Originally posted by Toddster: If you're going to try to sway political opinion at least have the dignity to respect the fact that some of us don't buy just any BS posted on a forum and actually know the facts.
Welp.. that does it for me, my job here is done.
IP: Logged
01:30 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Oh goodie, Toddster joins us. This should be easy. Toddster, provide me links to the direct statements of them saying there is a collaborative relationship (note, a working relationship) between Iraq and Al Qaeda which extends beyond "a number of contacts" and you'll have me. Other wise,
Pot.
Kettle.
Black. --------------------------- Facts are stupid things. -RWR
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:
What are you smoking Jerimiah? I just heard two 9/11 panelists on Meet the Press this mornign and their OVERWHELMING conclusion was that there WAS a definite link between Iraq and Al-Queda.
What they said was that they could not prove a link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks...the point of the commission.
If you're going to try to sway political opinion at least have the dignity to respect the fact that some of us don't buy just any BS posted on a forum and actually know the facts.
IP: Logged
09:52 AM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Oh goodie, Toddster joins us. This should be easy. Toddster, provide me links to the direct statements of them saying there is a collaborative relationship (note, a working relationship) between Iraq and Al Qaeda which extends beyond "a number of contacts" and you'll have me. Other wise,
Pot.
Kettle.
Black.
Easy?
Given your track record of getting toasted with the facts, that's an unusual assumption. Once again a Liberal is sucked in by the first story that he WANTS to believe before all the fact are in.
Rebroadcast of the interview will be tonight at 8:00.
Don't miss it. I'd hate for you to get a case of denial.
Here is part of the transcript below:
"MR. RUSSERT: Do you agree? Was there any evidence of any connection of Saddam Hussein with September 11?
MR. LEHMAN: Well, I really totally disagree with what I thought was outrageously irresponsible journalism, to portray what the staff statement--and again, this is a staff statement; the commissioners have not addressed this issue yet--to portray it as contradicting what the administration said. There's really very little difference between what our staff found, what the administration is saying today and what the Clinton administration said. The Clinton administration portrayed the relationship between al- Qaeda and Saddam's intelligence services as one of cooperating in weapons development. There's abundant evidence of that. In fact, as you'll soon hear from Joe Klein, President Clinton justified his strike on the Sudan "pharmaceutical" site because it was thought to be manufacturing VX gas with the help of the Iraqi intelligence service.
Since then, that's been validated. There has been traces of Empta that comes straight from Iraq, and this confounds the Republicans, who accused Clinton of doing it for political purposes. But it confirms the cooperative relationship, which were the words of the Clinton administration, between al-Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence.
The Bush administration has never said that they participated in the 9/11 attack. They've said, and our staff has confirmed, there have been numerous contacts between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda over a period of 10 years, at least. And now there's new intelligence, and this has come since our staff report has been written because, as you know, new intelligence is coming in steadily from the interrogations in Guantanamo and in Iraq and from captured documents. And some of these documents indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al-Qaeda. That still has to be confirmed. But the vice president was right when he said that he may have things that we don't yet have. And we are now in the process of getting this latest intelligence.
But in any case, it demonstrates the difficulty that we've had in this commission, because we're under tremendous political pressures. Everything we've come out with, one side or the other seizes on in this election year to try to make a political point on.
MR. RUSSERT: But there is no direct involvement, in your mind and findings, between Saddam Hussein and September 11?
MR. LEHMAN: No."
"pot, kettle,black"? I got a better one; Game, Set, Match!
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 06-21-2004).]
IP: Logged
10:23 AM
Uaana Member
Posts: 6570 From: Robbinsdale MN US Registered: Dec 1999
Pretty sad we have to search for justification of the war by interrogating Iraqis we captured during the war.
Too many maybes, possiblies, yet to be confirmed, we may have things we dont yet have.
Would have been great if we had sent spies or special opts to create a clear and concise justification before spending billions upon billions and killing our best.
I see Clinton's successful strike/distraction got brought up. Did Clinton not lie under oath? How can we believe everything he said is the truth?
IP: Logged
11:45 AM
Tigger Member
Posts: 4368 From: Flint, MI USA Registered: Sep 2000
Still, way too many maybes, possiblies, yet to be confirmed, we may have things we dont yet have. I don't want to see another post unless it contains confirmed proof, not just what somebody said over 5 years ago.
