| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/17 |
| 2004/6/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30993 Activity:very high |
6/24 Ron Reagan speaks! First telling Bush & Co, Inc. That real men
don't invoke Ronald Reagan's name to get their agenda pushed thru.
And now he tells Bush & Co. off about Iraq war. It's about time:
http://tinyurl.com/yq79c
\_ wow, nice way to misquote Ron. He never said the first thing
although it was falsely reported that way. Must be the busines
elite controlled media that wants Kerry in office.
\_ Reagan in 2012!!!!
\_ Why do liberals keep saying Bush lied our way into an Iraq war?
Obviously he made his decisions based on the best available
information at the time -- so you should say it was a CIA failure.
Iraq had WMDs, and the head of CIA said it was a slam dunk. What
President would question that?
\_ I'll assume you're trolling, so I'll keep it short: there were
many complaints from the CIA rank and file about being forced
to produce evidence to support a predetermined conclusion.
\_ I can produce an equal or greater number of URLs with
CIA rank and file saying they felt no pressure at all.
Do you have a URL for the bi-partisan 9/11 commission
conclusions?
Besides, who says Bush came down on CIA rank-and-file to
force conclusions? Even Clinton supports Bush going to war;
nowhere does Bill say Bush lied about it.
\_ In the end, it always comes down to a matter of trust.
There will always be missing information from what
either side can learn. It comes down to this: do you
believe Bush to be trustworthy, and do you believe that
he generally acts in the best interests of the country?
I believe the answer is no, and that his actions should
be judged in that context.
\_ So you already didn't like the guy so he must be lying
but if you previously did like the guy then it was ok
to invade Iraq. So your feelings about the man then
make him into a liar and justify your feelings about
the man in a circular pattern that makes it nearly
impossible for him to earn your trust.
\_ I believe the total picture provided by TV media, print
media, and VIPs shows that Bush always acted to defend
the U.S. against terrorism, and was provided poor
intelligence on Iraq. Like I said, even Clinton
supported Bush going to war.
Thesis: "Bush didn't lie."
\_ I disagree. It's not about trust. It's about the
inability to see good policy through to the end. The
UN Weapons Inspectors were doing a good job. The
sanctions and containment were working. Bush wanted to
invade Iraq so badly that he was willing and eager to
accept any intelligence, no matter how dodgy, that
supported his desire to invade preemptively. He pushed
his vision when he should have weighed the evidence more
carefully. He made speeches based on evidence that
should have been examined more than once. He let his
eagerness goad him into believeing something that the
facts did not support, and then he sold that belief to
the American people. That he was careful to let
innuendo do the job for him rather than blatantly lying
is no excuse; that's standard CYA.
\_ It isn't his job to question the evidence presented.
By the time the information gets to him it *better*
already be the best possible information available.
If the President of the United States Of America has
to question the intelligence briefs he gets every day
then we're much more fucked than having what some of
you consider a liar in office.
\_ It is the job of the CoC to understand that an
argument based on one sketchy source is not
a viable argument for going to war. Yes, I want
the President to be able to discern between
reasonable intel and fairy tales based on fluff.
\_ Do you really think the intel is presented as,
"And yeah boss this one questionable character
we paid to say some stuff said this stuff but
it's kinda sketchy. Should we invade now?"
Oftentimes intel has one and only one source
and you're lucky to get that. This isn't
journalism school.
\_ Intel that comes from one source, unless
that one source is the Baby Jesus, is
highly suspect. If you run with it, you
must know that you're running a huge risk
of it turning out bad. When it turns out
bad and results in the needless deaths of
hundreds of US soldiers, it's your duty
to cop to and resign.
\_ Tennet was obsessed with Al Qaeda. Clinton told Bush
that Al Qaeda, North Korea, and Pakistein is probably a
greater security threat than Iraq in terms of priority.
and in case you don't remember, Bush said that Iraq
supported 9/11 attack, and Iraq had tons of WMD, and
Iraq was actively buying Uranium from Africa.
