I think this sums up the impression given:
They might not have intended to pardon debts... but now they will definitely NOT forgive debts after the way they were formally excluded and then asked to pardon debts the next day. Call it bad diplomacy ? Why should they help fix the mess the US made ?
The US is not a bully itself ?Yes, you are right. The US is not a pure democracy. Our founding fathers made sure of that when they wrote our Constitution. They feared a pure democracy above all else, although our activist liberal courts try to change that all the time and, unfortunately, have succeeded in certain areas. But I digress…
But the US is the greatest Representative Republic in history due to Capitalism. You might even say the greatest country in history due to Capitalism…
But, back to the question. If a country did not help to liberate the people of Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny and torture, they don’t deserve the contracts that will rebuild Iraq into the jewel of the Middle East. Their only method of redemption and participation in the contracts is to get their butts on the firing line now, not after the rebuilding.
:smack:
I suppose capitalism also drove the US into invading Iraq… in fact I am pretty sure.
Wow, I didn’t even know the administration HAD a tree house. 
-XT
I’m so sorry.
You didn’t know about the four crashed airliners on 9/11 and Saddam’s connection to them?
You didn’t know about the many years of Saddam ignoring UN resolution after UN resolution and, in the process, making the UN an irrelavant entity?
You were unaware of the torture, rape and murder of defenseless Iraqi citizens carried out by Saddam and his sons?
Then you are excused for not being “completely” sure.
:smack:
How’s about you tell us all about that? Many of us are under the impression that the Saddam/911 connection was a perfidious lie repeated over and over by our fearless leader in order to sucker frightened fools into into a war of agression. Pray tell, regale us with the true facts of the matter. :rolleyes:
Here’s a summary of a memo that most of the mainstream media and, apparently you, are ignoring. Be sure to read the links provided, too. By the way, neither Bush nor Cheney has ever said there was a connection. I did, thereby exercising my prorogative to state an opinion after reading many articles on the subject. I gather you will post a link to it where it states either one said that? I am sincerely interested. But, even a blind squirrel would have trouble stating there is no connection.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/428gpkbi.asp :rolleyes:
Bouncer, thanks for the info. It’s good to see that they at least put some thought into the issue, although I do have to say that it’s hard to see what the Iraqi share of the work is from the link you provided.
Note as well that there isn’t one instance of an Iraqi firm being a prime contractor as far as I can tell, which is just not right. In the example I provided from New Jersey, where I live, the banks were given the responsibility of being the prime underwriters on the loan syndicate even though they’d never handled a job that big.
Taking a chance? Absolutely. But the reward is worth the risk.
I find the idea of a few thousand people marching in Baghdad rebuttal to your opponents point somewhat sad.
It’s likewise pretty hard to deny that they’ve done everything possible to imply a connection, and play on the widespread belief that such a connection has already been established.
The existence of the Feith memo should not have been as ignored as it has been. But it also is not itself much of a case for saying that Sadam had a hand in 9/11, and the Standard (which is one of those publications which has the wonderful racket of being able to be as subjetive and selective in its coverage as it pleases, while at the same time berating other media outlets for not being objective or even handed enough).
The Standard article also neglects to mention that a possible major reason the administration hasn’t itself jumped on this “slam dunk” is that the memo is just a single piece of a much larger intelligence gathering operation, some of which could call into question the evidence behind its assertions and contradict it. For all we know, this single memo could be as incomplete as just seeing the OP of a Reeder thread without getting to see the later posts in which Shodan tears him to pieces.
In fact, this is exactly what the intelligence community has to say about the memo: that it is a very selective presentation of the facts (omitting lots of important evidence and context that completely changes the picture) that came from a politicized order to make the case for the connection, rather than get accurate and complete vetting of all available intelligence.
http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3540586&p1=0
Further, since the Standard has not seem fit to release the memo itself, we are still left with only their take on what it says.
It’s also a little odd that Fred Barnes had this to say about the memo "These are hard facts, and I’d like to see you refute any one of them” when his own paper then almost immediately expresses the idea that it doesn’t expect all the claims to check out, and indeed that none of them necessarily have to, since, well it’s “intelligence” not proof. I’m not sure what that means, but it does seem like “I’d like to see you refute any one of them” is a bit cocky for someone who we are simply supposed to trust to give a full and complete picture of the evidence.
Well, you yourself did just post a link to Bush pretty obviously trying to link the two together. Sure, he didn’t have SEX with that woman, technically, but…
barf: Someone is blind, but it is not Squink:
The Weekly Standard article already did go through the SDMB grind:
I like CiberPundit last take on that:
Moreover, since we did found that article to be misleading BS, a view from the truly liberal media is needed for balance:
Hm, it does sound a bit like Feith’s argument gets a little too close for comfort to “we know it’s true because we haven’t found any evidence to prove it, which is exactly what you’d expect if there was a coverup by Saddam.” He doesn’t quite go there, but he’s edging onto that territory.
**The sad thing is that had the US not excluded every country but the “coalition of the willing” that many Iraqi debts would have been pardoned. Even a partial debt pardon would have greatly benefited Iraq.
**
Yeah, they were just about to do it, honest! They have consistently demanded repayment and have never deviated from that demand.
It’s the worst kind of behavior. Support a brutal dictator, loan him money, and then expect his victims to pay you back.
The Saddam/911 connection may have gotten a little hotter:
Terrorist Behind September 11 Strike was Trained by Saddam
Now, I’m not going to say this is substantiated - this is the first I’ve heard of it, and there’s been a lot of these breathless reports that turned out to be something a lot less upon closer inspection. But in this case there’s an actual document, which is explicit, and which the Iraq Governing Council guarantees is authentic. So if this isn’t true, it means it’s an outright forgery, and not just a dispute over the meaning of ambiguous facts. So the stakes are pretty high on this one.
And if it IS true, it’s going to yank the entire rug out from under the anti-war arguments, because it’s the giant trifecta of Bush administration claims validation: A connection to 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, and even support for the ‘Niger Claim’.
That, of course, also makes it suspicious. It seems a little too good to be true. But this is a story that bears close watching.
Have you read the whole thing?
No can do, AFAICR the telegraph before also had scoops like this that fizzed, the words “Niger shipment” are enough to qualify this report as the administration’s letter to Santa.
Too many wishes fulfilled, too good to be true, and I think a lump of coal is really in there.
Duh, I typed the last bit and I read the article, and because it is late I missed that indeed you read it. Still, I do see that the report is not only taking care of the Al-qaeda connection but it is also a jab to the Palme investigation, the Niger thing was already debunked, so right there I don’t trust that report at all, I guess CyberPundit’s last line is valid here also.
Lies of this nature tend to get bigger and easier to spot.
And the story also tries to link in the late Abu Nidal.
Sends the bullshit meter off the scale.
For some reason, the Telegraph has two different version of the story on their website. Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
This story may be an attempt by the Iraqi exiles to divert attention from this story in the NYT:
Like… like the money lent to the brutal regimes in Brazil, Argentina and most Latin American countries ? We still owe the US and the 1st world a lot of that money. Seems the US isn’t so different from their 1st world buddies is it ? Never mind that the US did support Saddam…