"We were not in Iraq on [9/11], but the terrorists hit us anyway" --Cheney

[vibrotronica]

@Shodan

The only available evidence is number of successful terrorist attacks before the invasion (one) vs. the number of successful terrorist attacks since the invasion (zero).

Why do right wing partisan windbags keep citing this “statistic” incorrectly? There wasn’t only one terrorist attack on United States soil after Bush became president, there were two. In an effort to downplay how laughably ineffective the Bush administration has been in fighting terror, the dishonest partisan Shodan has conveniently forgotten about the 2001 anthrax attacks. Tell us, Shodan, about how King George brought those terrorists to justice just like they did Osama bin Laden.

[Marley23]

@Shodan

Keeping in mind that the number 2 guy in al-Queda was drawn into Iraq by the invasion - and killed there.

'Course, he wasn’t the number two guy in Al Qaeda when he went to Iraq. He got to be the number two guy because of all the trouble he caused in Iraq, which has only increased since he died.

So, for the record, it would be fair to say that all of you are claiming that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

You’re not dumb enough to think that’s clever, are you?

“They weren’t Iraqis, nor did I ever say that Iraq ordered that attack,”

This was a stroke of cleverness on Bush’s part. He denied saying something nobody ever accused him of saying (“Iraq ordered the attack”) while he was trying to say Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda.

[RTFirefly]

@Shodan

No, you are just making shit up because that’s all you can think to do. Of course, it is hardly the first time.

Is there any reason to respond to anything you say anymore? If I say, “Cheney’s assuming that there is an essentially fixed set of terrorists in the world,” you can say, “no, that’s not necessarily true,” and explain how what he’s saying might not rest on that assumption. But if you say I’m just making shit up, without any justification, then all I can conclude is that you’ve exhausted your meager repertoire of intellectual abilities, and that nothing you say in the future is going to even be worth the bother of responding to.

IOW, bye.

[John_Mace]

@Marley23

'Course, he wasn’t the number two guy in Al Qaeda when he went to Iraq. He got to be the number two guy because of all the trouble he caused in Iraq, which has only increased since he died.

Zarqawi wasn’t the #2 guy ever, btw. Ayman al-Zawahiri is generally considered the #2 guy. Always has been that way. In fact, Zawahiri was ObL’s mentor in the early years, and was instrumental in making ObL what he is today.

[Fear_Itself]

@RTFirefly

Is there any reason to respond to anything you say anymore?

**Shodan ** has been circling the milroyj drain for some time now. Stay tuned for the ultimate melt-down and banning.

[Shodan]

@RedFury

Shodan,

Got new for you: much of what people retain while listening to politicos/pundits are simply the catchphrases.

And with you, not even that.

Admit it - you didn’t even read your own cite far enough to see that Bush specifically denied a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

You = stupid.

@vibrotronica

Why do right wing partisan windbags keep citing this “statistic” incorrectly? There wasn’t only one terrorist attack on United States soil after Bush became president, there were two. In an effort to downplay how laughably ineffective the Bush administration has been in fighting terror, the dishonest partisan Shodan has conveniently forgotten about the 2001 anthrax attacks.

So you know for a fact who committed those attacks? Cite?

@Fear Itself

Shodan has been circling the milroyj drain for some time now. Stay tuned for the ultimate melt-down and banning.

Feel free to report me, if you like. Unless “pointing out that the Usual Suspects are so blinded by stupidity that they can’t even read” is a bannable offense, I feel relatively safe.

@RTFirefly

Is there any reason to respond to anything you say anymore? If I say, “Cheney’s assuming that there is an essentially fixed set of terrorists in the world,” you can say, “no, that’s not necessarily true,” and explain how what he’s saying might not rest on that assumption. But if you say I’m just making shit up, without any justification, then all I can conclude is that you’ve exhausted your meager repertoire of intellectual abilities, and that nothing you say in the future is going to even be worth the bother of responding to.

IOW, bye.

M’kay - bye-bye!

Regards,
Shodan

[Squink]

@John Mace

Zarqawi wasn’t the #2 guy ever, btw. Ayman al-Zawahiri is generally considered the #2 guy. Always has been that way. In fact, Zawahiri was ObL’s mentor in the early years, and was instrumental in making ObL what he is today.

Of course, Zarqawi’s Iraq organization wasn’t even associated with al Qaeda until late 2004:

Before September 2004 the group was called Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Arabic: جماعة التوحيد والجهاد‎, Monotheism and Holy War Movement) The group’s name, which is usually abbreviated as JTJ, purposely contrasts the strict monotheism of Islam with the “God in three persons” of the Christian Trinity, which it sees as polytheism. The name change is significant as it uses the archaic name of Iraq used in the Islamic Caliphate era. Al Jazeera renders the group’s current name as al-Qaeda in the Land of Two Rivers [1].

Al-Qaeda in Iraq

Al-Zarqawi is thought to be the mastermind behind the roughly 1,000 foreign insurgents fighting in Iraq. For a time, al-Zarqawi appeared to position himself as a rival to bin Laden, but in Oct. 2004 he officially declared allegiance to al-Qaeda, changing the name of his organization from Unification and Jihad to al-Qaeda in Iraq. In an audiotape a few months later bin Laden declared that “the dear mujahed brother Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the prince of al-Qaeda in Iraq,” and announced that “we, in al-Qaeda organization, welcome him joining forces with us.”

Al-Qaeda

It’d be fair to say that the US invasion led to the creation of al Qaeda in Iraq.

