[MMike]

Is it too easy? The 9/11 report that came out saying that Iraq and Al Qaeda had no credible ties....even though GWB said that there were...and pretty much based an entire war on it?

Anyone? Bleeding heart liberals? Guys?

** crickets chirping **

 

[LordOpie]

did Bush say that or did he say Iraq had ties to terrorists?

 

[TCoop924]

Is it too easy? The 9/11 report that came out saying that Iraq and Al Qaeda had no credible ties....even though GWB said that there were...and pretty much based an entire war on it?

Anyone? Bleeding heart liberals? Guys?

** crickets chirping **

I think no one is really jumping on this because every semi-intelligent person who left their mind 5% open since the start of this entire thing has known the truth.

Will someone explain this little bit to me...I mean, I can't be the only person who sees something wrong with the below:

1) Clinton gets a lil' action in the oval office...republicans go hog-wild over it, have Clinton under oath, he lies about the whole sexual relations thing (depends how you define it )...and get his arse impeached.

2) The number of lies, cover-ups, and corrupt dealings Bush and his croonies have told or undertaken eclipses any other presidency in history and causes thousands of Americans to lose their jobs, retirement, and/or lives. BUT, because he was not under oath for any of these statements (more importantly, he WOULD NOT go under oath), prevents him from getting impeached. Smart guy? Quite possibly more than most people take him for. However, it seems to me the guy should still get impeached.

Done

 

[TCoop924]

did Bush say that or did he say Iraq had ties to terrorists?

Direct ties to Al Queda...not just terrorists in general...if it were direct ties to terrorists in general, every country and their mom would be feeling our wrath.

 

[MMike]

from the cnn article

No al Qaeda, Iraq cooperation
The panel said it found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The report contradicts statements from the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda.

In response, a senior administration official traveling with President Bush in Tampa, Florida, said, "We stand by what Powell and Tenet have said," referring to previous statements by Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet that described such links.

In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations that Iraq was harboring Zarqawi, a "collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants," and he said Iraq's denials of ties to al Qaeda "are simply not credible."

 

[BurlyShirley]

I thought the 911 commission was supposed to find out why planes crashed into the world trade center, not why we went to war in Iraq. Anyway, Bush never said we went to war because Osama and Saddam were buds, it was because they wouldnt comply with the UN, wouldnt account for WMD, had human rights violations, and "harbored terrorists" but hey, that's just what i remember...I wouldnt wanna argue with a guy with a David Gilmour version of Pink Floyd avatar. Those guys suck.

 

[MMike]

I thought the 911 commission was supposed to find out why planes crashed into the world trade center, not why we went to war in Iraq. Anyway, Bush never said we went to war because Osama and Saddam were buds, it was because they wouldnt comply with the UN, wouldnt account for WMD, had human rights violations, and "harbored terrorists" but hey, that's just what i remember...I wouldnt wanna argue with a guy with a David Gilmour version of Pink Floyd avatar. Those guys suck.

Would you want to argue with MY avatar in a dark alley?

 

[chicodude]

saddam hates al Qaeda and osama for that fact.the thing that scares me the most is most people dont care that he lied(not everyone)

apathetic people suck

 

[MMike]

apathetic people suck

Who cares?

 

[MMike]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001957376_webcommission16.html

The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq.

On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator "had long established ties with al-Qaida."

 

[TCoop924]

I thought the 911 commission was supposed to find out why planes crashed into the world trade center, not why we went to war in Iraq. Anyway, Bush never said we went to war because Osama and Saddam were buds, it was because they wouldnt comply with the UN, wouldnt account for WMD, had human rights violations, and "harbored terrorists" but hey, that's just what i remember...I wouldnt wanna argue with a guy with a David Gilmour version of Pink Floyd avatar. Those guys suck.

Yeah, I thought that's what they were supposed to do too, but, I can see why they would investigate it at the same time.

The reasons you give for us going over there and knocking heads together are all correct on some level....at some point in time after Bush "connected" Hussein and Al Queda, he threw out each one of those excuses, in an attempt to cover his butt. Again, though Iraq was complying with the UN, they couldn't find (and still haven't) any WMD, and Iraq wasn't harboring terrorists (again, if we went after every country that harbored terrrorists, we'd be sacking almost every country in the world).

 

[BurlyShirley]

did i catch a "cited them as ONE reason" in there?

 

[Slugman]

Is it too easy? The 9/11 report that came out saying that Iraq and Al Qaeda had no credible ties....even though GWB said that there were...and pretty much based an entire war on it?

Anyone? Bleeding heart liberals? Guys?

** crickets chirping **

just tired of being right all the time... and the conservatives still acting like we are wrong.

 

[MMike]

did i catch a "cited them as ONE reason" in there?

Yes... one reason which was untrue. And all of those WMD's...

He's a

 

[derekbob]

Weve been ranting and raving about Team Bush so long its ridiculous. The only thing left to do is vote.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Again, though, Iraq was complying with the UN, they couldn't find (and still haven't) any WMD, and harbored terrorists (again, if we went after every country that harbored terrrorists, we'd be sacking almost every country in the world).

I think your memory may be a bit cloudy here. If i recall, that head inspector guy wasnt being given full cooperation, couldnt interview scientists alone, was given incomplete paperwork on WMD programs, ordered al-samud2 missiles destroyed, but the dismantling was haulted, all this after 11 or so years of complete non-compliance.
Also, we have found small amounts of WMD, or did you not get the news about the mustard, sarin gas found in roadside bombs?
Now granted, Im not saying it was part of an active arsenal, but it still was never accounted for, and that's not the full cooperation the UN demanded, but failed to enforce. Enter the US.

 

[ummbikes]

Burly-

Way to keep on task with the spin. It's like you write for the military or something.

Oh.

That is what you do.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Burly-

Way to keep on task with the spin. It's like you write for the military or something.

Oh.

That is what you do.

Why is it a "spin" if the facts don't always agree with a certain groups harping topics?

Just becuase they don't help your cause doesn't mean they aren't topics that should be included in teh discussion.

But that wouldn't make either side 100% right.......

 

[RhinofromWA]

Would you want to argue with MY avatar in a dark alley?

If you asking for an "oral exchange".....

uh negative.

 

[Slugman]

Blah blah blah.. he said... she said... blah blah blah.

Yawn...

 

[ummbikes]

Why is it a "spin" if the facts don't always agree with a certain groups harping topics?

Just becuase they don't help your cause doesn't mean they aren't topics that should be included in teh discussion.

But that wouldn't make either side 100% right.......

It's spin, by definition, when the discussion is shifted from the matter at hand to another issue.

The issue is, that the 9-11 commission found that Bush was flat wrong when he implied a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

:mumble:

 

[Tweek]

If we wanted to invade a Middle Eastern country for Al-Qaeda ties, we should've gone one country south.

 

[ummbikes]

True that Tweek.

 

[RhinofromWA]

It's spin, by definition, when the discussion is shifted from the matter at hand to another issue.

The issue is, that the 9-11 commission found that Bush was flat wrong when he implied a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

:mumble:

Wouldn't the 9/11 commision be doing the same thing? Changing focus from why/how the 9/11 event happened to assessing Bush for afterwords? (who loves you Ummbikes....I do I do. but only in a plutonic way you understand so don't be getting any ideas.... )

In fact isn't using Iraq/Al Qaeda as the only matter of topic here missleading and directing the public from the bigger picture of Iraq not cooperating and bringing the UN (if they could ) or the USA down upon them (actually mostly Saddam)? Just asking....

Now if finding out there aren't any credible links to Al Qaeda now doesn't mean that Bush lied then.....hind sight being 20/20 and all. If the information Bush and EVERYONE ELSE had pointed more convincingly in that direction than away. Is Bush lieing? Or was he working with (NOW known to be) not totally inclusive facts? Just asking.....

Not trying to spin or anything.

But wouldn't discussing Bush lieing be a spin from the matter at hand that the information available at that time was false as far as credible evidence is concerned....any extrapulation from that is then a SPIN in your favor, right? Just asking.....haha

 

[RhinofromWA]

It's spin, by definition, when the discussion is shifted from the matter at hand to another issue.

The issue is, that the 9-11 commission found that Bush was flat wrong when he implied a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

:mumble:

Oh and BS'sresponse was not a spin with regard to the TCoop924 he as responding to....right? He was mearly correcting TCoop924's assumptions that BS deemed to be false.

