Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Compilation of prewar false statements
Topic Started: Jan 23 2008, 03:11 PM (2,065 Views)
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
^^^

Yes, that's why I have so much trouble getting excited by the theory that Bush was not simply wrong, but "lied".

Noah's article is titled "Saddam 'had no link to al-Qaeda'".

"no link"?

Doesn't that mean NONE, ZIP, NADA, NOTHING?

You would think so, wouldn't you?

Ah, but then you read the story that follows the article.

It says no "formal" relationship.

So the article admits that "a" relationship exists - just not a formal one.

So, the article itself PROVES the person who wrote the headline is a liar, for one. "Lying" requires some deliberate deception being involved and, if the headline writer had read the article (which we should assume that he did), he/she would have Known that what they wrote was untrue, but did it anyway. That's deliberate.

When a demonstrated liar makes a claim about someone else lying, it's hard to get too excited by it.

Then, let's look at the word "formal".

I don't doubt that there was no signed treaty with Al-Qaeda - which is what "formal" means in diplomatic parlance. (And the author of the article SHOULD know that - another reason it is hard to take seriously). However, it doesn't mean that the relationship wasn't potentially dangerous. How many Mafia members sit down and write a formal contract with each other? People generally don't - especially when the relationship violates laws or international sanctions.

Remember that during this period prior to the the current conflict (the Clinton administration essentially), Sadaam Hussein was supposed to be contained ENTIRELY. We aren't talking about someone who was supposedly free of all restraint. The US and UK were flying regular fly-overs over the nothern and southern thirds of his country. He was under various UN sanctions.

Instead of comparing him to a free man, it would more accurate to compare him to someone on probation or wearing an ankle bracelet. Most of us could be in the same room knowlingly with a wanted felon without sanction. Someone on probation could be arrested for the same action.

Hussein not only had "a" relationship with Al-Queda, but also publicly rewarded the families of Palestinian bombers who attacked Israeli (a country with whom the US had a FORMAL diplomatic relationship) and killed it's citizens.

The UN SHOULD have been all over him long ago - instead it was helping him to steal billions and kill his own citizens through starvation and disease - in addition to those he simply killed outright.




Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Thanks Rose, you beat me to it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Al Qaeda operates within this country. I think we can just as equally and fairly say there is no "formal" relationship between Bush and Al Qaeda too (all the same implications intended). ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ImpulseEngine
Jan 29 2008, 09:24 AM
Al Qaeda operates within this country. I think we can just as equally and fairly say there is no "formal" relationship between Bush and Al Qaeda too (all the same implications intended).

Um, no. We can't say that. You see, al Queda may be in this country, but they do not operate in the same fashion as they do in Iraq. They do not operate with any kind of approval by our government. Their presence here is to damage this country. Do you HONESTLY believe that al Queda's presence in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's regime operated in the same mode?

Cheap shot aside, IE.

You're a rational thinker. Do you HONESTLY see a parallel between al Queda in Iraq before the war and their current presence in the US?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Where's the proof that Al Qaeda was anything more than merely present and doing their own thing in Iraq? Where's the proof that there was actually a relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda? Approval you say? Where's the evidence?

Btw, to be clear, I'm not implicating Bush regarding Al Qaeda; in fact, just the opposite. But you ARE implicating Saddam regarding Al Qaeda. So far, I've seen evidence of an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq and one that has actually gotten worse since our military stepped foot in there. But a relationship is another matter.

Cheap shot? It wasn't intended that way. But if you think so, then you'll admit the same about your claim of a supposed relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda? HONESTLY, what's the difference?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ImpulseEngine
Jan 29 2008, 12:04 PM
Where's the proof that Al Qaeda was anything more than merely present and doing their own thing in Iraq? Where's the proof that there was actually a relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda? Approval you say? Where's the evidence?

Btw, to be clear, I'm not implicating Bush regarding Al Qaeda; in fact, just the opposite. But you ARE implicating Saddam regarding Al Qaeda. So far, I've seen evidence of an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq and one that has actually gotten worse since our military stepped foot in there. But a relationship is another matter.

Cheap shot? It wasn't intended that way. But if you think so, then you'll admit the same about your claim of a supposed relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda? HONESTLY, what's the difference?

I directed Noah to the 9/11 report, nicely indexed. I'll do the same for you. I went to "the source" for this.

No mincing words, no nuance. Just reported fact.

Have a nice day.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
I read that report a long time ago when it first became available.

And I have also read this one (warning: link is a nearly 7MB pdf): Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Postwar Findings About Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare With Prewar Assessments.

I refer you to document pages 105-112 (same as pdf pages 108 to 115) which are the conclusions from the committee regarding Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. From this report it's quite clear that most evidence of a relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam doesn't exist. What little does exist is inconclusive at best - and that includes your often cited Salman Pak. In fact, this report shows that Saddam saw Al Qaeda as a threat to his regime and consistently refused their attempts to get his support. As far as I can tell, the only "relationship" that existed was one way - Al Qaeda trying to get Saddam on their side with Saddam resisting every step of the way.

Now I have pointed you to specific pages citing my evidence. Where exactly in that whole 9/11 report is YOUR evidence? Having read the whole thing once, I don't intend to do so again. But, if you want to spell out where exactly you're talking about, I'll consider whether I may have missed it the first time around.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
It's also been awhile since I read both reports so I am not going to weigh in on the exchange of information.

However, I was struck by one similiarity between the claim and other claims that have been made.

How many times has the picture of Rumsfield and Hussein shaking hands been posted on this site as "proof" of the US complicity with Iraq's human rights violations?

