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

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 07:58 PM

Dickey - If the Iraqi parliament decides that they do not want more U.S. troops and that they want the U.S. to begin withdrawing the forces already employed, what do you think George should do?

Here are some questions for you to answer:

1. Do you think Bush lied to the American public and Congress about WMD's in Iraq?

2. Do you think Saddam tried to assassinate Bush Sr.?

3. Do you think that Iraq is more livable today than it was 5 years ago?

4. Who do you think should repair the infrastructure?

5. Do you think Saddam was involved in 911?

6. Do you think Bush will leave the Middle East when Iraq tells them to go home or will he just move his troops elsewhere?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 09:28 PM

"Guest" Dickey--

What kind of music do you like? Believe it or not, Mudcat doesn't need "politics only" posters.

Now to business:

So--you like to play stupid word games. Fascinating.

I'm not sure--but I would bet that your quotes were by Democrats--maybe Hillary or someone similar. It's an old game--surely even you can do better.   But better luck next time.

Now try this:

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

Yes or no?

Do you think he was inviting his audience to imagine that 19 hijackers again appeared--but with weapons supplied by Saddam?

Yes or no?

If not, exactly what do you think he meant?

Please check my posting of 19 Jan 2007 10:11 PM.--specifically the paragraph starting: "And don't bother to give us your tired idiocies..."

I make it quite clear to anybody who can read---perhaps this doesn't include you--that Bush was suggesting a future similar event, not blaming Saddam for 9-11. Please start to read--and comprehend, if possible.

The river of denial, like Jordan, is deep and wide---and you're drowning in it. It must be a total mystery to you how 70% of the US public wound up believing in a connection between Saddam and 9-11.--according to you--not my figure.    And Bush only wanted to suggest an event in the future--in which of course Saddam would figure.

Surely no member of the Bush "team" would have had anything to do with that perception by the US public. Of course not.

Hey look,, I have this bridge I was going to sell Teribus. I'll be glad to take his name off and put yours on. Just say the word. You sound like a man who'd appreciate a good bridge.

Don't forget that visit to your library. You still need to learn about how propaganda works.

As I've told Teribus uncounted times, at bottom Iraq is a political problem. The Sunnis must be able to trust the police--on a long-term basis--and must be assured of more oil income that would accrue to just the "Sunni parts" of Iraq. So far there's no indication either problem has been solved.

Re: your favorite TV show: Uh, how many people do you think watched the PBS show to which you refer. (Being a generous soul, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not lying through your teeth about it.) And how many do you think watched, heard, or read about the State of the Union speech? For extra credit, which number is larger? Duh.

Please start thinking--if it's not too much trouble.

"Does your condecending (sic)..." Please learn to spell--or possibly check your work. It might help. It breaks my heart that you don't like my attitude. If you can't stand the heat........

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 09:56 PM

Again that guest was me.

Ron:

I didn't realize that you were an official here at Mudcat. Are you threatening me again?

I like Bluegrass mostly and most of other genres except stuff like rap, hip hip and screechy opera.

No, I don't like to play word games. That is your forte.

You display a penchant for talking down to anybody you disagree with and taking a superior attitude as if you don't have to answer any questions but you can demand answers to your questions. You even have to resort to pointing out spelling and grammatical errors as a method to appear superior.

Why don't you take on a more humble, sincere approach and answer my questions directly?

I have no doubt that you are intelligent and I am not going to stoop to your level of implying that the person you disagree with is stupid and therefore they are wrong.

I have had only one answer from you and that agrees with my position.

Please start from the top and do the same thing you want me to do. Give me the same courtesy that you demand.

Should I add some of your insulting and demeaning jibes like "if it is not to much trouble" or "if you can stand the heat"?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:16 PM

Interesting, Dickey, that for all your whining, you haven't found time to answer the specific questions I posed to you about exactly what Bush said. I'm sorry I won't have time to waste on you for a while--but I'll check in. And again, so sorry you don't like my attitude. Pobre cito.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:20 PM

D: I answered those questions but I forgot to put my handle on it and it went away.Here it is again.

George should tell them to allow more troops or we are leaving. If they want us to leave, leave. Of course this is up to him.

1. No
2. I don't know.
3. In some ways yes in some ways no. Overall I don't think it is any worse.
4. I think the profits from their oil that used to go into 40 or 50 palaces for Saddam should repair the infrastructure.
5. No I don't think saddam was involved in 9/11 nor have I heard anybody else say so.
6. I think Bush or more correctly the Armed forces of the US will want a military base there. Remember we left Saudi Arabia at their request.

Furthermore I do not just think these things, I believe these things. However it is difficult to get peacemongers to say what they believe. They merely make accusations and insinuations and refuse to back it up personally.

Now where are your answers to any of my questions? Are you a person that demands answers but won't give any?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:24 PM

By the way, I'm glad you like bluegrass--so do I. But I haven't met or heard of one person who supports Bush except out of hate and/or fear. In 2004 it was hate and fear of homosexuals and terrorists--and implication that if you vote for Kerry, "a dirty bomb could be exploded here in_______________". Much more likely if you vote for Kerry. That was the level of the Bush campaign---and it continues his tradition of unprincipled demagoguery. So if you defend him or his policies, you need some pretty tight argumentation. So far, you haven't measured up.


And I'm a registered Republican.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:27 PM

I asked you specifically what Bush said in the January 2003 State of the Union speech--I quoted it--and asked you what you thought it meant. Good dodging and weaving. But we've seen it before. Try again. You won't get away that easily.

But as I said, I have very little time to waste on you for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:30 PM

"Interesting, Dickey, that for all your whining, you haven't found time to answer the specific questions I posed to you about exactly what Bush said. I'm sorry I won't have time to waste on you for a while--but I'll check in. And again, so sorry you don't like my attitude. Pobre cito."

Name one question that was not answered prior to your previous post.

Show me any whining.

You sir are retreating and trying to make it look like I retreated by making false accusations against me personally.

I think a honest, sincere and humble approach would suit an intelligent person like you better. n'est pas?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:37 PM

Sorry--"unprincipled demogoguery" is redundant--demagoguery is quite enough. And that's what Bush is all about--with only two exceptions. He is right that all illegal immigrants should be put on a path to citizenship----without leaving the US. And he was right about Dubai and the ports.

Everything else he stands for is anathema to any thinking being.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:43 PM

And you still have not answered the SPECIFIC questions about the SPECIFIC language of the State of the Union speech. Not that I expect that you ever will--perhaps you'll claim that you don't understand. To any literate person, my questions are quite clear and specific. In contrast to your absurd general allegations.

I assure you no threat is intended--that's in your active imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 12:56 AM

Show me the SPECIFIC question about the SPECIFIC language of the SOU that I did not answer. The problem is that If I don't give the answer you want, you claim I did not answer.

Show me where you have answered any but one of my questions. Are you above answering questions?

You insist that I do things that you won't do. A very dignified and honorable approach.

And I don't imagine things. You imagine things were said that were not said. You were not convinced but you claim others were convinced and you won't even state whether you believe your own claim or not. You just keep trying get me to make the same false claim and talk down to me if I won't. If I point out your avoidance of the questions and you tactics devious tactics you falsely accuse me of whining.

Certainly more than ten people have been reading this thread. according to you 7 of them were convinced by Bush's SOU that Saddam and 9/11 were connected. Where are they at?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 01:07 AM

"Everything else he stands for is anathema to any thinking being."

Such overwhelming respect for the viewpoints of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 01:23 AM

Ron Davies - 22 Jan 07 - 09:28 PM

What a revealing post Ron - It reveals just how badly rattled you are.

GUEST,Dickey's post of 22 Jan 07 - 06:09 PM sums it up perfectly.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 01:33 AM

Ron: You are straying way off of the subject matter that you put forth about the alleged propaganda campaign and then abandonded.

Could it be that you are avoiding answering questions?

Please answer this one:

Do you believe that 70% of the American people were convinced by Bish's SOU speech that there was a link btween Saddam and 9/11?

I am not specifying a certain answer. You can answer yes or no. Either answer will do.

Now another one:

Do you believe that it is the job of the government to try to anticipate possible threats to security and try to prevent them?

Again, you can answer yes or no. Either answer will do.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 07:20 AM

"Guest" Dickey---


In answer to your question, here are mine, yet again. Perhaps you'll answer this time.

1 ) In the January 2003 State of the Union speech, Bush said "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, this time armed by Saddam Hussein".

Yes or no?

2) Do you think he was inviting his audience to imagine that 19 hijackers again appeared--but with weapons supplied by Sadddam?

Yes or no?


3) If not, EXACTLY what do you think he meant? Sorry," I don't know" is not acceptable as an answer.

