Saddam and 9/11 - Page 2 - 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 11-18-2005, 03:27 AM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:58 PM
They didn't fall for anything, they went with their gut feeling.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 07:18 AM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
They didn't fall for anything, they went with their gut feeling.
Aight, I´ll go with my gut feeling next time and bomb Sydney. There are some WMDs stockpiles in the opera house.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 09:38 AM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:58 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Great thread, just great.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 10:14 AM   #19
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:58 AM
A_W, i think you're really smart, but it's thuddingly obvious that you don't live in the US.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 11-18-2005, 10:20 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
YBORCITY's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: FLA
Posts: 5,146
Local Time: 12:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
My contention is that the figure given there had a lot to do with the creation of Saddam Hussein as enemy number 1 by the Clinton administration for eight years prior and that the assumption was maintained without the need for the Bush administration to tell people that Saddam and 9/11 were connected.

Wow!!! Thank You for enlightening me.



I know you REALLY don't believe this or do you?
__________________
YBORCITY is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 11:49 AM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


The truth is a funny thing isn't.

Look back in here when the war started there were many of us in here that had to remind, shit we still have to remind many of those that support the war that Saddam wasn't involved.

But blaming Clinton...that's classic.
Perhaps you care to show the methodology used by the GWB administration to create the impression out of nothing.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 12:40 PM   #22
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Perhaps you care to show the methodology used by the GWB administration to create the impression out of nothing.
Who said out of nothing?

Look you either dispell or spell out; GWB did neither, in fact they would place 9/11 and Saddam in the same paragraph during speeches.

This thread is just another attempt to blame someone other than GWB, and who best to blame but the closest liberal. It's pathetic.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 12:48 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Who said out of nothing?

Look you either dispell or spell out; GWB did neither, in fact they would place 9/11 and Saddam in the same paragraph during speeches.

This thread is just another attempt to blame someone other than GWB, and who best to blame but the closest liberal. It's pathetic.
Pathetic? Pathetic that we don't simply accept conventional liberal wisdom that it is all GWB's fault? I guess we don't want facts if it gets in the way of our answer.

And, I'm not trying to absolve GWB either. It's just that we are expected to accept many things in FYM - and that scrutiny of such ideas is not tollerated.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 12:58 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
YBORCITY's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: FLA
Posts: 5,146
Local Time: 12:58 AM
^ I believe you are trying to absolve GWB. Like yourself I was a blind sheep Ditto Head that had to align myself with everything the Republican Party did and try and justify all the mistakes that this Administration has made.

I'm not anymore though. IMHO, GWB has set this country backward maybe fifty years. His brash, Cowboy mentality has gotten us into many situations that will take years and BILLIONS of tax payer dollars to repay. You would have thought that he may have kearned that it is good to have dissenting opinions in the ranks that surround him but there again ---> your With him or Against him - his worldly view is definitely in Black and White.
__________________
YBORCITY is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 01:04 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by YBORCITYOBL
^ I believe you are trying to absolve GWB. Like yourself I was a blind sheep Ditto Head that had to align myself with everything the Republican Party did and try and justify all the mistakes that this Administration has made.

I'm not anymore though. IMHO, GWB has set this country backward maybe fifty years. His brash, Cowboy mentality has gotten us into many situations that will take years and BILLIONS of tax payer dollars to repay. You would have thought that he may have kearned that it is good to have dissenting opinions in the ranks that surround him but there again ---> your With him or Against him - his worldly view is definitely in Black and White.
Well, shit then. If you can't question statements without the "you are either with us or against us" attitude, what's the fucking point.

FYI - I don't listen to Rush or other right wing media sources.

Why don't we leave FYM as a liberal mutual admiration society so you can feel better about yourself at the end of the day.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 01:15 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
YBORCITY's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: FLA
Posts: 5,146
Local Time: 12:58 AM
No, I'm far from being a liberal but this Administration has so rubbed me the wrong way. I can't wait until 2008!!!


McCain 2008
__________________
YBORCITY is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 01:30 PM   #27
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 370
Local Time: 12:58 AM
Quote:
My contention is that the figure given there had a lot to do with the creation of Saddam Hussein as enemy number 1 by the Clinton administration for eight years prior and that the assumption was maintained without the need for the Bush administration to tell people that Saddam and 9/11 were connected.


Of all the covert attempts to exonerate the Bush administration from responsibility for it's lies and criminal actions, this one takes the cake...by far. After all, the idea here is to claim that Bush had less to do with the public perception of Saddam Hussein than Clinton and by that to ultimately argue that Bush's lies to the American public were inconsequential. More importantly, the public opinion question is an attempt to deviate from the real issues surrounding the Iraq war, which are how and why the Bush Admin. went to war on false premises.

But dealing with this red herring, here are some responses:

1) It is ridiculous to blame the Clinton Admin., as they clearly saw no need to invade Iraq. But to say that Clinton had more to do with the public perception of Iraq than Bush Sr., who invaded Iraq and aged war against the country in the early 1990s, is so mind-bogglingly illogical that it stinks of Republican partisanship.


2) In terms of the Bush Admin's framing of the Iraq issue, consider the following:

They rarely ever directly indicated that Iraq and Septemeber 11th were connected. What they often did was frame both Septmeber 11th/Al Qaeda and Iraq within the wider context of the "War on Terror", knowing full well that the average listener would interpret these as similar entities. This psychological manipulation through vague and misleading wording is obviously purposeful as it directs public perception towards the goals of the admin. However there are some more direct examples as well. Consider the following:


10/7/02 - Bush's Speech at Cincinnati Museum Centre

"The threat comes from Iraq....Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all developments of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The regime has violated all those obligations. It possesses and produces biological and chemical weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism... "

"...We know that Iraq and al Qaeda share a common enemy - The United States. [/B]"

"...Some Senior al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq ". These include one very senior member of Al Qaeda...who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses."

"The attacks of September 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today, in Iraq , we see a threat..."


These are classic examples of linking of terrorism to Iraq, and al Qaeda/9-11 with iraq (it notably includes a bunch of false statements that intelligence agencies had never confirmed regarding WMD). This is only from ONE speech. Not one of these claims was confirmed by the NIE or intelligence agencies when Bush made this speech or to this date.

When did Clinton ever make statements designed to have this kind of impact? Not one supporter of this argument has provided any evidence. Most are being very theoretical, but ignoring the realities of this scenario. Even through one example, you see clearly how Bush created this public impression. Any evidence that Clinton did the same?? Or is the new attempt to blame Clinton here, like arguments for the Iraq war, not based on any evidence what-so-ever?
__________________
Klink is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 01:31 PM   #28
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 05:58 AM
It's not that hard to imagine that many American people, pre-9/11, thought Saddam led a terror state and maybe had terrorist connections. Not to disparage the general American publics' knowledge about world affairs or mid-east politics, but it would be easy enough to understand if they thought of Bin Laden, Iraq, Iran, Syria, PLO, Hamas, and all those other groups as generally being the same one-big enemy. And after 9/11 those general (mis)impressions were probably emboldened: "Get those brown Islamic fuckers...you know, over there in the mid-east."

But what is really sad and troubling is how the Bush Administration used those general misimpressions to their advantage and there's evidence they went out-of-the way to try to make a 9/11-Saddam connection, as Richard Clarke (and others) have stated. There's not much evidence that the Clinton Administration did this, though it obviously saw both Saddam and Bin Laden as threats...just separate ones (as intel would be telling them).

The following excerpt is from:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in607356.shtml

After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 03:09 PM   #29
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Pathetic? Pathetic that we don't simply accept conventional liberal wisdom that it is all GWB's fault?
Not what I said. It's pathetic to try and blame a previous administration. GWB could have and should have made things clear by using facts. That's the point I was making. He didn't. In fact he used it to his advantage to get support for the war, by lumping the two together.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 03:24 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:58 PM
In looking at the statements posted, GWB did make factual statements.

Instead, some infer a different message because words were used in the same paragraph, and then blast their own inference as misleading.

GWB never said Saddam was responsible for 9/11. But Saddam does have ties to terrorism.

If anything, the poll shows that people will believe what they want to believe - especially if it allows them to focus on a convenient enemy. This applies across many issues - not just terrorism.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader 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 12:58 AM.


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