BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 06 - 10:16 PM

Refresh in order to give Mr. Davis a chance to answer to some points that he has made:

Ron,

Substantiation would be welcome for the following points that you have made:

1. "Most of the men Bush took instruction with in learning to be a pilot were going to Vietnam." - How many Ron?

I won't be too surprised Ron when your research turns up the answer "None".

2. During the period GWB served in the ANG the "vast majority of pilots" served in Vietnam.

This contention of yours Ron is statistically impossible.

3. The propaganda campaign - one example Ron, just one, of where anyone in the US Administration from 11th September, 2001 until the present day has ever said that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks of that day. Within that same period Ron I can supply numerous examples made by members of the US Administration where a clear statement was made that Saddam Hussein was NOT involved in the attacks of 11th September, 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 06 - 10:51 PM

Teribus--

No, I'm not always right. I'm actually more of a moderate. I criticize absurd statements by both the Left and the Right.

I'm not even always correct--just more often than you--which is proving disappointingly easy.

So the Bush regime, between mid 2002 and March 2003, did make a categorical statement that Saddam had nothing to do with the 11 Sept 2001 attacks?

I'm sorry--the only one you have cited is in a Meet the Press from 8 Sept 2002, in which the quote (a clip actually) was from 16 Sept 2001. You must have a truly unique calendar if it indicates that 16 Sept 2001 is between mid 2002 and March 2003. Hang onto it--it may be a collector's item.

Cheney's allegedly clear statement on 8 Sept 2002 is badly undercut--by himself--in the very next paragraph. Sorry-- anything that mentions "new evidence has come to light" then proceeds to catalogue that "evidence" of possible connections between Saddam and 9-11 is not eligible as a clear statement for your homework. You are in danger of not getting a gold star for this assignment.

Admittedly, you may have a hard time finding a categorical statement by the Bush regime between mid 2002 and March 2003 that there was no connection between Saddam and 11 Sept 2001--possibly for the excellent reason that such a statement doesn't exist.

Regarding Bush's military non-service, I've told you several times that we need to finish the propaganda campaign issue-- (which is after all the subject of the thread)--before you can fulfill your destiny as apologist for Chickenhawk #1.

Too bad about your ego--which is still preventing you from acknowledging the above-cited propaganda campaign.

You may now resume desperately floundering.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 13 Feb 06 - 10:56 PM

Teribus:

Within that same period Ron I can supply numerous examples made by members of the US Administration where a clear statement was made that Saddam Hussein was NOT involved in the attacks of 11th September, 2001.

Well now, that would be a pleasant surprise. But your prior attempts at doing so have come to naught, so I don't hold out any great hopes, but why don't you give it a go once again? Have at it, my man.....

Word of advice for you too, Teribus: "Numerous" starts with, at the very least, one.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 06 - 11:42 PM

To Arne and Ron,

I would suggest you read my post:

Ron's arbitrary time period was mid-summer 2002 until March 2003.

The period I have detailed runs from 11th September, 2001 until the present day.

Now, whereas I can provide clear examples of where members of the US Administration have stated categorically that Saddam Hussein/Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks of 11th September, 2001. Ron Davies cannot come up with a single instance to substantiate his statement. Very much the same as the thing about Lt. G. W. Bush's fellow Students at OTU, that most were going to Vietnam (Pure invention by Ron) was just thrown in for effect, completely untrue. Leopards do not tend to change their spots, if someone is prepared to state something that they deliberately know to be false (You know it's false because they refuse point blank to make any attempt to substantiate it) in order to put across a point, my take on that is that if they can do it once, they in all probability will do it again.

So Ron, as with the pilot thing, please cite ONE, just ONE instance where any member of the US Administration has stated that there was any connection between SH and 911, the period from 11/09/01 to Present Day.

Also for Arne and Ron, the gist of the Meet the Press interview with Dick Cheney from 8 Sept 2002, was that he was reminded of his stated categoric view that Saddam had nothing to do with 911, then asked if anything had come to light that would cause him to change that view. Dick Cheney stated quite clearly in that interview, broadcast across America on 8th September 2002, that there was nothing, he still believed that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911. Now Ron and Arne might not like that, but that's in effect what was said, that was the message I got from reading the transcripts of the interview, as opposed to the reports of the interview and selective sound bites pushed by the Network and read as gospel by Ron and Arne.

Oh Arne, on the subject of ANG unit dispositions, taking into account that their role is to provide additional resources to the air defence of the United States of America, where exactly would have them stationed? Height of the "Cold War", Soviet Russia, Cuba, need any more clues?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 08:52 AM

Ron D.: "I'd like a red plaid shirt please."

Teribus: "Here you are, sir, one ham sandwich. That'll be five pounds."

Ron D.: "I didn't ask for a ham sandwich. I want a shirt!"

Teribus: "Well. (puts sandwich away) Five pounds, please."

Ron D.: "Five pounds? For what???"

Teribus: "For the sandwich, sir."

Ron D.: "But I don't want a sandwich!"

Teribus: "Oh, no problem. Why, I even took it back."

(pause) (Ron D. shifts unconfortably)

Teribus: "The five pounds, sir. I have to tally the books."

Ron D.: (exasperated) "Five pounds for what? Where's my shirt?"

Teribus: "I gave you your sandwich. Now, do I need to call a bobby?"


Some scripts just write themselves. Should Monty Python need to visit the muse, I'll send 'em your way, Teribus.

* * * * *

Also for Arne and Ron, the gist of the Meet the Press interview with Dick Cheney from 8 Sept 2002, was that he was reminded of his stated categoric view that Saddam had nothing to do with 911, then asked if anything had come to light that would cause him to change that view. Dick Cheney stated quite clearly in that interview, broadcast across America on 8th September 2002, that there was nothing, he still believed that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911.

Oh, nonsense. This has been beat to death. You know, if you want to say what Cheney said, it would be appropriate to say what Cheney said, not what you think he said (or what you want him to have said). Forget the "gist of [it]". That's your dishonest spin. His words are there to be seen. And nowhere there does he say that he thinks that "Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911".   His main claim seems to be that the evidence isn't dispositive about a Saddam involvement, but there's nothing there that indicates that he thinks (supported by evidence or otherwise) that Saddam wasn't involved. I really don't care much what you "got" from the interview, BTW, Teribus. Your reading comprehension difficulties are not my concern. It does concern me that you think that a 'paraphrase' is necessary when the actual words are at hand.

As for ANG unit disposition, yeah, he was protecting the vulnerable U.S. underbelly from shark attack. But I notice you ignored his "do not volunteer", didntcha?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 11:56 AM

From Arne:

"It does concern me that you think that a 'paraphrase' is necessary when the actual words are at hand."

Interesting statement that, coming from you Arne. If either yourself or Ron had quoted the whole conversation in the first place then we wouldn't be having this discussion, due to the fact that you would have unable to make your point.

By the way Arne maybe you can tell me, as you seem to think it important, at the time in question, was it compulsory on joining the National Guard or Air National Guard to volunteer for service overseas. Because the old adage in the British Forces as any old squaddie will tell you is "Never volunteer". Are you saying that everyone else volunteered? And that Lt. G.W. Bush was the only one that didn't. Are you saying that having far more entitlement points than required for his six year service committment that Lt. G. W. Bush was the only Officer in the US ANG who was discharged a few months early? Somehow I think we both know that the answers to both those questions are no - lots of people who joined the National Guard and Air National Guard and Coast Guard ticked the box not to volunteer for overseas service - And I believe that as many as possible were granted early honourable discharge papers if they had the requisite number of points.

Now where is your example of a clear statement from the US Administration stating that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 911 attacks?

You seem a little quiet Arne - cat got yer tongue??

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 08:25 PM

Teribus:

Interesting statement that, coming from you Arne. If either yourself or Ron had quoted the whole conversation in the first place then we wouldn't be having this discussion, due to the fact that you would have unable to make your point.

Nonsense. The followup interview was in fact quite enlightening. As you well know (but choose to dance around), Cheney even mentioned "new evidence" coming to light. Now Cheney wasn't saying that "new evidence" had cast doubt on Saddam's involvement (much less been dispositive in proving no involvement), rather the opposite. Covered above by Ron Davies:

Cheney's allegedly clear statement on 8 Sept 2002 is badly undercut--by himself--in the very next paragraph. Sorry-- anything that mentions "new evidence has come to light" then proceeds to catalogue that "evidence" of possible connections between Saddam and 9-11 is not eligible as a clear statement for your homework. You are in danger of not getting a gold star for this assignment.

as well as in other posts. But now I might as well stop beating this dead horse. Let us know when you actually find "numerous" ... "clear" examples of the maladministration saying that Saddam had no involvement with 9/11.

By the way Arne maybe you can tell me, as you seem to think it important, at the time in question, was it compulsory on joining the National Guard or Air National Guard to volunteer for service overseas.

No. Did you have a point?

Because the old adage in the British Forces as any old squaddie will tell you is "Never volunteer".

Once again, can you clue us in to what you're driving at? We can't see your hallucinations from over here.

Are you saying that everyone else volunteered?

No. IS there some reason you think I did? Talk to the docs, they might be able to cure that.

And that Lt. G.W. Bush was the only one that didn't. Are you saying that having far more entitlement points than required for his six year service committment that Lt. G. W. Bush was the only Officer in the US ANG who was discharged a few months early?

Ummmm. "[F]ar more". Care to back that up? Actually, I've read some ex-mil say that he wasn't even up to the required mark without bonus points, and that even those weren't really merited. And FWIW, his service points assume that he actually put in the time he claimed, which is another fact of some dispute.

But, I'm curious of one thing here, Teribus: Do you agree with the sleazy trashing of Kerry above in this post? And why do you defend a person of quite mediocre if not downright awful record, namely Dubya, so vociferously here? Are you getting paid by the word???

Yes, Dubya was discharged early, after not seeing a single minute in combat, and after having his flight certification revoked for (amongst possible other things) failure to take a flight physical as ordered. Perks of the privileged, I guess you can chalk it up to....