It's fairly evident to any literate being what he meant. I would like you to confirm that you are a literate being by answering directly.


And if you don't, the debate will not progress. I will hammer away at you until you do give a direct answer--in detail. And, unlike Lehrer, my participation here is not dependent on PBS funding--so I'm sorry to say I don't care about my "ratings". No going on to the next questions until these are finished.


Rattled? In your dreams.

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

Actual quote is: "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein".

Now for your answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 07:26 AM

"Saddam"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 01:58 PM

The following is clearly NOT an attempt to link 9/11 with Saddam. And note the date...

"Our basic national interest in Iraq is the protection of America, our desire to make sure that we are projecting our purposes in a way that reduces the ability of those who would wish to do us harm in this war against us, which was declared in the late 1990s, when it was obviously brought to our shores on September 11, that in that war we are best postured to make sure terrorists, specifically Islamic fundamentalists who wish to do us harm, are not successful. That is the first purpose of our engagement in Iraq."

Judd Gregg R-NH
January 18, 2007
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r110:S18JA7-0015:

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 05:56 PM

I take it Guest TIA that you have not read the relevant sections of the the 2002 State of the Union Address, or, the 2003 State of the Union Address.

Please do so, then you will see that Mr. Judd's remarks make perfect sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:05 AM

"That is the first purpose of our engagement in Iraq."

Oh, I see.

The first purpose seems to change frequently.

And now its not Saddam who is the enemy but Islamic fundamentalists.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:12 AM

Dear Ron: Here is a direct, courteous answer to your question:

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

Now Please give me a direct, courteous answer to my questions:

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

Yes or no?

Do you believe that 70% of Americans were convinced by that SOU speech that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11?

Yes or no?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:05 AM

Dickey, old fruit, of course the US population wasn't persuaded by that one speech; it was persuaded by an insidious drip of misinformation and distorted truths from all across the administration and from the propagandists in Fox News and in the ranting pulpits across the USA.
Google Iraq, Saddam and 9/11 and you will see that the link has been made time and again. You are not a stupid man, so why the wilful refusal to accept that, and instead to hide behind syllogisms and hair-splitting?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:08 PM

My argument is that the poll did not ask where 70% of the population got the idea of the connection. Libs blame it on Bush even though he said several times there was no connection.

There were other sources like PBS that did make the connection but they are being overlooked in the alleged Bush propaganda campaign.

Were you convinced by Bush that there was a connection?

You are welcome to your opinion but I am not going to call you a fruit because your opinion is different from mine.

Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link
"US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks."

Rumsfeld sees no link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11

"Defense Secretary says he has no reason to think Saddam had a hand in the 9-11 terrorist attacks."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:24 PM

Invading Iraq to stop fundamentalist Muslim terrorists is like searching on Broadway for a wallet you lost on Second Avenue because the ligh's better.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 02:04 PM

No one would claim that Bush, and Bush alone, is responsible for 70% of FOX NEWS viewers believing the Saddam/911 link (note that, I believe, the 70% was not *all* Americans, but specifically habitual viewers of FOX NEWS -- I'll have to check on this, or please correct me if you know I am wrong).

But it is certainly easy to instill this erroneous link by mentioning them in the same breath, over and over and over again. Even if what you are saying can be (weakly) construed as denying the link, repetition of the association accomplishes exactly the opposite of what you can literally claim you are saying.

For instance, I cannot say with certainty that Dickey is being obtuse in this discussion. In fact, I cannot confirm that Dickey is willfully flaunting common sense. Although some say that his position is intellectually dishonest, far be it from me to accuse Dickey of being disingenuous. It would be innappropriate for me to say that Dickey has not the slightest grasp of how propaganda actually works.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:52 PM

Were you convinced by Bush that there was a connection?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:55 PM

Was anybody here convinced by anybody or anything that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11?

If so, who or what convinced you?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 04:33 PM

Bush continues to make the connection EVEN NOW, when he talks about taking the fight (of the war on terrorism) to the enemy ie. in IRaq.

if there is no connection between Saddam/Iraq and 9/11 why even say that.
Anyway Dickie youre flogging a dead horse- most Americans now see they were misled , that Iraq was a mistake (with more and more Republicans lining up against Bush) and the overwhelming view even of the troops is that the so-called militarily meaningless 'surge' of 21500 troops is not going to accomplish anything (other than possibly leave the situation in the next administration)..

you can nitpick the past all you want but the issue is long decided.

well I guess you can say there is a connection betn Iraq and Alqaeda,
(what with Abu Ghraib and gitmo) its served as a good recruitment tool for Alqaeda ,but that was only after the US invaded.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 11:26 PM

My dear friend Dickey--

Sorry Dickey (no pun intended--perish the thought)----

When talking to you I'm always reminded of Professor Higgins---"Give (him, in your case) kindness--or the treatment (he) deserves?"

