Tsunami aid - US provides $35m, Japan $30m, UK $29m - France $136,000!?!?

[dorbie 0]

Quote

A hint? You're kidding, right?

From the transcript of NBC's Meet the Press:
[GENERAL WESLEY]CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html

I was wrong about the effort beginning 9-11-02, but there was a deliberate effort to make the connection, without evidence.

No you're the kidder, you have to take hearsay of a bitter General who's stabbing Bush in the back as he seeks the democratic candidacy. That's you're strongest evidence.

You do know that Clarke was removed from command for reasons of integrity according to his superiors. I trust him about as much as I trust Moore.

His statements also contradict the denials I heard w.r.t. the Prague meeting. If the claim were true Prague would have been seized upon to bolster this effort to pin it on Saddam. Where's the public pronouncement? A private call to a general is not what you asserted, nor is it even consistent with other information we have.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

No you're the kidder, you have to take hearsay of a bitter General who's stabbing Bush in the back as he seeks the democratic candidacy. That's you're strongest evidence.

No, just the first of lots that I was able to find. Want some more?

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Is there some reason you doubt the credibility of the Washington Post? Or do you have some different excuse for it?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

No you're the kidder, you have to take hearsay of a bitter General who's stabbing Bush in the back as he seeks the democratic candidacy. That's you're strongest evidence.

No, just the first of lots that I was able to find. Want some more?

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Is there some reason you doubt the credibility of the Washington Post? Or do you have some different excuse for it?

More misrepresentation. The Cheney claim was of loose ties to al Quaeda the article even states that, this for my money has not been settled either way even to this day but there's evidence loose ties existed. The phrase used a lot is collaboration and collaboration on the attack but that's a deliberate reformulation to a claim that was never made, longstanding high level contact did exist and isn't even challenged. It's openly conceded by the comission.

As for ties and support for international terrorism, as Kerry agreed existed (even according to the article you mention), that has been established conclusively. Doubtless you disagree, but international terrorists were given safe harbor there while Saddam offered open incentives to Palestinian suicide bombers and more recently nurtured Ansar al-Islam.

Interesting that the Prague meeting is in there and Cheney is quoted as saying it couldn't be proved or disproved after stating it happened, wow that's pretty damning stuff, ALL of that happened before the invasion of Iraq. At best an objective reading of the actual information and not opinion shows an agnostic attitude towards the information, and you claim they were beating the drum all along saying it was definite. Yep the comission thinks it didn't happen, BFD, can't be proven or not proven is still a good description. They can't prove it didn't happen they merely formed an opinion based on conflicting FBI evidence. It's also interesting that they single out Cheney the most hawkish cabinet member, others were even more reticent that him and he was pretty reticent about the meeting.

It seems though that you never read the second page of the article because that seems to confirm a lot of what the administration has said.

Beyond this the article attempts to discredit obvious statements of links between Zarqawi and al Qaida merely because they are loose networks, but that's what all terrorist networks are, in fact more recently Zarqawi has been confirmed as an al Qaida deputy, given that the text claims dwindling links and strong links in the past (another contradiction) the proclamation as deputy seems to devastate the thesis.

The last two paragraphs of the article while showing glaring flaws with hindsight even contradict the first half demonstrating the nurturing and networking of terrorist organizations.

The whole tenor of this article, and your posts is to overstate the administrations claims about Saddam & 9/11 when a claim linking Iraq to the attacks has never been made (your original post and assertion was clearly false), and then use the lack of evidence that a strong direct connection existed as proof that the administration was lying all along.

You set up your own straw man, beat it all you want it proves nothing.

[jcd11235 0]

The internet is full of media reports on Whitehouse claims of Iraq and al quada connections. While it is probably true that the direct connection was never literally made between Saddam and WTC attacks, the two were associated together often enough by officials as to imply such a connection, to mislead the people.

No credible evidence has indicated significant ties between al quada and SH.

Isn't it funny how those who got their news from Fox were most like to buy into the misperceptions?




http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/iraq/6918170.htm?1c

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[dorbie 0]

OK so we've moved to an implied connection, fine you're entitled to that belief.

I wouldn't know about Fox News, I never watch it, but the Bush administration isn't responsible for what Fox Viewers believe. Moreover a lot depends on the specifics of the question you ask anyone.

I believe there were high level contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq, the 9/11 commission agrees and so does the article you posted. There's conflicting and very tenuous evidence about the 9/11 attack itself, when I first heard reports of the meeting in Prague (very early reports before Afghanistan I think) I thought it sounded like it might be a smoking gun but we don't get to see the real Czech dossier, then almost immediately there were reports of US denials, even as the Czechs became more adamant about it, then there was some vacillation on it, the details of which I forget, but always some doubt cast on it. What am I to think? I just don't know, even Tariq Aziz hedged his denial, he didn't flat out deny it happened, he denied it then said if it did happen it's meaningless, suggesting to me they were worried about coroborrating evidence.