Somehow I think we both know that the answers to both those questions are no - lots of people who joined the National Guard and Air National Guard and Coast Guard ticked the box not to volunteer for overseas service - And I believe that as many as possible were granted early honourable discharge papers if they had the requisite number of points.

Ummm, lots of people joined the NG at the time precisely to get out of getting shipped off to Vietnam (some of my buddies in college were looking into this). Hardly disreputable, in my book, but just remember these four words: "It's the hypocrisy, stupid!" And then think about Dubya hamming it up as a supposed Gawd's-Gift-To-Wimmen'n'chilrun Commander Codpiece flyboy while crowing in front of a big "Mission Accomplished" sign ... while we were slowly sinking into a quagmire that has cost many more servicemen their lives in the days since that little political photo-op. Yes, friends of mine considered the Guard. But they would hardly have condemned other people's sons and daughters to horrible deaths based on lies and caused by some of the most malignantly poor planning anyone has ever seen .. and done it with a "Feels good!" fist pumped up to the sky.

Now where is your example of a clear statement from the US Administration stating that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 911 attacks?

Your "straw man", Teribus. Never said there was one. As Ron and I have stated here and elsewhere, the maladministration was quite careful (usually) ... and dishonest ... in how they presented the Iraq situation to the United States public ... and to the U.N.

But as for clear statements, we do have Dubya saying "He [Saddam] wouldn't let them [the inspectors] in" and that is why we had to invade Iraq (he said the same basic thing on another occasion; the guy may actually believe that and be somewhat honest ... albeit severely psychotic).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 09:01 PM

I'd be real curious to know just hom many times Bush and Cheney have collectively mentioned 9/11 in public speeches and especially during the mad-dash-to-Iragmire??? Seems that the two of them can't give a speeech on any subject without the usual refernece to 9/11...

I think the most telling argument that there was a deliberate propaganda campaign linking 9/11 to Iraq are the opionion polls taken after the invasion finding that one heck of a lot of Americans thought that Iraq had something to to with 9/11... Even ties to Al Qeada!!!

Now I'd like to ask my ol' bud, T-Determined, how could this have happened??? Like how could so many folks (I believe the percentages were in the 70% reange) come to believe something that, according to the T, the Bush folks bent over backwards trying to convince them otherwise???

This ain't rocket surgery here... These thoughts and opinions came from somewhere and it certainly wasn't from the folks here who were warning T and others that this war was a bad idea....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 11:04 PM

Teribus--

"Dick Cheney stated quite clearly in that interview (8 Sept 2002)... that...he still believed Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11".

Right.

Anything you say.

Now, about that bridge I have for you--in recognition of your (did I say pig-headed?) stubborness, I'll give you a better deal than ever.

As I've said earlier---bring back the old Teribus--this one is broken beyond repair.

Here (yet again) is the transcript of the 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press you are still trying to hang your hat on. Can't understand why the hat keeps falling off. But it certainly is telling that you can't find even one quote --in the entire period I cited-- to establish that the Bush regime categorically denied a link between Saddam and 9-11.

At any rate, the transcript:

Mr. Russert: Has anything happened to change your mind? (since 2001 when Cheney said there was no evidence of the link).

Vice President Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful 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."

That part of the transcript is your pride and joy, the light of your life. But even that is not a categorical "No, nothing has changed".

However, not only does Cheney not give a categorical denial in your chosen excerpt, but he then goes on to muddy the water--in fact to make it filthy--raising all sorts of possible connections between Saddam and 9-11, none of which he categorically denies.

Transcript continues:

"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..."

This is a categorical denial of a link between Saddam and 9-11? GIve your head a shake.

If that's a categorical denial, I'm the US president.

And if that's your only candidate for categorical denial, then, as Arne said earlier, your ship is not only sunk, but encrusted with barnacles.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 12:00 AM

Correction (before Teribus accuses me of spreading lies or worse), I said Cheney's words were "new evidence". The actual words were "new information". Same song, same dance, but just for clarity and accuracy.... Yes, I was wrong, in the specific language. The actual language is now here for you to judge as to whether I misrepresented the "gist" of Cheney's statement with my substitution.

As Ron Davies points out, Cheney didn't then plow on into the specific reports of Atta meeting with Iraqi officers in Prague ... ummm, let me think ... for the purpose of "clearly" refuting Saddam's involvement in 9/11. But, strange as it may seemm, that's what Teribus wants you all to believe. Of course, Teribus must think the lot of us are completely stoopid, certainly enough to accept such 'logic'. The actual situation, of course, is the converse.

At this point, given the obvious mendacity of his arguments, curious folks have to wonder if 'Teribus' is actually a double agent sent to make Dubya and company look bad ... or whether the Dubya sycophants are exhibiting some new (or rewarmed from 70 years ago) group psychopathology.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 07:40 AM

OK people, honest opinion, what do you think:

"Mr. Russert: Has anything happened to change your mind? (since 2001 when Cheney said there was no evidence of the link).

Vice President Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful 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."

Now from that conversation above, between Mr. Russert and Vice-President Cheney, do you come away with any impression at all that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the attacks made on the United States of America on the 11th September, 2001. Because I certainly don't. Others apparently are having a bit of trouble with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 08:22 AM

Yeah, "honest opinion" will do just fine...

Why is it that over 70% of Americans, right after the invasion, believed that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and Al Qeada???

T would have folks believe that a staedy barrage of 9/11 references during the selling of the war had nothing to do with these misconsceptions???

What, this ain't one of these X-File things, is it T??? You know where the worms get into the water source and then take over 70% of folks brains and make them all believe the same myth???

I, for the life of me, can't figure out why you would continue fighting this point because with every every post you are watering down whatwever credibility you might have once had... I mean, I appreciate yer courage but, geeze, when even the top intellegence guy in the CIA that worked with Bush and his folks on prewar intellegence says that Bush "cherry picked" intellegence in making a case for war, then I'd say it's way past time for you to just say, "Okay, I quit" and go find a stronger issue to defend... BTW, stay away from Katrina 'er you'll get whupped up there as well...

There, that's as "honest" and opinion as one can give you... And, BTW, the stove is hot...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 08:48 AM

Teribus now:

OK people, honest opinion, what do you think:

"Mr. Russert: Has anything happened to change your mind? (since 2001 when Cheney said there was no evidence of the link).

Vice President Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful 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."

Teribus a few posts back:

Interesting statement that, coming from you Arne. If either yourself or Ron had quoted the whole conversation in the first place then we wouldn't be having this discussion, due to the fact that you would have unable to make your point.

Now, to paraphrase Paul Harvey: "And now, the rest of the quote....":

... 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.

OK, folks, to the ballot box:

Proposition 1: Did Cheney argue for or against possible Iraqi involvement in 9/11 here? (Bonus question: Did he make a "clear" statement that Saddam was not involved in 9/11 here?)

Proposition 2 (should be a laugher): Is 'Teribus' not the biggest hypocrite and fool you've seen in a long time?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 11:45 AM

Arne,

I'm curious. How would you understand it if someone gave the answer 'yes' to your proposition 2 (or the answer 'no')?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 12:08 PM

Wolfgang:

Yeah, there's that "not" in there. Some might be thrown by that, and a simple "yes" or "no" answer might be misconstrued. If you really want to make your opinion clear, you might try, e.g., something along the lines of "Teribus is the biggest fool and the most complete hypocrite I have ever had the mispleasure to know." Of course, you're free to choose your own adjectives. ;-)

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 08:22 PM

Arne,

Thank you for providing that link - for those who actually go to the trouble of reading it - it proves what I have been saying all along.

Thank you once again.

Cheers.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 08:43 PM

Pee in the cup, T.....

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 11:08 PM

Teribus--

Sorry, you're wrong again--situation normal. It's nice to know some things never change.

The link does not prove what you've "been saying all along"--unless you've been saying that you are in deepest denial of the obvious.

You still have provided not one quote establishing that the Bush regime, during the period from mid 2002 to the invasion in March 2003, categorically denied a link between Saddam and the 11 Sept 2001 attacks. You allege--falsely--that you have done so--see your own post of 11 Feb 2006 5:45 AM--"I believe I did so" (provided an example within the period mid 2002 to March 2003 where the Bush regime "made the categoric statement that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with those attacks".)

YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED EVEN ONE.

Wishing, I'm sorry to say, will in fact not make it so.

Just as Franco is still dead, your ship is still sunk.

At this rate, I will soon have to join Arne's evaluation of the pleasures of your acquaintance.

You are fortunate that I have endless patience.

But congratulations on keeping your temper recently--no outbursts for over 2 months. See, you can do it. And, believe it or not, cursing does not make you more persuasive.

And, what's more, it would definitely jeopardize the gold star you hope to get.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 02:22 AM

Ron Davies, I see from your post of 16 Feb 06 - 11:08 PM, that you still haven't read the link supplied by Arne, you really should you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 02:49 AM

I make a statement. I'm wrong. Two years later I print a correction (even if it's a vauge correction) in the news paper column D, page 22, 3 lines long & in fine print. It isn't worth the ink used to print it. The damage is done & the retraction went by unnotice & the original incorrect statement will still hold true in the eyes of the believer/reader.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 10:12 AM

Well, I want to be very careful how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Teribus is an unbelievably stubborn fool whose flim-flamming on this issue is aparent to all readers. I can't say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 10:21 AM

Ho Hum, GUEST,TIA, I can see from your post of 17 Feb 06 - 10:12 AM, that you haven't read the link supplied by Arne either.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 11:20 AM

Ease up. Read my post carefully. I was defending you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 11:27 AM

Oh, and I have to read it. It contains this quote as well.

"There's a story in The New York Times this morning-this is-I don't-and ** I want to attribute The Times **. I don't want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources, but it's now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge."

(**emphasis is mine**)

Quiz question:
Who was the source for the information in the Times?
(there is a well known, documented answer)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 06:00 PM

TIA:

[to Teribus]: Ease up. Read my post carefully. I was defending you.