\_ Clinton told Bush what? You know this because? Clinton
said so on 9/12/2001? Clinton said and continues to
say a lot of things. Some are even true.
\_ Bush said there were Iraq/al-Qaeda links, he never said
Iraq supported 9/11. Tenet said Iraq had WMD. Tenet
approved the speech that said Iraq was buying uranium
from Africa.
Thesis: "Bush didn't lie."
\_ where is that Iraq/al-Qaeda link, then? and
in case you don't know. Bush is the commander in
chief. he is ultimately responsible for everything,
eventhough he tend to blame everythign to his
inferiors when things go wrong.
\_ Holy cow! Are you really denying a link between
Iraq and middle eastern islamic terrorism?
\_ So you think we should hang our officials anytime
they make an error? Decision makers must always
be perfect? Anything less and we should do what?
Vote in some idiot just because he isn't the first
guy?
\_ The bi-partisan 9/11 commission said there were
links:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-17-hadley_x.htm
Bush is ultimately responsible, but the point
I am making is that he didn't lie about Iraq.
\_ Bush didn't lie. He is just misled. He is not the brightest,
you know.
\_ Bush drew very explicit links between Iraq
and terrorism; terrorism, in the minds of
Americans, means al Qaeda; so, many people
took his comments to mean that there were
explicit links between Iraq and 9/11. Cf.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm
To say that he did not mean to say that Iraq
was directly linked to 9/11 is a lot like
saying, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome
priest?" and then wondering aloud why your
most loyal men have murdered the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
\_ Ok, so now you're saying he didn't lie and
it is his fault that the media through the
op/ed pages misrepresented what he said and
the American people believed the media. Your
line of reasoning is broken and twisted.
Just let it go.
\_ You're kidding, right? The man is not
the brightest bulb, but he and his
minders (Rove, Cheney) are masters at
putting out the image. Lying by
innuendo is a basic trick in the GOP
playbook.
\_ Ok so now it's just a big VRWC. Ok,
thanks for playing. We went from
"BUSH LIED!" to "Bush is a dim bulb
guy who didn't understand that he was
being manipulated by the evil NeoCon
VRWC". You could at least try to be
consistent instead of allowing yourself
to get pushed further and further away
from your original point, which you
clearly lost, you are better off,
rhetorically speaking, granting the
point and starting a new thread on
your fall back position. So now we
can agree that Bush didn't lie but
possible the evil NeoCons manipulated
the poor dumb drunken coked out Texan.
But that's for a different thread, eh?
\_ 1) There's more than one person
responding to you, so I guess
you win.
2) It's not a conspiracy. It's very
savvy message manipulation and
PR. Why does that disturb you?
\_ Bush didn't lie. He was just misled. He is not the brightest,
you know. Of course, next time US try to tell other countries
about something the CIA found out, they will just rofl, and
ask, "Did your mama told you so this time? Bwahahaha!"
\_ Ok, so we made a mistake. We invaded a country. Who's gonna
pay for this? We, we are gonna pay for this with our blood
and lives when the suicide bomber hit us. Someone needs to
be held accountable for this, as this is not the kind shit that
can be dismissed with a simple, ooops.
\_ Hint: the suicide bombers were hitting us long before we
invaded Iraq. Buy a calendar.
\_ Except for the fact that the intelligence agencies from all
these other countries were saying the same things which you
should know if you're not a complete ignoramous but you ignore
because you have an axe to grind and an agenda to push.
\_ really? what were they saying?
\_ damn, buy a newspaper. the whole western world agreed
back in 1998 that saddam had wmd. there is no reason
to believe that the stock piles everyone believed
existed back then suddenly disintegrated since the
1998 inspectors left because of a blue stained dress.
