BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:45 PM

Doug--

"confusing those folks with facts"--uh, you misspelled that--it's actually "engaging in absurd oversimplification, based on a pathetically feeble grasp of history and geopolitics".   Since that's in fact what Teribus--and your good self--do. But of course it's perfectly understandable--you are just following your mighty leader, Mr. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 09:15 AM

Teribus couldn't answer this. Perhaps you can Doug. What exactly is the course in Iraq that we should be staying? What is it, specifically, that we brainwashed liberals need to get out of the way so your team can do?

N.B. The word "win" is not a specific answer. We all want that. Likewise "Defeat the Terrorists" is not a specific answer. We all want that too.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 07:21 PM

ha ha haha ha ha..good one guest.

actually one poll stated 70% Americans believed that Saddam had personal ties to AlQaeda. Now where did people come up with that,
if not the white house.

here
link to the bbc interview.. sure looks like Bush was cornered into admitting it grudgingly to me..

(even though He denied any proof of an Iraq 9/11 link he still maintained Saddam had ties with AlQaeda..)

here

look up the word syllogism in the dictionary.

a page out of Goebbels book.

oh I also wonder why BUsh keeps as a souvenir , the gun that Saddam had when he was captured. Makes it look like a personal vendetta to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 11:06 PM

There was an entire thread dedicated to all of Cheney and Bush's not-so-subliminal conflation of Saddam-9/11-AlQuaeda. For example Cheney's infamous "{...I'm not here to make the specific accusation that Saddam provided safe haven to Al Quaeda...blah, blah}". Find that thread for links to direct quotes that are pretty unmistakable to anyone who is truly objective.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 12:14 AM

Actually, there is "Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign"--which continued the discussion of this topic., originally started in about the last 200 or so posts of another thread called (misleadingly) "WMD's Were Found In Iraq". The absurd statement contained in the latter thread title morphed into an extended discussion of the propaganda question.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 12:22 AM

I totally agree, Petr - "Makes it look like a personal vendetta to me"

He kept the gun of the man he believed was responsible for the assassination attempt on his father.

Just goes to show that when it comes to revenge, Christians and Moslems are not so very different.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 06:03 AM

Five days after the attacks of 911, Colin Powell stood on the steps of United Nations Building in New York and categorically stated that Iraq had absolutely no involvement in the attacks.

Neither, George W Bush, Dick Cheney, any member of their Administration or Tony Blair has EVER said that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks of 911.

But people read into things more than is actually said, I have seen this many, many times in posts on this Forum.

US threats of attacks on Syria, Iran and North Korean, when none have actually been made - All anti-Bush supporters myths - all dearly cherished - but absolutely no foundation in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 09:07 AM

OMG, we are starting THIS discussion again?!?!?

A plan for war against Iraq (and then Syria and Iran...sounding familiar???) was laid out by the neocons in 1996, and was first shopped to Israel, then Clinton -- both took a pass.

The Bush administration started working on this plan immediately upon taking office.

9/11 presented the perfect pretext, and they used it relentlessly.

Don't believe little old me.

The discussion (with links to actual quotes) started in this thread:

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=86221#1632857

The same discussion (again with lots of links) continued here:

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=87545

The entire propaganda campaign is thoroughly documented in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Pretext-War-Americas-Intelligence-Agencies/dp/140003034X/sr=8-2/qid=1169215137/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-8925953-6995349?ie=UTF8&s=books

And if you don't have the time or inclination to read the whole book, the author summarizes in this interview:

http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese05232005.html

(sorry for the lack of clickies)

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 12:10 PM

TEribus..
5 days after 9/11 Powell categorically stated that Iraq had absolutely
no involvement in the attacks? -its pretty astounding that he could make such a statement CATEGORICALLY/ Absolutely in only 5 days, knowing just how inept US intelligence was just the week before.

but despite that Cheney claimed for several years after that Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague - (an event denied repeatedly by Czech secret service.) but Cheney clutched to that straw for years.

btw. Teribus I see you dodged my question on cpa order 1 and 2 the disbanding of the military and deBaathification - both the Stupidest decisions of the US in Iraq that have contributed to the CHAOS now in Iraq.

BUSh & co. now make it look like a choice between a 'surge'
and total immediate withdrawal leading to utter chaos in Iraq (more Chaos that is, than already caused by Bush in choosing this war)

and it is utter baloney. Militarily 21,000 more troops is meaningless,
(you must wonder about that yourself as a military man) they had that 2 years ago and still couldnt keep order.
Second though.. Bush and his administrations ability to predict events seems to have a pretty bad record..

- wildly off the mark (wolfy- when Shinseki estimated 200-300thousand troops would be needed)
- eg. we know he has WMDs and we know where they are (Rummy)
- the war will pay for itself (Wolfy)
- there is no insurgency (Rummy)
- the insurgency is in its death throes (CHeney)

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 02:19 PM

I deleted a number of anonymous posts from this thread. Most were from a Guest who sometimes uses the name Dickey. If you wish to post at Mudcat, please use a consistent user name, every time you post.
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 04:19 PM

GUEST,petr - 19 Jan 07 - 12:10 PM

"btw. Teribus I see you dodged my question on cpa order 1 and 2 the disbanding of the military and deBaathification - both the Stupidest decisions of the US in Iraq that have contributed to the CHAOS now in Iraq."

My apologies petr, I thought that I had answered your questions in relation to CPA Orders 1 & 2 in my post of 17 Jan 07 - 01:42 AM.

I now realise that no question of yours is ever answered unless the person answering responds in terms of total agreement with your line of reasoning. That being the case you will continue to be sadly disappointed. Your defence of the contention by dianavan that the US Army disbanded the Iraqi Army by drawing our attention to CPA Order 2 is ludicrous - the US Army can hardly be accused of disbanding some entity that has already de facto disbanded itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 04:53 PM

Er, Terry, it hadn't disbanded itself. The rank and file may largely have scarpered, but there was still an army. Refresh yourself - see the post at 02.31 on January 17.
And any news on firing squads? You do seem remarkably slippery at the moment, poppet - a veritable KY queen of the questions!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 08:08 PM

I dont expect agreement.

I expect a coherent logical argument.

you said The US did not disband the Iraqi army.

I said they did- and pointed to CPA order #2
(and Iwill admit most had already disbanded,
however US military commanders had planned on using them
to keep order & rebuild. Jay Garner even budgeted to keep them on the payroll. But Bremer put a stop to that)

YOu said, the order was meaningless purely administrative, crossing of boxes..

I said why even do it then?
Did the 'meaningless' CPA order #2 to disband
increase the odds of an insurgency? YES or NO

ditto for CPA #1 deBaathification -
(by instantly firing most of the professional class - who
needed to be Baath members to get anywhere and now cant feed their families, did order #1 increase the odds of insurgency? YES or NO

I dont expect you to agree with me.. convince me that both of those
orders werent the stupidest US military decisions in Iraq (among a host of others such as not having enough troops in the first place)
and they didnt lead to the Chaos in IRaq now..

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 10:11 PM

Teribus--

Not to put too fine a point on it--you are truly pathetic.   But entertaining.

"Colin Powell stood...." Big fat deal. The real propaganda push came, as you may recall we've discussed before-- (for about 500 posts)-- between summer 2002 and March 2003.

And you have NEVER come up with even one quote DURING THAT PERIOD that establishes that the Bush regime was not trying--skilfully--and very successfully--to draw links between 11 Sept 2001 and Saddam in the minds of the US public. Goebbels would have been proud.

"Neither George W Bush...." In plain English---- Bollocks.

For the n th time:   why do you suppose Bush, in the 28 Jan 2003 State of the Union address said; "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained."?

Linking the two in one sentence is pure coincidence? Anything you say.

And how about (also in the same speech): "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein"?

"19 hijackers....Saddam Hussein" in the same sentence. Gee, I wonder why.

And don't bother to give us your tired idiocies about "warning about a future possibility, not saying that Saddam was responsible for 9-11". Of course he's not spelling out that Saddam was responsible for that. Nobody claims that he was. But he is clearly trying to imply that if we don't do something about Saddam--real soon-- there will, in the near future, be a similar situation to 9-11. But "this time armed by Saddam"--who, we have been told over and over, is likely to have chemical, biological and/or nuclear weapons. That is--a 9-11 situation--but with chemical, biological and/or nuclear weapons.

It's a message calculated to raise deep fears in his audience--and panic them into supporting his planned Iraq invasion. And combined with the rest of the propaganda campaign--it worked like a charm.

Now perhaps you'd like to tell us your story on why Bush used "19 hijackers" and "Saddam Hussein" in the same sentence--in the above context. Here's your chance to be creative--to let the true fantasist in you take wing. I have faith that you can come up with a delightfully imaginative reason Bush would do this. Enjoy!

It was wonderful fun--entirely too much fun--to slash your feeble arguments to ribbons when we had this discussion about a year ago. And I'm real sorry about your tender ego.

I may not have much time to do it again this year--though it is severely tempting--you're such a huge soft target.

So we'll see how it goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 03:58 AM

OK Ron, being really pathetic, let's have a little challenge.

Between 11th September, 2001 and 20th March, 2003.

I will list all reported instances in which the President, Vice-President and members of the Bush Administration categorically said that Saddam Hussein/Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks that occurred on 11th September, 2001.

You on the other hand will list all reported instances in which the President, Vice-President and members of the Bush Administration categorically said that Saddam Hussein/Iraq did have something to do with those attacks.

Now I will have no trouble at all doing that - you on the other hand will. You will come back with your usual load of drivel, in which I am sure you truly believe, because that happens to be the spin put on it by whoever it was who wrote the report of the speech that you read. If I hear that someone makes a definite statement with regard to something, that is what I will take as being fact from their perspective.

For how and where the two become linked (i.e. threat to the US, US interests and allies. 911 and Iraq - we have been attacked, this is the threat of a possible similar attack in the future with much graver consequences) read the published texts of the 2002 and 2003 State of the Union speeches.

Bush did not identify Saddam Hussein and Iraq as the greatest potential threat to the USA, that was the conclusion of others (Not PNAC).

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 08:50 AM

Teribus----



I'm glad you recognize that you are pathetic. Recognition is the first step to doing something about the problem. But I'm sorry to say your progress is painfully slow. You still can't even read. You really should make an effort to do so.



"possible similar attack in the future with much graver consequences" Duh, that's exactly what I just finished saying.

Do you have any idea what "this time armed by Saddam Hussein" means? Do you have any idea of what country Saddam ruled in 2002? Do you have any idea what country Bush had targeted--at least by summer 2002?

Once more with feeling: the Bush regime exploited the US deep fear engendered by 9-11 to stoke hate and fear against Saddam--whom he had already, at least by summer 2002, decided to attack. That was the propaganda campaign--which started about summer 2002 (not before)--for an unnecesssary war-- of Bush's choice---for which he deserves designation as the all-time worst US president.

Don't bother with your red herrings about no connection between 9-11 and Saddam in the days just after 9-11. In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, it is my contention that the firm decision to attack Iraq had not been made. By summer 2002, it most certainly had been.

So the quotes from you must START in summer 2002--through the day of the actual invasion--in March 2003.

And since you have unlimited time to waste with meaningless cut-and-pastes, please don't forget to also address the issues brought up by petr--logical arguments as to why the decisions he cites were not the stupidest ones made in the Iraq war.

Have fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 08:54 AM

"unnecessary"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 09:10 AM

And this is also interesting--from the Wall St Journal today 20 Jan 2007:

"Iraq's cabinet next week is to take up a draft law on dividing the nation's oil wealth. Lack of such an arrangement has fed sectarian friction..."

Exactly what I've been saying--for over a year--and you, Teribus, have been denying. Once more, in case you didn't hear the other uncounted times I said this: The Sunnis must be guaranteed more oil income than would accrue to them from just the "Sunni parts" of Iraq--which are poor in oil. This is necessary in order for them to feel they have a future in the new Iraq--and is part of defusing the civil war now raging.

You, Teribus, on the other hand, have consistently said that the Sunnis "deserve nothing"---a typically-- amazingly stupid stance of yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 12:04 PM

Full paragraph before it chopping a part out and taking it out of context:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes."

Now where did it say that Saddam had a connection with 9/11?

It does not say. It does not imply that. It merely rasies the future specter of terrorists with chemical or bio weapons that Saddam was belived, as far back as 1998 before, GWB could have "cooked" the evidence, to have possessed. And it states thet the events of 9/11 made more people aware of the possibility of such things happening.

Is it not the responsibility of the government to consider future threats to security and possibly avoid them like an asteroid hit?

If you really believe what you are talking about, you will answer these two questions directly. oTHERWISE YOU WILL HAVE TO DO A LITTLE DANCE AND ATTEMOPT TO DISCREDIT ME FOR ASKING THE QUESTIONS

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 12:05 PM

Correction:

If you really believe what you are talking about, you will answer these two questions directly. Otherwise you will have to do a little dance and try to discredit me for asking them.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 01:00 PM

Dickey--

As good Bushite, it seems you can't read either. No surprise there.

If you ever learn to read, you will see that I never alleged that Bush said Saddam had a connection to 9-11. But when you do learn to read, you may want to visit your local library--and learn about propaganda. Just the use of 9-11 and Saddam in the same sentence was enough, in the minds of a fearful US public, to raise the connection--which was exactly what Bush wanted to do. And he did more than once in the same speech--as I have pointed out.

Or perhaps you weren't comatose in the period after 9-11--and have no idea of the palpable atmosphere of fear--and search for scapegoats--which characterized that time.

And what do you think Bush meant by "19 hijackers... this time armed by Saddam Hussein"?   As I said before, he's not saying Saddam caused 9-11. But he is clearly saying, that with Saddam possessing the WMD we were assured he had, the next 19 hijackers may well be armed with what Saddam has---WMD. And the clear implication is that we had best do something soon to counter that.

2 months later came his answer to stop Saddam from arming the next hijackers---the Iraq invasion.



Now the question is: will you have the guts to keep your handle--or will Joe have to delete your postings again since you have no intention of keeping one name?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 11:01 PM

Rather tahn answering the questions directly you have attacked me and tried to discredit me by by accusing me of being comatose, unable to read and being a Bushite.

I have said exactly what I conclude from the statement "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein." which you have again tried to throw out of context by taking out "Imagine those" and "with other weapons and other plans"

"Just the use of 9-11 and Saddam in the same sentence was enough, in the minds of a fearful US public, to raise the connection--which was exactly what Bush wanted to do." Is your assertion. It has been pointed out several times that Bush and Chaney said several times that there was no direct connection between Saddam and 9/11. Yet it has never been pointed out that they said there was a direct connection.

Yet you have not answered the two questions:

Where did it say that Saddam had a connection with 9/11?

Is it not the responsibility of the government to consider future threats to security and possibly avoid them like an asteroid hit?

"Just the use of 9-11 and Saddam in the same sentence was enough, in the minds of a fearful US public, to raise the connection--which was exactly what Bush wanted to do." Is your assertion. It has been pointed out several times that Bush and Cheney said several times that there was no direct connection between Saddam and 9/11. Yet it has never been pointed out that they said there was a direct connection.

And I do have the guts.

Do you have the guts to answer them directly or would you rather go crying to Joe?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 01:41 AM

Dickey - Why do you support Bush?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 03:46 AM

"Rather than answering the questions directly you have attacked me and tried to discredit me by by accusing me of being comatose, unable to read and being a Bushite."

Oh dear Ron, it looks like Dickey, has got your number in one.

Standing by for another personal attack, one thing I will not get is an answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 08:19 AM

Hey Ron see any similarity:

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us." - Bill Clinton - 1998.

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes." - George W Bush - 2003 State of the Union Address.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:38 AM

Dickey--you need to visit your library in the worst way---and learn about propaganda. As I said, a fearful population can easily be manipulated. And juxtaposition--over and over-- is an excellent propaganda technique.

You still can't read--Bush never did say that Saddam caused 9-11. But he did most certainly warn about what would happen if we did nothing about him---and he linked it to 9-11.

You have provided no evidence to the contrary.



And it would be appreciated if you abide by Mudcat's very few and very reasonable rules--such as picking one handle and sticking to it.   We have found that many "Guests" don't.

And by the way, I don't contact Joe for such things. But he and his team monitor the posts.

Thanks so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:32 PM

Ron: Thanks for your condescending remarks about me not being able to read or needing to learn about propaganda. That really adds weight to your answers or non answers.

We agree that he never did say it. Can we agree that he said several times that there was no connection?

I agree that he did warn about what "might" happen not "would" happen if we did nothing about him. Can you provide any evidence to the contrary?

Can you provide any evidence that 70% of the American people thought Saddam and 9/11 were connected due to Bush's SOU address? The poll did not ask that question. You are connecting the the poll and Bush's speech with an assertion, not evidence. After hearing the speech did you believe that Saddam and 9/11 were connected?

He did not link 9/11 to Saddam. Here merely raised the idea of Saddam providing chemical, bio or dirty bombs to a terrorist group, not specifically al Quaeda, in an attack similar to 9/11.

Again I am asking because you have avoided directly answering the question:

Is it not the responsibility of the government to consider future threats to security and possibly avoid them like an asteroid hit?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 01:46 PM

Dianavan:

Why do you think I support Bush?

I disagree with some of his policies and I support some of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 03:06 PM

"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein..."

The key word here is 'imagine'.

He may not have directly linked Saddam with 911 (he left that up to the imagination of the world). When preceded by, "But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained," he not only linked the idea of Saddam to 911 (terrorists) but indicated that Saddam had WMD's.

A person in such a position of power and authority with a bevy of consultants, should speak and act responsibly. Not only are those statements irresponsible, they are intended to mislead the public.

Are you defending Bush on the basis of 'faulty intelligence' or are you just plain ignorant when it comes to propaganda? Do you actually condone misleading Congress and the American public?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 07:39 PM

The largest bloc of the Iraqi parliament doesn't appear to want more U.S. troops, either. At least he thinks the new, "democratic government" of Iraq should have some say about it.

"The Sadrist bloc, the largest in the Iraqi parliament, ended their almost two-month boycott of the government on Sunday. The group boycotted the government following a bombing that killed more than 200 people in Sadr City.

One of the Sadrist politicians' top demands was a timetable for a withdrawal of American troops, a handover of security to the Iraqi government and a promise not to agree to more U.S. troops without the consent of the parliament. They returned only after a committee was formed to discuss their demands and present them to the parliament, said Nassar al-Rubaie, head of the Sadrist bloc."

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/16514606.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 08:23 PM

Dickey--

"he merely raised the idea"---over and over and over. And linked Saddam to 9-11---over and over and over. Implying to a fearful country over and over--that if they didn't do something soon, there would likely be another 9-11-----with Saddam supplying the perpetrators with WMD.   Do you deny this?


Be sure to make that visit to your library soon. You really need to learn about propaganda--you obviously have no clue of how it operates..

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 09:38 PM

So Is this good or bad? Would they have ended their boycott If there was no effort to send more troops? Would they have ended their boycott if the troops were withdrawn?

There is absolutely nothing in your post to explain the ending of the boycott or to explain why they were boycotting.

The article says "Sadrists were angered by an announced addition of 21,500" It does not say what any of the other 26 million people in Iraq want.

After hearing the SOU speech did you believe that Saddam and 9/11 were connected?

And for the third time: Is it not the responsibility of the government to consider future threats to security and possibly avoid them like an asteroid hit?

I can't get an answer on this one either:
After hearing the speech did you believe that Saddam and 9/11 were connected?

Why is it so hard to state what you believe?

I don't see anything here about wanting the US to withdraw:

Email from an Iraqi

"Dear Richard,

Thanks for both your emails. I read the interesting article. Such debates are common to us. People may go in a vicious circle in case of trying to convince those who encourage the terrorists - I guess such persons or groups who defend the terrorists are very little to check sites like this so that they can in turn improve themselves for democracy world. The mission is not to agitate such subjects among people whom are considered as educated people, it is rather how to communicate with those rural people who work as a nest to terrorists...

..Keep in mind what is issued in Yahoo is not accurate. The news said(Suicide Blast Kills 54 at Iraq Gas Station) By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer, this news together with the picture is not accurate. Try to draw the attention of Yahoo concerned people who are in charge.

The gas station is far about 1 km distance. When the picture showed an isolated place whereas the post is in midst of buildings. It is at the center of the local public market. "

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 09:54 PM

"Be sure to make that visit to your library soon. You really need to learn about propaganda--you obviously have no clue of how it operates.."

So you still haven't found any other way of proving your point besides discrediting others, and talking down to them and thereby adoiding answering any questions.

Do I have to keep asking the same questions over and over are you going to admit that you can't or won't answer them?

"a fearful country over and over" Were you fearful? How many times?

How many times did he deny there was any connection?

After hearing the speech did you believe that Saddam and 9/11 were connected?

If you did believe there was a connection it would be easy for you to answer yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:46 PM

Punishing terrorists is a good idea. Preventing terrorism is a great idea. But what did either have to do with Iraq?
Under Sadam, iraq was as far from being a Jihadist stronghold as can be imagined; his government was brutal, dictatorial and secular.
On t'other hand, if you recall, the terrorists that committed the 9-11 monstrosity had nothing to do with Iraq. If we had to invade someone for purposes of retaliation and self-protection, the clear targets would have been Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. We did make a half-assed attempt in Afghanistan, but......Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:59 PM

Did Saddam support terrorisim yes or no?