ROFL. Touche. Let's see how far above Teribus's head that one sails....

And nice adding the further quote. But the refs may have to penalize you for piling on....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:59 AM

My apologies to TIA I did completely misread her post, at the time I read it and responded I did not have my glasses. The mistake however would not have been made if she had said it to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 08:32 AM

Teribus--

I have in fact read the link--probably more carefully than you. It does not provide anything like a clear statement, during the period in question, of the Bush regime claiming no link between Saddam and 9-11.

Franco is still dead and you are still wrong. Situation normal.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 09:16 AM

T:

Given yer response to TIA, maybe you misplaced yer glasses during the entire mad-dash-to-Iraq...

Barry:

Good point... Yeah, the Washington Post, as well as the NY Times, did admit that it had fallen into a "culture" of office speak in not doing a better job questioning the allogations that the Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Pearle/Rice War Machine were making in their "selling" of the Iraq invasion...

It actually made the front page but was below the fold and most of it was founf buried... I believe the date or the article was August 17, 2004...

Now even the main man at the CIA in charge of the intellegence on Iraq is saying that the War Machiners weren't interetsed in anything that didn't fir the PR profile???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 02:16 PM

Okay, time's up. Here's the answer:

Cheyney fed the aluminum tube story to the Times (Judith Miller). She dutifully printed it. Then Cheyney goes on Russert, and tells the aluminum tubes story, and very pointedly credits the Times (as if to say "hey I'm not making this stuff up - it's in the Times!).

That folks, is a propaganda trick pure and simple.

Oh, and Arne - the answer seems to be "waaaaaay above".

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 02:47 AM

Aluminium tubes

Super Gun

Matrix Churchill

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 07:55 AM

Is this the same Judith Miller who ordered that Scott Ritter be blackballed by the New York Times news department???

Hmmmmmmm?

Looks like Scott was on the money all the way with this one but since he wasn't speaking "office-speak" it didn't matter is he was right... Right???

What Teribus hasn't allowed himself to internalize is this entire idea of "culture" or "office speak" that both the New York Times and Washington Post news departments have confessed to becoming part of... I guess T doesn't remember those days where nationalism and patriotism were the hammers that scared alot of folks into believing the lies so readily...

Hitler is siad to have said that "The people will believe the big lie" and this was sure enough the corneerstone of the Bush War Michine's PR in selling the American people of the need to take out Iraq before Iraq took the US out...

Yeah, if you want revisionism, all you need do is read a little of T-Revisionist's posts... Yeah, he never gives up on making chicken salad out of the droppings from thwe floor of the hen house...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 11:04 AM

Let's try not to get too distracted from the thread topic. I'm sure Teribus is finally ready to give us a clear statement by the Bush regime, between mid 2002 and the Iraq invasion, that there was no link between Saddam and the attacks of 11 Sept 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 11:12 AM

Oh, is that why in just about every speech by every Bushite in the selling of the invasion included references to 9/11???

Hmmmmmmmmm?

It's just like the example I gave a while back linking (while not linking) Teribus with "little boys"... That made him real mad and I apologized for it but, hey, when we look back at the pre-war PR this is exactly the way the PR folks played it out... Inference, inference and more inference and then we wonder why over 70% of American when polled right after the invasion thought that Saddam and bin Laden were in cohoots???

I think the reason that T was angry with me when I came up with my hypothetical analogy is becasue he saw that the analagy was accurate in how the Bush PR War Machine went about it's business of spreading propaganda...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: freda underhill
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 10:37 PM

..meanwhile..
PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil - A coalition of American churches sharply denounced the U.S.-led war in Iraq on Saturday, accusing Washington of "raining down terror" and apologizing to other countries for "the violence, degradation and poverty our nation has sown."

"We lament with special anguish the war in Iraq, launched in deception and violating global norms of justice and human rights," said the statement from representatives of the 34 U.S. members of World Council of Churches. "We mourn all who have died or been injured in this war. We acknowledge with shame abuses carried out in our name." Statement from representatives of the 34 U.S. members of World Council of Churches

The statement, issued at the largest gathering of Christian churches in nearly a decade, also warned the United States was pushing the world toward environmental catastrophe with a "culture of consumption" and its refusal to back international accords seeking to battle global warming.

The World Council of Churches includes more than 350 mainstream Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox churches; the Roman Catholic Church is not a member. The U.S. groups in the WCC include the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, several Orthodox churches and Baptist denominations, among others.

Published on Sunday, February 19, 2006 by the Associated Press
US Church Alliance: Washington is 'Raining Down Terror' with Iraq War, Other Policies by Brian Murphy

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 10:29 PM

But Freda.....