How many times has the number of visits by IRA leaders to the White House during the Clinton Administration been cited as "proof" of US complicity in the troubles in Northern Ireland?

The answer to both is "many times".

But others could call both occasions "inconclusive" as well.

I do tend to believe the link between Hussein and Al Qaeda for one reason. The man (Hussein) was insane. Just because rational people would have rejected the connection doesn't mean that he did.

The man built an oil refinery entirely within a mountain and then didn't use it. He buried his airforce in the sand.

Based on what I read previously, I have no doubt that Al Qaeda made the attempt. Even if Hussein didn't embrace them, I don't believe that he rejected them either. He was quite capable of turning someone else's agenda to his advantage.





Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Wichita
Jan 29 2008, 08:21 PM
But others could call both occasions "inconclusive" as well.

And they are (although that analysis is pretty weak next to the actual investigation that found evidence in the report to be inconclusive).

Quote:
 
I do tend to believe the link between Hussein and Al Qaeda for one reason.  The man (Hussein) was insane.  Just because rational people would have rejected the connection doesn't mean that he did. 

The man built an oil refinery entirely within a mountain and then didn't use it.  He buried his airforce in the sand.

Based on what I read previously, I have no doubt that al qaeda made the attempt.  Even if Hussein didn't embrace them, I don't believe that he rejected them either.  He was quite capable of turning someone else's agenda to his advantage.
You're entitled to your beliefs. I tend to agree that he was the type of man that COULD have aligned himself with al qaeda. But that doesn't mean he did. The point is, not only is there no evidence to support a relationship between Saddam and al qaeda, but the evidence supports just the opposite.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
ImpulseEngine
Jan 29 2008, 04:06 PM
Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Postwar Findings About Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare With Prewar Assessments

I don't get the relevance in hindsight - ie postwar reports. A super-duper majority of representatives in the Republic agreed and the President acted accordingly. They were all wrong or they were all correct.

Please explain to me how blaming everything on the Executive Branch is not selective memory or a symptom of BDS.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
ImpulseEngine
 
The point is, not only is there no evidence to support a relationship between Saddam and al qaeda, but the evidence supports just the opposite.


See .... that's where people lose me with the whole "Bush lied" theory.

You just said that the report said the information was "inconclusive".

Well, if "the evidence supports just the opposite" as you also claim now, then the report ISN'T "inconclusive".

Either the information is "inconclusive" - which means that there is neither evidence to support the link or evidence to prove the link doesn't exist ....

OR

The report clearly states that there is NO evidence of a link and there is nothing "inconclusive" about the report's findings.

The two are mutually exclusive.

As I said earlier, I also have read the reports - albeit awhile ago - and am not really interersted in doing so again. Although I appreciate the fact that you did file a link, it was useless to me because of the size of the download.

ImpulseEngine
 
And they are (although that analysis is pretty weak next to the actual investigation that found evidence in the report to be inconclusive).


There are at least two ways that I can take this response.

Since one completely negates your entire argument in this thread, I going to ask what you meant by this comment rather making an assumption and risk being incorrect in my choice.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
RTW
Jan 29 2008, 10:15 PM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 29 2008, 04:06 PM
Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Postwar Findings About Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare With Prewar Assessments

I don't get the relevance in hindsight - ie postwar reports. A super-duper majority of representatives in the Republic agreed and the President acted accordingly. They were all wrong or they were all correct.

Please explain to me how blaming everything on the Executive Branch is not selective memory or a symptom of BDS.

:headscratch: The report was brought in to discuss whether there was a relationship between Saddam and al qaeda.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ImpulseEngine
Jan 30 2008, 09:36 AM
RTW
Jan 29 2008, 10:15 PM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 29 2008, 04:06 PM
Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Postwar Findings About Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare With Prewar Assessments

I don't get the relevance in hindsight - ie postwar reports. A super-duper majority of representatives in the Republic agreed and the President acted accordingly. They were all wrong or they were all correct.

Please explain to me how blaming everything on the Executive Branch is not selective memory or a symptom of BDS.

:headscratch: The report was brought in to discuss whether there was a relationship between Saddam and al qaeda.

The afterreport is armchair quarterbacking, put simply.

In addition, the actual 9/11 report was there. Was that not good enough? :headscratch:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Wichita,

You really should read (or reread) the report (at least the specific pages that I mentioned) and it will make more sense. There are 9 separate findings regarding whether a relationship existed between Saddam and al qaeda. Some are inconclusive. Others support just the opposite.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 30 2008, 09:37 AM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 30 2008, 09:36 AM
RTW
Jan 29 2008, 10:15 PM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 29 2008, 04:06 PM
Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Postwar Findings About Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare With Prewar Assessments

I don't get the relevance in hindsight - ie postwar reports. A super-duper majority of representatives in the Republic agreed and the President acted accordingly. They were all wrong or they were all correct.

Please explain to me how blaming everything on the Executive Branch is not selective memory or a symptom of BDS.

:headscratch: The report was brought in to discuss whether there was a relationship between Saddam and al qaeda.

The afterreport is armchair quarterbacking, put simply.

In addition, the actual 9/11 report was there. Was that not good enough? :headscratch:

What's in the 9/11 report so I know what you're talking about? I did ask that already...

I don't know their reasons for deciding another report was necessary, but that seems irrelevant. What's relevant is the report findings.

Armchair quarterbacking? Bush and his administration made a claim of a relationship and it was among the reasons for taking us to war. Whether there actually was a relationship is obviously important and so it's natural to look for the evidence - even if there was absolutely no opposition to the war and no dissenting opinions about said relationship. And that's what these investigations did. But the evidence didn't pan out.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus