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

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 02:03 PM

so why does Bush say we have to take the fight to the enemy?
(how many IRaqis were on the hijacked planes?)

Cheney continued, well into the Iraq war, to talk about the long-discredited meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent in Prague.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 02:29 PM

I fear Dickey is being deliberately disingenuous. As such, there's little point in trying to argue on matters of fact because, like Terry, he's a past master at the selective cut and paste and the partial quote
Both of them use very similar tactics to the tobacco companies when faced with overwhelming evidence that smoking kills. Do a comparison - it's quite uncanny!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 09:56 PM

Dickey--

Well, well. Captain Ginger has nailed you---"partial quote..." And his parallel of your attitude with the tobacco companies' defense is also dead on.

You say "Here's the key portion. Correction: Here's the part YOU chose.

Somehow you left the context out--now I wonder why you would do that. It couldn't be since it destroys your argument-- yet again. Surely not.

Have you been taking lessons from Teribus? When I quote one sentence, I am perfectly fine with having the context quoted. Teribus often obliges--but then winds up shooting himself in the foot. Don't know why that happens--gun keeps going off, I suppose.

At any rate, neither you nor Teribus seem to believe in including the context when you quote-----and for good reason--since it regularly undermines what you claim.

I checked your press conference of 31 Jan 2003. And sure enough, your "clear statement" is muddied--in the very next paragraph. Do you think we do no checking?

Tony Blair says "That answers your question". But then he goes on to pollute the water--badly--a la Cheney on 8 Sept 2002.

(Ask your companion in self-delusion, Teribus about that one. It's Teribus' pride and joy---but only the first sentence. The rest he prefers to ignore.)

But I digress. Just a trip down memory lane--about a year ago.

Blair continues (31 Jan 2003) : "The one thing I would say, however, is that I've absolutely no doubt that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after Sept 11? We know that these terrorist networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction."

He states there is "no doubt" that Saddam--clearly designated as a threat early in the press conference--and terrorists of the 11 Sept 2001 variety "will" come together.

From my posting of 19 Jan 2007 10:11 PM: "And don't bother to give us your tired idiocies about 'warning about a future possibility, not saying Saddam was responsible for 9-11'. Of course he's not spelling out that Saddam was responsible for that. No one 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 situation like 9-11. But "this time armed by Saddam". Who, we have been told over and over, is likely to have chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. That is----a 9-11 situation--but with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons."

"It's a message calculated to raise deep fears in his audience--- and panic them into supporting his Iraq invasion".


And so is this press conference--both what Bush says and what Blair says----if you read the entire transcript. Which you obviously did not plan on anybody doing.

The clear message is that Saddam may not have been directly responsible for 11 Sept 2001--but he is very likely to team up with the next terrorists who attack us-----with his WMD.

He, (Bush) (and Blair too) clearly links Saddam with 11 Sept 2001 in the minds of his listeners---which is his goal.

Fits perfectly into the propaganda campaign.

Calculated to raise deep fears.

Tell me why it is not.







Answer: no, your quote, I'm sorry to say, fails miserably-- (as usual)-- to carry out your assignment.

But at least you've learned to read sufficiently that you now realize what period we are speaking of. This is big progress. Well done, good job.


Face it, Dickey: the propaganda campaign from summer 2002 to March 2003 is a fact, not a theory.



This is an extremely dead horse. Teribus beat it to death mercilessly about a year ago--even though we tried to tell him it was already dead. Your continuing to beat it is unfortunately not going to bring it back to life any time soon.

Hope you have a good life preserver---sounds like you're still drowning in the river of denial.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 02:18 AM

Dear Ron: Again you choose to disqualify the answer by changing your criteria and with personal insults.

The Criteria were:

Precisely which statement--during that period--do you think constitutes a clear declaration by the Bush regime that there was no connection between Saddam and 9-11?

Please give the direct quote--specifying your source, the speaker, the date and the occasion.
1) clear
2) a statement by a Bush spokesman disavowing any link between Saddam and 9-11, and
3) within the period in question.

You did not ask for an entire manuscript, only a quote "one quote DURING THAT PERIOD" with extra emphasis on the time period and you got it.

You said It does not exist. "quotes meeting the above criteria don't exist"

Now you deny It when I prove it does exist. Which of the above criteria does it not meet?

Instead of facts you have nothing but rudeness, insults and personal attacks to rely on. Quite unbecoming and mean spirited for an intelligent person like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 02:33 AM

Tia:

First you say "Please go to Fox News online (or somesuch if it exists) and pose the same question." and "Even there, you may not get truthful answers "

"Now you say Hi Dickey. Trust me, the site exists"

If you know where it is then post something from there that proves something, whatever it is you want to prove, and provide a link.

Even then what would it prove if it is not truthful?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 02:42 AM

Dear Ron:

You are asserting that there was no possibility that "these terrorist networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction."?

I have asked you several times:

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

Why do you avoid that one by asserting I did not answer something?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 03:05 AM

Teribus.. the statements from Blair and Bush Jan 31 2003, pose more questions than they answer.

Both had been implying for months that there was in fact some tenuous connection..The damage to rational analysis of the situation had already been done.

When it became clear that they could continue the illusion no further they were forced to confirm that there was no link.
The decicion to go to war had been taken almost a year perviously so it did no harm to their cause to tell the truth in 2003.

However many asked themselves at the time....." If Saddam had no link to 9/11 why are we about to launch a pre-emptive illegal and very costly war against him....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 05:54 AM

....." If Saddam had no link to 9/11 why are we about to launch a pre-emptive illegal and very costly war against him"....Ake

The answer to that question Akenaton you will find in the text of the 2002 State of The Union Address.

The answere to that question Akenaton you will find in the text of a 1998 (17th February IIRC) Bill Clinton speech of quoted in a post of mine in this thread.

Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, the Taleban, Afghanistan - All connected to the 11th September, 2001 attacks on the United States of America.

Saddam Hussein, Iraq, WMD weapons and development programmes, sponsorship of international terrorist groups - All connected to evaluation of greatest potential threat to the United States of America, the national interersts of the United States of America, the allies of the United States of America and the interests of the allies of the United States of America.

This threat was clearly identified in 1998, it was further re-evaluated in 2001 after 911 and was reconfirmed as being potentially the greatest threat. The aforementioned evaluations were not carried out by any neo-con think-tank, they were not carried out by President G W Bush or any member of his administration, they were carried out by the US Joint House Security Committee and by the combined Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America. Those evaluations were then presented to the President and his Administration for consideration and action. The action taken was to go the United Nations, which as usual failed.

All this is a matter of record.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 08:52 AM

It may be a matter of record,but it was all wrong.

And please don't talk about hindsite, as I was against this madness even before Bush and Blair had privately decided to start a war, which would kill hundreds of thousands and leave us more exposed to terrorism than we had been.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 09:55 AM

"You did not ask for an entire manuscript". Quite right. But there is such a thing as context. I did ask for a CLEAR quote. In context, which I'm very sorry to tell you, does matter, yours is not clear.

By way of illustration:

Is Dickey an amazingly credulous right-wing fool who has not the foggiest notion how propaganda works, and should know better than to joust with his clear intellectual superiors---who can and do ridicule him at every opportunity and slash his feeble arguments to ribbons effortlessly?

1) No, you're completely wrong.

2) I can't make that claim. The one thing I would say, however, is that we have never yet seen him make an argument which any rational person would accept. Because, you know, it appears Dickey has just a passing acquaintance with a dictionary, has just discovered how a calendar works, and parrots uncritically the current Bushite line--whatever it happens to be. And he seems to think that he can take a statement out of context and never be challenged by his debate opponents.



Now, Dickey, please tell me. Which of the above is the stronger denial?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 02:10 PM

You must know which is the stronger deial. You wrote them in attempt to put words in the mouths of others. Please, you tell us kind superior intelectual.

Again you have nothing but rudeness and disrespect to offer in place of facts. Is this a trait if intellectual superiors? Are all Republicans mean spirited like you?

RD: "yours is not clear." "Under any circumstances, these answers are remarkable for their brevity and directness. No politician answers clearly and in just one sentence. Yet on this crucial matter, Bush and Blair did just that."

"and should know better than to joust with his clear intellectual superiors" evidently RD is his own greatest admirer. Yet this intellectual superior still refuses to answer questions"

I have asked you several times:

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

Intelectual superiors lik to say thing like "There has been a lot of information come forth about forewarnings which were ignored by the government." But when the governmnet dos so they are accused by intellectual superiors of using scare tactics and propaganda.

Do you deny that George Bush said "I can't make that claim" when asked if there was a connection?

And you have not explained why the percentage of Americans that believed there was a connection dropped from a period that began just after 9/11 thru your alleged propaganda campaign.

Re: Blairs statement that you claim disqualifiys my emaple:
Do you believe that there was no possibility that "these terrorist networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction."?

Yes or No

Rather than answer anything, you claim intellectual superiority and dismiss anything contrary to your false allegations.

Sounds like the same activity you are accusing Bush of.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 07:46 PM

Akenaton, what is wrong? Chapter and verse please c/w substantive reference.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 08:02 PM

yawn

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 01:32 AM

RD's selective cut and paste:

Blair continues (31 Jan 2003) : "The one thing I would say, however, is that I've absolutely no doubt that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after Sept 11? We know that these terrorist networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction."

The full paragraph unedited by RD:

"That answers your question. The one thing I would say, however, is I've absolutely no doubt at all that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after September the 11th? We know that these terrorists networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction. And we know also that they will do whatever they can to acquire the most deadly weaponry they can. And that's why it's important to deal with these issues together."

Get on his case Captain Ginger. Tell him to quit using those big tobacco company tactics.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 11:07 AM

I had already posted the link when you told me it was a non-existent site.

First on 1/25/07 at 11:45 not as clicky, then again at 1/25/07 11:46 as clicky.

It has been there all along my good fella.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 11:11 AM

Dickey--

Don't worry--intellectual superiority is something of which I will never accuse Mr. Bush.

I'm sorry to say that your attitude conveys one of two things--incredible garden variety ignorance, particularly of the way propaganda works---or wilful ignorance--that you refuse to see it right in front of your face.

The example I gave, with the contrasting "denials" is precisely analogous to the "denial" given by Bush and Blair. In both cases, the supposed "denial" ("I can't make that claim") becomes worthless, when placed in the context what followed directly.

If that is not true, please explain why it is not.

If you can't or refuse to see that, talking with you is totally worthless.

Your next step should be a visit to your local libarary to find out how propaganda works--at this point you seem to be abysmally ignorant on that score--even though I have just given you a sterling example of it--in the two "denials". No wonder you support Mr. Bush--he counted on giant intellects like yourself in selling the war---and he was not disappointed.

The vast majority of the rest of the world realized what Mr Bush was doing---too bad you didn't.

Added to which, as I've pointed out more than once--we have dealt with the propaganda campaign---in exhaustive (and exhausting?) depth- on Mudcat---more than a year ago. You will find that debate very easily if you make the effort to do so. And we have told you already where to find it.

Therefore, this is an old and tired topic. Please have the goodness to not bring it up again until at least you have examined what we have already said last year--discussed in great detail.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 12:41 PM

Dickey--

Added to which, the other point you keep missing is that none of us are alleging that Mr Bush claimed that Saddam was responsible for the 11 Sept 2001 attacks. His goal, however, was to associate Saddam with those attacks--and to convince his audience that if nothing was done about Saddam, we faced a similar attack--but this time with WMD---supplied by Saddam.

The process of convincing the US public of this was the propaganda campaign-----and it was brilliantly successful.

You have provided no evidence to the contrary.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 02:01 PM

Ron:

Thank you for your courteous response, sincerely.

My point is that this connection accusation has been made and repeated ad nauseam so that some people are convinced that there was a propaganda campaign.

However I do not believe that there was a propaganda campaign. I believe the propaganda was that there was a propaganda campaign.

I know that there were people unassociated with the administration claiming there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Then others arguing that there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11. All the while the administration was maintaining that there was a connection between Saddam and terrorism and we need to fight terrorism and those that support it. Bush, when asked directly if Saddam had anything to do with terrorism said he could not say that.

I have not heard many people saying Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism. The big beef was that war is wrong under any circumstances. That argument has lead to the current Bush lied campaign with any kind of accusation, founded, unfounded, provable or not provable, hurled at Bush.

I personally do not see any evidence that Bush Lied, There were mistakes made in intelligence but they were no worse than the mistakes from the previous administration. A lot of the intelligence was inherited by Bush. As far as I can see, the Clinton administration and Congress intelligence failures and mistakes were as much at fault as the Bush administration's and Congress's intelligence failures and mistakes and. However some in congress try to distance them selves from their errors in judgment and blame everything on Bush. They also try to blame Bush for their mistakes in order to be elected or re elected.

The single fact that so many people believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 right after 9/11 and that number declined over the years while this alleged propaganda campaign was under way is enough to show me that there was no campaign.

However you are entitled to your opinions. To me you are just someone who disagrees with me, not an enemy. But to me it seems that to you consider me to be your enemy because I do not agree with you and as such must be derided and ridiculed so as to make your opinion more credible.

I say the credibility of a person can be determined the respect they show for other people.

It seems to me that civilization is the respect people have for each other and their willingness to cooperate with each other for the common good.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 02:41 PM

Oncde again Teribus is misinformed and his attribution to Smith is risible. His answers?

"- The US will never have any credibility in the world ever again."

The US has no credibility in the world now. The rest of the world thinks that Bush's policy is insane. The US has no leadship ability now and won't as long as they remain in Iraq or attempt to aid Israel in nuking Iran.

"- Your "professional", volunteer armed forces will never again trust the population or government."

The Blackwater armed mercenary volunteers are what is left of the efficacy of the US military in Iraq. They have one of the largest bases there. They are being lead by a Christian right-wing-nut named Erik Prince who has funded James Dobson's idiotic Focus on the Family. They are out-of-control torturers in Abu Graibh and other centers. Bush will not stop at 20,000 but doesn't think he needs them as long as Blackwater continues.

I'm reminded of Teribus's ridiculous post about the UN resolution and the idea that Sadam expelled Scott Ritter and the UNSCOM team. This was patently wrong and Republican propaganda that added to the lies of the Bush Administration's other flights of fancy.

"It took the US military over twenty years to recover from the defeat suffered at the hands of the Vietcong, they will not recover from the defeat against the insurgents in Iraq inflicted upon them by their own politicians and population."

It certainly did not take twenty years for American industry to find its way into Vietnam.
This is a fallacy. The reason the US was "defeated" was because there was no support for a losing proposition by Johnson and furthur aggravated by Nixon.


"- Emboldened by your defeat in Iraq, the battle against the USA, declared by Al-Qaeda way back in the early 1990's will arrive at your doorstep. "

Obviously Teribus has not bothered to read the letters of Osama bin Laden which states unequivocally the fact that the only reason to attack the US is because of American troops on "Holy soil". If we were to leave Iraq, Al-Qaeda could claim victory and not bother with America. The idea that we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here is a misleading bromide that has no basis in fact.


" No-one will trust the United States to have the integrity to live up to it's commitments."

Wake up Teribus. This is the case right now. Bush has destroyed our integrity.

"- The United Nations will become even less significant than it is today. Like it's predecessor, "The League of Nations", without a powerful and forthright United States of America the UN will become equally irrelevant."

You have to remember if you are a student of American history is that it was the Conservatives that torpedoed the "League of Nations". Wilson couldn't get it passed so it never really existed. The UN is viable now and will be in the future if the Bush Administration doesn't destroy it with more John Boltons.

In short, Teribus, your pronouncements have no credible evidence to back them up.

