It proves that Powell did in fact say what sevastapol claimed he said. It also shows that they were just making stuff up as they went along, and were never able to articulate a coherent reason why “regime change” was necessary.
You really are going to have to work out how to use Google.
So none of Wolfie’s predictions came true, but the administration still refuses to admit that the troop numbers required was wrong.
Thank you very much for your help. Allow me to return the favor. It might help if you learned to read the cites you look up. As in, “General Shinseki gave his estimate in response to a question at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday: “I would say that what’s been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers — are probably, you know, a figure that would be required.” He also said that the regional commander, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, would determine the precise figure.”. This is the quote that has such a fuss made over it? A quote by the lame duck Army chief of Staff (you did know that his retirement had been anounced the previous june right?) while troop numbers were still being decided on? This is touted by blowero (and attributed to sevastapol by you) to be a request for more troops from the army? When he himself at the time said that his estimate was not the final troop request?
Let me explain to you how decisions get made in large organizations. Over a period of time relevant people are asked for their input. In the case of a resource allocation such as troops to Iraq some will come up with a high number and some will come up with a low number. Over time and with discussion, hopefully a consensus is reached. Sometimes, this may mean that one of the participants wishes is not satisfied. However, in most cases there is an understood process and all participants agree that the final number is the “group opinion”.
To glom onto a single opinion made off the cuff during that process and then claim “Our generals have asked for it” as Kerry does, as bloweroseems to be agreeing with, and now you are asserting is ludicrous. If you add into the mix the possibility that this particular general may have had long standing disagreements with Rumsfeld, then the assertion is beyond ridiculous.
From your own cite, “Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops.”.
I’ve heard this claim before, but never looked into it. Thank you for your help.
Let me be clear. If generals on the ground ask for more troops and the administration refuses or fails to provide them I’ll join you in condemning the job they are doing. I might even start to like Kerry more. If on the other hand, you are asserting that one of the early estimates of necessary troop strength which was not the official Pentagon request amounts to the same thing, then perhaps I have not repaid my debt to you. 
Is there any reason why the rest of us shouldn’t treat your posts as nonsensical spam? It seems that a few of us can’t follow your line of argument, and you go ahead and demonstrate that you can’t even follow your own line of argument that you just posted. Let me set out for you the sequence of questions that you just asked:
You’ll note that it wasn’t me who was unable to separate two entirey different arguments that you had running with blowero and sevastopol.
I don’t see any reason why I should bother with any further crap that you post, and I don’t see why anyone else should either. You obviously aren’t taking any of this seriously. If this was a Pit thread, I’d explain further what I think it is that you’re doing.
I think I missed this post. I was sidtracked with conversations with a few other posters.
It’s worth quite a lot. Understanding is all I can ask.
But there is nothing sinister about this. We are fighting a war on terror. You can certainly argue that Iraq should not have been made part of it, but it certainly is part of it now. I’d bet that looking up Roosevelt’s speach’s you might find several examples where Japan and Germany were both mentioned. They had few joint operations. But they were 2 theaters of the same war.
Agreed. But before you accuse someone of implying a connection, you need more than mere proximity within a speech.
Understood.
The usual term for this is rhetoric. Is it not common for rhetoric, especially political rhetoric, to condense complex ideas or situations? Sometimes to the point where important information is lost? If the rhetoric is true but some details are missing, I think it is easier to attribute this to the fact that it is rhetoric. Now, if you have a good example of such conflation in some sort of official administration document that might be a different story.
You don’t have to reiterate a long argument here. If you have posted such a thing before, simply give me some help finding it (I’m not very good at that ;)) and I’ll go read it. I usually avoid these Iraq was bad, Iraq was good threads like the plague. Thank you for reminding me why that attitude of mine was misplaced.
“We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11” attacks.
Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said, “We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-11.” This one is the AP article which the last quote is taken from. It appeared in many places. This one is a reprint of the AP article on some “truth about Bush” cite and I cannot vouch for them. It purports to be a direct quote of the AP article.
If I may address the possible reasons why so many people believe that Saddam was behind 9-11, I’d simply point out that people believe strange things. I heard about a poll tonight that claims 25% of Brits believe that Star Wars “credits” and Harry Potter “knuts” are real kinds of money. Although a much smaller portion of the population, many readers of H.P. Lovecraft’s horror stories still look for copies of the Necronomicon.
I’m willing to believe that the Administration’s rhetoric has an effect on the public’s perception of this “link” (can I call it a myth?). Perhaps even a causal link for some of it. However, it is a long way from there to saying that the Administration engineered such a misperception. And it is so far to the proposal that this constitutes a lie on the administration’s part that I cannot take it seriously. (As I said, if you have a detaile argument concerning this point me there and I will read it)
Having said all that, I have to add one more thought. There is a link between Iraq and 9-11. Not a causal link such as some are accusing the Administration of implying. But a link in the way that Iraq, and Saddam, were percieved. The threat posed by Saddam’s Iraq was viewed very differently before 9-11, than it was after it. Many things were percieved differently. Personally, I think that is as it should be.
I look forward to it. As I indicated, I usually stay in the more civil gun / anti gun debates. I find it hard to locate claims which can be discussed clearly in debates about politics. Politicians are much too clever in the way they parse their positions. Thank you again for a very reasoned and civil discussion.
You’re correct. I had already started responding to the article you included in the same post as you mentioned sevastapol I totally missed that that part of you post was a response to a completely different post. Thank you for pointing that out.
I’m not sure how this mistake on my part warrants this, but OK.
blowero replied to pervert’s reply to blowero:
*- I have found myself repeatedly “swatting at flies” in trying to understand your position
Make that three. I’m not sure that this is something that is necessarily a fault on pervert’s part: I often have trouble following him myself, but it’s possible that he’s just trying to get at something too complex for me. I have found, though, that the more I go back and forth with him trying to straighten out the difficulty, the more tangled up and confused I get about what he really means to say.
So these days, when pervert asks a thoughtful, interesting question about one of my posts (which quite frequently happens) and it’s something I find comprehensible, I answer it. But when he comes back with one of his puzzling elaborations or alternative scenarios that I just don’t get, I find it works best for me simply to drop out of the conversation. Saves his time and my sanity. 
If you go here and type “Blix” in the Guests box, it comes up with an audiotape of the show (which was March 17, 2004). I haven’t tried listening to it.
Great list in the Bush Lies
pervert:
First off, congratulations on meeting my challenge! I probably should have asked for 3.
It also strikes me, upon careful rereading, that I’ve made a mistake. The poll claims that 57% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein gave substantial support to al-Qaida, not that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. I therefore issue a second challenge (if you choose to accept it): find 2 public statements by Bush, or any other important administration official, repudiating the existence of those ties, not counting Tenet’s.
I want to pick up where I left off, which was a response to your post # 217 on page 5. Also, this is probably going to be my last direct response to you in this discussion, at least for the next few exchanges, since I owe Sam a goodly piece of my mind as well. Since I doubt I will be able to convince you of the correctness of my opinion on this matter, I hope to leave you with something to reflect upon, such that you will at the very least feel my viewpoint is rational, and that I’m not some sort of left-wing conspiracy-theory crackpot.
Not that I have anything against left-wing conspiracy-theory crackpots, mind you.
I believe I was somewhere around here:
If you are involved in a debate, you must support your point of view with evidence and logically consistent arguments. Merely noting that other interpretations are possible, without going into detail as to why they are to be preferred, clouds the issue and confuses your opponent, who is left at a loss as to how to respond. One is in fact left with this sense that one is swatting at your statements like flies. So, if you feel that you must have a link to the original statement in order to make such an argument, then it is up to you to fetch it.
I hope you don’t take this observation personally; I’m just trying to clarify where the confusion lies.
Three points:
First off, you failed to make your point. You merely asserted that another interpretation is possible, which is, of course, obvious.
Secondly, I agree completely with your last statement. There are doubtless hundreds, maybe thousands, of examples wherein I, or even administration officials, have referred to Saddam Hussein and 9/11 in juxtaposition, without intending to imply a causal connection. What I, Juan Cole, and Jeffery Record are trying to argue is that there are strong reasons for believing that in this particular case, the administration has exploited misleading rhetoric as a means of conflating Saddam Hussein, terrorism, al-Qaida, and 9/11, so that the general public “connects the dots” in a certain way.
2a) You must remember, first off, that most people don’t read this stuff as carefully as you do, parsing the meaning of every uttered word with care and precision. Most of us hear Bush saying “al-Qaida, Hussein, 9/11,” and more or less jump to the conclusion that there must be a connection there somewhere. Why would he constantly mention them together like that otherwise? Obviously, they must be connected in some sense.
