire Democratic party

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: freda underhill
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 07:36 AM

You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.

George W. Bush

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 07:34 AM

"But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: "

It seems to me that the "Big Lie" here is that Bush supposedly lied, when he did not. So why do so many here keep repeating that? Perhaps they have read Goebbells, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: freda underhill
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 07:30 AM

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."


Joseph Goebbels

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 06:36 AM

Washington Post:

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

By Fred Hiatt
Monday, June 9, 2008; Page A17

Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the "Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.

But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 08:14 AM

So, Teribus is MIA.

Pity--but somehow, not surprising.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 05:22 PM

Six provided - two poorly quibbled - four completely un-addressed - lots and lots more in the wings.....

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 03:46 PM

"The US for the last 65 years has been extremely active in making sure that that does not happen."

Control of the Persian Gulf/control of oil distribution - whats the difference?

The U.S. thinks they have the right to control this at the expense of human life so you can feed your SUV and wear polyester? Why shouldn't the people of the Persian Gulf control the flow of oil? It does not belong to the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 11:42 PM

Teribus--

So you finally admit there is absolutely no evidence that al-Qaeda can take over Iraq--ever.

That's progress.

Yet, as I've noted, this is what we have been threatened with by GWB and now McCain.

In fact, not only is there no evidence supporting a takeover of Iraq by al-Qaeda, but it is getting progressively less likely--and for the reason I cited--the revulsion by Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis at the thuggish " Islamic Puritanism" of al-Qaeda. (Not any "battlefield prowess" of the US military.)

Therefore, as I have said more than once, US combat troops have no role to play in Iraq--aside from in "Kurdistan". And so should come home.

And you have exactly zero evidence--or even logic-- to deny this.

But at least you're learning to carry on a somewhat civil debate.

That's also progress. I wonder if you can maintain it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:37 AM

"So...all of the propaganda and the ensuing invasion of Iraq is about oil after all."

Eh? No Dianavan, one country gaining control of the Persian Gulf is what will really bost the price of oil and gas from that region. The US for the last 65 years has been extremely active in making sure that that does not happen. Oh, yes, you're one of the crowd that believe that the US has stolen Iraq's oil - any idea where it is?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 10:35 PM

There's still quite a handful of quotes above waiting to be quibbled, and scores more (I promise) to be handled when those are dealt with.

So, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that those who claim the Bush administration never tried to link Iraq and Al-Quaeda are aspirating fecal matter in their own lower colons. I can't say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 12:13 PM

"She most certainly has Dianavan, but if you believe that oil is expensive now, just wait until Iran controls the Persian Gulf." teribus

So...all of the propaganda and the ensuing invasion of Iraq is about oil after all.

I'm sure the people who have been killed and maimed in Iraq gladly made the sacrifice so you could guzzle gas, wear your polyester and buy plastic. Admit it, teribus, your way of life is threatened and you would go to any length to protect it rather than make any changes at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 11:06 AM

"evidence, that al-Qaeda has any chance to take over Iraq---ever."

You will wait a long time, like anything else that may, or may not, occur at some point in the future there can be be no "evidence" presented prior to that event occuring.

By all means, "pick a counterexample to Operation Barbarossa", although I do not know for what purpose. Considering Churchill's well publicised views on communism the immediate alliance between the UK and the USSR that followed Hitler's invasion is a classic example of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". In exactly the same vein the outnumbered Sunni Arabs in Iraq, in the event of there being a civil war, if they are fighting against the Shiia Arabs backed by Iran, will not give a tuppenny-ha'penny damn about who comes to their aid and fights alongside them.

You asked me how they could take over in Iraq in the event of US Forces leaving. I stated that it could be possible in exactly the same way that the Ba'athists took over Iraq. It is possible, after all almost everything is possible. Ask me if it is probable and I would say no, it is not probable because Al-Qaeda is not really in the business of running countries. Having said that, if with Al-Qaeda help and Saudi money, the Sunni Arabs in Iraq managed to defeat the Shiia Arabs of Iraq in their civil war. Would the resultant Iraqi Government be better disposed towards Al-Qaeda? In those circumstances I would certainly suppose so.