 

[LordOpie]

Rhino = winnAr!

 

[ummbikes]

So, let me get this straight, Bush is good, invading Iraq good, Burly's spin good.

I loves yous too big boy! But, ya, in that non-sexual slap you on theback and have beer kind of way. We can even invite Burly and L'Opie too.

 

[LordOpie]

So, let me get this straight, Bush is good, invading Iraq good, Burly's spin good.

Invading wasn't good or bad and only time will tell.

Burly wasn't spinning anything, he was answer the question with the facts.

As for Bush, well, that's questionable. As long as he did what he believes is good for US, then I don't have a problem with him... I might have a problem with his policy/action.

I loves yous too big boy! But, ya, in that non-sexual slap you on theback and have beer kind of way. We can even invite Burly and L'Opie too.

I'm afraid No, that doesn't mean hold me

 

[ummbikes]

L'Opie, I can see where you can feel the way you do about the invasion. It's an easy position to take.

I have taken a stand about the invasion and occupation based on my ideas of liberty and justice and what America should aspire too.

I'm sure president Bush is a swell fellow and all, but I strongly feel he is sub-standard leader at best. A total incompetant at worst.

To re-introduce an issue (made by Rhino?) about the relevance of Iraq in the discussion of 9-11 I will add that it is intertwined with 9-11. Bush et al. created a media campaign that effectively linked Iraq and Al Qaeda in the minds of Americans. This link as we all can now read about in the NY Times and every where else, has been proven false.

You know, we have killed the damn horse, whipped his corpse into a froth and have churned the earth where he died into a muddy spot.

 

[TCoop924]

Well said ummbikes.

I am happy that a more reliable source came out showing with proof that the Bush administration lied about one of the huge reasons for going to War, and I just hope that this might open the minds of other people to at least consider that it is not beyond this administration to lie to get what they want (for whatever true reason that is). That said, I do believe removing Hussein (not in the way we did it though), is a good thing.

 

[RhinofromWA]

To re-introduce an issue (made by Rhino?) about the relevance of Iraq in the discussion of 9-11 [*SPIN*] I will add that it is intertwined with 9-11. Bush et al. created a media campaign that effectively linked Iraq and Al Qaeda in the minds of Americans. [/*SPIN*]

I was just trying to point out they are two very distinct events, and one of them was not part of the 9/11 panel focus...creating a SPIN of it's own.

I Don't think Iraq/Al Qaeda should have been linked in the first place. eek: suprise!) I think there was enough NON-cooperation from Saddam to warrant the UN going in there...before/aside from 9/11. But that is another topic.

Redirection...kinda, 9/11 "findings":
Did anyone catch the reports saying planes bound for the west coast (up to like 20 planes nation wide?) were targeted for hijacking that day (or period I didn't get the specifics) Now after months (years?) of research and looking for connections I am sure more people are going to be to blame for the 9/11. When really nothing like that had happened before, why would speculation (later found to be true) create a need to shut the airways down? "someone was asleep at the wheel..."

 

[BurlyShirley]

the Bush administration lied

This is something else...

Tcoop, I dont believe anything has proven that the president lied. It may come out that some facts he was given were incorrect and he passed those on thinking they were correct. That's far from lying.

 

[RhinofromWA]

I am happy that a more reliable source came out showing with proof that the Bush administration lied about one of the huge reasons for going to War,

Going from "no connection" to "lieing" (knowing the trueth before hand and missrepresenting anyway) is a judgement baised on personal bias, no? Atleast so far....you maybe right.

Little story:
I do it too. I didn't trust Clinton even before he took office....I even told my HS teacher when she was discussion him that I "just didn't trust him, but couldn't put my finger on it" He was kind a of a used car salesman to me, smooth and shifty, I couldn't trust him. Now later on, his actions helped solidify that opinion. But I had some bias affecting my opinion of Clinton in the start and that was wrong.

 

[TCoop924]

Going from "no connection" to "lieing" (knowing the trueth before hand and missrepresenting anyway) is a judgement baised on personal bias, no? Atleast so far....you maybe right.