\_ It is undeniable that Iraq, along with Iran, was the largest
state sponsor of terror. In 1993 after WTCI the Ney York FBI
believed Iraq was responsible for the bombing. Where did Abu
Abbas and Abu Nidal live? Where did the only fugitive of WTCI
live? Saddam had repeated contacts with Al Qaeda. What about
the planned chemical attack in Jordan? Dozens of sarin shells?
WMD components in scrapyards.... [formatd]
\_ Yikes! Facts! Stop!
\_ We should nuke the country that has the most WMD on earth.
\_ Wow! You are soooo smart! Go away, you drooling troll.
This isn't High School. |
| 5/17 |
|
| tinyurl.com/yq79c -> cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040624%2F0436195500.htm&sc=1110&photoid=20040611WCAP109 Ron Reagan Criticizes Bush Foreign Policy LOS ANGELES (AP) - Ron Reagan, the younger son of the late President Reagan, criticized the Bush administration's foreign policy, saying he believed the president misled Americans to gain support for the Iraq war. We lied our way into the war,'' he said on CNN's Larry King Live'' on Wednesday, referring to allegations that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and direct connections to al-Qaida. Reagan also said he was angered over the administration's restriction of federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. We're not talking about fetuses, human beings being killed. Nancy Reagan has long argued that such work could lead to cures for a number of diseases like the Alzheimer's that afflicted her husband. She doesn't get around as well as she used to, a little glaucoma,'' he said. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. |
| www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-17-hadley_x.htm Commission confirms links By Stephen J Hadley A 9/11 commission staff report is being cited to argue that the administration was wrong about there being suspicious ties and contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The staff report concludes that: Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan." "A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994." "Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan." Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. Following news stories, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he did not understand the media flap over this issue and that the commission does not disagree with the administration's assertion that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. President Bush and members of his administration have said all along that there were contacts and that those contacts raised troubling questions. For instance, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the leader of a terrorist group that is responsible for a number of deadly attacks throughout Iraq. He and his men trained and fought with al-Qaeda for years. Zarqawi's network helped establish and operate an explosives and poisons facility in northeast Iraq. Zarqawi and nearly two-dozen al-Qaeda associates were in Baghdad before the fall of Saddam's regime. In 2002, one al-Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was "good" and that Baghdad could be transited quickly. It may be that all of the contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda never resulted in joint terrorist attacks. But considering all that we knew, no responsible leader could take for granted that such a collaboration would never happen. Saddam had threatened American interests for more than a decade, harbored and assisted other terrorists, and possessed and used weapons of mass destruction. Al-Qaeda had declared war on America, and bin Laden had called the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction to attack Americans a "religious duty." The president did not order the liberation of Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. He sent American troops to Iraq to remove a grave and gathering threat to America's security. Because he acted, Iraq is free, and America and the world are safer. Stephen J Hadley is deputy national security adviser to President Bush. |
| news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm Printable version Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link US President George W Bush has explicitly stated for the first time that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks. George Bush Bush maintains Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda are connected Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two. A recent opinion poll suggests that 70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks. Despite his stated rejection of any clear link between Saddam Hussein and the events of that day, Mr Bush continues to assert that the deposed president had ties with al-Qaeda, the terrorist network blamed for the 11 September attacks. BBC News Online looks at some of the remarks made by Mr Bush and members of his administration both in the run-up to war and after hostilities had officially ended. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2002. The speech was primarily concerned with how the US was coping in the aftermath of 11 September. We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On 11 September, 2001, America felt its vulnerability - even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America. President Bush speaking in Cincinnati, Ohio, in October, 2002, in which he laid out the threat he believed Iraq posed. Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime. President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003. For America, there will be no going back to the era before 11 September 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities. President Bush in a televised address to defend his administration's policy on Iraq, September 2003. We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? US Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime, February 2003. Vice-President Dick Cheney when pressed on whether there was a link between Iraq and 11 September during a TV interview, September 2003. We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. Mr Cheney in the same interview, commenting on the war against Iraq. We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. Mr Cheney in the same interview, while recounting the controversial claim that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, met an Iraqi official in Prague before the attacks. |