Also, the Democratic Party was elected in the US to stop the debacle in Iraq. They are beginning to hear from its base, now, and expose the hypocrisy of Ram Imanuel and his ilk.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 02:46 PM

Dickey--

I am a bit exasperated with sheep who don't recognize a propaganda campaign when it's obvious. If the shoe fits........   And so far, it seems to be a wonderfully snug fit for you.

As I said, the Bush regime's goal was not to allege that Saddam caused the 11 Sept 2001 attacks---but to convince the US public that Saddam would link up with the next attackers--and would supply them with WMD.

And you have provided precisely zero evidence that the Bush regime did not do this---and have showed amazing ignorance of how propaganda works--while we have cited precise specifics--from the 2003 State of the Union speech--AND the very press conference you yourself have cited--- among others--of exactly how Bush did this.

If you want more specifics, you can, as I said, examine the earlier threads which have dealt with this topic.

If you do not do so, I can only conclude that you prefer to remain ignorant. In a Bush supporter, this is not surprising.

I note with interest that you have no counter to my point that the "denial" in the press conference you love so much is fatally undercut by what follows immediately.

If you don't recognize that context matters, you will remain forever ignorant---and easy prey for any propaganda campaign.

And so far, you are--a perfect illustration of "ignorance is bliss".

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 04:40 PM

Frank, sorry to nitpick with an otherwise excellent post, but while the letters of Osama bin Laden..states...the only reason to attack the US is because of American troops on "Holy soil" is true, but ...If we were to leave Iraq, Al-Qaeda could claim victory and not bother with America. isn't quite the case.
As far as Bin Laden is concerned, 'Holy Soil' means Saudi Arabia; that was the causus bellum on 9/11. That, too, is why the majority of the hijackers were Saudis.
However, Al-Queda presents in real terms a fairly minor threat to the US - and certainly a lesser one than the various far-right loony-tunes and fruitcakes in the militias and survivalist cults looking out for the black helicopters. Remember Oklahoma...

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 09:19 PM

So much for the kindness, courtesy and respect that your superior intellect affords you.

I have cited four things.

Bush's statement that he could not say there was a connection.

The results of the polls.

Your own statement that he did not say there was a connection.

Reports from other sources that there was a connection.

Your evidence consists of you own translation of what was said. Your reading between the lines.

Plus you refuse to answer the hard questions. You just continue to discredit me in an effort to prove your assertion.

If your assertion was so credible, it would not have to be accompanied by your personal attacks on me.

You refuse to answer the question about the statement that you claim undercuts and disqualifies my example that you claimed did not exist. If that statement by Blair was erroneous. Please state directly if that it was an impossible scenario and therefore erroneous.

Someone of superior intellect could answer that in a heartbeat so I know you can.

And while you are demonstrating your superior intellect, Tell me why the number of people convinced that there was a connection decreased during the time of your alleged propaganda campaign.

Now you are backing out of your assertion of a propaganda campaign draw links between 11 Sept 2001 and Saddam because you have not been able to support it except with personal insults and your claim of superior intellect.

Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 10:11 PM "trying--skilfully--and very successfully--to draw links between 11 Sept 2001 and Saddam in the minds of the US public."

Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 02:46 PM "I said, the Bush regime's goal was not to allege that Saddam caused the 11 Sept 2001 attacks"

You are shifting your assertion to there was a propaganda campaign "to convince the US public that Saddam would link up with the next attackers--and would supply them with WMD.",

And you claim that I "have provided precisely zero evidence that the Bush regime did not do this"

Well of course I haven't because you never requested it before.

Before we go down this alternate garden path of yours you need to first to confirm that you believe that it was totally impossible for Saddam to so, that Bush knew that it was impossible and that to draw possible scenarios like this ansd prepare for them is not the duty of the government.

I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that an intellectually superior person can state what they believe without hesitation so please demonstrate this ability.

And no, I am not an easily lead sheep. Therefore I am able to disagree with your shifting assertions, constant backpeddaling and ever changing requirements.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 09:36 PM

Dear Ron:

"And so far, you are--a perfect illustration of "ignorance is bliss"."

I would like to know what you are the perfect illustration of.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 10:17 PM

Dickey--

Do you believe that the Bush regime, in the period summer 2002 to March 2003, wanted to persuade the US public to support its planned Iraq invasion---and tried to do this by convincing the US public that the next terrorists would be supplied with WMD---by Saddam?

Yes or no?

THAT was the propaganda campaign.

You're having that chronic problem of yours about careless reading again. I have more than once pointed out that nobody is alleging Bush was trying to convince the public that Saddam had caused 9-11. But he damn sure was trying to panic the public on the basis of a threatened new attack----as I have explained more than once.

And you have produced no counter-evidence. The Bush-Blair press conference you love so much is actually evidence AGAINST your position.

Context counts.

And if you don't learn that soon, you will prove you are a worthless debater.

Unsurprisingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 10:21 PM

Dickey----


And he and his "team" did their persuading by many connections of Saddam with 9-11. Some of which we have detailed--more you can get by checking the earlier threads on the topic. Which you should do before favoring us with any more of your half-baked absurdities.

Thank you so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 10:42 PM

You are welcome Ron.

Rd's response to a three part yes or no question:

"THAT was the propaganda campaign."

Again, I know you can read much better than I can so these should be very easy to answer yes or no:

Do you believe that it was totally impossible for Saddam to so, that Bush knew that it was impossible and that to draw possible scenarios like this and prepare for them is not the duty of the government.


Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 10:21 PM
"I have more than once pointed out that nobody is alleging Bush was trying to convince the public that Saddam had caused 9-11"

Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 10:11 PM "trying--skilfully--and very successfully--to draw links between 11 Sept 2001 and Saddam in the minds of the US public."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 01:01 AM

The above was posted by me.

By the way Ron, I just snagged a tenor sax on Ebay.

I don't know a damned thing about it but I have been dreaming about playing a sax for years. I like the old big band sounds and early rock and roll.

I tried playing bluegrass with stringed instruments and bombed out. Due to an accident my left middle finger is blunt on the end. It is too wide to fit betweenteh strings to make a chord and it is sensitive on the end and the strings hurt.

Wish me luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 01:08 AM

Dickey,
Congrats on the sax. I've picked up some great brass instruments on ebay for far less than they were worth. On the finger thing -- I got nerve damage in my right middle finger in an accident, and almost quit playing stringed instrumets, but then strapped on a finger pick, and it makes it all good again. So, good luck with the sax, but don't quit on the strings if you like 'em at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 02:54 AM

Erik Prince (Blackwater) stated, "The "total force" refers to all resources available to be used in the nation's defense. Blackwater considers itself a partner to the DoD and all government agencies, and we stand ready to provide surge capacity, training, security and operational services in various areas at their request."

I wondered where Bush got the term, 'surge'!

These so-called Christians are robbing the U.S. treasury.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 06:31 AM

GUEST,Frank Hamilton. Having read through your post of 28 Jan 07 - 02:41 PM, I must tell you that you have left me totally unconvinced. The post contains no substance to refute any of the points that I have previously made, like Ron Davies, you attribute comments and positions to me that I have never advocated.

Frank, have you ever worked in Vietnam? I have not, but I have been responsible for supplying equipment required for use in Vietnam. One of the requirements that posed some problems was that in the post-Vietnam War era, we had to go over ever piece of equipment, ever spare part, all the maintenance and operations manuals and remove any reference to the United States of America - hard thing to do with equipment used for the offshore oil industry.

Frank have you read any of Osama Bin Laden's threats, have you compared the messages pre & post 911. Obviously from your post you have not. Biggest difference now is that if not living deep in the bowels of the earth, hidden from sight, then Osama Bin Laden is dead, nobody has heard from him in a long, long time, and his side-kick is now reduced to threatening his fellow muslims. All this because at the time of the 11th of September attacks in 2001, the United States of America had a President who was not afraid to act.

The UNSCOM weapons inspectors were advised to leave Iraq in December 1998 by President Bill Clinton's Administration. By their own reports to the Security Council, the UNSCOM Inspectors stated that due to obstruction and lack of co-operation on the part of the Iraq Government they could not perform their task. Having suceeded in getting the inspectors to withdraw, Bill Clinton, without going to the United Nations, or to Congress, launched an attack upon Iraq. Didn't hear you complain and carp about that Frank, Ron, Akenaton, dianavan, Arne, et al. The justification for those attacks, in a campaign known as "Desert Fox", was that Saddam had not complied with the Safwan ceasefire terms imposed by the UN and agreed to by the Iraqi Government.

Reality check, for the citizens of the United States of America. Irrespective of what any of you perceive to be the rights and wrongs of the matter, your country is now involved in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Your troops deserve and should get your whole-hearted support. I can not think of any worse way for the prospective Democratic Presidential candidates (the prospective Commanders-in-Chief of the armed forces of the US) to enter the forthcoming election with a declared and widely publicised platform of hamstringing the armed forces of the United States of America, financially and in terms of troop numbers, while those forces are actively engaged in combat.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 06:41 AM

Ron,

It's nice to see that you have completely changed you position on the Saddam/911 thing. You have finally taken onboard what the Joint House Security Committee and combined Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America have been saying for the last nine years.

But one, fairly reasonable and direct, question of Guest Dickey's that you have completely side-stepped and really should be answered by yourself, relates to one of the main responsibilities of anyone holding the office of the President of the United States of America.

Should the President of the USA act in order to preserve the security of the United States of America if advised of what is perceived to be a plausible and credible external threat?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 09:20 AM

Dickey--

1) I wish you good luck with your sax.

2) It is quite clear to any rational person that there was a propaganda campaign by the Bush administration to persuade the US public that the next terrorists would be supplied by Saddam with WMD. If the US public believed that Saddam had caused 9-11, so much the better for Bush's campaign--but that was not necessary for Bush's purposes.

All that was needed was to convince the public that there were links between terrorists who would attack the US in the future--(hence the constant reiteration by Bush of the 9-11 mantra--constant referral to the attacks)--and mention of Saddam. The campaign sought--and was brilliantly successful in this--to associate Saddam and 9-11 in the minds of the US public--without making the blatant statement that Saddam had caused 9-11.   The regime, with no proof whatsoever, sought to make the case in the public mind that Saddam had WMD with which he would supply the next attackers on the US.

Do you believe this--yes or no?

If not, specifically what part do you not believe?


You have supplied precisely zero evidence against this charge.




As I said before, Goebbels would have been proud of the Bush accomplishment in propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 09:45 AM

Dickey---

Obviously every US president has the responsbility to look out for the security of the US to the best of his ability. But that does not give him carte blanche to engage in a despicable propaganda campaign with the goal of panicking the country into supporting his invasion of another country. As I have said before, I supported the attack on the Taliban and the hunting of Osama (now Osama bin Forgotten). But the attack on Iraq was made for Bush's own goals--and not those of the US.

And the dishonest selling of the Iraq war to the public on the basis of fear--with no evidence supporting the necessity of the invasion--is revolting and inexcusable.

As I have said before, for starting an unnecessary war of choice, and engaging in a vile propaganda campaign to convince the US public to support the invasion, Bush can be lumped with Hitler.

And neither you nor Teribus have produced one iota of evidence that the propaganda campaign did not occur.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 09:46 AM

"responsibility"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 02:42 PM

If something is anticipated and acted on, it is a propaganda campaign and a scare tactic.

If something is not anticipated and acted on, it is a miserable failure.

Please describe a rational person.

I do not believe a rational person could conclude that Bush was trying to convince people there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 which was your original accusation made on:

Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 10:11 PM "trying--skilfully--and very successfully--to draw links between 11 Sept 2001 and Saddam in the minds of the US public."

Now, after you failed to prove that and backtracked by denying you ever made that assertion by saying falsely:

Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 10:21 PM
"I have more than once pointed out that nobody is alleging Bush was trying to convince the public that Saddam had caused 9-11"

And changing the assertion to:

From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 02:46 PM

As I said, the Bush regime's goal was not to allege that Saddam caused the 11 Sept 2001 attacks---but to convince the US public that Saddam would link up with the next attackers--and would supply them with WMD.

I believe a rational person would want the US government to anticipate possible security threats and take steps to prevent them.

I also believe a rational person would not need to constantly change his assertions and change his requirements on what would constitute proof in order to keep their argument viable and falsely claim "you have provided zero evidence".

I also believe a rational person could recognize the fact that if the number of people that believed there was a connection was decreasing while the alleged campaign was underway could still claim "it was brilliantly successful"

I don't believe that any rational person could believe that after years (going back before Bush) of congress men, Military men etc issuing dire warnings that Saddam had WMD's and we must do something about it, could claim that "The regime, with no proof whatsoever, sought to make the case in the public mind that Saddam had WMD with which he would supply the next attackers on the US." Examples:

Bill Clinton 1998
"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."

Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"


I believe a rational person could state what he believes and answer questions directly without personal attacks on people that disagree with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 02:49 PM

teribus -

Are you asking us to support Blackwater security in the same way that we would normally support the U.S. military?

Are you asking us to support the invasion of Iraq if we support the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Are you asking that we support a war on terrorism if we support the capture of bin Laden?

To take the very real concerns of citizens and twist them to meet his own agenda, is criminal.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 11:08 PM

Dickey--

You still have that old problem with reading and comprehension.

You can link Saddam to 9-11 without claiming directly that he was responsible for 9-11. This is exactly what the Bush regime sought to do--and did masterfully. I have told you this before--at least starting 20 Jan 2007 1:00 PM, and again 21 Jan 2007 11:38 AM. Etc.
Your inability to understand is getting just a bit boring.

Propaganda is often more effective when subtle--rather than the sledgehammer approach, which seems to be the only one you have facility to recognize.

If you can't tell the difference between linking Saddam to 9-11 and stating baldly that he caused the 9-11 attacks, you need to cultivate the ability to read more carefully--and possibly even understand what you read. That at least should be your goal--and you have quite a way to go to attain it.

Otherwise, you will continue to be a very easy mark for propaganda---unsurprisingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 11:48 PM

Ron, you are a gem. So tactful. Did you come by this talent naturally, or is it something that you were taught?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 02:04 AM

Let's just say I have a problem seeing things that don't exist like the Emperors new clothes.

So far you have provided zero evidence that there was a propaganda campaign.

You absolutely refuse to say what you believe which indicates to any rational person that you do not believe your assertions yourself but you attack others who do not believe what you do not believe.

You contradict yourself, change the criteria on what is considered evidence and still you cannot make your case so you have to resort to personal attacks.

I think you are the one doing the boring.

However your are welcome to your opinions and I won't stoop to your level desperate of personal attacks.

You are still a nice guy. Just a little hyperactive in the conspiracy department.

If Bush succeeds in spite of all the people that don't want him to succeed, you will calm down and look for a different windmill to joust with.

I wonder why Gen. David Petraeus with his plan to win with a troop surge was confirmed unanimously while at the same time the troop surge is being condemned in Congress?

They are sending this man on a mission while at the same time condemning the mission. Sounds like a intellectually superior plan to me.

WASHINGTON -- The Senate today unanimously confirmed Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, an architect of President Bush's policy of adding U.S. troops to the forces already in Iraq, as commander of U.S. and allied forces there.

The vote was 81 to 0.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 11:13 AM

Dickey says "So far you have provided zero evidence that there was a propaganda campaign."

It would take far to long to present all of the evidence in this thread. Many snippets have been presented in this and other threads, but forget that, it has been thoroughly documented by others more knowledgeable than any of us.

If you truly want to see the evidence, you have about 48 books to read.

(Search results from Amazon for "Bush +Iraq +propaganda").

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 02:11 PM

Books make money do they not?

There are books pro and con on everything you can think of, written precisely to sell.

Newspapers, radio and TV need to make money too so they gravitate to the expose and if it bleeds it leads philosophy to get the snatch the biggest audience from the others so it becomes a contest to see who can be the most negative. So who reports the good news?

I prefer facts like that poll that shows the the number of people believing there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 went down during the time of the supposed propaganda campaign instead of up.

Of course when Ron couldn't argue his way out of that fact even with his obligatory personal attacks, he shifts his argument that it was about convincing the public that Saddam might give WMDs to terrorists. The previous administration did that without any help from George. The Intel and personnel carried over from the Clinton administration had everybody convinced that Saddam had WMDs.

< a href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/10/25/wmd-intel-pre-dated-bush/">WMD Intel pre-dated Bush
"This was the consensus before Bush took office, before Scooter Libby assumed his post and before Judith Miller did most of the reporting for which she is now, uniquely, criticized. It was based on reporting by a large of number of journalists who in turn based their stories on the judgments of international intelligence analysts, Clinton officials and weapons inspectors. As we wage what the Times now calls "the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq," we will have to grapple with the stubborn fact that the underlying rationale for the war was already in place when this administration arrived...
..The Times was not alone, of course. On Jan. 29, 2001, The Post editorialized that "of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous — or more urgent — than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf," including "intelligence photos that show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.""

Go plunk your money down on this one and enrich the reporter for the currently anti-bush Washington Post that wrote it.

Spin Cycle: Inside the Clinton Propaganda Machine
"With a slew of simultaneous scandals to his credit and numerous ongoing investigations pending, President Clinton has been bombarded by the media in a fashion not seen since the last days of the Nixon administration. Despite this unwanted attention, Clinton has managed to maintain lofty approval ratings and successfully deflect even the most ardent attacks. How does he do it? This question is answered in full in Spin Cycle: Inside the Clinton Propaganda Machine, an engrossing, back room look at how news is created and packaged in the White House and the methods used to distribute it to the public. In painting a detailed picture of the hand-to-hand combat known as a press conference, Kurtz shows how the use of controlled leaks, meticulously worded briefs, and the outright avoidance of certain questions allows the White House to control the scope and content of the stories that make it to the front page and the nightly network news. As Kurtz makes clear, the president and First Lady are convinced that the media are out to get them, while the journalists covering the White House are constantly frustrated at the stonewalling and the lack of cooperation they encounter while trying to do their jobs. In the middle is White House press secretary Mike McCurry, a master at defusing volatile situations and walking the fine line with the press. Though less paranoid and cynical of the media than Clinton, he often finds himself on both ends of personal attacks and vendettas that veer far outside the arena of objective reporting. The anecdotes and carefully buried information Kurtz has uncovered give Spin Cycle a brisk pace, along with ample invaluable information that cuts to the core of this age of media overkill. The author of Hot Air and Media Circus and a longtime media reporter for the Washington Post, Kurtz is uniquely qualified to report on the status of news dissemination in the United States."

And if you think I am all pro Bush your are prone to propaganda yourself. I think the Reagan, Bush one, Clinton and Bush 2 all screwed this one up. Bush can say that he and his father were for Saddam before they were against them.

Winning this war by beating up on the president is like trying to cure cancer by beating up on the patient for smoking.

What matters is what is and no one here has the slightest idea of what the future consequences might be from leaving Iraq in turmoil nor do they care. All they want is to crucify Bush so they can feel better.

Politicians want to to sign something that says they are now against the war and against the surge to cleanse themselves for the next election cycle while at the same time confirming and sending a General off to command the troop surge.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 11:14 PM

Dickey--


So sorry, you're wrong again. There has been no shift in my argument.

Feel free to misquote or misinterpret me--somehow I trust you will anyway.

But the fact remains that early in our discussion (19 Jan 2007 10:11 PM) I stated (to Teribus):


"And don't bother to give us your tired idiocies about 'warning about a future possibility, not saying Saddam was responsible for 9-11'. Of course he's (Bush) not spelling out that Saddam was responsible for that. Nobody claims 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 or nuclear weapons."

That's what I said then. That's still my argument--despite your typically specious- (look it up)- and foolish allegations.

And that Bush quote from the 2003 State of the Union speech is a perfect example of the propaganda campaign--which neither you nor Teribus have produced a scintilla- (look it up)- of evidence to refute.

And please don't bother us with your incredibly feeble "Clinton made me" excuse. Who invaded Iraq? Somehow I don't think it was Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 12:07 AM

How can you expect any rational person to believe your assertion when you don't believe it yourself?

You have provided no evidence of the propaganda campaign and you have shifted your as shown in your own words below:


Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 10:11 PM "trying--skilfully--and very successfully--to draw links between 11 Sept 2001 and Saddam in the minds of the US public."


Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 10:21 PM
"I have more than once pointed out that nobody is alleging Bush was trying to convince the public that Saddam had caused 9-11"


From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 02:46 PM
As I said, the Bush regime's goal was not to allege that Saddam caused the 11 Sept 2001 attacks---but to convince the US public that Saddam would link up with the next attackers--and would supply them with WMD.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 12:51 AM

Hey Ron,

Reading down through this thread the state of play at the moment is that you have:

1) Completely shifted ground three times as pointed out by Guest Dickey.

2) You have offered not one single example of what you claim as propaganda. That would support your line of reasoning. The fact that numbers associating Saddam Hussein with 911 reducing during your so-called "highly successful" campaign is a rather telling point against your arguement, that you have completely failed to address.

3) You have admitted that it is the responsibility of whoever holds the office as President of the United States of America, to address security matters in order to protect the citizens of the United States of America and the national interests of the country. Yet you castigate the man for acting on the advice given on those very topics by the Joint House Security Committee and by the combined Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America.

4) You peddle this illusion that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were "boogie-men" created by George W Bush and his administration post-2000 election, when it is a clear matter of record that they were not. Removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime became official US foreign policy in February 1998 (IIRC), warnings about the danger of leaving the Iraq WMD problem unresolved were signalled very clearly in 1998.

Guest Dickey on the other hand has made his points very clearly and backed those points up with hard fact and examples. Guest Dickey is correct, through your arguements and line of reasoning, nobody could ever accuse you of being a rational human being with regard to this topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 02:55 AM

Teribus - Please answer the following questions:

Are you asking us to support Blackwater security in the same way that we would normally support the U.S. military?

Are you asking us to support the invasion of Iraq if we support the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Are you asking that we support a war on terrorism if we support the capture of bin Laden?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 09:17 AM

Dianavan Question 1:
Are you asking us to support Blackwater security in the same way that we would normally support the U.S. military?

Teribus Answer to Dianavan Question 1:
No. Although I would say that if either depended upon any kind of support from the majority of posters to this forum, then neither would last the week. The US would probably survive for at least another week while you guys woke up to realise that it is already too late - however the world would all love you.

Dianavan Question 2:
Are you asking us to support the invasion of Iraq if we support the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Teribus Answer to Dianavan Question 2:
It is very encouraging to see that you have now separated the two. Not only would I ask you to support the invasion of Iraq, I would also ask you to support all international efforts to curb Iran and North Korea.

Dianavan Question 3:
Are you asking that we support a war on terrorism if we support the capture of bin Laden?

Teribus Answer to Dianavan Question 3:
Yes. Anyone who does not support concerted action by sovereign states against international terrorist organisations acts against the concepts of democracy and rule of law and order world-wide. This an issue where people, organisations and states cannot sit on the fence, GWB was perfectly correct on this issue, "You are either with us, or against us".

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 10:41 AM

Well then, thats why we disagree.

I see no reason to punish a nation of people for the crimes of a few criminals.

Why is the U.S. blocking attempts by Iran to help with the reconstruction efforts in Iraq? Seems to me the U.S. should just get out of the way and let the Middle East get on with their own business.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 12:02 PM

they will get out of the way. (and likely before the next US election)
despite BUsh's SURGE (which is militarily meaningless anyway) and more likely intended to save some face for Bush as he leaves the fiasco to his successor.

Iraq will ultimately sort itself out (unfortunately at a high cost to the Iraqis themselves) it will likely split into 2or 3 regions.

Dicky and Teribus - you can argue this till the cows come home but the Bush administration propaganda campaign on Iraq has backfired.
They have no credibility anymore- weapons of mass destruction - we know they have them and we know where they are. - we will be greeted as liberators- the war will pay for itself- the insurgency is in its death throes..etc..
Their ability to predict has a poor record.

and despite your attempts to prove otherwise Cheney did continue to claim that Atta met with an Iraqi agent long after that had been discounted - and if they arent making the link then why say 'We have to take the fight to the enemy' - what did Iraq actually do to the US? HOw many Iraqis on the hijacked planes..

its hilarious to see the Neocons implode along with their plans for global hegemony forever. They come in with their arrogant shock and aw e and after 4 years of total incompetence and corruption they are now into 'surge and pray'.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 12:11 PM

Anyone who does not support concerted action by sovereign states against international terrorist organisations acts against the concepts of democracy
Palestine being an interesting case. Do we support the democracy or act against the terrorists?

But to return to the propaganda issue; it is a shame that neither Dickey nor Terry appears able to grasp the concept of implicit rather than explicit propaganda. To be successful and effective, propaganda has to be implicit; the best messages are put across subliminally.
By and large, politicians know that it is unwise to utter a direct and outright lie. They would rather be economical with the truth and creative with their interpretations. Mention Saddam and 9/11 in the same speech often enough, and people will believe it.
Even Bush's answer to the direct question is interesting. He won't say "no". No, he says "I cannot make that claim," as if to say he would like to, but there is, as yet, a missing piece of the jigsaw.
Dickey's obduracy I can understand, being exposed as he is solely to a supine American broadcast media, but a canny wee Scot like Terry? *sigh*. Not for nothing, it would seem, is the SI unit of density called the matelot.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 12:35 PM

Dickey says:
"I prefer facts like that poll that shows the the number of people believing there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 went down during the time of the supposed propaganda campaign instead of up."
Teribus echoes:
"The fact that numbers associating Saddam Hussein with 911 reducing during your so-called "highly successful" campaign is a rather telling point against your arguement, that you have completely failed to address."

Okay, I'll address this one. Two answers--

1) Asserting that the observation that the poll numbers on belief in the Saddam-911 connection showed a decline during the propaganda campaign proves that there was no campaign could be an example of the "Post Hoc" logical fallacy. That is, temporal coincidence does not necessarily imply causation. Roosters crowing do not cause the sun to rise.

2) Let's assume that there might be a level of causation. One would still need a control group to determine whether the propaganda cmapaign was effective. For instance, if the Bush Administration had not been engaged in a propaganda campaign, the level of belief may have dropped very quickly to zero.

So, it seems silly to throw out all of the widely documented instances of propaganda based on a fallacious, or at least deficient, analysis of polling data.