Originally Posted By woody "This is clearly disinformation." To avoid confusion, the reason for the invasion is not the 911-Saddam connection. The harping on this is disinformation.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Wasn't it you who objected to me saying "Bush may have lied" because supposedly the accusation itself was slanderous? But if Bush hints "Saddam may be involved" when he had NO evidence to that effect (and involvement with unrelated terrorists doesn't count), that's okay? Make up your mind.<< <I did make up my mind. I said Bush wasn't the one who said it based on his previous comments.> First of all, you'll have to be a lot clearer on what you mean by "it." If you means Saddam's involvement with 9/11, Bush and his surrogates certainly hinted strongly (without actually saying it, which indicates they knew better, which indicates mendacity) that Saddam was involved. <The public had a strong reaction after 911. Some probably thought Saddam may have been involved. How would they not?> Just the contrary. Why WOULD they? Saddam had never shown affinity with radical islamists, and indeed had cracked down on them within Iraq because he saw them as a threat to HIS power. Any possible lower-level connections his people had with Al Qaeda people that the administration tried to point to later (some of which were stretches in themselves, to be kind) only came out much later - in 2001, there was no good reason to believe that Saddam would have been involved. That idea had to be very carefully planted. <And since the discussion was the perception of being misled, the difference was clear. There is NO misleading intentional or inadvertent.> Sure there is. As I said, the public didn't come to believe Saddam was involved in 9/11 out of nowhere. <The public has a right to their opinion. They thought wrong. Should we start blaming the public for being stupid. Let's go there.> Let's not. Let's put the blame where it belongs. On the administration. >>It WAS a reason a solid majority of Americans gave for initially supporting the war. They thought - because they were led to believe - that Saddam was involved in 9/11, and they wanted payback for that.<< <WMDs was the reason for the invasion, but this was based on how the Bush Administration oversold the assertion, but if you read the Congressional resolution, it is many reasons. 911 and Saddam wasn't the reason, but why is this pushed consistently?> Because it was the #2 reason given by the public for supporting the invasion, right after WMD. The idea that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Now that the public knows there were no WMD, and Saddam wasn't involved with 9/11, they're quite rightly saying "wait a minute. Those are the two reasons I supported the war!" The other reasons given in the congressional resolution were mere blips on the radar as far as the public was concerned. If those reasons were given in the absence of WMD and 9/11, the public would NOT have supported the war. The administration knew this. They made sure to include a boatload of reasons in the resolution, but the only two the public really got behind were WMD and 9/11. <This is clearly disinformation.> Physician, heal thyself.
Originally Posted By woody >>They made sure to include a boatload of reasons in the resolution, but the only two the public really got behind were WMD and 9/11.<< Now that you have established that over and over again, Bush has consistently said the Iraq War is the stage where we are fighting terrorists so we don't have to fight them at home. In other words, "bring the fight to the terrorists." Doesn't this sound like the implication of 911 or Al Qaeda to the Iraq War? Bush doesn't deny this reason for remaining in Iraq.
Originally Posted By woody Bush was quoted this in his Press Conference. I hope the public isn't confused about what he means. “The terrorists haven’t given up. They’re tough-minded. They like to kill,†he said Tuesday. “There will be more tough fighting ahead.†<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11941620/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11 941620/</a> In another tidbit. "Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq, according to a recent AP-Ipsos poll." Exactly who planted this message?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>They made sure to include a boatload of reasons in the resolution, but the only two the public really got behind were WMD and 9/11.<< <Now that you have established that over and over again,> Because it's true... <Bush has consistently said the Iraq War is the stage where we are fighting terrorists so we don't have to fight them at home. In other words, "bring the fight to the terrorists."> He's said it, but it's never made sense. Iraq has, IMO, been counterproductive to the war on terror, as it has been the greatest recruiting tool bin Laden could have hoped for. The fact that people are fighting in Iraq doesn't mean Al Qaeda operatives can't plan further attacks on the west. We saw it in Madrid and London, and they could well be planning another attack here. Don't forget that 9/11 took 10 years to put together. <Doesn't this sound like the implication of 911 or Al Qaeda to the Iraq War?> Another bogus effort to link them, more like. But some people buy it, obviously. <Bush doesn't deny this reason for remaining in Iraq.> It's about all he's got, except for "if we leave, all hell will break loose" - which may be true, and why I haven't been saying we should pull out now, if you've noticed. <Bush was quoted this in his Press Conference. I hope the public isn't confused about what he means. “The terrorists haven’t given up. They’re tough-minded. They like to kill,†he said Tuesday. “There will be more tough fighting ahead.†<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11</a> 941620/> Yes, terrorists tend to be tough-minded. This does not mean invading Iraq and creating more of them was a good idea. <In another tidbit. "Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq, according to a recent AP-Ipsos poll." Exactly who planted this message?> Events on the ground. The actual sectarian murders, mass graves and execution-style slayings of innocents we've seen lately, simply because those people belonged to the "other group," in a tit for tat fashion drearily too familiar to the middle east. In other words, real events. As opposed to the unreal (but craftily implied) connection between Saddam and 9/11.
Originally Posted By woody <Doesn't this sound like the implication of 911 or Al Qaeda to the Iraq War?> >Another bogus effort to link them, more like. But some people buy it, obviously.< This is where I don't agree. There is no effort to link them. Any linkage is based on the person's own presumptions. Bush made an accurate statement based on what's happening in Iraq. If the USA withdraws from Iraq, the terrorists (aka insurgents) will see this as a sign of weakness and consider plans to bring terrorism to America. >>Yes, terrorists tend to be tough-minded. This does not mean invading Iraq and creating more of them was a good idea.<< You missed the subtext. Terrorists are in Iraq. They never left. They are a menace. The invasion of Iraq was never about hunting the terrorists. It was about removing the threat of a Saddam regime. Leaving now will unleash the terrorists on the Iraqi population to do more damage as well as opening the opportunity for terrorist attacks in the US. We are not creating terrorists. Their ideology created them. The events on the ground does not suggest a civil war. This is where the definition of civil war should be looked up. There is no government sanction between the different regional governments of an organized conflict. There are no outstanding armies of each sect killing one another. There is sectarian violence, but that in itself does not define a civil war.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Just an aside in this fascinating exchange... POLLS reveal nothing more than perceptions, and should not be confused with facts. For example: >>Indeed, Iraq — which has emerged as the public’s top priority in the poll — has become a particularly thorny issue for Bush. Fifty-seven percent believe he deliberately misled people to make the case for war, compared with 35 percent who say he gave the most accurate information he had.<< That 57 per cent of Americans believe this now does not mean he did, indeed, mislead. Anymore that it is "fact" that Saddam is linked to al Quaeda, simply because a majority of Americans believe this at this time. Polls are useful in gauging how messages are being received, and in crafting policy that is favorable in campaigns (and not just the political kind). But polls are lousy sources of information. (I was always appalled that a local newspaper poll of "Reader's Choice" restaurants regularly revealed that Tony Roma's has the best ribs in town. But, it must be true, since that's what the poll said...)
Originally Posted By woody DlandDug: You're correct. Perceptions are not fact. Sometimes I wonder how the public gotten the perception. I did open up the possiblity that maybe the public is stupid and perhaps the Mainstream Media did a bad job of reporting. There are a number of events that could raise suspicion that Bush made the 911-Saddam linkage. 1. Some in administration speculated the fact. 2. Bush asked CIA to investigate the possiblity. Now, Bush is accused of misleading the public because the initial reaction was wrong and the investigate proved nothing. What a stretch of imagination. The polls are equally bad. I'm beginning to think the mainstream media uses these polls as fact. Maybe thats how the polls PLANTED the PERCEPTION of the 911-Saddam connection. Say it enough and the public believes it. Do more polling. That's factual reporting!!!
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Sometimes I wonder how the public [got] the perception.<< This goes directly to the issue of media bias. If news reporting was based on factual information, rather than the notion that journalists have a duty to find their own angle for every story, this issue would settle down considerably. Activism is well and good for editorialists and commentators. But the use of opinion as fact (and citing polls is a prime example) is merely provocative. These documents present new information. The contents need to be viewed within the context of known facts. But, alas, for many only that which agrees with preconceived notions will be given any credence. The fact is that these document indicate that Saddam Hussein made conflicting statements about various aspects of his weapons programs. It is not at all unreasonable to infer from this the President Bush did not lie about those weapons programs.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<POLLS reveal nothing more than perceptions, and should not be confused with facts. >> Dug, very well said. You put into words what I have been thinking. The media and the democrats are playing a game of perception with the war. Even if this means they have to distort facts and trash the president and the troops during war time to do this. Why are they doing it is the question when national security is at stake? They are doing it because the lost yet another election to GW Bush and are determined to make him look bad at all costs, even if it means giving terrorists aid and comfort... which is disgusting. Finally, they are trying to get their long lost power back in a country that has more conservatives than liberals. To accomplish this they are willing to lie and distort facts to create a bad perception. STPH, you have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
Originally Posted By woody >>Tony Romas DOESN'T have the best ribs??<< Only if you believe the polls.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "The fact is that these document indicate that Saddam Hussein made conflicting statements about various aspects of his weapons programs. It is not at all unreasonable to infer from this the President Bush did not lie about those weapons programs." << I was with you, Doug, up until this point. With your last paragraph, you basically did exactly what you were accusing everyone else of doing, which was reading inconclusive information through the filter of your own pre-conceived notions. The information from these documents that has been revealed to date really gives no information at all about what the Bush administration did or didn't know prior to the start of the war. It isn't any more reasonable to infer from these documents that Bush didn't lie than it is to infer that he did. -Jeff
Originally Posted By DlandDug Please note that I said it was reasonable to draw an inference based on these documents. I did not state unequivocably that Bush did not lie. It is a well known truism that it is impossible to "prove" a negative. >>It isn't any more reasonable to infer from these documents that Bush didn't lie than it is to infer that he did.<< I disagree. Please indicate where, in the totality of these documents, that there is evidence that Bush intentionally misled the American people. Any dispassionate reading of these documents supports the contention that President Bush did not say things that he knew were untrue. That is why I have no qualms in stating that, "It is not at all unreasonable to infer from this [that] President Bush did not lie about those weapons programs." (P.S. I am not accusing everyone else of doing anything. I am challenging those who have drawn preconceived conclusions to justify them in light of all the available information, rather than relying on opinion, or only those "facts" that fit their preconceived notion.)
Originally Posted By woody >>It isn't any more reasonable to infer from these documents that Bush didn't lie than it is to infer that he did.<< This is a loaded question, which in itself deserves scrutiny on why it is even raised.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy The people who still say Bush lied, or that we went to war for oil, or we went to war for revenge for Bush's daddy, or that since 3 years have passed and Iraq doesn't look like Orlando we can't possibly win are in my opinion hoping we lose because they are invested in us losing at this point. In my opinion this makes them bad, unpatriotic Americans. Root against your country just because you don't like the president is lame. The problem for them is that we are not losing and a mountain of evidence is building showing that the president has been right to remove Saddam all along and the world is on a better track because Bush is a strong leader who did what needed to be done.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Doesn't this sound like the implication of 911 or Al Qaeda to the Iraq War?>> >Another bogus effort to link them, more like. But some people buy it, obviously.< <This is where I don't agree. There is no effort to link them. Any linkage is based on the person's own presumptions.> Not at all true. Most people had never heard of Al Qaeda before 9/11. So they would never think to link them to Saddam. The link was formed in people's minds very carefully by the administration. All you need to do is look at the statements made in 2002 and 2003 - less by Bush himself (though him too) than Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle, and especially Cheney. <Bush made an accurate statement based on what's happening in Iraq. If the USA withdraws from Iraq, the terrorists (aka insurgents) will see this as a sign of weakness and consider plans to bring terrorism to America.> Like they're not already considering that? The two are NOT mutually exclusive. But as I've said many times, I don't think we should leave at this point, either. At this point, it would just compound his bad decision to invade with an even worse decision to leave now. >>Yes, terrorists tend to be tough-minded. This does not mean invading Iraq and creating more of them was a good idea.<< <You missed the subtext. Terrorists are in Iraq. They never left.> There were very few there before the invasion. Even the administration concedes this. They only make the bogus argument that somehow having an influx of terrorists there means they won't be elsewhere - as though there were a fixed and finite number. <They are a menace. The invasion of Iraq was never about hunting the terrorists. It was about removing the threat of a Saddam regime.> That wasn't much of a threat. And there are more intelligent ways of dealing with a threat than invasion and occupation. <Leaving now will unleash the terrorists on the Iraqi population to do more damage as well as opening the opportunity for terrorist attacks in the US.> As I said, it would be a mistake to leave now. <We are not creating terrorists. Their ideology created them.> What we did was push people on the fence into that ideology. Sure, the ideology existed; but by invading and occupying, we convinced many Muslims that we were everything the extremists said we were, thus creating more of them. <The events on the ground does not suggest a civil war. This is where the definition of civil war should be looked up. There is no government sanction between the different regional governments of an organized conflict. There are no outstanding armies of each sect killing one another. There is sectarian violence, but that in itself does not define a civil war.> This is what Iyad Allawi, former interim prime minister and as close to "our guy" as you can find in Iraq, had to say: "It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Just an aside in this fascinating exchange... POLLS reveal nothing more than perceptions, and should not be confused with facts. For example: >>Indeed, Iraq — which has emerged as the public’s top priority in the poll — has become a particularly thorny issue for Bush. Fifty-seven percent believe he deliberately misled people to make the case for war, compared with 35 percent who say he gave the most accurate information he had.<< That 57 per cent of Americans believe this now does not mean he did, indeed, mislead. Anymore that it is "fact" that Saddam is linked to al Quaeda, simply because a majority of Americans believe this at this time.> That is absolutely correct. I cited those poll numbers only to disprove woody's assertion that most Americans backed Bush on the war and did not believe he misled us. Whether Bush did or not is still an open question, but woody's contention that a majority do not think so is simply wrong.
