It’s all so clear now. Members of the compassionate wing of the intelligent conservatives are actually self-deluded idiots.
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.
More of same. Obviously you are all for faith-based wars with little regard to facts.
Nicer still.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
gobear -
Thanks for the cites. Did you have any that show what you claimed?
This one, for instance -
Same problem as always. For any except convinced Bush-haters, “see if he was involved” does not equate to “he was definitely involved”.
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 when he died. Do you have any basis for your contention that he never received medical treatment in Baghdad?
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 -
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
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?
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?
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:
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?
I’m not conceding it. I’m pointing out that even if it was true, it leads nowhere.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
If can respond in any kind of sensible fashion, then please do so. As I understand it, the point of your statement:
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.
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.
Coordinated Administration talking point.
A site you’ll no doubt dismiss as biased, since it proves you’re both wrong and gullible
Yes, the National Intelligence Estimate that he used as a pretext for the invasion.
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?
Gee, I’m sure you have an innocent explanation to offer.
Now try this:
Why would he juxtapose these concepts unless he wanted us to believe something he already knew wasn’t true?
Google is your friend, and you are “useful idiots”.
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.
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.
Isn’t it therefore the case that Bush is a liar? 
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]