When did I ever say that the Saudi Regime sympathised with Al-Qaeda. The initial reason for Osama bin Laden's hatred of the US was down to the fact that when originally threatened by Saddam in 1990, the rulers of Saudi Arabia turned down ObL's offer to use his Mujihadeen to defend Saudi and opted for the UN coalition led by the US instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 08:41 PM

Teribus--

Still waiting for--any--evidence, based on the specific current situation in the MidEast-- -as opposed to cherry-picked history--- that al-Qaeda has any chance to take over Iraq---ever.

If I felt you were worth my time, I could easily pick a counterexample to Operation Barbarossa---and point out the fallacy of your parallel. Sorry, I have better things to do.
(And I recognize the rather pathetic attempt to dodge my question).

Now where is your logic that al-Qaeda can take over Iraq? Which, as I've noted more than once, is what GWB--and now McCain-- constantly threatens us with.

I note with interest you're no longer denying that the Saudi regime, far from sympathizing with al-Qaeda, feels under threat by it. Maybe you're capable of learning after all.

And you may possibly have learned that "complete pillock" is not usually considered a logical response to a question--except possibly in your circles. Pity you don't get out more.

Awaiting your next calm, well-reasoned response.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 05:39 PM

What's your vector Victor?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 05:33 PM

Well, TIA 'n Amos, one thing is fir sure and that is the revisionists here are certainly buzy now that they realize that if they loose the argument again about the wisdom of invading Iraq that they and their boys will be on the street...

They see this very clearly and it's bad enough being them (and wrong) but will be even worse if they can't pull a rabbit out of the hat and rewrite the story with a better ending... Problem is that the Bush apologists here aren't the only friggin' people on the planet who have been watching and paying attention...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 04:20 PM

"Innendo can be just as or more electrifying, I think you know, than facts, to the illiterate or those hypnotically glued to their electronic viewers."

Seems like the Dems are using much the same language- are you claiming that they are so much less electrifying than Bush?



Clinton: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said.


More text- so the context becomes clear- which YOU deny to the Bush administrations statements

"Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said."

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them




Obama: "Terrorist groups with Iran's backing would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran could spread this technology around the world."


more text - so you might see context.

Iran's President Ahmadinejad's regime is a threat to all of us. His words contain a chilling echo of some of the world's most tragic history.

Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth.

But we know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60 years, it is time to deny the deniers.

In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done.

Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric.

Iranian Nuclear Weapons

The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy.

And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest that could fuel greater instability in the region—that's not just bad for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more dangerous and unpredictable place.

Other nations would feel great pressure to accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran's backing would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran could spread this technology around the world."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 04:12 PM

Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific prediction that it will really piss Teribus off if I just keep responding with variations of this quote. I can't say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 04:07 PM

DIckhead was more wilely than some folks in insinuating the correlation, Teribus, but it was without question a major vector in the propoganda campaign. Innendo can be just as or more electrifying, I think you know, than facts, to the illiterate or those hypnotically glued to their electronic viewers.

I am sure the media helped considerably aty the time.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 04:01 PM

And I want to be very careful about how I say this Guest TIA - That was one of your selected quotes but quoted in full and quoted in context - Don't worry I will get round to the others.

Talking about dunderheads Guest TIA count how many times in that passage it is clearly stated that Iraq/Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911 - Don't tax yourself - there are two

By the way Guest TIA do you know what occaisioned this interview, I hope you do because it takes up the bulk of the text. It related to the possible relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda in the light of reports that a senior Iraqi Intelligence Officer and Mohammed Atta met in Prague. Now at any time at all does Cheney say that they did meet?

"We have reporting that places him (Atta) 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"

Might come as a bit of a stretch for you non-dunderheads - but what he is saying is that they may have been in Prague at the same time, we do not know if they met. When asked if it is credible that they met he replies very carefully that yes it is credible but it has not been confirmed.

As promised - Quote 2:
"… It's just more of a picture that is emerging that there may well have been contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime." (Condoleeza Rice, Sept. 8, 2002) - Courtesy Of Guest TIA.

- "a picture that is emerging" My, my that does sound convincing.
- "that there may well have been contacts" Obviously = there definitely were contacts does it?

Bit of a stretch as I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 02:40 PM

Teribus, don't reair that old mackerel. The atta==>Al Qeda connection was disproven years ago, so I am afraid, with all due respect,t hat I have to support the "dunderhead" rumor. At least there is some reportage that indicates it is the correct choice. Let's just call it unconfirmed at this time...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 01:41 PM

BTW, you have a silly quibble with one quote - there are plenty of others up there, and loads more that I don't care to go collect for you. But they are in the public record.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 01:40 PM

Hooboy, deja vu all over again...

Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Teribus is a complete dunderhead who is oblivious as to how propaganda works. I can't say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 01:01 PM

Quote 1:
""… 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… There is a pattern of relationships going back many years. And in terms of exchanges and in terms of people, we've had recently since the operations in Afghanistan – we've seen al-Qaeda members operating physically in Iraq and off the territory of Iraq." -(Dick Cheney, Sept. 8, 2002) - Courtesy of Guest TIA

That was not quite the whole story was it Guest TIA? As you seem to be a bit coy about actually quoting those remarks in context here it is:

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." - (Hey Guest TIA considering the question what part of "No" do you not understand - go back and read the question and take your time before answering)
   
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. (How clear is that Guest TIA) 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."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 11:46 AM

TIA has provided several concrete instances of statements intended to couple Al Qeda and Hussein in the minds of the public.

They were false, but widely disseminated.

Their clear intent was to demonize Iraq or Hussein witht he same antipathy felt toward Al Qeeda.

What part of this is not not plain?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 11:38 AM

So, are you saying that I made up the quotes above?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 11:10 AM

"in order to "eliminate" that "threat", we sure as hell attacked a specific regime because we were told by our lying pond scum leaders that they were about to supply a specific WMD to a sepcific terrorist group. So *your* lack of specification means "fuck-all". (BTW, despite our clear political differences, I do like that phrase of yours)." - Guest TIA

"we were told by our lying pond scum leaders that they were about to supply a specific WMD to a sepcific terrorist group"

Not true, this is what is CLAIMED by anti-Bushites, and NOT what was actually stated by the Bush administration. - Beardedbruce

Beardedbruce, of course is perfectly correct, read the link, then check the date and remember that the same men gave the same advice four years later:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 10:48 AM

and one for good luck...

""We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq… We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

GWB, Oct. 7, 2002

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 10:46 AM

Oh Baloney BB.

Here's just a small sampling from a single two week period...and there is plenty more where these come from, and no, I am not going to go find more for you. It is clear to anybody who has been paying any attention at all that our leaders did make specific claims, specifically about Iraq supplying weapons to a specific terrorist group - Al Quaeda. Not my claim. Carved in history. Enjoy.


"… 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… There is a pattern of relationships going back many years. And in terms of exchanges and in terms of people, we've had recently since the operations in Afghanistan – we've seen al-Qaeda members operating physically in Iraq and off the territory of Iraq."

Dick Cheney, Sept. 8, 2002


"… It's just more of a picture that is emerging that there may well have been contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime."

Condoleeza Rice, Sept. 8, 2002


RICE: Well, there are clearly links between Iraq and terrorism, and there are al Qaeda personnel that have been spotted in Baghdad. There are some evidence that there have been various meetings concerning Iraqi personnel and al Qaeda personnel…
We are working very hard to put together the full picture… He clearly has links to terrorism.
SNOW: All right. And links to terrorism would include al Qaeda? I just want to be certain.
RICE: Links to terrorism would include al Qaeda, yes.

FOX News, Sept. 15, 2002



"It is the nexus between an Al-Qaeda type network and other terrorist network and a terrorist state like Saddam Hussein who has those weapons of mass destruction. As we sit here, there are senior Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They are there."

Donald Rumsfeld, Sept. 18, 2002


MARGARET WARNER: Secretary Rumsfeld, in Europe today, when asked if there was evidence tying Iraq to Al Qaeda, said, "Yes." He did not elaborate. Are you prepared to elaborate?
RICE: Several of the detainees, in particular, some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons development. So yes, there are contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism, in general. And there are some Al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad.

PBS, Sept. 25, 2002

REPORTER: Mr. President, do you believe that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the United States than al-Qaeda?
PRESIDENT BUSH: They're both risks, they're both dangerous…The danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al-Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred, and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.

Press Conference, Sept. 25, 2002