Probe rules out Iraq-9/11 links - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-20-2004, 02:46 AM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
RockNRollDawgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 3,304
Local Time: 05:11 PM
I know Paul McCartney has recently come out not in favor of the war, citing he was misled that Iraq had ties with 9/11.
Also said, he won't perfom the song "Freedom" anymore.
He was on a runway in NYC, when the planes hit the WTC.
__________________

__________________
RockNRollDawgie is offline  
Old 06-20-2004, 05:33 AM   #62
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler

I find it curious, Dread, that you seem to take my words as a personal indictment of you. I didn't name any names, and I'm not going to spend a lot of time poring through threads to find posts where people have made statements that seem to reflect the idea behind our blessed President's deceitful rhetoric concerning the Iraq-9/11 linkage issue.
I have not taken anything as personal, only on the level of the fact that new people posting in this forum, who may put me in that category, could possibly think that I may be one of said characters, who have yet to be named, possibly because they do not exist. But that is ALRIGHT its not personal, its just another blanket statement.

Another blanket statement could be that the anti-war crowd is pro-Saddam and therefore for the food for oil program or even the mass graves. However, I have defended pro-peace people in this forum when faced with a blanket statement like that.


Quote:
(It is clear that you and I disagree on the notion of President Bush being deceitful in this manner).
If you can show me ONE statement in which the President said Iraq was responsible for 9/11 I would consider agreeing with you. Otherwise the linkage that he has spoken of, IE contacts with Iraq which have been acknowledged by the comission, and the state sponsored terrorism, which almost everyone in the world agrees Iraq was a part of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lovely picture....What does it mean to you? The thread speaks foritself.

And diamond posted a news article....that appears to be factually wrong. Although, he did not go on a rant saying Iraq did it.

Since you brought him up, I miss him.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-20-2004, 05:33 AM   #63
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by RockNRollDawgie
Also said, he won't perfom the song "Freedom" anymore.
Is that because of his feelings on Iraq or because it's a really crappy song? I lean towards the latter.
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 06-20-2004, 06:04 AM   #64
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 02:11 PM
Relevant Op/Ed from the NY Times. I'm just going to post the whole thing because it's not very long and the site requires an ID and password.

Quote:

Show Us the Proof

Published: June 19, 2004

When the commission studying the 9/11 terrorist attacks refuted the Bush administration's claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, we suggested that President Bush apologize for using these claims to help win Americans' support for the invasion of Iraq. We did not really expect that to happen. But we were surprised by the depth and ferocity of the administration's capacity for denial. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have not only brushed aside the panel's findings and questioned its expertise, but they are also trying to rewrite history.

Mr. Bush said the 9/11 panel had actually confirmed his contention that there were "ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said his administration had never connected Saddam Hussein to 9/11. Both statements are wrong.

Before the war, Mr. Bush spoke of far more than vague "ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said Iraq had provided Al Qaeda with weapons training, bomb-making expertise and a base in Iraq. On Feb. 8, 2003, Mr. Bush said that "an Al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990's for help in acquiring poisons and gases." The 9/11 panel's report, as well as news articles, indicate that these things never happened.

Mr. Cheney said yesterday that the "evidence is overwhelming" of an Iraq-Qaeda axis and that there had been a "whole series of high-level contacts" between them. The 9/11 panel said a senior Iraqi intelligence officer made three visits to Sudan in the early 1990's, meeting with Osama bin Laden once in 1994. It said Osama bin Laden had asked for "space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded." The panel cited reports of further contacts after Osama bin Laden returned to Afghanistan in 1996, but said there was no working relationship. As far as the public record is concerned, then, Mr. Cheney's "longstanding ties" amount to one confirmed meeting, after which the Iraq government did not help Al Qaeda. By those standards, the United States has longstanding ties to North Korea.

Mr. Bush has also used a terrorist named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Mr. Bush used to refer to Mr. Zarqawi as a "senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner" who was in Baghdad working with the Iraqi government. But the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime, nor under the direction of Al Qaeda.

When it comes to 9/11, someone in the Bush administration has indeed drawn the connection to Iraq: the vice president. Mr. Cheney has repeatedly referred to reports that Mohamed Atta met in Prague in April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence agent. He told Tim Russert of NBC on Dec. 9, 2001, that this report has "been pretty well confirmed." If so, no one seems to have informed the C.I.A., the Czech government or the 9/11 commission, which said it did not appear to be true. Yet Mr. Cheney cited it, again, on Thursday night on CNBC.

Mr. Cheney said he had lots of documents to prove his claims. We have heard that before, but Mr. Cheney always seems too pressed for time or too concerned about secrets to share them. Last September, Mr. Cheney's adviser, Mary Matalin, explained to The Washington Post that Mr. Cheney had access to lots of secret stuff. She said he had to "tiptoe through the land mines of what's sayable and not sayable" to the public, but that "his job is to connect the dots."

The message, if we hear it properly, is that when it comes to this critical issue, the vice president is not prepared to offer any evidence beyond the flimsy-to-nonexistent arguments he has used in the past, but he wants us to trust him when he says there's more behind the screen. So far, when it comes to Iraq, blind faith in this administration has been a losing strategy
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 06-20-2004, 07:47 PM   #65
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


I have not taken anything as personal, only on the level of the fact that new people posting in this forum, who may put me in that category, could possibly think that I may be one of said characters, who have yet to be named, possibly because they do not exist. But that is ALRIGHT its not personal, its just another blanket statement.

Another blanket statement could be that the anti-war crowd is pro-Saddam and therefore for the food for oil program or even the mass graves. However, I have defended pro-peace people in this forum when faced with a blanket statement like that.
I'll be sure to point out the next time someone makes an implicit connection between Iraq and 9/11 because I'm sure it will happen again. Polls showed that many Americans bought the President's lies about this connection.

Americans have demonstrated that they can be manipulated quite easily when in a state of fear.


Quote:
If you can show me ONE statement in which the President said Iraq was responsible for 9/11 I would consider agreeing with you.
I have never stated that Mr. Bush actually said the words "Iraq was directly respsonible for 9/11," because he never said it. I have said repeatedly -- as has at least one other person in this thread alone has pointed out -- that Bush OFTEN spoke of Iraq and the events of 9/11 in the same breath. His speeches were designed to IMPLY the linkage so that his bombing of Iraq could seem justifiable. Much (apparently as much as 53% according to polls) of the Amercan public bought his lies. You obviously did not buy the lie. Good for you.



Quote:
Otherwise the linkage that he has spoken of, IE contacts with Iraq which have been acknowledged by the comission...
Actually, if you read the New York Times Op/Ed piece that ThatGuy posted below, you'll see that the times editorial writer is saying that those "contacts with Iraq" DIDN'T AMOUNT TO ANYTHING, i.e., the connections Cheney tried to establish between the Iraqi regime and the events of 9/11 were BULLSHIT.

Quote:
...and the state sponsored terrorism, which almost everyone in the world agrees Iraq was a part of.
The "state sponsored terrorism" you speak of is irrelevant to the discussion here. We're talking about the lies that our President said in relation to the former Iraqi regime and it's alleged role in the events of 9/11.




Quote:
Lovely picture....What does it mean to you? The thread speaks foritself.
No, actually the thread does not speak for itself. The only thing I can come up with is that you were playing the "baiting game." Excellent, Dread, excellent.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 06-20-2004, 07:50 PM   #66
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler


Actually, if you read the New York Times Op/Ed piece that ThatGuy posted below,
"below" should read "above."
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 06-20-2004, 08:11 PM   #67
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler

The "state sponsored terrorism" you speak of is irrelevant to the discussion here. We're talking about the lies that our President said in relation to the former Iraqi regime and it's alleged role in the events of 9/11.
Shall I post the number of times the administration made this a central part of the case for war? It is a war on Terrorism.....




Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler
No, actually the thread does not speak for itself. The only thing I can come up with is that you were playing the "baiting game." Excellent, Dread, excellent.
Actually it does, it is a contued look at the fact that the United nations may very well have been aiding not only Saddam, but Osama as well. Go back and read the article. If you think that the UN was not acting in its own interests and pockets, you should begin to read about the Food for Oil scandal that is somehow not as flashy in the press...when in fact I believe with my heart, it is the soul reason that we were forced to use vague UN Resolutions to legally go to war and place our country in the posisiton it is in today in the world. Sadly, the support was never going to be there no matter how many Iraqi's paid the price with their blood.


But, you can continue to throw jabs at me....hehe...I was not baiting. However you made a remark about members of the forum and I am still wondering who they are. That to me is an issue...it is apparently a untrue accusation about members of the forum. No problem....just interesting that after not seeing people post in here for so long, they come in and post something so vague, that some people fall under that umbrella. Welcome back. Pull up a chair. Have some fun....but the generalization was kind of unfair in my mind.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-20-2004, 08:52 PM   #68
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Shall I post the number of times the administration made this a central part of the case for war? It is a war on Terrorism.....

Yes, the Bush adminstration made their case that it is a war on terrorism. They also said it was a war to free oppressed Iraqis from Sadaam's brutality -- becuase, as I'm sure you know, the U.S. is very concerned about oppressed people the world over. We're always saving those types of folks. And of course, it was a pre-emtive strike to save the world from Sadaam's stockpile of WMD's. Whatever seemed to be the best justification at the time -- that's what it was. But again, I was focusing the discussion on President Bush's manipulation of the American people. That manipulation whereby he appears to have successfully put it in many folks' minds that Iraq was responsible for the events of 9/11.



Quote:
Actually it does, it is a contued look at the fact that the United nations may very well have been aiding not only Saddam, but Osama as well. Go back and read the article...
I believe you and I are referencing different threads. I was referencing the thread you posted with the photo juxtaposing Sadaam with the World Trade Center.

Quote:
But, you can continue to throw jabs at me....hehe...I was not baiting. However you made a remark about members of the forum and I am still wondering who they are. That to me is an issue...it is apparently a untrue accusation about members of the forum.
Again, it's obvious you are taking this personally. There's nothing I can do to remedy that.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 06-20-2004, 08:58 PM   #69
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler

I believe you and I are referencing different threads. I was referencing the thread you posted with the photo juxtaposing Sadaam with the World Trade Center.
You know, the one you titled "Saddam wanted to get some credit for 9/11"
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 06-20-2004, 09:10 PM   #70
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler


I believe you and I are referencing different threads. I was referencing the thread you posted with the photo juxtaposing Sadaam with the World Trade Center.

Which is why my friend CORONA should not be consumed before posting! Long day of golf 6:00AM T time.....and an afternoon of beverage consumption.....arrived home at 5:30 PM

I am the proud owner of a 132 golfing today. I got my monies worth out of that course.

I will pass to your superior intellect tonight! I honestly can't keep up!
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 07:16 AM   #71
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Which is why my friend CORONA should not be consumed before posting! Long day of golf 6:00AM T time.....and an afternoon of beverage consumption.....arrived home at 5:30 PM

I am the proud owner of a 132 golfing today. I got my monies worth out of that course.

I will pass to your superior intellect tonight! I honestly can't keep up!
LOL - Happy Father's Day Dread!
__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 08:33 AM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BostonAnne


LOL - Happy Father's Day Dread!
Thanks....Coronas are good!!!! Golf was terrible. My kids were great!
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 11:15 AM   #73
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:11 PM
[Q]No 9-11 Iraq-al Qaeda links? This is news?

By Mark Davis

Special to the Star-Telegram


The headlines Thursday morning suggested a certain breathless urgency: The 9-11 Commission had found no reason to assert that the attacks were a product of complicity between Iraq and al Qaeda.

This would be noteworthy if, in fact, anyone important had invoked such a linkage.

But no one has. Ever. No one in the Bush administration, no one in Congress, no one in the military.

Now there's news for you, and it will come as a surprise to the millions of Americans who apparently believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11.

But it is not President Bush's fault if millions of our fellow Americans are not paying close enough attention -- or, pardon me, are not too bright.

So the 9-11 Commission says (yawn) that it has found no hard evidence of Saddam-Osama bin Laden complicity in 9-11. There are only three reasons why someone would be walking around thinking this is a bombshell.

One is a self-imposed cloud of inattentiveness. Another is the inability to grasp anything beyond the simplest of concepts. Both of those are sad but ultimately excusable.

The third is not, and it is pervasive. The most apoplectic reactions to the 9-11 Commission finding shows a panting desire to paint a portrait of the commission at odds with the White House.

On the point of Iraq-al Qaeda 9-11 collaboration, there is simply no rift. Commission members themselves hastened to make this clear as Vice President Dick Cheney spoke out to correct the distortions.[/Q]

Read this this morning and thought of you all....hehe

If democrats on the comission continue to support the president, does that eliminate all this made up controversy on the part of the media?

LOL

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/8963920.htm?1c
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 11:39 AM   #74
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:11 PM
Oh and Democrat Lee Hamilton has reportedly said this:

[Q]Hamilton says the White House and the commission agree on one thing -- there's no evidence al-Qaida and Iraq joined forces in the Nine-Eleven attacks. [/Q]

Wow....hard to have a disagreement when the Democrat on the Commission disputes the way the reporting would have you believe.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-21-2004, 11:42 AM   #75
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:11 AM
We all know that if the media expects to run a 5th collum for our enemies in the name of neutrality and "unbiased" reporting (not reporting how bad our enemys are) then they have to sharply divide public opinion and make the people feel lied to, the damage has been done and no ammount of retraction of clarification can change it.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com