How can these nitpickers second-guess the maladministration so unfairly? According to Teribus, we went to war for no reason at all!!! The wrong reasons would have been ethically suspect, but one can hardly cavil with an act with no motives behind it (obviously no mens rea). And as he's explained over and over so well, Cheney and Dubya were absolutely positive that Saddam had nuttin' to do with terra-ism, and never said anything like what the urban legends claim about "mushroom clouds", and where all the WoMD were stashed, east, west, north and south around Baghdad and Tikrit. And you know, the maladministration was right about everything that they did not say, which is a lot more than most people think, thanks to the dishonest smear campaign the MSM and such have been spreading about the beleaguered Dubya and Poodle maladministrations.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 11:17 PM

You forgot the aluminum tubes, Arne...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 11:50 PM

Arne - 20 Feb 06 - 10:29 PM

But Freda.....

"According to Teribus, we went to war for no reason at all!!!"

Really Arne? Now when and where did I say that?

"And as he's explained over and over so well, Cheney and Dubya were absolutely positive that Saddam had nuttin' to do with terra-ism,"

Really Arne? Now then Arne what I have said is that the current US Administration have on numerous occasions between 11th September 2001 and the present day clearly stated that neither Saddam Hussein or the Iraq Government had any involvement in the attacks of 11th September, 2001. I have never ever said that the current US Administration believed that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism (don't know about terra-ism). It has been proven for quite some length of time that Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime in power in Iraq were major sponsors of terrorist organisations.

As to "mushroom clouds" apparently Iraq's best known defendant was talking about them with his Foreign Minister in association with terrorist attacks in the US about twelve years ago. Any talk with regard to "mushroom clouds" was perfectly justifiable when taken in context with the 911 attacks and what the President stated in his State of the Union Address in January 2002.

Tell us Arne who was it that stated that there were unaccounted for chemical and biological weapons, stockpiles of weaponised agents, stockpiles of precursor chemicals in Iraq? You should have no trouble with that it is rather well documented, the source is impeccable, and even in their report of March/April 2003, still could not state that their position had significantly altered, again very well documented. A little hint Arne in answering those questions the names Bush and Blair do not feature, those of Blix, UN, UNSCOM and UNMOVIC on the otherhand do.

The objective of the exercise dating all the way back to the Resolutions agreed to at Safwan was to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, and to verify that that was the case and that there were no development programmes in place targeted at resurrecting those capabilities.

You really should do a great deal more reading of primary source material, rather than rely on the highly spun sound bites fed you by sources you know will substantiate the view point that they originally planted in what passes for your brain.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 12:12 AM

It's hard to know where irony starts and argument finishes with the posts above. But try a peek at this.. he Memo: How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was th

and for those who can't access, here's a few excerpts..

One night this January, in a ceremony at the Officers' Club at Fort Myer, in Arlington, Virginia, which sits on a hill with a commanding view across the Potomac River to the Washington Monument, Alberto J. Mora, the outgoing general counsel of the United States Navy, stood next to a podium in the club's ballroom. A handsome gray-haired man in his mid-fifties, he listened with a mixture of embarrassment and pride as his colleagues toasted his impending departure. Amid the usual tributes were some more pointed comments.

"Never has there been a counsel with more intellectual courage or personal integrity," David Brant, the former head of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, said. Brant added somewhat cryptically, "He surprised us into doing the right thing." Conspicuous for his silence that night was Mora's boss, William J. Haynes II, the general counsel of the Department of Defense.

Back in Haynes's office, on the third floor of the Pentagon, there was a stack of papers chronicling a private battle that Mora had waged against Haynes and other top Administration officials, challenging their tactics in fighting terrorism. Some of the documents are classified and, despite repeated requests from members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, have not been released. One document, which is marked "secret" but is not classified, is a twenty-two-page memo written by Mora. It shows that three years ago Mora tried to halt what he saw as a disastrous and unlawful policy of authorizing cruelty toward terror suspects.

The memo is a chronological account, submitted on July 7, 2004, to Vice Admiral Albert Church, who led a Pentagon investigation into abuses at the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. It reveals that Mora's criticisms of Administration policy were unequivocal, wide-ranging, and persistent. Well before the exposure of prisoner abuse in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, in April, 2004, Mora warned his superiors at the Pentagon about the consequences of President Bush's decision, in February, 2002, to circumvent the Geneva conventions, which prohibit both torture and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." He argued that a refusal to outlaw cruelty toward U.S.-held terrorist suspects was an implicit invitation to abuse. Mora also challenged the legal framework that the Bush Administration has constructed to justify an expansion of executive power, in matters ranging from interrogations to wiretapping. He described as "unlawful," "dangerous," and "erroneous" novel legal theories granting the President the right to authorize abuse. Mora warned that these precepts could leave U.S. personnel open to criminal prosecution.

In important ways, Mora's memo is at odds with the official White House narrative. In 2002, President Bush declared that detainees should be treated "humanely, and to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles" of the Geneva conventions. The Administration has articulated this standard many times. Last month, on January 12th, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, responding to charges of abuse at the U.S. base in Cuba, told reporters, "What took place at Guantánamo is a matter of public record today, and the investigations turned up nothing that suggested that there was any policy in the department other than humane treatment."

A week later, the White House press spokesman, Scott McClellan, was asked about a Human Rights Watch report that the Administration had made a "deliberate policy choice" to abuse detainees. He answered that the organization had hurt its credibility by making unfounded accusations. Top Administration officials have stressed that the interrogation policy was reviewed and sanctioned by government lawyers; last November, President Bush said, "Any activity we conduct is within the law. We do not torture." Mora's memo, however, shows that almost from the start of the Administration's war on terror the White House, the Justice Department, and the Department of Defense, intent upon having greater flexibility, charted a legally questionable course despite sustained objections from some of its own lawyers.

Mora had some victories. "America has a lot to thank him for," Brant, the former head of the N.C.I.S., told me. But those achievements were largely undermined by a small group of lawyers closely aligned with Vice-President Cheney. In the end, Mora was unable to overcome formidable resistance from several of the most powerful figures in the government.

.......Published on Monday, February 20, 2006 by the New Yorker
Annals of the Pentagon; The Memo: How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted. by Jane Mayer

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 08:39 PM

Problem is T that for every cleverly couched denial that the Bushites provided that Saddam wasn't connected to 9/11 there were a couple hundred referencces to 9/11 in the selling of the invasion during the mad-dash-to-Iraq days...

Oh, what's a person to thinh???

Well, after the "Shock ans Awe" phase and the dust settles over the tens upon thousnads of innocent Iraqi women and children who were bombed to death, some 7-% plus Americans still held and opinion that Saddam and Al Qeada were linked???

Now, T, perhaps you would like to explain how this happened???

Maybe X-File worms got into the water supply... No, alienas came down and took over the minds of over 70% of the American population... No, it was....

So, T, if the Buish folks were so carefull in explaining tio the American people the fact there wasn'ta link then how come so many came to believe there was???

They sho nuff didn't get it from the anti-war folks...

I'm leaning toward the X-File worm explanation myself....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 09:07 PM

Teribus has once again stated: "Now then Arne what I have said is that the current US Administration have on numerous occasions between 11th September 2001 and the present day clearly stated that neither Saddam Hussein or the Iraq Government had any involvement in the attacks of 11th September, 2001. I have never ever said that the current US Administration believed that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism (don't know about terra-ism)."

What Teribus has not done is actually provide the "multiple" clear statements that he alleges exist that make this assertion. So you'lll pardon me if I simply refer Teribus to my last post, and the prior ones, and ask him what his actual response is....

But regardless of any response he comes up with, he's still a darn hypocrite....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Feb 06 - 09:41 PM

Ahhhh, excuse the typo... That was 70% plus Americans who after the invasion believe that Saddam was linked to Al Qeada...

And, like Arne, I'm still awaiting T's reply on jsut how this could happen??? Especially in a population that couldn't identify Iraq on a world map just a year before...

I'm sticking with X-File worms....

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 07:10 AM

Teribus 11 Feb 2006--"I am tasked with having to provide you with an example where"-- (within the period mid 2002 to the March 2003 actual invasion)-- "the US Administration made the categoric statement that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with those attacks" (of 11 Sept 2001). "I believe I did so".

You have perceived the assignment correctly. But, despite your assertion on that day, you have not provided even one such statement.

With the patience of Job I am still waiting for you to do so.

Surely just one statement, within the period in question, should be no problem for such an expert in foreign policy and geopolitics as yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 12:03 PM

Assignment:
"I am tasked with having to provide you with an example where"-- (within the period mid 2002 to the March 2003 actual invasion)-- "the US Administration made the categoric statement that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with those attacks" (of 11 Sept 2001).

Understanding of Assignment Approved by Ron:
"You have perceived the assignment correctly."

Reasoning: For the terms of the assignment to be met the following five conditions have to be satisfied:
1. Statement to the effect that Saddam Hussein/Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of the 11th September, 2001, must be made by a serving member, or members, of the US Administration.
2. Statement must be made at some point between mid 2002 and March 2003.
3. Statement had to heard by members of the US public.
4. Statement should have been able to be heard and understood.
5. For those members of the US public not watching, or listening, to the broadcast, the statement would have had to have been reported by the US media channels.

Transcript: 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:

Example 1
"RUSSERT on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
CHENEY (Vice-President of the United States of America): "No."

Example 2
RUSSERT 8th September,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.

Examination of Example 1, against governing criteria:
1. Satisfies, statement made by serving Vice-President.
2. Satisfies, this interview from 16th September, 2001 was "aired", and therefore heard by the US public on 8th September, 2002.
3. Satisfies, this was a broadcast by a major TV Network on what could be considered a popular current affairs programme.
4. Satisfies, clear and direct question, clear and emphatic reply.
5. Satisfies, widely reported and discussed.

Examination of Example 2, against governing criteria:
1. Satisfies, statement made by serving Vice-President.
2. Satisfies, this interview was "aired" and heard by the US public on 8th September, 2002.
3. Satisfies, this was a broadcast by a major TV Network on what could be considered a popular current affairs programme.
4. Satisfies, clear and direct question, clear answer.
5. Satisfies, widely reported and discussed.

Any problem understanding any of that Ron?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 04:54 PM

Teribus trots out the same lame stuff and pretends that it is a "clear" statement that Saddam Hussein was not involved in 9/11:

Example 1
"RUSSERT on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
CHENEY (Vice-President of the United States of America): "No."

