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 (2,063 Views)
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
ImpulseEngine
Jan 31 2008, 12:36 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 only connecton between Saddam and al Quaeda was they hated each other.

Maybe the Bush-appologists need to look at the facts and re-read the reports.

There was never a connection between 9-11 and al Quaeda and Iraq (Saddam) , it was a work of scare mungering and fiction , by a regime in Washington who was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq and had none in reality.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
ImpulseEngine
Jan 30 2008, 02:41 PM
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.

Ah, then that is a whole different kettle of fish. ;)

It's the findings that are inconclusive, not the suspected link between Al Qaeda and Hussein/Iraq.

Weren't we just talking about whether the government should state something that has a level of uncertainty to it without clearly and concisely pointing out what they KNOW to be fact and what MAY be fact?

If some of the findings are "inconclusive" and others "seem to indicate" there is no link, then the report writers don't KNOW for a fact one way or another. They are simply taking the evidence they do have, using their best judgement and coming to a conclusion.

I will try to read the material again, but it won't be till the weekend.






Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
They don't claim to know. They did present the evidence and findings clearly as such. Their conclusions amount to there is no evidence that establishes said relationship.

But my point about this part of this discussion is and has been that Bush and even some people in this thread have claimed that this relationship in fact does exist. And I'm still waiting to hear how they "know" that.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
ImpulseEngine
Jan 30 2008, 03:02 PM
They don't claim to know. They did present the evidence and findings clearly as such. Their conclusions amount to there is no evidence that establishes said relationship.

But my point about this part of this discussion is and has been that Bush and even some people in this thread have claimed that this relationship in fact does exist. And I'm still waiting to hear how they "know" that.

And their findings could prove to be false still .... :shrug:

I think this question hinges on definitions. I understand your question and don't fault you in the slightest for asking it.

I just don't think it's a question that will be satisfactorily answered by everyone's standards.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Wichita
Jan 30 2008, 10:15 AM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 30 2008, 03:02 PM
They don't claim to know.  They did present the evidence and findings clearly as such.  Their conclusions amount to there is no evidence that establishes said relationship.

But my point about this part of this discussion is and has been that Bush and even some people in this thread have claimed that this relationship in fact does exist.  And I'm still waiting to hear how they "know" that.

And their findings could prove to be false still .... :shrug:

That's absolutely correct. But, as it stands, they haven't. And unless and until there are findings to establish some sort of cooperation between Saddam and al qaeda (which is, after all, what the point is about, not just a relationship - heck, the US has "a relationship" with al qaeda even if only a destructive one) then people shouldn't be speaking as though there conclusively was one.

Quote:
 
I think this question hinges on definitions.  I understand your question and don't fault you in the slightest for asking it.

I just don't think it's a question that will be satisfactorily answered by everyone's standards.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. What definitions does it hinge on?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
somerled
Jan 30 2008, 07:48 AM
The only connecton between Saddam and al Quaeda was they hated each other.
Is that first-handl knowledge or do you have a link?

Even if true, they had a common enemy which gave them incentive to cooperate.

somerled
Jan 30 2008, 07:48 AM
Maybe the Bush-appologists need to look at the facts and re-read the reports.

There was never a connection between 9-11 and al Quaeda and Iraq (Saddam) , it was a work of scare mungering and fiction , by a regime in Washington who was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq and had none in reality.
We should reread the reports that are a work of scare mongering and fiction?

:headscratch:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
ImpulseEngine
Jan 30 2008, 07:36 AM
The report was brought in to discuss whether there was a relationship between Saddam and al qaeda.

It hardly matters. Most everyone with access to the intelligence THEN believed there was and pushed for action. Even if not there were numerous other justifications for the war.

Posted Image

Commence whining about having seen it before. *sigh*
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
RTW
Jan 30 2008, 04:08 PM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 30 2008, 07:36 AM
The report was brought in to discuss whether there was a relationship between Saddam and al qaeda.

