# Fuck off Dubya, you arrogant little shit **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 2, 2004, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342 "2004-06-02T22:52:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/141 "2004-06-04T12:14:24Z")
It’s all so clear now. Members of the compassionate wing of the intelligent conservatives are actually self-deluded idiots. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/142 "2004-06-04T12:26:21Z")
Originally posted by **Starving Artists** [quote] How do I feel about the Administration’s inclusion of Iraq in the War on Terror? I’m glad it has, and I feel safer as a result. Here’s why: As Shodan pointed out earlier in this thread, there’s a maxim that goes “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It is my belief that a strong synergy exists among the anti-American goals of al-Qaeda and Iraq. I don’t care that they weren’t holding hands before we attacked Iraq. I care that they may very well have come together at some point with Iraq providing WMD and al-Qaeda carrying out the attacks.\*\* IOW, you’re making up shit to justify your fear and paranoia with no basis in reality. Nice. > [@](#): > > I also don’t care if it turns out we don’t find WMD in Iraq, after all. It is my belief that Hussein likely either didn’t have them or moved them out of the country prior to the U.S. invasion. More of same. Obviously you are all for faith-based wars with little regard to facts. Nicer still. > [@](#): > > Either way, had we not invaded there would have been no way to stop Hussein from obtaining or developing WMD at some point, and there would have been no way to keep them from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda if Hussein and al-Qaeda were so disposed. What the fuck are you talking about, you paranoid MF? Fist off, Iraq had NO WMDs nor is there ANY indication he was trying to “obtain or develop” any. Secondly, get it through your obviously dense skull that Saddam and OBL were _ideological enemies_. One, a secular dictator, the other an Islamist fundamentalist. I’ll let you figure out who is who. So no, there is NOTHING to indicate that Saddam and OBL would have been “so disposed,” and EVERYTHING to indicate the exact opposite. > [@](#): > > Agree or not, I believe the synergy between al-Qaeda and Iraq was easily strong enough to warrant U.S. action in Iraq, especially in view of the fact that Hussein had played hide-and-seek with his weapons for years, was dishonest and known to employ every from of trickery at his disposal to try to thwart international efforts to keep him reined in. I believe the moon’s made of cheese and I’ll be sure to take some wine if I ever make it there. That makes about the same sense as the above quote. Fact is the inspections **worked** and he **was** reigned in. > [@](#): > > Secondarily, I’m very much in favor of the war as a human rights issue. I have been apalled at what has happened to the Iraqi populace under Hussein’s rule, and I care very much about the safety and quality of life, not just of Iraqis, but of oppressed people all over the globe. Can you see this \_\_\_\_\_? If you get real close to your monitor you might be able to glean that it’s the world’s smallest violin, playing a tune just for you. After you’re done listening, I have some beachfront property in Ohio I’d like for you to see. Meantime, I am sure you’ve been leading the protests over the Abu Ghrabe scandal and the daily killings of innocent Iraqis by your own forces. > [@](#): > > I hear all the rage on this board about the 10,000 Iraqis that have been killed due to our action, but I hear nothing about the millions upon millions of people who were killed and continuing to be killed under the regime we deposed. Well now, more piffle. Guess this is the part where you get to call me a 'Saddam apologist." Go for it, skin’s like leather by now. But please provide evidence that “millions and millions of Iraqis” were killed _after_ the Iraq/Iran war and the Shia (promoted by Bush Sr and later abandoned, mind you) and Kurdish revolts of the early 90’s. Insert standard disclaimer here, Saddam was not a nice guy, blah blah blah, but the fact remains, unless you can **prove** otherwise that this invasion has killed a hell of a lot more Iraqis that Saddam did over the past few years. You know what? I could continue going on down the line and debunking your prattle, but this is really pointless. For one, it has all been done before, endlessly and much more throughly than this brief outline I’ve provided (if you were really interested, all it takes is a bit of a search) and secondly, you’re obvioulsy a Bushbot and nothing I – or anyone lese for that matter – figures to make the slightest change in all of you fear-based paranoia and delusions of grandeur. So go right ahead and cast your vote for the Chimp. As a ‘furriner’ all I can hope for is that the **gobears** outnumber the likes of you. Cheers. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/143 "2004-06-04T13:27:35Z")
> [@Coldfire](#): > > All right, let’s try it this way. **Starving Artist** , **Shodan** , and any other conservative may answer this. Leaving aside all partisanship, how do you feel about the Administration’s persistance to include the occupation of Iraq in the War on Terror? Do you think it’s justified? Or do you cringe, and shout at the TV that while you support the war, you don’t feel it has anything to do with TWAT? Do you think that we would be in Iraq right now if not for 9/11? If not, doesn’t that make Iraq part of the war on terror? We can disagree all day long about whether or not going into Iraq was justified, or if continuing to stay in Iraq is justified. But, to deny that Iraq is a part of the war on terror just doesn’t make sense to me. As far as links to Al-Queda goes, I really don’t care. If intelligence discovered that the Irish Republican Army was planning a terror attack against the United States, then I would support action to protect us. This could accurately IMO be called a part of the war on terror. That doesn’t mean these IRA terrorists have anything to do with 9/11 or with Al-Queda or with Iraq. They don’t have to relate to be a part of the wider war against terrorism. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/144 "2004-06-04T13:39:43Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Do you think that we would be in Iraq right now if not for 9/11? If not, doesn’t that make Iraq part of the war on terror? Who can tell? We know that the neo-cons wanted to invade Iraq ever since GWI, and the Bush administration started making plans to invade Iraq pretty much since day one of taking office. Maybe 9/11 was the _only_ thing that enabled them to do what they’d planned all along, maybe it just brought the schedule forward a bit. > [@Debaser](#): > > We can disagree all day long about whether or not going into Iraq was justified, or if continuing to stay in Iraq is justified. But, to deny that Iraq is a part of the war on terror just doesn’t make sense to me. George _says_ it’s part of the war on terror, but not many people can work out exactly _why_. The Al-Qaeda link didn’t exist, the WMDs didn’t exist, and if you’re serious about saving people from tyranny you don’t do it by torturing or killing them. > [@Debaser](#): > > As far as links to Al-Queda goes, I really don’t care. If intelligence discovered that the Irish Republican Army was planning a terror attack against the United States, then I would support action to protect us. This could accurately IMO be called a part of the war on terror. That doesn’t mean these IRA terrorists have anything to do with 9/11 or with Al-Queda or with Iraq. They don’t have to relate to be a part of the wider war against terrorism. And if terrorists from Mars were going to invade, I suppose that could reasonably be called part of the war on terror, too. WTF does that have to do with Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/145 "2004-06-04T14:33:16Z")
**gobear** - Thanks for the cites. Did you have any that show what you claimed? This one, for instance - > [@gobear](#): > > Spotting Richard A. Clarke, his counterterrorism coordinator, Bush pulled him and a small group of aides into the dark paneled room. > > “Go back over everything, everything,” Bush said, according to Clarke’s account. “See if Saddam did this.” > > “But Mr. President, al Qaeda did this,” Clarke replied. > > “I know, I know, but . . . see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred.” Same problem as always. For any except convinced Bush-haters, “see if he was involved” does not equate to “he was definitely involved”. > [@](#): > > Bush presented his case against Iraq to the American people in a televised address Monday night, calling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein a “murderous tyrant” and a threat to the United States and other countries. > > Bush also contended that some al Qaeda leaders fled Afghanistan and went to Iraq and that a senior al Qaeda leader associated with planning chemical and biological weapons attacks received medical treatment in Baghdad this year. Again, no mention that Saddam was involved in 9/11, which is what you alleged Bush was “lying” about. And if Bush was talking about al-Zarqawi, he _was_ [in Iraq](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4446084/) when he died. Do you have any basis for your contention that he never received medical treatment in Baghdad? > [@](#): > > And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. Again, you made the claim that Bush lied, saying that Saddam Hussein was involved in planning or carrying out 9/11. Bush **does** say that Saddam aids and protects terrorists, which he did (specifically abu Nidal, al-Zarqawi, and the Palestinian suicide bombers). It also claims that he could provide them with weapons, which is also quite true (specifically, the sarin gas recently discovered in Iraq). The above quotes do not say what you seem to think they say. **Zoe** - > [@Zoe](#): > > Shodan, the problem is that we have a President who is claiming that Italy invaded Poland. > [@Shodan](#): > > No, we do not. > > As Starving Artist and others keep pointing out, Bush has never stated that Iraq is responsible for 9/11. He did not do so in this speech. All you clowns are trying to say he did, but you are wrong. He has not. > > The fact that you so desperately want him to have said it means that you are misinterpreting what he actually said. Which is an example of what I mentioned earlier - that the near-obsessive hatred of Bush is leading many of you completely over the edge into irrationality. (bold type added) > [@Zoe](#): > > Shodan, you called me a clown and told me how wrong I am in my interpretation of President Bush’s speech and how irrational I am – when you are the one who has totally misinterpreted and misrepresented my statements made earlier in this thread: > > From post #65: > Quote: > Zoe: So he is saying that both the Second World War and our present conflict began with an attack on the U.S. > > \ > > Keep in mind that President Bush, in the remainder of his speech, does not appear to be limiting himself to Iraq when he talks of our present conflict. > I allude to this interpretation of his speech in post #68 and again in post #78. One would actually have had to be paying attention to what I said to be aware of my position. > > Shodan, you were wrong. > > Excuse me, but to borrow your wording: The fact that you so desperately want me to have said it means that you are misinterpreting what I actually said. Which is an example of what you mentioned earlier - that near-obsessive hatred (in this case, of liberals) is leading many completely over the edge into irrationality. If I misinterpreted your comment, I apologize. But I still don’t know what the hell you are talking about. I took your “Bush claims Italy invaded Poland” remark as saying that “Bush claims that Iraq was involved in planning or carrying out 9/11”. Because (it seemed to me) to be a response to my objection that Bush has made no such statement. From your explanation above, you meant that “Italy invaded Poland” was referring to Bush remarking that WWII began with Pearl Harbor instead of the invasion of Poland. In fact, US direct involvement in WWII began with Pearl Harbor, in the same way that the US war on terror began with 9/11. If you meant your “Bush thinks Italy invaded Poland” remark as a reference back to **when** WWII began, instead of a quibble about **who was responsible** for starting it, again, I am sorry to misunderstand, but perhaps you will agree that it was more than a little unclear. You should have said something like “we have a leader who thinks WWII began with Pearl Harbor”, and thus given some indication that you were talking about 'when" instead of “who”. FTR, if you are claiming that Bush should have said “US involvment in WWII began with a violent attack, just as the war on terror began with a violent attack”, yes, that would have been more accurate. But if you are claiming (as I thought you were) that Bush is confusing **who** is responsible for the violent attack that began US involvement in WWII and/or **who** was responsible for the violent attack that began the US war on terror, no, that is an unsupported statement. I actually have to do some work. I will try to get back to this thread later. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/146 "2004-06-04T14:57:53Z")
**Shodan** : All that rubbish you posted above boils down to this: “Bush never claimed that Iraq was in any way connected to the surprise attack that launched the war on terror.” Yet for some reason, Bush invaded Iraq anyway. Why was that, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/147 "2004-06-04T15:38:20Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Do you think that we would be in Iraq right now if not for 9/11? Yes. The coining of the meaningless phrase ‘war on terror’ made it much easier for the Bush regime to legitimise their plans to overthrow Saddam. But they were determined to find a reason anyway. Haven’t you wondered why I keep on putting ‘war on terror’ in inverted commas? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/148 "2004-06-04T15:40:18Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > “Bush never claimed that Iraq was in any way connected to the surprise attack that launched the war on terror.” Are you conceeding this? If so, it would seem you are in disagreement with **gobear** ’s “facts” laid out on page 2. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/149 "2004-06-04T15:53:52Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Are you conceeding this? If so, it would seem you are in disagreement with **gobear** ’s “facts” laid out on page 2. You might try reading the whole post. **Demo** wrote: > [@](#): > > Shodan: All that rubbish you posted above boils down to this: > > “Bush never claimed that Iraq was in any way connected to the surprise attack that launched the war on terror.” IOW, **Demp** called the sentence you excerpted “rubbish”–he put it in quotation marks to indicate that it’s a precis of **Shodan’s** posts. So, no, he is not conceding anything of the sort. Comrade Napoleon is always right, eh Boxer? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/150 "2004-06-04T15:59:53Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Are you conceeding this? If so, it would seem you are in disagreement with **gobear** ’s “facts” laid out on page 2. I’m not conceding it. I’m pointing out that even if it was true, it leads nowhere. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/151 "2004-06-04T16:01:50Z")
It seems that **Shodan** has already responded to the top part of **gobear** ’s post of many useless cites with pretty much exactly what I was going to say. > [@gobear](#): > > Bush also lied about Saddam’s supposed collusion with Al Qaeda re: 9/11. This “fact” remains to even have a cite loosely suggesting that it is a possiblity, much less be proven. What Bush allegedly said to Clark just sounds like being thorough. I, too, would like to know how “Just Look. I want to know any shred.” becomes “Saddam colluded with Al Qaeda re: 9/11”. Your other cites: > [@gobear's cite](#): > > Bush also contended that some al Qaeda leaders fled Afghanistan and went to Iraq and that a senior al Qaeda leader associated with planning chemical and biological weapons attacks received medical treatment in Baghdad this year. First of all this doesn’t get you any closer to proving your “fact” statement above. Secondly, do you have any proof that this statement is not true? I see no reason not to beleive it. > [@gobear's cite](#): > > Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. Again, this does not state anything about Bush claiming Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. And the last cite, where you claim Bush was “forced to recant his assertions last November” is way off base. There isn’t anything in there about Bush recanting anything that you quoted from him. > [@gobear's cite](#): > > We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters… This doesn’t recant any previous assertions. Bush never claimed Saddam Hussein was involved in the september 11 attacks to begin with. You are good at looking up articles, and that’s wonderful. However, just providing cites is meaningless unless they actually back up what you have already presented as a “fact” and are trying to prove. It’s really bad form to just post a cite, without quoting any of it and then claim that it says something which it clearly does not. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/152 "2004-06-04T16:08:41Z")
**Shodan** , your argument seeks to take shelter in the very same vague innuendo that GeeDubya used to present his “case”. It was already known that Al Queda was directly involved with 9/11. GeeDubya sought to establish a connection between Iraq and Al Queda in terms of aid and comfort, to establish that Iraq was _allied_ with Al Queda. Suppose GeeDubya were to claim that John Kerry was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. If I then say that GeeDubya is stating that Sen. Kerry is a racist, you might be able to muster enough dudgeon to challenge that claim, if GeeDubya had not actually used the word “racist”. It is a distinction without a difference, the tool of sophists. Despite The Leader’s well known aversion to newspapers (which might cloud the clarity of his “vision thing” with inappropriate facts), surely he was aware that a vast majority of the American public believed that Saddam was connected to 9/11. Just as surely, he pandered to this belief without so much as a hint of embarassment. The falsity of his references to WWII has little or nothing to do with historical facts of alliances and dates of belligerence. It has to do with his puerile attempt to drape his pointless military adventure with the dignity and gravity of a _real_ war, fought for real reasons to a worthy end. He was hoping to exploit patriotic sentiment for his own political reasons, an effort that appears to have your wholehearted support. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/153 "2004-06-04T16:08:46Z")
> [@Desmostylus](#): > > I’m not conceding it. I’m pointing out that even if it was true, it leads nowhere. OK. I didn’t know, thanks for clearing it up. I believe that the statement is true. We haven’t seen anything thus far to prove that it’s not true. If it is true, then **gobear** is a liar. I don’t really care where it leads. Since he made the statement in the first place it’s up to him to prove it. BTW, do you really want me to respond to this: > [@Desmostylus](#): > > And if terrorists from Mars were going to invade, I suppose that could reasonably be called part of the war on terror, too. WTF does that have to do with Iraq? Or were you just asking a rhetorical question to be a dick? If needed, I’ll elaborate further, but my point was a fairly simple one. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/154 "2004-06-04T16:14:19Z")
This paragraph was worded very poorly. I’m re-writing it… > [@debaser](#): > > I believe that the statement is true. We haven’t seen anything thus far to prove that it’s not true. If it is true, then gobear is a liar. I don’t really care where it leads. Since he made the statement in the first place it’s up to him to prove it. “Bush never claimed that Iraq was in any way connected to the surprise attack that launched the war on terror.” I believe that the statement is true. We haven’t seen anything thus far to prove that it’s not true. If it is true, then gobear is a liar. I don’t really care where it leads. Since **gobear** made this claim in the first place: > [@](#): > > Bush also lied about Saddam’s supposed collusion with Al Qaeda re: 9/11. …it’s up to him to prove it. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/155 "2004-06-04T16:28:56Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > BTW, do you really want me to respond to this: > > > [@Desmostylus](#): > > > > And if terrorists from Mars were going to invade, I suppose that could reasonably be called part of the war on terror, too. WTF does that have to do with Iraq? > > Or were you just asking a rhetorical question to be a dick? > > If needed, I’ll elaborate further, but my point was a fairly simple one. If can respond in any kind of sensible fashion, then please do so. As I understand it, the point of your statement: > [@Debaser](#): > > As far as links to Al-Queda goes, I really don’t care. If intelligence discovered that the Irish Republican Army was planning a terror attack against the United States, then I would support action to protect us. This could accurately IMO be called a part of the war on terror. That doesn’t mean these IRA terrorists have anything to do with 9/11 or with Al-Queda or with Iraq. They don’t have to relate to be a part of the wider war against terrorism. was that even if Iraq wasn’t connected to 9/11, they were planning to attack the US, and you’d support action to protect the US. Well and good, except that the quality of the evidence supporting the claim the Iraq was a threat to the US was of a similar quality to a claim that Martian terrorists are about to invade. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/156 "2004-06-04T16:31:07Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > This paragraph was worded very poorly. I’m re-writing it… > > “Bush never claimed that Iraq was in any way connected to the surprise attack that launched the war on terror.” > > I believe that the statement is true. We haven’t seen anything thus far to prove that it’s not true. If it is true, then gobear is a liar. I don’t really care where it leads. > > Since **gobear** made this claim in the first place: > > …it’s up to him to prove it. I already did. Despite your “la-la-la-, I can’t hear you” style of rebuttal, I laid out quotes in which Bush clearly associated Saddam with Al Qaeda, which is equivalent to linking him to 9/11. In the popular consciousness, Al Qaeda = 9/11. Bush was clearly relying on this linkage to foment support for the war. And it has been amply demonstrated repeatedly that Bin Laden despised Saddam’s secular regime as much as he despises the West. I’ll be glad to supply you with a bibliography if you’d like to learn something about Al Qaeda, Saddam, and the repercussions of the last two decades of American foreign policy in Central Asia. Every post you write indicates a shocking lack of information; in short, you do not know what the fuck you are talking about. That you so badly misread **Demo** ’s short post indicates you’re not very bright in the first place. Frankly, I’m having difficulty talking down to your level. And I’ll ignore your accusations of “liar” as the pathetic playground retort that it is. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/157 "2004-06-04T16:45:13Z")
[Coordinated Administration talking point](http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16420). [A site you’ll no doubt dismiss as biased, since it proves you’re both wrong and gullible](http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34930) > [@](#): > > the National Intelligence Estimate, deals with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad: > > had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America, > > was not operating in concert with al-Qaida, > > and was not a terrorist threat to America. > > “We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against U.S. territory,” the report stated. > > However, it added, “Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qaida could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.” > > Sufficiently desperate? If he “feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime,” the report explained. Yes, the National Intelligence Estimate that he used as a pretext _for_ the invasion. > [@](#): > > Less than a week after the NIE was published, he warned that “on any given day” – provoked by attack or not, sufficiently desperate or not – Saddam could team up with Osama and conduct a joint terrorist operation against America using weapons of mass destruction. > > “Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists,” Bush said Oct. 7 in his nationally televised Cincinnati speech. “Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving fingerprints.” The terrorists he was referring to were “al-Qaida members.” Next, you’ll claim that the subjunctive mood means he was telling the truth after all, and that we were all just too stupid not to understand him to mean Saddam and Al Qaeda were partners. That’s it, right? > [@](#): > > What’s worse, the inconvenient conclusions about Iraq and al-Qaida were withheld from the unclassified version of the secret NIE report that Bush authorized for public release the day before his Cincinnati speech, as part of the launch of the White House’s campaign to sell the war. The 25-page white paper, posted on the CIA website, focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction, and conveniently left out the entire part about Saddam’s reluctance to reach out to al-Qaida. Americans also didn’t see the finding that Saddam had no hand in 9-11 or any other al-Qaida attack against American territory. That, too, was sanitized. Gee, I’m sure you have an innocent explanation to offer. Now try this: > [@](#): > > Even after the war, Bush continued the lie. “\*\*We have removed an ally of al-Qaida,” he said May 1 from the deck of the USS Lincoln. “No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime.” \*\* > [@](#): > > “Prior to Sept. 11, we thought two oceans would protect us,” President Bush said about Iraq in an Oct. 14 speech in Michigan. "After Sept. 11, we’ve entered into a new era in a new war. > > “\*\*This is a man that we know has had connections with al-Qaida,” \*\* he continued, referring to Saddam. “This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al-Qaida as a forward army. And this is a man that we must deal with for the sake of peace.” Why would he juxtapose these concepts unless he wanted us to believe something he already knew wasn’t true? > [@](#): > > “Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country,” Bush said March 6 in a White House news conference. “The attacks of Sept. 11 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction.” Google is your friend, and you are “useful idiots”. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/158 "2004-06-04T16:56:39Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > I already did. Despite your “la-la-la-, I can’t hear you” style of rebuttal, I laid out quotes in which Bush clearly associated Saddam with Al Qaeda, which is equivalent to linking him to 9/11. In the popular consciousness, Al Qaeda = 9/11. Bush was clearly relying on this linkage to foment support for the war. I see. You simply need to find an example of Bush mentioning Iraq and Al Qaeda together. This association to you makes him guilty of lying about Saddam colluding with Al Qaeda regarding 9/11. This is quite a low standard you have set for yourself as far as “facts” go. It’s one thing if you choose to believe such foolishness. But, where you really go off the deep end is when you claim that your preposterous theory is a solid fact and that all who disagree with it are fools. > [@](#): > > Every post you write indicates a shocking lack of information; in short, you do not know what the fuck you are talking about. That you so badly misread **Demo** ’s short post indicates you’re not very bright in the first place. Frankly, I’m having difficulty talking down to your level. Yep. We’ve already established that I am a fool (and a villain) simply because I disagree with the wild theories you have presented as “facts”. The fact that I am persisting in asking you to prove your crazy accusations must be very annoying. No doubt I must be an even greater fool than you first thought. > [@](#): > > And I’ll ignore your accusations of “liar” as the pathetic playground retort that it is. You said something that was not true. When challenged, you have utterly failed to come even close to proving it. The possibility no longer exists that you are simply incorrect. You are a liar. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/159 "2004-06-04T16:59:58Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > You said something that was not true. When challenged, you have utterly failed to come even close to proving it. The possibility no longer exists that you are simply incorrect. You are a liar. Isn’t it therefore the case that Bush is a liar? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342/160 "2004-06-04T17:37:56Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I see. You simply need to find an example of Bush mentioning Iraq and Al Qaeda together. This association to you makes him guilty of lying about Saddam colluding with Al Qaeda regarding 9/11. > > This is quite a low standard you have set for yourself as far as “facts” go. It’s one thing if you choose to believe such foolishness. But, where you really go off the deep end is when you claim that your preposterous theory is a solid fact and that all who disagree with it are fools. When you persist in calling me a a liar, despite my backing up my assertions with relevant cites, despite others providing you with relevant cites, I can only conclude that you are so deep in denail that you have become delusional. Bush asserted linkages of Saddam with Al Qaeda. That was not true. Bush said Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Niger. That was not true. Bush said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, including NBC weapons. That was not ture. All of this–the Al Qaeda links, the yellowcake from Niger, the WMDs–have all beeen refuted by multiple sources, yet you continue to believe that Bush 's pretexts for starting the wart are valid and that everyone else is just a liar. Yikes. And you continue to either misunderstand or misstate my reasons for thinking you evil. not because you support Bush or that you continue to support the war, but for this–you support a regime that believes torture is acceptable to practise on prisoners. Even if allowing Rumsfeld to OK torture were the only thing Bush had done wrong, it would be enough for me to not vote for him. Yep. We’ve already established that I am a fool (and a villain) simply because I disagree with the wild theories you have presented as “facts”. The fact that I am persisting in asking you to prove your crazy accusations must be very annoying. No doubt I must be an even greater fool than you first thought. You said something that was not true. When challenged, you have utterly failed to come even close to proving it. The possibility no longer exists that you are simply incorrect. You are a liar. [/QUOTE] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-off-dubya-you-arrogant-little-shit/248342.md?page=9)