Little story:
I do it too. I didn't trust Clinton even before he took office....I even told my HS teacher when she was discussion him that I "just didn't trust him, but couldn't put my finger on it" He was kind a of a used car salesman to me, smooth and shifty, I couldn't trust him. Now later on, his actions helped solidify that opinion. But I had some bias affecting my opinion of Clinton in the start and that was wrong.

Yeah, you're correct in that. I would be lying if what I said isn't affected by a personal bias....and bingo...your bit about Clinton...that's exactly how I feel about Bush, Cheney, and the majority of their cabinet. My bias is only strengthened though when things like this come up.

 

[LordOpie]

...and I just hope that this might open the minds of other people to at least consider that it is not beyond this administration to lie to get what they want...

but you say that as if:

1. Supporters don't realize they lied and perhaps supporters saw this as a lie from the start and didn't care cuz the end justified the means.

2. You say that as if every political administration from the beginning of time didn't lie to achieve their goals.

Clinton lied about a BJ.

Bush Sr and Reagan lied about Iran Contra, etc.

 

[ummbikes]

Now after months (years?) of research and looking for connections I am sure more people are going to be to blame for the 9/11. When really nothing like that had happened before, why would speculation (later found to be true) create a need to shut the airways down? "someone was asleep at the wheel..."

It wasn't just Bush's fault, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon and so on, all play a role. The system was flawed.

 

[TCoop924]

but you say that as if:

1. Supporters don't realize they lied and perhaps supporters saw this as a lie from the start and didn't care cuz the end justified the means.

2. You say that as if every political administration from the beginning of time didn't lie to achieve their goals.

Clinton lied about a BJ.

Bush Sr and Reagan lied about Iran Contra, etc.

1. I'm a little confused...want to clarify that one?
2. I'm not pretending that democrats don't lie and that republicans do...they're politicians...they all lie.


BUT, like you said, Clinton lied about a BJ....Bush Sr and Reagan lied about Iran Contra, etc....so, I guess I place small amounts of importance on the latter versus the former.

 

[ummbikes]

I was just trying to point out they are two very distinct events, and one of them was not part of the 9/11 panel focus...creating a SPIN of it's own.

I Don't think Iraq/Al Qaeda should have been linked in the first place. eek: suprise!) I think there was enough NON-cooperation from Saddam to warrant the UN going in there...before/aside from 9/11. But that is another topic.

Redirection...kinda, 9/11 "findings":
Did anyone catch the reports saying planes bound for the west coast (up to like 20 planes nation wide?) were targeted for hijacking that day (or period I didn't get the specifics) Now after months (years?) of research and looking for connections I am sure more people are going to be to blame for the 9/11. When really nothing like that had happened before, why would speculation (later found to be true) create a need to shut the airways down? "someone was asleep at the wheel..."

I'm not making my point with you.

I'LL YELL FOR EMPHASIS!

THE ISSUE OF IRAQ WAS LINKED BY BUSH TO THE WAR ON TERROR, WHICH WAS THE RESPONCE TO 9-11! THAT IS THE CONNECTION. REMEMBER THE COMMISSION IS MADE UP OF HAWKS AND DOVES ALIKE. REMEMBER SLADE GORTON? HE IS ON THE COMMISSION.

That was fun.

 

[fluff]

Burly wasn't spinning anything, he was answer the question with the facts.

Oh but he was spinning, and not using facts. He said:

I think your memory may be a bit cloudy here. If i recall, that head inspector guy wasnt being given full cooperation, couldnt interview scientists alone, was given incomplete paperwork on WMD programs, ordered al-samud2 missiles destroyed, but the dismantling was haulted, all this after 11 or so years of complete non-compliance.
Also, we have found small amounts of WMD, or did you not get the news about the mustard, sarin gas found in roadside bombs?

Actually Iraq caved and the inspectors were allowed _full_access_ (finally)by Saddam but were pulled out (not thrown out). Al-samud2 missiles were being dismantled despite Iraq's protestations that they were not within the remit of the ban.

And 'small amounts of WMD'? Weapons of a little bit of mass destruction?

That is spin.

Oh and it appears after all that the non-compliance was not at the level that Bush and Blair lied to us about...

Of course, we invaded to deliver the Iraqis from evil in the end.

 

[RhinofromWA]

REMEMBER SLADE GORTON? HE IS ON THE COMMISSION.

That was fun.

Slade....now there is a good man. hahaha