I wouldn't be prepared to say either way, I'm happy to say I just don't know. Even the Czechs, who insist Atta was in Prague twice and met with al Ani speculate it may have been over a domestic attack, but that seems unlikely to me for a Terrorist checking out crop dusters, jet purchases and pilots licenses in the US at the time. Some things we just never get to know the definitive answer to.

With shadowy networks of loosely associated decentralized terrorist cells and aquaintances you're often only going to get loose connections and single fleeting points of contact. Ever ask yourself how Zarqawi even thought he could write a letter to bin Laden? I mean most Arabs couldn't write the guy a note if their life depended on it.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Isn't it funny how those who got their news from Fox were most like to buy into the misperceptions?

It's almost as funny that people who got their news from CBS ran a close second in the same study.

What it probably boils down to is that people who get a well rounded news diet end up being better informed. People who watch only the news they want to hear end up being less informed.

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 3,120]

>This letter to congress does not claim that Iraq even helped pull off 9/11.

It says that peaceful means of enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq are no longer working, and it says that the US must act against such countries to stop the people who committed 9/11. It would take some very rosy glasses to imagine that Bush intended no connection between the two, and their simultaneous appearance in a letter to congress was a pure, unintended coincidence.

But the power of faith can be a very strong power indeed.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

But the power of faith can be a very strong power indeed.

It certainly can be, your willingness to merge and muddle several clearly discrete statements in plain English is a testament to that.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Moreover a lot depends on the specifics of the question you ask anyone.

Agreed. Much of it is sementics, but I believe coontinuously mentioning Iraq and OBL/ Al Quada in the same breath for months on end is intentionally misleading people.

There has been no hard eveidence of a connection produced. That doesn't mean that there is absolutely no connection, but circumstantial eveidence just as strong (some al quada cells have trained in America) could link AQ to USA. That does not make it true.

Quote

There's conflicting and very tenuous evidence about the 9/11 attack itself

Yes, there is, and Shrub keeps preventing the attacks from being thoroughly investigated, independently.

Kudos for not watching Fox.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It certainly can be, your willingness to merge and muddle several clearly discrete statements in plain English is a testament to that.

That can go both ways. IMO, Billvon gives some of the clearest, least muddled posts in SC. I don't believe his direct quote was any more misleading than was intended by its original author.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[dorbie 0]

There's a difference between a direct quote and a politicized interpretation. Only part of one of the posts was a direct quote.

We all know that a letter to congress like this is very carefully written. Things it does not say, it very deliberately doesn't say. Respinning it's contents because you want to confuse two separate statements is not a reasonably interpretation of the contents of a document, it's a willful misinterpretation to suit preconceptions.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

We all know that a letter to congress like this is very carefully written. Things it does not say, it very deliberately doesn't say.

And things that it very nearly says, are usually intended to be very nearly said. It is a deliberate effort to mislead.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,120]

>your willingness to merge and muddle several clearly discrete
>statements in plain English is a testament to that.

Often, people say things at the same time because they refer to the same thing. If someone in a movie yells "The lobby is on fire! Someone turn on the lights!" it's a safe bet that he's not talking about a hotel lobby in Stockholm, and he just wants the lights on because he lost his cellphone.

A few more examples:



Cheney - "The bottom line is that we're [in Iraq] for the safety and security of the nation, and our friends and allies around the world. We didn't do anything to provoke the attack of 9/11. We were attacked by the terrorists, and we've responded forcefully and aggressively."

Cheney - "If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Cheney - "So what we do on the ground in Iraq, our capabilities here are being tested in no small measure, but this is the place where we want to take on the terrorists. This is the place where we want to take on those elements that have come against the United States, and it’s far more appropriate for us to do it there and far better for us to do it there than it is here at home."


Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland - "The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]."

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

We all know that a letter to congress like this is very carefully written. Things it does not say, it very deliberately doesn't say.

And things that it very nearly says, are usually intended to be very nearly said. It is a deliberate effort to mislead.

You're talking about your interpretation of course. The administration made a deliberate effort not to make an accusation you guys want the administration to make so you can attack them for it. This is amazing, even when a connection isn't made you interpret it as being said so you can attack over it. Guys it's pathetic, you actually attempt to do this with no shame at all.

Ignoring most of what the administration has said and selectively quoting the most hawkish individual in the administration just isn't going to get you there either.

If only you could muster a candidate that says he wouldn't have taken us into Iraq. As it is even if your willful misinterpretation were reasonable (and it isn't) you still don't have a leg to stand on.