9/11 Panel Find No Link With Iraq

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4@17 June 2004 - 20:53


Given this circumstance, it could be concluded that, by ignorantly and innocently discussing this non-issue, the members of this board are attempting to interfere in the internal politics of the United States.

Oh-oh!

Does this mean we will be invaded?


Whilst there may not have been a specific link made by Rumsfeld et al, (although again, some very ambigious statements have been made in this regard over the last couple of years) there was, rightly or wrongly, such a linkage in the minds of the general public; if opinion polls are to be believed (which I agree, is debateable).

Consequently, I wondered, if by refuting this link in their conclusions, the Panel would raise questions of trust in the minds of the voters given the ongoing cost of Iraq in blood and money.

Regarding any actual connections that may or may not have existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq, I am unaware of any actual event or material support of this nature. These accusations always seem to be of the vague, the scary monster will get you, type - never specific examples.

As far as I have seen to date, Saddams connections were with Palestinian groups, mainly Arafat's people. This, as far as one can tell, was to play to the Arabic crowd more than any deep seated ideological commitment on his part.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@17 June 2004 - 21:02

BTW, the rest of the world suspected that Saddam had WMD, not the other way around.

Crap, the ones that went in with you didnt believe it, never mind the majority of the world that condemned it.

Oh wait...I remember those millions upon millions of people Demonstrating worldwide in favour....NOT

Those people were protesting against war, I didn't hear of a single person clearly stating what Saddam did or did not have.

The governments were concerned he might have them, the people would have no way of knowing without just simply guessing. So uninformed speculation is irrelevant.

I found no pre-war thread in World News stating that Saddam didn't have WMD. Rat Faced, you clearly weren't sure. Now people are stating, "Well, the entire world knew he didn't have them!". The truth is that nobody really knew.

RatFaced:

IF WMD are found, and none have been so far (although there are some now being tested) then you have 'the smoking gun'.

The protests were directed at how do deal with the situation and not whether Saddam had WMD or not.

As for backing the UN proposal, that was just politics as usual. France and Russia had economic issues with Iraq. The US wanted something from Iraq. What we have here is a bit of conflict of interests. The UN has little to do with right or wrong, but politicians voting to look out for their country's interests.

But as I have said before, I am not here to justify the war, I think my stance is well documented, just to humbly answer Biggles question.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Biggles@17 June 2004 - 20:51
Hobbes

Whilst I understand the argument that it is important to move against those that will attack you - it is generally accepted that it is best to move against those who pose a genuine threat. I could not see this in Iraq and consider the diplomatic and political initiatives were performing well in that circumstance. Nothing that has happened since has done much to convince me otherwise.

Biggles,


My words were chosen with care. I was addressing the issue from what Bush was selling to the people. I stated that Bush labeled Sadam a terrorist on par with Bin Laden, and was therefore a threat.

I did not say he was a threat, but that Bush told us he was.


That is why I commented on whether the snake had teeth. Meaning that Bush may have "sexed up" Saddams potentional risk to the US. He showed us a scary rattlesnake, but did he know that that snake had no fangs?


A much better analogy would have been, did George knowingly try and portray a king snake as a coral snake.



Image Resized
[img]http://www.stetson.edu/~pmay/woodruff/sking.jpg' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'>

One of these snakes is deadly the other is harmless.

[j2k4]

I have an honest question I would like answered:

Given that people (politicians, in this case) may, knowingly or not, say things, make statements, what-have-you, and "imply", "infer", or "intend" something other than what is said to be taken from the utterance in question.....

.....isn't it likewise true that the "listener", depending on his or her particular bent, could hear something that was neither actually said, nor intended to be "gathered"?

This phenomenon has afflicted the Bush administration ever since 9/11, it seems.

Mssr. Kerry should beware, addicted as he is to the "art" of nuance.

Input?

EDIT: Hobbes-

Always remember:

Red on yellow, kill a fellow, red on black, friend of Jack.

[Biggles]

Hobbes

Agreed, I had not intended to suggest that you supported the assertions regarding Saddam one way or another.

J2K4

Following the poll that appeared to find that 55% of under 30s did not know who the US troops were fighting on D-Day, I am at a complete loss as to what people claim to understand or think they understand from any given piece of information. On the whole, I find it all a touch depressing.

I would agree, however, that given such an impressionable and apparently blank canvas with which to work, it would be wise for all in the public domain to ensure that there is no ambiguity in what they say. The temptation to make use of nuances and implied suggestions will, I fear, prove too great.