Ummm, we've pointed this out before, but here Cheney denies that there's any evidence known to the maladministration linking Saddam to 9/11. Cheney says (amazingly enough, truthfully): "No." He denies that there's known evidence in support for such a link. He doesn't say that there's no such link (which, I should remind Teribus, is what Teribus was tasked with producing), nor does he say that the maladministration is in possession of evidence tending to refute such a link.

Example 2
RUSSERT 8th September,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.

He's simply saying he can't (or won't) assert positively that Saddam was involved in 9/11. But that's once again hardly a positive assertion that Saddam wasn't at all involved. Then, as pointed out above, Teribus hypocritically leaves out the follow-up, the 'rest of the story':

"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..."

IOW, now he's saying there is "new information", new evidence (which turns out to be just as wrong as most of the "intelligence" on Iraq) about a meeting of Mohammed Atta (the lead hijacker in 9/11) with Iraqi security. Teribus wants us all to believe that this statement is (in combination with the preceding words) a "clear" statement that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. And he has a bridge for sale, too, if you have some spare cash. Still for sale, too, as no one's buying it.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 09:41 PM

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 either incredibly obtuse or stubbornly digging himself ever deeper into his hole out of fear of being "wrong". I can't say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 09:52 PM

Arne,

Assignment:
"I am tasked with having to provide you with an example where"-- (within the period mid 2002 to the March 2003 actual invasion)-- "the US Administration made the categoric statement that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with those attacks" (of 11 Sept 2001).

Understanding of Assignment Approved by Ron:
"You have perceived the assignment correctly."

If you now have to move the goalposts to support your view Arne, it demonstrates the weakness of your arguement in the first place. I was asked to provide one example, I have provided two.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 10:59 PM

Çorrection, Teribus--

You have provided zero--within the period mid-2002 to the invasion itself (March 2003).


You keep harping on 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press--which, we have agonizingly explained to you--is by no means a clear statement.


You have the entire period certainly from Sept 2002 to March 2003. At least 6 months. Surely you can find a clear statement by a Bush spokesman in that period that there was no link between Saddam and 9-11.

Especially since you have already claimed--totally falsely--that you have already provided such statements.

Face it--Franco is still dead, and your ship is still extremely sunk. You are dead wrong.

Yet again, too bad about your shattered ego.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Arne
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 02:20 PM

Teribus sez:

If you now have to move the goalposts to support your view Arne, it demonstrates the weakness of your arguement in the first place....

Of course, Teribus alleges that I've "move[d] the goalposts", but, as seems to be the SOP for him, provides no evidence that I did any such thing.

... I was asked to provide one example, I have provided two.

Sez the floridly psychotic Teribus, after his "examples" were blown out of the water most decidedly.

And I'd note that Teribus at one time claimed "multiple" examples of such, so asking for just one ought not be a problem ... unless, that is, Teribus is just blowing gas from the nether regions....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 08:05 PM

Hello people, here's the question:

"Find a clear statement by a Bush spokesman in that period that there was no link between Saddam and 9-11."

Here's an example:

"RUSSERT on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?(911 attacks)"
CHENEY (Vice-President of the United States of America): "No."

OK Ron how bloody clear does it have to be. Just exactly what is it that you cannot understand about the above statement that was clearly broadcast to the people of the United States of America on two seperate occasions, initially on 16.09.01, and secondly on 8.09.02.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Feb 06 - 10:09 PM

No, T-Distractor, you aren't dealing with reality... Yes, you would love nothing more than to reduce reality to an academic exercise where folks argue the definition of the word "is" of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...

Propaganda is a real smooth advertisment campaign... Lopok at any ads and you see youthfullness and sex sublimininally incorporated into one ad after another... Do the ads promise that if you use Balbo that you will be younger or that by using a Balbo will have memebers of the oppoiste sex drape themselves on you??? QWell, no, they don't... Adverisement and proganda are intened to plant seeds and forms associations...

The grading of any ad or proaganda campaign is the final results and not the definintion of the word "is"...

So, here were are ajust a few months after the ivasion of Iraq and over 70% of Americans believed that Saddam had ties to Al Qeada????

Hmmmmmmmm????

Now Ron has shown where the language was manipulated so that the "denials" were over-rideen by the associations...

When I played a little PR trick on you, T, about "denying that you had relations with little boys" you got purdy steamed... I never once said you did have these relations but I crafted the wording, much like the Busd folks did, that left the impressions...

This ain't like Advertisising 402 but Advertisng 101 we're atl;king about here... You refuse to explain how 70% of Americans came to the conclusion that Saddam was linked with Al Qeada then get pissed off when I use an Advertising 101 trick involving you to show you exactly how it happened???

Like I have said before... If this were Debating 101, the professor would have sat you down a long timwe ago. You haven't made a convincing case and there's way too much evidence by way too many folks that Bush did manipulate intellegence and did manipulate words in order to get the American people to buy a war they wouldn't have bought had they simply been told the truth...

Bobert