Should America invade Iraq?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

"Boobs!"

YAY!!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

>Nice strawman . . .

A strawman is an argument you create just to shoot down.

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi was in the Iraqi military and became a terrorist with Al Qaeda - and from that you deduce that there was a link between the Iraq government and terrorism. Timothy McVeigh was in the US military and became one of the most infamous US terrorists ever. Using the same logic, there is a link between the US government and the OK city bombing.

Of course, you might argue that he was just a disaffected nut that had nothing to do with the US military when he became a terrorist. That's a reasonable argument - and one that applies equally to Abd.

Ok - I take your point.

Of course, there WERE papers available online that showed that Hussein's intelligence apparatus met with OBL in 95, and that they were trying to recruit suicide troops to strike at the US and liberate Palestinian interests...but those are now offline.

I guess providing info is only good when it's the MSM telling AQ what we're going to do next...

Yeah, and VP Cheney claimed a meeting between Iraqi oficials and AQ operatives in Prague. It was a lie, of course (his lips were moving).

From Cheney's November 14, 2001, appearance on CBS's 60 Minutes II:

GLORIA BORGER (CBS News contributor): Well, you know that Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of the hijackers, actually met with Iraqi intelligence.

CHENEY: I know this. In Prague, in April of this year, as well as earlier. And that information has been made public. The Czechs made that public. Obviously, that's an interesting piece of information.

From the December 9, 2001, edition of NBC's Meet the Press:

TIM RUSSERT (host): The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers. Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.

As Media Matters for America noted, the claim that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague has long since been discredited by a variety of intelligence officials and newspaper accounts. Moreover, the 9-11 Commission concluded in 2004 that no such meeting had taken place.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Um...no, that's not what I'm talking about... I'm referring to this:
(emphasis mine)

Quote

(Translation of Part of Page 1)

In the Name of God the Most Merciful and the Most Compassionate.

The Saudi Opposition and Achieving the Relation and Contact With Them

(Translation of part of Page 4)

2. The Comission of Reform and Advise

Lead by the Saudi Osama Bin Laden who belongs to a wealthy Saudi family with her roots go back to Hadramoot and connected strongly with the ruling family in Saudia, and he is one of the leaders of the Arab Afghan who volunteered for Jihad in Afghanistan, and after the expulsion of the Soviets he moved to stay in Sudan in the year 1992 after the arrival of the Islamists to power in Sudan.

And because of his stands against the Saudi Royal family because of the foreign presence inside it, the Saudi authorities made a decision to withdraw his Saudi citizenship, and we moved toward The Comission from our side and through the following:

Translation of page 5

A. During the visit of the Sudanese Dr. Abrahim Al Sanoosi to the country and his meeting with Mr. Uday Saddam Hussein on 13/12/1994 and with the presence of the respectful Sir the Director of the Apparatus he indicated that the opposition person Osama Bin Laden who is staying in Sudan and who was cautious and fears that he will be accused by his opponents that he became an agent for Iraq, is ready to meet with him in Sudan (The results of the meeting were written to the Honorable Presidency according to our letter 872 on 17/12/1994).

B. The approval of the Honorable Presidency was granted to meet with the opposition person Osama Bin Laden by the Apparatus according to letter 128 on 11/1/1995 (attachment 6) and the meting with him was completed by Mr. M.A ex-4th Directory in Sudan and with the presence of the Sudanese Dr. Abrahim AL Sanoosi on 19/2/1995 and a discussion occurred about his organization, and he requested the broadcasting of Sheikh Sleiman AL Awada (who has influence in Saudia and outside since he is a known and influential religious personality) and dedicate a program for them through the station directed inside the country and make joint operations against the forces of infidels in the land of Hijaz ( the Honorable Presidency has been notified with the details of the meeting according to our letter 370 in 4/3/1995 attachment 7).

Translation of page 6

C. The approval of Mr. President the Leader God protect him was granted to dedicate and program for them through the station directed and we leave to develop the relation and cooperation between the two sides what open in front of it in discussion and agreement through other cooperation doors. The Sudanese side was informed about the approval of the Honorable Presidency above through the representative of the respectful Sir the Director of the Apparatus our ambassador in Khartoom.

D. Due to the latest conditions in Sudan and accusing her harboring of supporting and harboring terrorism it was agreed with the opposition person the Saudi Osama Bin Laden to leave Sudan to another place where he left Khartoom in the month of July 1996 and the information indicate that he is Afghanistan at the present moment. There is stil relation with him through the Sudanese side and we work in the present moment to activate this relation with him through a new channel in light of the current place where he stays.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Yeah, and VP Cheney claimed a meeting between Iraqi oficials and AQ operatives in Prague. It was a lie, of course (his lips were moving).

When did US Intelligence conclude the information about this alleged meeting was incorrect?

Do you know the difference between telling a lie and simply being wrong?

[billvon 3,114]

>Do you know the difference between telling a lie and simply being wrong?

When someone of the opposite political party says something that isn't true, it's a deliberate lie. When someone of the same political party says something that isn't true, it's a regrettable error, an intelligence failure, a slip of the tongue or a "quote taken out of context."

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Do you know the difference between telling a lie and simply being wrong?

When someone of the opposite political party says something that isn't true, it's a deliberate lie. When someone of the same political party says something that isn't true, it's a regrettable error, an intelligence failure, a slip of the tongue or a "quote taken out of context."

We have a winner, folks.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Yeah, and VP Cheney claimed a meeting between Iraqi oficials and AQ operatives in Prague. It was a lie, of course (his lips were moving).

When did US Intelligence conclude the information about this alleged meeting was incorrect?

Do you know the difference between telling a lie and simply being wrong?

When you repeat the same falsehood over and over despite having been told that the evidence isn't there, it's a lie.

George Tenet (then CIA Director) in testimony to Congress, Oct. 2002, stated that the CIA had no evidence to suggest that the Prague meeting ever took place.

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, April 2002: "We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts."

United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on prewar intelligence on Iraq (SEPT 2006) states.

Postwar findings support CIA's January 2003 assessment, which judged that "the most reliable reporting casts doubt" on...an alleged meeting between Muhammad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague, and confirm that no such meeting occurred...Prewar assessments described reporting on the Atta lead as contradictory and unverified. In September 2002, CIA assessed that some evidence asserted that the two met, and some cast doubt on the possibility. By January 2003, CIA assessed that...they were "increasingly skeptical that Atta traveled to Prague in 2001 or met with IIS officer al-Ani."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

You keep giving statements from 2002 (and later) to show Cheney was lying in 2001.

When news organizations report stories that are later shown to be incorrect are these stories lies or merely examples of being wrong?

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

You keep giving statements from 2002 (and later) to show Cheney was lying in 2001.

When news organizations report stories that are later shown to be incorrect are these stories lies or merely examples of being wrong?

Cheney was still spouting the lie in Sept 2003 (Meet the Press) and only finally repudiated it (and then only in a half-hearted manner) in 2006.

By the way, don't you think the criterion for making a statement justifying a war of aggression should be that you have actual evidence to support it? You seem to think that not having evidence to the contrary is good enough.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

When news organizations report stories that are later shown to be incorrect are these stories lies or merely examples of being wrong?

They are examples of following the party line

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

By the way, don't you think the criterion for making a statement justifying a war of aggression should be that you have actual evidence to support it?

Yes. However, intelligence gathering has a lot of "fill in the blanks" and relying on questionable sources.

That said, I think the WMD intel used to justify invading Iraq was pretty half-assed. Even by intel standards, it didn't measure up.

Quote

You seem to think that not having evidence to the contrary is good enough.

What have I said (specifically) that gave you that impression. My goal in this recent back and forth was just to show you that making an assertion based on bad information doesn't make someone a liar.

Then again you seem to think google results for Colin Powell My Lai prove he actively participated in covering up the My Lai Massacre.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

When news organizations report stories that are later shown to be incorrect are these stories lies or merely examples of being wrong?

They are examples of following the party line

As Marx would dictate.

[billvon 3,114]

>Of course, there WERE papers available online that showed that
>Hussein's intelligence apparatus met with OBL in 95 . . .

Tony Snow this morning:

"Well, wait a minute, Chris. The president has been saying exactly that all along, so I don't know what the headline is ... The fact is, the president made it clear before the State of the Union in 2002 that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and September 11. So I'm afraid what's happened there is that George Tenet may have been referring to something that has been misreported or at least twisted by people who may have political motives in recent years, but there's been no attempt to try to link Saddam to Sept. 11."

Apparently the White House thinks people like you are twisting things due to political motives!

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

By the way, don't you think the criterion for making a statement justifying a war of aggression should be that you have actual evidence to support it?

Yes. However, intelligence gathering has a lot of "fill in the blanks" and relying on questionable sources.

That said, I think the WMD intel used to justify invading Iraq was pretty half-assed. Even by intel standards, it didn't measure up.

Quote

You seem to think that not having evidence to the contrary is good enough.

What have I said (specifically) that gave you that impression. My goal in this recent back and forth was just to show you that making an assertion based on bad information doesn't make someone a liar.

Then again you seem to think google results for Colin Powell My Lai prove he actively participated in covering up the My Lai Massacre.

Telling the American people that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence when the CIA had no evidence to support that statement and never did have any evidence was a LIE. Cheney had the CIA and FBI chase around in circles looking for evidence, and there never was any.

It was an unsubstantiated rumor presented as a fact by an administration bent on going to war. AKA a LIE.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

JEEZ your right I think we ought to wait til he has the capability to blow the hell out of American interests. (Because he is gaining the capability. if you listened to the whole speech & not just cherry pick th parts you want) Then you people can sit there & go why didn't we do something sooner!! The man is evil. the man is going to attack America, How many more Americans need to die before the liberals decide this is serious shit. Bush & Chaney are in charge of defending America, LET THEM DO THEIR JOB.

This post represents America....Hook, Line and Sinker.

Iraq was financially, morally and socially bankrupt and barely had the capabilities to even support itself as a country. It was known then, just as it is known now. America you are still suckers!

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Telling the American people that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence when the CIA had no evidence to support that statement and never did have any evidence was a LIE. Cheney had the CIA and FBI chase around in circles looking for evidence, and there never was any.

It was an unsubstantiated rumor presented as a fact by an administration bent on going to war. AKA a LIE.

LOL I love it! You're too much!

You post Cheney quotes from 2001, stating " It was a lie, of course" Then try to use later findings to prove Cheney knew it was a lie.

Or maybe... just maybe... this might require you getting outside your comfort zone... maybe Cheney was (mistakenly) relying on claims made by a top government official from the country where the alleged meeting took place.

Quote

Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross announced last fall that Atta and Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a second consul at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague, had conversed at least once, in April 2001. Gross would not rule out other encounters.

"unsubstantiated rumor"? Okay

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Telling the American people that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence when the CIA had no evidence to support that statement and never did have any evidence was a LIE. Cheney had the CIA and FBI chase around in circles looking for evidence, and there never was any.

It was an unsubstantiated rumor presented as a fact by an administration bent on going to war. AKA a LIE.

LOL I love it! You're too much!

You post Cheney quotes from 2001, stating " It was a lie, of course" Then try to use later findings to prove Cheney knew it was a lie.

Or maybe... just maybe... this might require you getting outside your comfort zone... maybe Cheney was (mistakenly) relying on claims made by a top government official from the country where the alleged meeting took place.

Quote

Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross announced last fall that Atta and Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a second consul at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague, had conversed at least once, in April 2001. Gross would not rule out other encounters.

"unsubstantiated rumor"? Okay

And the CIA concluded ------ it was a myth, unsubstantiated.

Rather like the "yellow cake" myth.

Lies used to garner support for a war of aggression. Goebbels would be proud.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

It is quite fun watching you avoid admitting you were wrong, even though the truth is so obvious.

I could go on about people who are completely unwilling to (or incapable of) admitting they are wrong... but Billvon would probably give me my one warning.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

It is quite fun watching you avoid admitting you were wrong, even though the truth is so obvious.

I could go on about people who are completely unwilling to (or incapable of) admitting they are wrong... but Billvon would probably give me my one warning.

If you wish you can, like Alice, believe 6 impossible things before breakfast every morning. That Bush and Cheney run an honest White House is firmly in that category.

Cheney is a liar who took a story with no corroborating evidence from our own intelligence service and presented it as fact to the US public as justification for a war of aggression.

Cheney continued to promote the myth long after the CIA told him there was no truth to it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

It is quite fun watching you avoid admitting you were wrong, even though the truth is so obvious.

Just to show you what a good sport I am, I'll concede you are right and I am wrong if you can produce credible evidence that the CIA or the FBI knew the alleged meeting in question was a fabrication at the time Cheney made the statements (in 2001) you posted above.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

It is quite fun watching you avoid admitting you were wrong, even though the truth is so obvious.

The truth is that there was no meeting in Prague between Atta and Iraqi intelligence, despite Cheney's claims.

mediamatters.org/items/200512150009

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

It is quite fun watching you avoid admitting you were wrong, even though the truth is so obvious.

The truth is that there was no meeting in Prague between Atta and Iraqi intelligence, despite Cheney's claims.

mediamatters.org/items/200512150009

So what?

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It is quite fun watching you avoid admitting you were wrong, even though the truth is so obvious.

The truth is that there was no meeting in Prague between Atta and Iraqi intelligence, despite Cheney's claims.

mediamatters.org/items/200512150009

So what?

So you and Cheney both appear to have a hard time telling truth from fiction.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

It is quite fun watching you avoid admitting you were wrong, even though the truth is so obvious.

The truth is that there was no meeting in Prague between Atta and Iraqi intelligence, despite Cheney's claims.

mediamatters.org/items/200512150009

So what?

So you and Cheney both appear to have a hard time telling truth from fiction.

What specifically do you think I "have a hard time telling truth from fiction" about?

Do you have actual examples ... or is this just a bogus insult?

Again - do you have any proof of the meeting in Prague being discredited in 2001?

In 2001?

[philh 0]

The 911 comission reports concluded that Bin Laden did pursue co operation with Iraq but nothing ever came of it. There was no evidence othehrwise before the invasion and there is none now.