..and that melancholy note I shall take myself to bed. Goodnight all.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@17 June 2004 - 13:53


Read carefully, please:

It was never the contention of the Bush administration that Saddam was responsible, even in part, for 9/11; rather, that he had connections with Al Qaeda.

Baloney, j2.
The Bush administration, using Cheney as the plausibly deniable mouthpiece has, in the past and continuing today, done all that it could to link Iraq and 9/11 in the minds of the American and worldwide public.
In his desperate efforts to justify the war that he feels he was born to lead, Bush has consistently thrown the widest, most comprehensive net of "evidence" that he could.
Now, such evidence being discredited, Bush et.al. claim they never actually said these things.

Short Attention Span Theater, indeed.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+17 June 2004 - 18:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 17 June 2004 - 18:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@17 June 2004 - 13:53


Read carefully, please:

It was never the contention of the Bush administration that Saddam was responsible, even in part, for 9/11; rather, that he had connections with Al Qaeda.

Baloney, j2.
The Bush administration, using Cheney as the plausibly deniable mouthpiece has, in the past and continuing today, done all that it could to link Iraq and 9/11 in the minds of the American and worldwide public.
In his desperate efforts to justify the war that he feels he was born to lead, Bush has consistently thrown the widest, most comprehensive net of "evidence" that he could.
Now, such evidence being discredited, Bush et.al. claim they never actually said these things.

Short Attention Span Theater, indeed.[/b][/quote]
What proof, pray tell?

I have the memory of the elephant that I am; neither Bush nor Cheney ever said Saddam was responsible for 9/11, though they drew a very direct line from Saddam to Al Qaeda, and terrorists in general.

People who want to believe otherwise will do so, absent any evidence for or against the fact.

On the other hand, what am I to do with all the old quotes from those who lately are gainsaying themselves with regard to WMD?

lynx-

I am sure there were at least a few people on the planet who still don&#39;t think Saddam ever had WMD, so you are technically correct, I suppose, but what exactly were the U.N. weapons inspectors looking for, and on whose behalf?

Or are you positing that Saddam had divested himself of them prior to the war?

Confused, I am.

Still looking for some extrapolation on my other post, guys....

[cpt_azad]

to our country and he was removed

so it&#39;s all about america? i&#39;m pretty sure u guys are fighting the war of israel, just a thought, and ur analogy is a good one (snakes), but it&#39;s still doesn&#39;t justify the tens of thousands killed in iraq (mostly, wait, almost 100% civs), and dont give me that bullshit about casualties of war because whenever a soldier dies they are on the front pages, whenever an iraqi civ dies it&#39;s a "just cause", i have no anger towards americans, just their way of thinking and their politicians . saddam was no threat to america and the world knew it, israel was scared shitless because of the supposed WMD&#39;s, and america (govt)? hell i don&#39;t even know why they had to do wat they did

[Busyman]

What Bush prayed on was the uneducated voter.

9/11 happened

We send troops to Afghanistan to strike at the supposed home of Al Qaeda.

We then send troops to Iraq shortly afterwards.

We make reference to Bin Laden and Hussein in the same sentence.
(he&#39;s just as dangerous as..., he&#39;s on par with......)

Then there&#39;s this talk from the uneducated.

"I bet Saddam had something to do with 9/11."
"He hated America anyways."
"All the Arabs are working to together."

Speculation is one thing but actually believing the far fetched with no proof is another.

Believe it or not elections are won with simply the planting of information or misinformation.

One person hears some shocking news that backs their candidate...but doesn&#39;t hear the refutation.

Then there are those that hear the refutation but block it out because their mind is made up.

"I always vote Democrat."
"He&#39;s pro-life and that&#39;s all I care about."
"He sent my boy to die for nothing."


btw
Stating that there could be a connection is a political way of giving a reason for action some teeth.

The uneducated take shouldacouldawoulda as fact on many occasions.

There could be a connection between my dick and my best friend&#39;s wife&#39;s pussy.

It doesn&#39;t mean I fucked her.

[vidcc]

a good post busy and it is relevent to all sides of the political spectrum to some extent. Just because we are talking a specific topic doesn&#39;t make that statement limited.

however i can&#39;t help wondering one thing...

There could be a connection between my dick and my best friend&#39;s wife&#39;s pussy.

It doesn&#39;t mean I fucked her.

you must have thought about it although where does her cat come into it ? :helpsmile: