Saddam and 9/11 - Page 3 - 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, 03:33 PM   #31
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 370
Local Time: 02:45 AM
BTW, speaking of Clinton, how is it that Clinton was almost impeached for lying about his personal life, but Bush is not being impeached for publicly lying about intelligence, waging a war based on those lies and in which over a hundred thousand people are dead?

Always wondered about that. Seems to highlight a slight double standard.
__________________

__________________
Klink is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 03:42 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klink
BTW, speaking of Clinton, how is it that Clinton was almost impeached for lying about his personal life, but Bush is not being impeached for publicly lying about intelligence, waging a war based on those lies and in which over a hundred thousand people are dead?

Always wondered about that. Seems to highlight a slight double standard.
Go ahead and bring the charge. I'm sure there are a couple thousand lawyers on the left who would love to file the case.





If it had any substance.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 04:00 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,064
Local Time: 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AcrobatMan
what hip hop said..

Saddam and 9/11 had NO connection whatsoever.

I dont how american people fell for it...

Cant they understand this?

all al-qaeda guys are in afghanistan and pakistan and some at other places...their financers are in europe

where does iraq come into picture

nowhere
The art of twisting the facts through propaganda is something that this current administration is very good at. And the media eats it up. And when the media eats it up and repeats it over and over, some people are going to start believing it, even if it's nowhere near the truth.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 04:45 PM   #34
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 370
Local Time: 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
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.



Is this a factual statement?: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses." -George W. Bush.

No Inference is necessary there. That's a direct link and it's never been proven. Show me a relaible intel source that proves this statement is true (such as the CIA). Further, obviously if you are in a position of power and associate two things often enough, your audience will eventually associate them, too. You're saying that if people were stupid enough to believe him, it's their own fault, but marketing works.



What about this statement?: "[Iraq] possesses and produces biological and chemical weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." -Bush

Is that factual? The Senate Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community (2004) says:

"Conclusion 1. ... The major key judgements in the NIE , partcularly that Iraq 'is reconstituting its nuclear program,' 'has chemical and biological weapons,' was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle 'probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents,' and that 'all Key aspects - research and development, production and weaponization - of Iraq's offensive biological weapons program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war,' either overstated or were not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting provided by the community... "



Quote:
GWB never said Saddam was responsible for 9/11. But Saddam does have ties to terrorism.
"Ties"? What are those? You mean he once talked to a terrorist? Are you talking about Hezbollah or al-Qaeda? To go to war, obviously those ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda should have been sufficiently strong to pose a "threat", as Bush called it.


The Senate Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community (2004) says:

"Conclusion 93: The CIA resonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to a formal relationship

....

Conclusion 96: The CIA's assessment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaeda attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise.

....

Conclusion 99: Despite four decades of intelligence reporting on Iraq, there was little uselful intelligence collected that helped analysts determine the Iraqi regime's links to al Qaeda."


-99 sums it up. "Little useful evidence...". So, again, what ties and what do they have to do with the war? Please don't tell me that the "instances of contact" are ties because it doesn't amount to anything substancial, so it's irrelevant.



There's your substance.



Quote:
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.
If anything, it shows that people will believe what they are told, until evidence disproves it. People too often put conviction before the evidence.
__________________
Klink is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 08:03 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:45 PM
The Bush administration is responsible for the war, the flaws in planning post-war and a litany of other mistakes. But this thread is truly telling in that it seems that people are more than willing to both have their cake and eat it too in regards to who built up the threats about Iraq .

I say that both administrations made statements that are in retrospect not in line with the facts about the material that Saddam has not verifiably destroyed.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 08:14 PM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 02:45 AM
This administration is imploding.

Murtha is a coward, he's equated to Michael Moore, what next?

Shameful, shameful, shameful. They should all be kicked out on their collective asses.

To be honest, A_W, this Clinton bullshit just sounds like it's coming from people whose ship is sinking faster than the Titanic and now they're trying to hang on for dear life.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 08:55 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:45 PM
Quote:
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.
And the fact that the Reagan administration courted Saddam as a means of keeping the Iraq / Iran war going by taking them off the state sponser of terrorism list, the mixed messages given by Glaspie before Iraq invaded Kuwait and the war being one to drive Saddam out of the country andnot remove him from power are all examples of this?

It takes a lot more convincing to justify having US troops in SA to pursue a policy of containment that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands to millions of Iraqi civilians (and post-bellum it is painfully obvious the role of the UN oil for food programs corruption in that suffering post-1997.

For God sakes after Operation Desert Fox you have news articles, dated from 1998 / 1999 that talk about Saddam wanting revenge and sending his emisaries to OBL in regards to striking back. The idea being that Saddam would want to strike back in a way that wouldn't lead back to him.

The New York Times in 1998 wrote about the terror indictment against OBL
Quote:
NYT November 5, 1998, Thursday, Late Edition - Final
SAUDI IS INDICTED IN BOMB ATTACKS ON U.S. EMBASSIES
By BENJAMIN WEISER

A Federal grand jury in Manhattan returned a 238-count indictment yesterday charging the Saudi exile Osama bin Laden in the bombings of two United States Embassies in Africa in August and with conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad.

Government officials immediately announced that they were offering two rewards of $5 million each for information leading to the arrest or conviction of Mr. bin Laden and another man charged yesterday, Muhammad Atef, who was described as Mr. bin Laden's chief military commander.

Mr. bin Laden is believed to be living in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban, the Islamic fundamentalist movement that rules that country.

Mr. Atef's whereabouts are unknown.

...


The new indictment, which supersedes the June action, accuses Mr. bin Laden of leading a vast terrorist conspiracy from 1989 to the present, in which he is said to have been working in concert with governments, including those of Sudan, Iraq and Iran, and terrorist groups to build weapons and attack American military installations. Excerpts, page A8.

But the indictment gives few details of Mr. bin Laden's alleged involvement in the embassy attacks. The indictment does not, for example, specify whether prosecutors have evidence that Mr. bin Laden gave direct orders to those who carried out the attacks.

Nothing in the document indicates why the original indictment was kept secret for months. But the secret charges were returned about the time that American officials were plotting a possible military attack into Afghanistan to arrest Mr. bin Laden.

Mary Jo White, the United States Attorney in Manhattan, said, "It's very common to have sealed indictments when you're trying to apprehend those who are indicted."

Both indictments offer new information about Mr. bin Laden's operations, including one deal he is said to have struck with Iraq to cooperate in the development of weapons in return for Mr. bin Laden's agreeing not to work against that country.

No details were given about whether the alleged deal with Iraq led to the development of actual weapons for Mr. bin Laden's group, which is called Al Qaeda.
I dug the archive up through the university database, if you want you can hunt it down.

The indictment against OBL can be found at the FAS or other places, I quote as follows the relevent section
Quote:
4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist
group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their
perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.
In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of
Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on
particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
link

So at this point in time the story that Iraq and AQ were deadly enemies was being replaced by the truce against a common enemy P.O.V.

BBC on August 30th 1998
Quote:
World: Africa

Sudan denies Bin Laden links

Barbara Plett reports from Khartoum on Sudan's denial of links with Osama bin Laden:

The Sudanese Foreign Minister said Khartoum had cut all links with Osama bin Laden since he left the country in 1995 under pressure from Saudi Arabia and the United States.

...

Mr bin Laden does own a Nile-front property here that he is trying to sell for two million dollars, but US officials have acknowledged the difficulty of determining the exact nature of his financial network, which is shrouded in secrecy.

Despite this, the American ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, said it was totally untrue that Sudan had cut ties with Osama bin Laden.

In a televised interview on Sunday, he said the US had evidence of links between Sudan, Mr bin Laden and Iraq.

Mr Richardson also rejected Sudanese calls for a UN investigation to verify American claims about the factory.
link

So the Clinton Administration is linking Iraq and AQ through 1998 when they are pursuing them by blowing up pharmaceutical factories.

These are just some examples of the policy and positions taken throughout the 1990's that explicitly linked Iraq and AQ together.

This stuff cannot be a Rovian plot, it was conducted by a different administration well before Bush was elected. To point out that this view of Iraq being a terrorist sponsering state (true fact, Iraq was a state sponser of terrorism) that was out to get the USA was already in the minds of people gets such harsh criticism. But hey, alls fair in love and war.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 09:13 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


The art of twisting the facts through propaganda is something that this current administration is very good at. And the media eats it up. And when the media eats it up and repeats it over and over, some people are going to start believing it, even if it's nowhere near the truth.
This administration is deficient in this respect, they are stupendously ignorant in that they never defend their actions and allow their political opponents to set the agenda.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 09:48 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klink
BTW, speaking of Clinton, how is it that Clinton was almost impeached for lying about his personal life, but Bush is not being impeached for publicly lying about intelligence, waging a war based on those lies and in which over a hundred thousand people are dead?

Always wondered about that. Seems to highlight a slight double standard.
Please cite your reference for "over 100 thousand dead", I ask only because the confidence intervals for the Lancet report were so outrageously large it could be anywhere from 10,000 to 190,000 dead.