2b) As I keep trying to explain, this is an issue of rhetoric, not factual public statements or policy. As you note yourself,
Indeed, that is in fact precisely my point. Bush and other members of his administration employ rhetoric that condenses complex ideas to such an extent that important information – very important information – is lost. That is the gist, the very meat, of my argument. This effect is to be attributed precisely to the fact that we are talking about rhetoric. I am arguing that this use of rhetoric is purposefully misleading. This is not the same thing as arguing that it is an out and out lie, however. I am arguing that Bush’s rhetoric helps create a myth in the public mind, a myth in which certain factually unrelated issues are nevertheless linked together by means of association and innuendo (and not because “they just happen to be” in the same sentence. In these speeches, no two items “just happen” to wind up side-by-side; they are placed there for a purpose.) This leads into my next point…
There are examples of outright lies being promulgating by the administration, such as Bush’s statement, taken from your linked articles, that “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties…” That is a lie, as we now know. Rather, the examples I’m referring to here represent ways in which false connections between disparate, unrelated issues are implied by means of rhetorical tricks, which is something else. (These techniques are also used to equate Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, however.)
Well, that’s it for me. I leave you a last rebuttal before turning to Sam. It’s been a pleasure.
Read Kerry’s position statement again: “Our commanders on the ground have requested it.” HAVE requested it. Past tense. Show me where Kerry says they requested it today or this week.
Besides, you’re baiting and switching again.
YOU complained: Why doesn’t Kerry call for more troops in Iraq?
I pointed out that he HAS.
THEN you said: He doesn’t need to because Bush has already done it, and they aren’t asking for more troops now.
WTF???
In that case, why did you originally lambast Kerry for NOT asking for more troops? It’s obvious that you would criticize him no matter WHAT he said. In your mind, he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
More bait and switch. The scenario you present here would be an example of a candidate suggesting proposals that are the EXACT OPPOSITE of his ideology. Yet you never even came CLOSE to showing an example of Kerry proposing anything that’s the EXACT OPPOSITE of his ideology.
If Kerry criticized Bush for starting the Iraq war, and THEN proposed a unilateral invasion of Libya, unjustified by any evidence of a threat to the U.S., you would have a case. But Kerry didn’t do that, or anything like it. In fact his proposals are quite consistent with his ideology. The only point you’ve even TRIED to make is that his proposals don’t go AS FAR as his ideology, but then you’ve resorted to silly semantic games to even try to show THAT.
Here is one of your scenarios compared with your strawman:
Your previous scenario: “If the invasion of Iraq was a crime against international law, then call for turning Bush over to the Internationl Tribunal or the World Court.”
Your current strawman: “if a candidate rails against the evils of high government spending but then proposes to increase government spending…”
You REALLY think that criticizing Bush for starting a war, but not going so far as to call for his prosecution under international law (perfectly reasonable and consistent), is THE SAME as criticizing spending, but then PROPOSING more spending? You REALLY think that’s the same thing? I think you’re going off the deep end.
The way you have presented it, it makes absolutely no sense.
Shortened a fair bit…
Fair enough, but it seems to me the word militant has come to be virtually synonomous with activist, at least in the U.S., which can make it a bit confusing.
The most common term to refer to those interested in promoting more religiously-oriented societies in Muslim countries is Islamist. That sub-group of Islamists that are actively seeking to establish theocratic regimes/more religious societies ( not necessarily both ) by force are referred to by several different names, but I like the term jihadists - they’re the folks convinced they are locked into a external religious struggle/holy war against their own corrupt governments and the outside agencies that they perceive as propping them up ( the West generally and the U.S. in particular in recent years ).
ObL ( if he is still around ), al-Qaeda, and their numerous affiliates and splinters are jihadists - their stated goal is a pan-Islamic theocracy ( thouugh in practice their real goals tend to be much more local in scope ) and their means are terrorist action.
Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are jihadists - the ideology of the first is vaguely similar to that of al-Qaeda ( ObL cited the late Ahmad Yassin as one of five authorities in his first declaration of jihad aginst the west ), the second, though Sunni in membership, was primarily inspired by the Iranian revolution and the establishment of clerical rule there. They aren’t philosophically identical - for example Hamas promotes a bottom-up model of Islamic revival, PIJ a top-down model ( which is why Hamas is now a political power and PIJ is not ). But they view their various struggles through the lens of militant Islam, they both envision establishing religious states ( if not necessarily explicitly theocratic ones ) and they both trade in violence.
Hezbollah are jihadists - they take their cues from the Iranian revolution, were originally propped up and aided by a unit of Iranian pasdaran and support the Khomeinian notion of velayat-e faqih ( they have, however, distanced themselves just a little bit from Iran since Khomeini’s death, becoming rather more independent in ideology as well ).
Saddam Hussein was/is not an Islamist. Frankly it is not even clear if his religious faith was anything other than purely cultural/theoretical. SH came up in a secular organization and for years promoted one of the Arab world’s most secular regimes. A cunning survivor, he began making occasional use of religious rhetoric as early as the Iran-Iraq War as a counter to the mullahs in Iran, but that was pure standard boilerplate. It ramped up more after the 1rst Gulf War as he tried to out-propaganda the Coalition and in 1996, when Iraq was sinking to its nadir under the impact of sanctions, he initiated a “faith” campaign which saw him start to use more Qur’anic symbolism in his speeches, very publically attend the occasional religious service, ban public ( but not private ) consumption of alcohol, etc… But this was in a milieu where the type of quasi-socialist pan-Arab secularism originally promotred by the Ba’ath was increasingly seen as a geriatric and failed paradigm. It was now “hip” to be an Islamist, as it were ;). Nobody appears to have really bought it as a genuine change of heart - it was just political opportunism at its most transparent. The jihadists have publically and repeatedly referred to him as an apostate and that’s not a light or casual epithet. It sends a very unambiguous message once you realize that the standard sentence for a proven charge of apostasy from Islam, at least for the truly orthodox = death.
The former PLO/most of the current PA are not Islamists. Like the old Ba’ath, the PLO, particularly Fatah, were very explicitly secular in ideology and included/still include quite a few Christian Palestinians. Rather they are loosing ground to the populist Islamists in the form of Hamas.
The Assad family and the Syrian Ba’ath are not Islamists. Indeed many Sunni Muslims don’t consider the Assads Muslims even theoretically - they belong to the Alawite religious minority, which is close to Shi’ism, but is very heterodox. They tolerate not a smidgen of Islamist agitation within Syria itself. It is true they have had alliances of convenience at times with certain Islamist-jihadist groups, most notably Hezbollah in Lebanon. But that is a loveless relationship which has often been punctuated by violence. Hezbollah serves a useful purpose for Syria in harrying Israel and allowing it do so keeps it out of Syria’s hair while it exercises control in Lebanon, while Hezbollah at the moment seems to consider Syria the lesser of potent evils and more practically realizes it is vulnerable to Syrian military force and sheltered by the same as long as Syria maintains its de facto protectorate over the country.
Bashir al-Assad is a) an Alawite and b) supporting Islamic militants as a strategic move is not the same as being one. To be an Islamist, you must by definition believe in Islamism. Assad most assuredly does not.
Interesting point, but it just goes to the heart of the difference between the U.S. ( a far more secular society culturally ) and Iraq ( far less so overall, despite the years of secular rule ) and the rather more intrinsically political nature of Islam. Also Bush is not an unpopular tyrant under siege in a tottering country, with an unstable powerbase ( yes, yes - spare me the jokes anti-Bush people ) - if he was he might just ramp up the Christian apocalyptic imagery a tad :).
You know, I should add one thing. I see Pervert’s point about Kerry saying “commanders ON THE GROUND have requested it”. I don’t have a link handy to prove that any particular commander who is IN Iraq has requested more troops (although I suspect it has happened, based on all I’ve heard in the media about the administrations’ under-planning for Iraq. So I suspect that there is some basis for Kerry saying this, but I honestly don’t feel inclined to do hours of research to find out, when it’s really not a very big point. EVEN IF that turned out to be a total fabrication, it pales in comparison to the dirty tricks that the Bush campaign has been engaging in, such as counting Kerry’s vote on ONE bill as multiple votes, etc.
Another instance, I think, where we are not talking about the same things.
You asserted that we now know that (for instance) Saddam had “no programs” for developing WMD, and that when Bush claimed that Saddam did, it was a lie. So I provided a link to the news story showing that Saddam had nuclear centrifuge parts and a good big batch of documentation buried in the back yard of one of his nuclear scientists. In other words, he did have a program, Bush was correct in his assertion, and we now know this to be the case. And you refer to this as an “obvious dodge”.
Same with the rest. You claim that it has been shown for a fact that Saddam did not have WMD. So I link to the places where Saddam used chemical WMD to kill some of his people - after the Gulf War - and you claim that this cannot be considered evidence that Saddam had WMD.
And it is allegedly a lie that “Iraq had no connections with al-Queda”. Except for the al-Queda terrorists living in Iraq. And the al-Queda terror attacks in Spain, widely believed to be in retaliation for the invasion - of Iraq. (And the other al-Queda terrorist Saddam recruited to train his military - I can’t remember his name).
And yet, you immediately claim:
You claimed that there was no evidence that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program. I provided a cite showing that he did. Which you claim is a “transparent dodge”.
Because there is good reason to doubt that each of the assertions you made were correct. You claimed that all the assertions Bush made prior to the invasion were shown to be false.
But they weren’t. Very far from being a dodge, it is a direct response. You are incorrect in stating that there is no evidence showing Saddam had a nuclear WMD program, that he had any links to al-Queda, that etc., etc. There is evidence. I have provided some of it.
Here’s the problem. It’s not a fact.
As I said, I doubt we are talking about the same things. If you assert that there is no evidence of any of the things you listed, and I cite some of the instances where there is, and you dismiss it as “irrelevant links”, we part company.
If you need a straighter answer than this, here it is.
You ask if I have wondered if I was lied to. I have. I have, in fact, done the research you find irrelevant. In some instances (I mentioned the two trailers that cannot be unambiguously shown to have been used for chem-war, and the yellowcake claim), yes, Bush overstated the case for WMD. Based on the evidence available before the invasion, I believe he was speaking in good faith for the most part. It is entirely possible that he overstated his case as to WMD because he believed that would make the invasion an easier sell to the American public, and also because he honestly believed (in concert with everyone else for the last dozen years or so, including the UN inspectors) that Saddam was indeed hiding his WMD.
That ain’t lying. You can call it bad intelligence, you can call it a political decision about how to bring about something that needs doing anyway, but it is not lying.
And especially you can’t call it lying if it becomes clear that the assertions you characterize as lies turn out to be correct. Saddam did have a nuclear program. He did have ties to al-Queda. He did have chemical weapons, and used them. He did fund international terrorism. He did not abide by the inspections regime, or have any intention of doing so. He did commit horrifying human rights atrocities, and threaten his neighbors, and do all the other things that Bush also cited as justification for the invasion.
:shrugs
If you don’t want to know, I can’t force you. If finding elements of a nuclear program is irrelevant to deciding whether or not a nuclear program existed, it isn’t going to be much of a discussion.
Regards,
Shodan
Although I don’t really want to commit a general hijack on my debating style, I would like to not one thing.
It is also just as likely (perhaps more) that what I am trying to get at is too complex for me.
Ok pervert… here goes. You do have a point in some things… in others not.
Saddam did have a nuclear program: He did. Israel bombed it… and the sanctions stopped it dead on the tracks. Much of his taunted WMD programs were bluffs it appears.
He did have ties to al-Queda: Never proved… no evidence
He did have chemical weapons, and used them: Chemical weapons weren’t a menace to the US… plus it seems his chemical weapons weren’t availabe to defend his regime. Again sanctions took their toll ?
He did fund international terrorism: Let me guess… he gave money to palestinian families ? That is hardly funding terrorism … even less “international” terrorism.
He did not abide by the inspections regime: Yep he did make it bothersome. Then when he accepted the US didn’t want to wait.
He did commit horrifying human rights atrocities, and threaten his neighbors, and do all the other things that Bush also cited as justification for the invasion: Ok… so did people in Rwanda… Bosnia… China… Russia… Sudan… and a bunch of other places. What does that have to do with US security ?
My main issue still is… if the Pentagon/CIA/Bush were so sure of WMD where are they ? What the fuck is Intelligence expenses in the billions and you beleive in Chalabi INC instead ?
Or perhaps 2 from 2 different sources? I thought it was bad form on my part to include 2 quotes from the same AP article. But that is all I could find.
I will go look. But this is much harder. The word “substantial” is especially troubling. As I was looking (for Iraqi AQ links) I found a couple articles about training camps in Iraq but they were in less than reputable sources. I accept your challenge, and I will respond in a day or two after I have a chance to look.
I have not thought that about you. I hope I have not said anything to give you that impression.
Agreed.
I agree with this in general with one caveat. If the issue in question is an impression or opinion of a third party, especially one which is used as an indication of objective reality, then I think it is useful to examine other possible interpretations of the data used by that party to arrive at his opinion. So, if Cole asserts his opinion that the Administration is juxtaposing Iraq and AQ so as to mislead the American public, it should certainly be permissable to examine the speeches in which such juxtaposition took place in order to offer alternate interpretations to the opinion.
Agreed. But often enough of the original speech is included in the original opinion piece to make a judgement call, as you might say.
I have not taken any of your comments personally. At least not in a bad way. I have taken them as useful feedback on my debating style. I am trying to internalize them in order to do better. If I may say, thank you.
Ok, but that was my point. Specifically, that Cole’s opinion was just that, an opinion and not a fact. It may turn out to be true that the Administration is attempting to hoodwink America by encouraging the false impression (can we call it a myth yet?) that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. However, I was trying to point out that assertions of this nature require far more evidence than that ofered by Cole. Adding many more commentators opinions to his will not increase the value of the evidence. It simply means that more people agree with him.
That may be the case. However, all of the evidence to this effect that I have seen is really nothing more than evidence of a juxtaposition. Consider the speech that Cole was refering to. He tried to make a lot out of the fact that Schlesinger quoted OBL in his introduction to remarks about Iraq. He tried to suggest that there was something vaguely improper or illogical about it. But a reading of his remarks reveals this to be untrue. There was a perfectly reasonable purpose in those quotes. This may be a “not-lie”, whatever that is, but it certainly was not a lie, nor was it even good evidence of an obfuscation.
Well, I do think they are connected in a certain sense, as I indicated in an earlier post. I also agree that most people draw too much from such juxtapositions. But then most people believe many much more odd things for far less reason.
Well, as I said this is certainly a possibility. But to make this case, don’t you need evidence of purpose? That is don’t you need evidence of intent? Look back at Cole’s essay. I don’t think he gives any such evidence. As always, I am willing to be proven wrong on this. If you are aware of an argument which does give good evidence of an intent to mislead I am very willing to look at it.
Well, I agree with this, but I would point out that the purpose of the juxtaposition is in fact different that what you are alleging it to be. I suppose that is also in the nature of a “not-lie”. Is there any similarity to a “not-lie” and a misunderstood truth?
Yea, I noticed this too. It will make meeting your challenge even harder, no?
I understand. If those false connections between disparate, loosely related issues are percieved by others, how ill you determine that the false connection is the one intended by the speaker?
Fair enough. Thanks again, for the considered responses.
I agree entirely with this. Too many people equate Islamic or even simply Arab activist with terrorist. It is an unfortunate aspec of the sound bite nature of our political debates.
I like this. May I use the term?
So, AQ is Jihadist. Saddam was not. I can accept that. Do you have a way to differentiate Saddam from, say, Pol Pot? Certainly Saddam’s willingness to appeal to pan arabism is one factor in such a distinction?
Do you have some good terms to use for more secular groups from the middle east? Perhpas something that could be translated as Arabist and Arabist militant?
Just an aside, but have I not heard histories of Saladin that describe him primarily as a political expansionist? And yet, was not his empire also considered Islamist? Is the term Jihadist simply too modern to be applied to him? Or is there some overlap between the actions, motives, practices or methods of people like the Ba’athists and the Assads with those of the Jihadists? If there is overlap, can we really say the are totally unrelated?
Thank you for the considered response. I appreciate you thoughts on these issues.
OK I’ll bite
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew of the islamic terrorists plans to attack our country and crash planes into the WTC, pentagon and other structures and acted in a way to allow it.
Just one more thought on this issue.
I agree with most of this as I indicated earlier. To be fair this should apply to both sides. So, if a pundit offers an interpretation without even considering others, much less offering reasons why his should be preffered, what are we to think about his proffered interpretation. If I may be so bold (and uppon reflection) I think I was trying to claim that Mr Cole’s interpretation was just such an impression. That is offered without any evidence as to why it should be preffered. Thinking back I should have said something along these lines rather than simply offering an alternative impression. I will keep this in mind in the future.
Wow... he had to KNOW and to ALLOW IT it for you to give up on him !?! Not only know ?
( Does reading school books during an attack on the USA count as knowing and not doing anything ? )