If you read my post of 23 Jan 2007 7:20 AM, there were 3 specific questions I posed to you. You have answered only the first. Not that I would want to cast aspersions on your reading ability, or your ability to follow clear directions. And I certainly wouldn't want to imply that you purposely did not answer the other 2 questions since you were aware the answers would severely weaken your already pathetic argument. I'd never want to insinuate anything of the kind. No indeed.

I'm sure it's only an oversight on your part.

Please remedy it.

Then I will give you the follow-up questions. I don't want to confuse you by asking too much at once.

I'm sure you understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 12:44 AM

Please restate those questions courteously and I will answer them if you promise to answer mine.

The word courteously means Characterized by gracious consideration toward others.

You allege that Bush convinced the American people that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 yet no one here says they were convinced by anybody or anything that there was a connection. This leads me to believe that your allegation is wrong. Your allegation seems more like propaganda that truth.

The fact that you have to be rude and talk down to anybody that disagrees with your opinion does not help your credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 03:04 AM

Dickey, love, I never believed there was a connection, but then I'm not American and therefore haven't the disadvantages that those 70 per cent clearly have.
One presumes that that 70 per cent includes that majority of Americans who don't have a passport, who only watch domestic news and who receive the majority of their opinions from those who shout loudest. One presumes that it also probably includes those who believe in the literal truth of the Old Testament and sundry other crackpot ideas.
And it certainly would include those who look upon the 'commander in chief' as some sort of infallible being, incapable of wrongdoing (unless, of course, he's a pinko faggot Democract!) and therefore whose every twist and insinuation is to be believed.
What I'm struggling to understand, Dickey, is whether or not your're stating that such claims have a legitimacy because these poor benighted folk believe them, notwithstanding Bush and Cheney's express comments that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 ;-) . Which, of course, is true in one sense, as it was on the cards before the actions of the hijackers gave it a spurious justification. Or are you saying that seven out of 10 of your countrymen are stupid? Stupid enough to vote Repuiblican?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 04:00 AM

Guest Dickey,

You have no doubt by now realised that Ron tends to read more into things than is actually stated, things that in fact do not exist. He is a master at putting words into peoples mouths then takes them to task for things that have not actually said. By his own admission he does not read, or listen to, what the President says but relies on second-hand reports of what has been said.

Of the various questions asked:
dianavan - 22 Jan 07 - 07:58 PM

"If the Iraqi parliament decides that they do not want more U.S. troops and that they want the U.S. to begin withdrawing the forces already employed, what do you think George should do?"

Under the terms of the UN Mandate and the agreement with the Iraqi Government if the above happened MNF Troops would leave Iraq. That has been stated clearly many times by the President and members of his Administration.

Dianavan's other questions:

1. Do you think Bush lied to the American public and Congress about WMD's in Iraq?

No, he most definitely did not, the basis for stating that Iraq possessed WMD's came from UNSCOM's Report of 19th January 1999 to the Security Council of the United Nations - That is a matter of record

2. Do you think Saddam tried to assassinate Bush Sr.?

I do not know.

3. Do you think that Iraq is more livable today than it was 5 years ago?

Define "livable", one thing is for certain though, Iraqi's today are living in a situation that will continually and consistantly improve over the coming years. Had Saddam been left in place there would have been a second Iran/Iraq War in prospect within the next two years, there is absolutely no way that Saddam Hussein would permit Iran to have nuclear power, let alone nuclear weapons.

4. Who do you think should repair the infrastructure?

We all should, MNF partners, the Iraqi Government and it's major trading partners, you're not going to get money from anybody else. With that programme underway some will recognise it for what it is - pro-active engagement - you dianavan will call it US Imperialist meddling.

5. Do you think Saddam was involved in 911?

Categoric No.

6. Do you think Bush will leave the Middle East when Iraq tells them to go home or will he just move his troops elsewhere?

When told to leave Iraq the MNF troops will do just that. Where those troops are then deployed, I haven't got a clue and neither have you. Personally I would like to see the MNF deployed to the Sudan to sort the mess in Darfur out. One thing is for certain the United Nations is going to do nothing about it.

As for Ron's questions, I believe that Guest Dickey has answered them, unfortunately Ron did not like the answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 08:31 AM

...are you saying that seven out of 10 of your countrymen are stupid? Stupid enough to vote Repuiblican?

Got it in one.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 10:51 AM

Dickey, you keep asking who *here* was convinced by Bush's propaganda, and when no one says "ME!", you seem to imply that therefore, Bush did not actually engage in such propaganda.

But, most *here* are not among the 70%, so you are posing the question in the wrong forum. Please go to Fox News online (or somesuch if it exists) and pose the same question.

Even there, you may not get truthful answers since only 28% reportedly now think the war is justified, and the Fox-types are not real good at saying "Gee I'm sorry, I was wrong back then, maybe you are not a traitor after all..."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 11:45 AM

January GQ has a fascinating look at what was going on inside the US Government in the run-up to the Iraq invasion… from a Republican (Chuck Hagel) who voted for the war-authorizing resolution, and supported the invasion until recently.

Note in particular his comments on:

the wording of the resolution as it was sent to Congress by the Bush Administration- asking for authorization to go to war *anywhere in the Middle East*!!!!! (hmmmm Iran, Syria??)

the honesty of Bush's pre-war WMD claims

(both are on page 3).

Full interview here:

http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5326&pageNum=1

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 11:46 AM

Sorry for the broken clicky.

HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 02:42 PM

Dear RD:

"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."

Seems to me that you are saying Bush linked Saddam and 9/11 in the SOU address.

At least it seems you are trying to skillfully draw links between the SOU speech and the Poll that claimed 70% of Americans believed there was a link.

And you continue to ignore the fact that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have all stated several times the there was no connection. A rather unskillful way to run a propaganda campaign I would say.

Would you say that their statements that there was no connection consitute one quote DURING THAT PERIOD" to the contrary?

You continue to ignore the fact that people could have gotten it from other sources like this one from 1999, before the alleged propaganda campaign:
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

Or this: By Julian Borger in Washington Saturday February 6, 1999 The Guardian

Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.

Here is one that goes back to the 1993 Trade Center bombings:

Saddam's Fingerprints on N.Y. Bombings

The Wall Street Journal
By Laurie Mylroie June 28, 1993

Or from these post 9/11 sources:

Lawsuit: Iraq Involved In 9/11 Conspiracy
$1 Trillion Suit Claims Iraqi Officials Knew Of Bin Laden Terror Plans

CBS News NEW YORK, Sept. 5, 2002

Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin 13/12/2003
Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist.

PBS - frontline: gunning for saddam: interviews: sabah khodada

Respectfully yours,

Dickey

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,DIckey
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 02:44 PM

Lest it be deleted because of no handle, the above post was mine

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 09:31 PM

Wow. How did all of those articles slip past the 911 commission?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 10:16 PM

Tia:

Those connections, not put forth by the Bush adminstrationput but others, were disproved by the time of the 9/11 commission.

The commision did conclude that there was a link between Al-Quaeda and Saddam but there was no collaborative link.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 10:51 PM

TIA:

So I am supposed to go to a site that may or may not exist to possibly get incorrect answers?

You first.

Captain G:

Frankly I can't quite figure out what you are trying to say other than you were not convinced.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 11:02 PM

To whom it may concern:

I found something interesting on the Washington Post website. A similar poll was conducted four times and the number of that believed the connection decreased.

               --------Likely------- -------Not Likely------   No
               NET   Very   Somewhat NET   Not very   At all opin.
8/11/03         69    32       37      28      15       12      3
2/6/03          72    34       38      25      16         9      3
10/24/02       71    34       37      25      16         9      4
9/13/01         78    34       44      12       9         3      9

The SOU address in question was January 28, 2003 but the percentage of people that believed there was a connection went up only 1% right after that. Then it dropped 3% during the time that the alleged propaganda campaign was underway.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:06 AM

Dickey--the propaganda campaign was from about summer 2002 to the actual invasion--in March 2003. I wonder why. Perhaps because it was a campaign to to persuade the US public to back Bush's invasion. So once the public, having bought the snake oil the Bush regime was selling,   let said regime cow Congress into using whatever force Bush felt was necessary--and the invasion had occurred, the campaign was ipso facto successful---and therefore over. They had in fact achieved their goal of convincing the public to back the invasion they had planned.