[John_Mace]

Here’s an interesting piece of information regarding the Saddam = 9/11 theme. On 9/14/03, Cheney said the following on Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

Not exactly saying Saddam = 9/11, but certainly leaving the door open. However, three days later we have this from Bush when he was asked about Cheney’s comments (emphasis added):

We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th . What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Sarawak, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He’s the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He’s a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.

So, that was Sept 2003, and there is an explicit public statement from Bush saying there is no evidence of Saddam = 9/11, but he does try to link Saddam with al Qaeda, as I’ve been saying.

[elucidator]

Yes, Saddam was linked to AlQ. They were enemies.

[vibrotronica]

@Shodan

So you know for a fact who committed those attacks? Cite?

What the fuck are you talking about, dipshit? What kind of response was that? You said there was one terrorist attack on American soil since Bush took office. You were wrong. There have been two. No one knows who did it. It’s Bush’s job to find out who did it and bring them to justice. He has failed. Do you now deny that the attacks happened or that they were terrorist attacks? Why do you hate America so much?

[jsc1953]

It’s like The Far Side’s view of “what a dog hears” – except that the Bush Administration is talking, and the American public is the dog.

blah blah blah blah Iraq blah blah blah terrorists blah blah 9/11 blah blah blah 3000 dead blah blah Saddam blah blah.

The public is left with the impression of a connection, but the White House can deny that it every said it.

[Marley23]

@John Mace

Zarqawi wasn’t the #2 guy ever, btw. Ayman al-Zawahiri is generally considered the #2 guy. Always has been that way.

That’s how I’d always heard it also. Zarqawi wasn’t involved in Al Qaeda on the organizational level (if it can still be called an organization), just in the fighting in Iraq. In context I think it was clear what Shodan meant.

[John_Mace]

@Squink

Of course, Zarqawi’s Iraq organization wasn’t even associated with al Qaeda until late 2004: Al-Qaeda in Iraq - Wikipedia Al-Qaeda

It’d be fair to say that the US invasion led to the creation of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Yes, that would be fair. BTW, I read an interesting article about Zarqawi in the NYT Sunday Mag a few months back. He actually did have some early associations with ObL and al-Q, but he left because he found them to be not sufficiently anti-Shiite, among other things. The guy sounds like a real peach!

[elucidator]

Harpers? Atlantic? One or the other has a real good article about him, maybe last month. A British intelligence guy is quoted speaking of the first meeting of ObL and AlZ as being “loathe at first sight”.

[Merijeek]

@Fear Itself

**Shodan ** has been circling the milroyj drain for some time now. Stay tuned for the ultimate melt-down and banning.

Whatever happened to that little monkey, anyways?

That way we can all find out what lil’ dan will be up to in a couple years.

-Joe

[Marley23]

@John Mace

Yes, that would be fair. BTW, I read an interesting article about Zarqawi in the NYT Sunday Mag a few months back. He actually did have some early associations with ObL and al-Q, but he left because he found them to be not sufficiently anti-Shiite, among other things. The guy sounds like a real peach!

I think I remember that article. Bin Laden preferred to focus on imperialists and anti-Islamic forces and blah blah blah, not attacking other Muslims, while al-Zarqawi, intentionally or not, was fine with fomenting a civil war in Iraq. That’s one of those little things that, even though it’s technically all bad news, gives me a little optimism about the terrorist problem: if these guys can’t even get on the same page about who they hate and need to kill, there’s no way they can forcibly re-establish a caliphate, overthrow all the allegedly pro-West governments in the region, and eradicate Israel. There will always be crossfire, but I’d rather they fight amongst themselves than take it all out on their purported enemies.

[John_Mace]

@Marley23

I think I remember that article. Bin Laden preferred to focus on imperialists and anti-Islamic forces and blah blah blah, not attacking other Muslims, while al-Zarqawi, intentionally or not, was fine with fomenting a civil war in Iraq.

Not sure we’re talking about the same article. This one went back way before the Iraq invasion, so the lack of interest in ObL from Zarqawi wasn’t really about Iraq at all. Remember, Zarqawi is a Jordanian, although he is ethnically a Palestanian. He didn’t care for ObL’s philosophy because it wasn’t radical enough (wrt Islam, if you can imagine that!), and it wasn’t anti-Shiite enough. Certainly it’s true that ObL wanted Zarqawi to focus on kciking the US out of Iraq, once Zarqawi got there, instead of trying to foment a civil war. He probably figured the civil war could come later…

[Shodan]

@vibrotronica

Do you now deny that the attacks happened or that they were terrorist attacks?

I am saying that you have no idea who did it, or what their motivations were. Yet you seem quite sure that it was done by terrorists.

Or, by the standards of interpretation applied to Bush and Cheney hereabouts, you are clearly stating that Saddam was behind the anthrax attacks.

See how it works?

Regards,
Shodan

[Fear_Itself]

@Shodan

I am saying that you have no idea who did it, or what their motivations were.

Well, we do have a pretty good idea about their motivations, seeing as they sent threatening letters with the anthrax.

Yet you seem quite sure that it was done by terrorists.

If it quacks like a duck… Oh what’s the point, you will counter with a simple uncited contradiction, as that is your fallback debating technique lately.

BushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLied

Neener-*neener *-NEENER

[Marley23]

@John Mace

Not sure we’re talking about the same article.

I may be thinking of something in Newsweek. Hope I didn’t miss the Times one, though.

@Shodan

I am saying that you have no idea who did it, or what their motivations were. Yet you seem quite sure that it was done by terrorists.

So you’re saying that a person can mail anthrax to politicians and media outlets and NOT be a terrorist? How’s that work? There’s no evidence it was Al Qaeda, but it sure sounds like terrorism.