Iraq Body Count Project and the UN have given figures between 20,000 and 30,000 in terms of Iraqi civilians, hardly pro-war organisations either one of them.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 10:28 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klink
BTW, speaking of Clinton, how is it that Clinton was almost impeached
Clinton was impeached.....Impeachment means charges were brought up against him. The charges happened to not be enough for removal from office as determined by a trial in the Senate. The trial has nothing to do with Impeachment other than to determine if the crime was serious enough to remove him from office. If there is evidence of a crime committed by President Bush, he will be impeached too.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 10:30 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram

To be honest, A_W, this Clinton bullshit just sounds like it's coming from people whose ship is sinking faster than the Titanic and now they're trying to hang on for dear life.
This Clinton "bullshit" was mentioned by yours truly LONG before the war in this forum.

Does that mean it was bullshit for a sinking ship?

The facts are still the same. So what has changed?

Is it easier to dismiss them now, because we can say that they are said now to save a sinking ship?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 10:37 PM   #42
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 02:45 AM
Dread, I was referring to it popping up now. You may have mentioned it, but I didn't see A_W referring to it 2 years ago and I most certainly didn't see it in the media.

So my point was that it strikes me that right now, those whose ship is sinking - and let's face it this administration is up a shit creek without a paddle at the moment - are struggling to find rationalizations which do not involve their own admission of guilt. I think it's a lot easier for them to point fingers at Clinton than to openly admit what they've done wrong in the war on terra/war on Iraq.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 10:38 PM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Dread, I was referring to it popping up now. You may have mentioned it, but I didn't see A_W referring to it 2 years ago and I most certainly didn't see it in the media.
It was more than mentioned in here. It was more than mentioned in numerous books written after 9/11.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 10:51 PM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:45 PM
Quote:
So my point was that it strikes me that right now, those whose ship is sinking - and let's face it this administration is up a shit creek without a paddle at the moment - are struggling to find rationalizations which do not involve their own admission of guilt. I think it's a lot easier for them to point fingers at Clinton than to openly admit what they've done wrong in the war on terra/war on Iraq.
No, the removal of Saddam was the right thing to do, this illustrates that the problem posed by Saddam and the assesments that led this administration to decide to remove him were not all just inventions and lies of this administration. It cuts to the core of what the investigations into pre-war intelligence found, the group think mentality and assumptions, the poor sources of intelligence and the difficulty in reading the regimes actions (for all intensive purposes the regime gave the impression of posessing weapons, throwing out inspectors on charges of spying, suffering sanctions rather than openly demonstrate it was disarmed, claims by Rolf Ekeus that Tariq Aziz offered him 2 million dollars to doctor UNSCOM reports, the information gleaned from defectors, the INC).

I posted this thread now becase I only found that particular poll last week. I only posted those articles in this thread to defend a contention that I made, one that Dread made independently before ~ from what I can tell he has read up a lot more on the issue of pre-war intelligence and its use and has come to a conclusion that this administration did or may have used some of it innapropriately to make a case for war (specifically the moves by Iraq to obtain Uranium from Niger and that entire claim; now I would like to know about the independent intelligence apart from the forged documents that went into that and that the British have stood by). But Dread has also kept perspective on the issues that I have not seen many others for or against make; Iraq, WMD and terrorism go back before 2002, but the debate about them here has been dominated by statements and actions from that time frame onwards with a cognitive dissonance by some of the late 1990's.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-18-2005, 11:03 PM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


It was more than mentioned in here. It was more than mentioned in numerous books written after 9/11.
I hate to sound glib, but so?

The mainstream media never picked up on it. The chickenhawks who pressed for this war never relied on this argument. Neither did their supporters in interviews on CNN, MSNBC, etc.

You may say it's opportunistic for us to now shoot it down.

I say it's equally as opportunistic for people to point at Clinton because the right does this constantly in order to deflect attention from the issues at hand.

I am not sure that I believe the American people were fooled primarily by Clinton on this issue. I am however sure that Bush has made a colossal mess over in Iraq, that he's a disgrace of a president, that his whole administration operates on a "we have done nothing wrong therefore there is nothing to fix" agenda. So when instead of talking about a comprehensive strategy for pull out, instead of talking about domestic issues other than divisive abortion and gay marriage, and instead of building some kind of global understanding we have people bringing up Clinton, I must admit, my eyes roll back in my head a bit. Honest to God, even if I were to accept that he convinced the American public that Saddam is the boogeyman, he's the least of your problems right now.
__________________

__________________
anitram 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 02:45 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