Duh.

Therefore your August 2003 poll is not germane. So your conclusion fails. Situation normal.

However, congratulations, you have mastered "blue clicky" technology.



"Would you say that their statements (Bush et al.) that there was no connection constitute one quote DURING THAT PERIOD to the contrary?"

Well, let's see. The period in question, as I've mentioned more than once---and it still does not seem to have penetrated your skull-- is summer 2002 to March 2003.
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.

So far you have favored us with a wealth--of irrelevancies---most outside the period in question and none meeting the criteria.

Perhaps you're still confused.

Try again.

Keep in mind it may not be easy--possibly since quotes meeting the above criteria don't exist.

Remember it has to be:
1) clear
2) a statement by a Bush spokesman disavowing any link between Saddam and 9-11, and 3) within the period in question.

But thanks so much for trying.

And have fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 01:32 AM

Why do GUEST, GUEST DICKEY, and teribus all say the same things?

I'm outa here.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 05:03 AM

The reason could well be dianavan that having heard, or read, and understood what was actually said, we have reached the same conclusion. As opposed to others like yourself, Arne and Ron, who rely on second-hand reports of what was said and on others opinions on what has been said. Your bias and hatred of the current President and his Administration ensures that any objectivity that you may have possessed has gone out the window and that you are fully prepared to believe any idiotic theory that casts the current President and his Administration in a bad light.

Ron, clear unequivocal statements relating to the fact that there was no connection between the attacks of 11th September, 2001 and Saddam Hussein/Iraq Government were broadcast in the USA on MSM during the period you stipulate. Now once again I ask give me ONE, just one instance where either the President, or any member of his Administration state that there was a connection in the period 11th September, 2001 to present day.

Now a reality check for both of you, all of which is a matter of record that you both individually really should check for yourselves and come to terms with:

- Iraq was identified as posing a potential threat to the United States of America in 1998, by the Clinton Administration and their security advisors, it was not dreamt up by GWB post-911.

- Neither GWB, Blair, or any members of eithers government invented information with regard to Iraq's WMD, or WMD programmes. All that information, universally accepted and believed at the time, came from the United Nations.

- The UN backed operations against Al-Qaeda and the Taleban in Afghanistan were a direct result of attacks made by Al-Qaeda on the United States of America in 2001.

- The US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 has and never has had anything to do with 911, or Osama Bin Laden. Direct intervention in Iraq was centred around the removal of what had been seen by the Joint House Security Committee, and the Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America, as the greatest potential threat to the country.

- Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime in power in Iraq were given every opportunity to put matters to rights. They mistakenly believed that the international stance adopted by its major trading partners (France, Russia, China and Germany) would deter the US, they thought that they could brazen it out - They were badly mistaken.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 11:16 AM

Hi Dickey. Trust me, the site exists, and the information there is provided by Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska). You can decide for yourself whether he is providing correct or incorrect accounts of the time period in question (but only if you read *his* words...not asking you to trust mine).

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 11:19 AM

Thanks for your kindly respectful response Ron. It seems that if your facts were facts, they would not need to be bolstered by rude comments.

78% were convinced of the connection on 9/13/01, two days after the attack.

By 8/11/03, the time that you claim there was a sucessfull propaganda campaign to convince the American people there was a connection, the number of people that were convinced that there was a connection had dropped by at least 8%

So can you explain why the number of people that were convinced of the connection decreased during this alleged propaganda campaign while you claim it was increased my the campaign?

And please, I know you are intelligent enough to respond without the rudeness. I think you will agree that facts can stand on their own and they do not need any anti-social enhancements.

Maybe this meets you strict criteria for "a clear declaration by the Bush regime":

The occasion was a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. Here's the key portion:


[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

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.

Or this by a crtitc of the Bush Administration:

The problem is, Saddam had nothing to do with the events that occurred on that fateful day in September. Bush himself admitted to that. On   Jan. 31, 2003 he was questioned by Adam Boulton of Sky News (London). Boulton asked, "One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th? Bush replied, "I can't make that claim." Blair said, "That answers your question."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:12 PM

I cannot make the claim that Dickey is incredibly dense on this subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Leadfingers
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:18 PM

I would like to say

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Leadfingers
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:18 PM

200 !!