It hardly matters. Most everyone with access to the intelligence THEN believed there was and pushed for action. Even if not there were numerous other justifications for the war.

The subject of the thread is whether Bush and his administration knowingly made false statements in a deliberate effort to increase support for invading Iraq. Part of the argument made then was a supposed connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. As such, within the context of this discussion, it certainly does matter.

And speaking of "whining" (you didn't really think I would miss your hidden text below the cartoon, did you?), isn't that about what your post just contributed to this thread? And, if you have something to say, why hide it? :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
ImpulseEngine
Jan 30 2008, 02:32 PM
The subject of the thread is whether Bush and his administration knowingly made false statements in a deliberate effort to increase support for invading Iraq. Part of the argument made then was a supposed connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. As such, within the context of this discussion, it certainly does matter.

And speaking of "whining" (you didn't really think I would miss your hidden text below the cartoon, did you?), isn't that about what your post just contributed to this thread? And, if you have something to say, why hide it? :rolleyes:

Your premise is that Bush made false statements and others privy to the reports did nothing to expose them - but it's only Bush's fault that we went to war. The others, all allegedly significantly more intelligent than Bush, were either fully complicit, duped by Bush, or simply did comprehend the reports.

We keep hearing how Bush/Cheney and co aren't the smartest bunch to occupy the White House. If that's the case then it's not out of the realm of possibility that someone from the legislative branch scripted those false statements.

All those people I quoted early in this thread.... not as smart as Bush or complicit in his lies?

Sorry you took the "commence whining" comment personally. I don't remember you complaining in the past about seeing an image that is, *sigh*, again relevant.

All I've contributed to this thread is whining? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. This entire thread is whining about how "dopey ol' Bush" duped the supposed super intellects into pushing for the war.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

RTW
Jan 30 2008, 09:45 PM
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I think there is an image for that too, one that I have also only seen a couple of dozen times ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
What was the topic here again???
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
RTW
Jan 30 2008, 10:45 PM
ImpulseEngine
Jan 30 2008, 02:32 PM
The subject of the thread is whether Bush and his administration knowingly made false statements in a deliberate effort to increase support for invading Iraq.  Part of the argument made then was a supposed connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.  As such, within the context of this discussion, it certainly does matter.

And speaking of "whining" (you didn't really think I would miss your hidden text below the cartoon, did you?), isn't that about what your post just contributed to this thread?  And, if you have something to say, why hide it? :rolleyes:

Your premise is that Bush made false statements and others privy to the reports did nothing to expose them - but it's only Bush's fault that we went to war. The others, all allegedly significantly more intelligent than Bush, were either fully complicit, duped by Bush, or simply did comprehend the reports.

I have repeatedly said "the Bush administration" or "Bush and his administration" throughout this thread.

Quote:
 
We keep hearing how Bush/Cheney and co aren't the smartest bunch to occupy the White House.  If that's the case then it's not out of the realm of possibility that someone from the legislative branch scripted those false statements.
No, I've only been hearing that about Bush himself. As for anything being scripted, the sources for all the statements are given on the website as well as the specific people who said them.

Quote:
 
All those people I quoted early in this thread.... not as smart as Bush or complicit in his lies?
I don't understand this question especially since many of those people predated the Bush administration. :headscratch:

Quote:
 
Sorry you took the "commence whining" comment personally.  I don't remember you complaining in the past about seeing an image that is, *sigh*, again relevant.
I didn't take it personally, but you embedded it in a reply to me so therefore it was applicable to me and so I addressed it.

Quote:
 
]All I've contributed to this thread is whining?  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.  This entire thread is whining about how "dopey ol' Bush" duped the supposed super intellects into pushing for the war.
I didn't say "all you've contributed". My comment referred to that specific post. But now that you mention it... :whistle: ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Minuet
Jan 31 2008, 09:08 AM
What was the topic here again???

Apparently images that Proton has seen too many times. :lol:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus