And attacking Iraq was about keeping us safe from terrorism?
Then explain this, please:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
Can’t wait.
Bush holding back from bombing terrorists ? Not likely.
Either they thought these guys would stay put (and be captured)… or the intelligence wasn’t acted upon.
I’m skeptical on this one…
I’m not. From what I remember reading a few weeks ago, we knew where Zarqawi was and could have taken him out. Basically the rational was that we would get Zarqawi and the other terrorists operating in Norther Iraq when we invaded. They didn’t want to screw up the invasion by doing pre-emptive strikes into Norther Iraq when we’d be doing the whole shebang later on anyway. (I’m working mostly from memory on a story I read a few weeks ago btw, so I could be way off here).
There IS a certain rational behind this decision, if you assume that the invasion of Iraq is important of course. Personally, I think we’d have been better served DOING pre-emptive strikes into Northern Iraq (and elsewhere where we knew terrorists were hiding out) instead of invading Iraq (god knows how high the howls would have been if we had of, but I would have supported such actions to the hilt, especially if we coordinated such things with other effected nations). I think Iraq was a waste and a distraction from what we SHOULD be doing, which is rebuilding Afghanistan and hunting down terrorist groups in other country and really putting their feet to the fire.
-XT
Not mentioned in the OP: **Roger Cressey ** was the source. Also from NBC News …
Hmmm, Clarke’s deputy, now consultant for NBC News, 15 minutes of fame? :rolleyes:
I notice that you’ve only attacked the man rather than address the information presented. even if the fella’s the world’s most self serving jackass, he may still say true things.
Attack? Everything I said was reported by NBC News except for the “15 minutes” part. He is the only source reported in the NBC piece and he is a NBC News consultant. I expect way more than this from a news organization …
So, basically, the complete totality of what you’re trying to do is to imply that he’s a liar? (Or at least imply that he may be a liar.) And that’s it, right? You’ve not any counter evidence or any other such thing to offer I take it.
How can anyone counter a single source piece whom happens to be a consultant for the “news” organization reporting it 
So… NBC news is not a credible news organization? Or am I misinterpreting your creative use of quotes? Generally speaking, in Great Debates, you need to present counter-evidence, not simply cast aspersions on the character and motivations of the source. Try it, you’ll like it. Or at least the rest of us will.
I know Kerry shagged this JoAnn broad. I saw it with my own eyes and posted on SDGD! Present counter-evidence please … :smack:
Another fun way to see if a source is correct is to see if the information fits in with other data. In this case, it does appear to, which lends credibility to the claim.
You seem to be ignoring the point of my post. There is a topic under discussion, at least in theory. You’re not addressing it. This is Great Debates, not the Pit.
And, by the way…
By presenting counter-evidence. The fact that there is a single source reporting this has nothing to do with whether or not there is counter-evidence. If you have some, please offer it.
Back *on * topic, I find it quite likely that the Bush admin would decide to defer taking out Zarqawi. It’s possibly a case of “don’t want to get the small target and lose the big one.”
To wit, I would like to support this argument by pointing out that the Bush Admin did, indeed, make Iraq a precedent over the “war on terrorism,” if by nothing else than basically abandoning the efforts in Afghanistan. This shows that the Administration has and probably will continue to further their own agenda over the “war on terror.”
How can I present counter evidence to a single source report which was reported by a news organization in which the source is a paid consultant? Really don’t get it?
By proving your premise? By presenting information that contradicts the report? I dunno, be creative.
Alternatively, you can also keep dirt digging and see if this chap, who was a trusted member of the administration, is a trustworthy source or not with some depth other than “he now works for NBC.”
Indeed, you are not. As noted above, you can counter it by presenting evidence of an opposing viewpoint. Cressey has stated that the Bush admin was more focused on overthrowing Saddam than fighting terrorism. Good grief, man*, you can no doubt find an opposing cite to the central thrust of this claim with a Google search. You don’t need to refute his statement directly, you can simply oppose it. What I and SimonX are calling you on is that you’re not presenting any alternative case, you’re simply implying that Cressey has selfish motivations and is possibly a liar. That’s not fighting ignorance, that’s spreading it.
Unless and until you directly address this point, rather than dancing around it, I am done with you. Have a nice day.
*figure of speech and an assumption on my part. If you are a woman, my apologies if I have offended you.
You all have a great time with this thread. You can’t even suggest how to present evidence against a single source paid consultant. I not going to make up lies, like this NBC News consultant. The story is fiction, has no legs and will be gone before this thread … S out!
I’m confused a little here. Are you saying that his being a consultant with NBC news is some sort of conflict of interest?
Does that mean that we should have never listened to those talking heads (retired generals and such) that the various news organizations put on the air during the Iraq war?
And, by the way, Senggum, as for it all being from a single source named Roger Cressey, you seem to be inventing that fact out of thin air. Quoting from the article:
So your claim that this all relies on Cressey is at odds with the use of the plural as in “U.S. officials” and “U.S. government sources”. We also has Michael O’Hanlon of Brookings, who either is a source or believes that the source is credible.
So, let’s make our list of people who are no longer credible:
(1) Paul O’Neill
(2) Roger Cressey
(3) Clark
(4) Christie Todd Whitman
(5) Any other former Administration official who doesn’t worship the ground Bush walks on
(6) Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst at the respected (and rather centrist) Brookings Institution.
(7) anonymous U.S. officials / U.S. government sources that NBC news believes are credible
Actually, you’re right, I am. You just refuse to accept a report because this guy is supposedly untrustworthy, even though you haven’t proven that 1) the Bush Admin wouldn’t do this, 2) the Bush Admin hasn’t done this, 3) the Bush Admin didn’t do this, 4) the Bush Admin couldn’t do this, and 5) that the source is actually untrustworthy.