Does this sound familiar?:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Who said it and when?

How about this?:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 12:03 AM

Do you deny that he linked Saddam to 9-11?   Yes or no?

Do you deny that he told us to imagine that the 19 hijackers were armed by Saddam?--after we'd been warned many times that Saddam had WMD? Yes or no?

Simple questions. Let's have answers.


In answer to your questions, no I was not fearful of a connection between Saddam and 9-11. Because I had read--in the Wall St Journal, of all places-- that there were many allegations Bush was making that had no evidence to back them up.

But plenty of people did buy his despicable propaganda. Somehow I think you're one--and you still believe Bush's drivel about--"if we don't fight them in Iraq, we'll fight them here."

And I'm not a knee-jerk pacifist, by the way--just somebody who thinks--you should try it sometime---and wants answers before doing something like starting a war. I----in common with most of the world-- thought the attack on the Taliban and bin Laden was totally justified. The attack on Iraq was not--and the propaganda campaign was the only way the Bush regime marshalled US public opinion behind his war.

I called the White House call-in line and warned him against it. Specifically because I foresaw what did happen---the more pictures of dead women and children broadcast on al-Jazeera, the more terrorists---all over the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 12:04 AM

Dickey--this means you.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 12:11 AM

Dickey--that's a pretty pathetic trap.

You'd best start thinking. People around here read--and are probably better informed than you on virtually every topic.

Everybody knows that many people--Republican and Democrat-- were convinced at the time that Saddam was a danger. Many, however, felt the UN inspectors should be given more time. And your quotes do not deny this.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 12:30 AM

I can also tell you how the "surge" is going to turn out. A total failure--that looks like success.

Reason:

1)   al Sadr has told his people to not wear black uniforms any more--just blend back into the population. A grateful population will be glad to accept them.

2) Any al Queda fighters will leave Baghdad and go out into the provinces--where they and their sympathizers know the territory--and the Americans don't.

3) Anybody else interested in civil war, revenge, or just crimes of opportunity will just lie low for a while.


Maliki and Bush will brag about all the neighborhoods that have been cleared. The body count will go way down. Then the Americans will leave. And the militia fighters in the police and army will start killing indiscriminately again. And the other groups will go back to current behavior. And Iraq will again be back in the soup---without Americans there to act as buffers between the various fighting groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:49 AM

Dickie - Do try to keep up. You say, "It does not say what any of the other 26 million people in Iraq want."

We are talking about the majority of the elected Parliament of Iraq. They are followers of Sadr and are Sadrists. They are Shiites. They are the majority. They speak for the majority of the people of Iraq.

The Sadrist seem to think the people of Iraq should decide whether or not they want more U.S. troops. They are there to make sure the new government is not another U.S. puppet and to keep Maliki on the right track. They also financially back Maliki.

Sounds to me that democracy in Iraq may be working after all. Its just not the same kind of 'democracy' George Bush had planned on.

George has failed, plain and simple. I think the Sadrists and Maliki and the Iraqi Parliament can make the decisions and they really do not want any more U.S. help. Its time for George to go home now.

btw - George's idea of sending Kurdish soldiers into Baghdad seems to have resulted in alot of Kurdish desertions. Seems they don't think this is their war. Although they are mostly secular, they really do not with to be associated with Arab Sunnis. This is not their fight.

...and Dickie, please learn how to read with a critical consciousness.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 02:10 AM

Does your condecending demeanor have no limits?

You have answered one question truthfully. You did not beleive there was a connection after hearing the speech. We have common ground there. However you claim that others did. Were they less intelligent?

"Do you deny that he linked Saddam to 9-11?   Yes or no?"
Yes I deny that he linked Saddam to 9/11.

"Do you deny that he told us to imagine that the 19 hijackers were armed by Saddam?--after we'd been warned many times that Saddam had WMD? Yes or no?"

Yes I deny that he told us to imagine that the 19 hijackers were armed by Saddam. If you look at the phrase "this time armed by Saddam Hussein" you will see that he is not talking not something that has already happened.

As to the "after we'd been warned many times that Saddam had WMD?" part I will have to ask warned by whom and when? Do you believe that Bush and his adminstration wer the only people telling us the Saddam had WMD's?

Now why can't an intelligent person like you answer the rest of the questions?

Did Saddam support terrorisim yes or no?

Who were the quotations from and when?

Can you tell us how an immediate pullout will end?

Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to "regain momentum" as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:04 PM

Dickey - He told the public to IMAGINE terrorists armed with Saddam's (imaginary WMD's).

Thats not only irresponsible, its designed to mislead the public and create fear. Its an abuse of power.

I do not know how the pull out will end but I do believe that the Iraqi parliament does not necessarily want more U.S. troops and that the decision is up to them, not George Bush. We have had enough of his 'go it alone' policy. Its time for Congress to put a stop to his impulsive aggression.

Its not a matter of more or less intelligence. Its a matter of being able to critically analyse what is said or done. If GWB does not possess these abilities, why should I expect more of the public? Some do, some don't. Thats why propaganda is so effective.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:20 PM

Ebbie: Another person that likes to talk down to others to reinfore their position.

Does it or doesn't it say what any of the other 26 million people in Iraq want.?

I say it does not. It may say what the majority of Elected Parliament wants. When the people voted for them I suppose they knew all about what Sadir would do and what Parliament would do and voted acordingly.

Do you believe that what Parliament wants is also what the people want?

I believe that those members are afraid of Sadir or they want to use him to wipe out the Sunnis.

Do you believe that they are not afraid of Sadir and that they do not want to wipe out the Sunnis?

A smart person like you can certainly give a yes or no answer without trying to discredit the person asking the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:31 PM

Sorry, that last post was for Dianavan, not Ebbie.

Don:

Now that I think about it, the phrase "this time" proves that Bush was not referring to 9/11. It he were the phrase would be that time, they were or then.

I think you are very well versed in Propaganda. You keep repeating things you don't believe on order to convince the masses that they are true.

Neither you or I or anyone here has said that Bush's SOU made them think that Saddam and 9/11 were connected.

Isn't it possible that the 70% could have gotten it from other sources like the PBS program I mentioned?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:55 PM

Impeach PBS

"In a PBS special on US television, a man identified only "an Iraqi Lieutenant General", claimed that in 2000 he had been "the security officer in charge of the unit" at Salman Pak and had seen Arab students being taught how to hijack airliners using a Boeing 707 fuselage at Salman Pak. The independent Iraqi weekly Al-Yawm Al-Aakher interviewed a former Iraqi officer who also claimed that Salman Pak was being used to train foreign terrorists."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 03:38 PM

Dickey - Do keep up. The reports that, "... claimed that Salman Pak was being used to train foreign terrorists." Has long been discredited. More "faulty intelligence" released by the spin doctors for public consumption.

The people of Iraq most certainly do know about Sadr and what he represents. They voted accordingly. If its truly a democracy, then they are the representatives of the people. If the people want something else, I certainly haven't heard anything about it.

What do you think the Iraqi people want?

Whatever that might be, it is not up to George to make the call.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 05:04 PM

It may have been discredited later but at the time it could have contributed to making 70% of the people in the US think Saddam and 9/11 were connected. There was another big expose of the connection on PBS featuring one of Clinton staffers that was even more convincing but I can't find it now.

You superior attitude does not add any weight to your responses.

I think the Iraqis want democracy and they want the killing to end. I do not think they are blaming it on the Americans and I have not heard any of the citizens say directly that they want the US to leave. At the beginning before the media was concentrating on the negative, I saw people in the street asking if we were going to leave. The answer was we will stay as long as you want us to. Have they asked us to leave yet?

All I hear are people speaking for them.

What do you believe the Iraqi people want?

Do you believe of the US pulls out the killing will end and the people will be happy that we left?

And it is up to the commander in Chief to make the call unless you want to circumvent the constitution. I read once that Thomas Jefferson said when foreign policy is concerned, we elect a tyrant every 4 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 05:24 PM

Dickey, dear, you really don't get it, do you? Propaganda is much more subtle these days.
And why did 70 per cent of Americans believe Iraq was responsible for 9-11. Are you going to tell us that seven out of 10 of your compatriots are congenitally stupid?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 05:33 PM

a simple explanation of Bush's policy, and "More troops" from Tom Toles, Wash. Post cartoonist.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 06:09 PM

There is nothing to "get" but the false accusation that Bush is responsible.

Having found no one that was convinced that 9/11 and Saddam was connected by Bush's speech, I have to say that they got the idea elsewhere.

Were you convinced?

I cited sources where people could have gotten the idea and I cited several times where Bush stated that there was no connection.

The assertion that he is responsible is propaganda that is being promoted and you have fallen for it.