Yeah and did you read the part about much more evidence of links between al-Qaida and Iran or Pakistan than Iraq?
So, you're willing to trust the Clinton administration when it bolsters this one, eh?
Me? Toasted with the facts? Pfft... I wasn't trying to defend 21st economics with 18th century theory. You sir lost that one - toasted toasted toasted. Toasted indeed. Any rate:
Clinton was saying the same things Bush is saying yet he had the political vision not to start a ground war on the basis of assumption. If you read the commission report it does say contacts were indeed made but there was no cooperative relationship. They lived in the same area, I'm sure they did have contacts - but if they weren't collaborating then the relationship isn't justification for war, now is it?
I didn't agree with Clinton then and I don't agree with him now. As for Mr. Lehman's assertions, they are just that - he says the media went too far and I agree, but they were going in the right direction. Now, if Clinton couldn't prove it to you then and you can't prove it to me now AND no one can prove it to the 9/11 commission, then...well... it just isn't going to be justification.
And, if you followed up instead of believing the first media report you read in your favor (potkettleblack) then you would have found:
quote
But Mr. Lehman said the intelligence has not been confirmed, and some terror analysts cautioned that the connection might be nothing more than coincidence.
ahem.
Hardly a set a game or even the match but... It's your ball.
*general disclaimer* I like you toddster, lets not allow politics to get in the way of our special relationship
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:
Easy?
Given your track record of getting toasted with the facts, that's an unusual assumption. Once again a Liberal is sucked in by the first story that he WANTS to believe before all the fact are in.
Rebroadcast of the interview will be tonight at 8:00.
Don't miss it. I'd hate for you to get a case of denial.
Here is part of the transcript below:
"MR. RUSSERT: Do you agree? Was there any evidence of any connection of Saddam Hussein with September 11?
MR. LEHMAN: Well, I really totally disagree with what I thought was outrageously irresponsible journalism, to portray what the staff statement--and again, this is a staff statement; the commissioners have not addressed this issue yet--to portray it as contradicting what the administration said. There's really very little difference between what our staff found, what the administration is saying today and what the Clinton administration said. The Clinton administration portrayed the relationship between al- Qaeda and Saddam's intelligence services as one of cooperating in weapons development. There's abundant evidence of that. In fact, as you'll soon hear from Joe Klein, President Clinton justified his strike on the Sudan "pharmaceutical" site because it was thought to be manufacturing VX gas with the help of the Iraqi intelligence service.
Since then, that's been validated. There has been traces of Empta that comes straight from Iraq, and this confounds the Republicans, who accused Clinton of doing it for political purposes. But it confirms the cooperative relationship, which were the words of the Clinton administration, between al-Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence.
The Bush administration has never said that they participated in the 9/11 attack. They've said, and our staff has confirmed, there have been numerous contacts between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda over a period of 10 years, at least. And now there's new intelligence, and this has come since our staff report has been written because, as you know, new intelligence is coming in steadily from the interrogations in Guantanamo and in Iraq and from captured documents. And some of these documents indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al-Qaeda. That still has to be confirmed. But the vice president was right when he said that he may have things that we don't yet have. And we are now in the process of getting this latest intelligence.
But in any case, it demonstrates the difficulty that we've had in this commission, because we're under tremendous political pressures. Everything we've come out with, one side or the other seizes on in this election year to try to make a political point on.
MR. RUSSERT: But there is no direct involvement, in your mind and findings, between Saddam Hussein and September 11?
MR. LEHMAN: No."
"pot, kettle,black"? I got a better one; Game, Set, Match!
[This message has been edited by Jeremiah (edited 06-21-2004).]
IP: Logged
11:54 AM
Tugboat Member
Posts: 1669 From: Goodview, VA Registered: Jan 2004
Originally posted by Toddster: The Bush administration has never said that they participated in the 9/11 attack.
That's funny, this was the letter to congress:
Presidential Letter Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President :)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Why? I don't see a statement that Iraq participated in the 9/11 attacks.
quote
How many times has Bush used 911 and Iraq in the same sentence? Why did a majority of Americans believe Iraq was involved with 911??
I dunno. How many times do people use Fiero and Corvette in the same sentence? When comparing things, like cars or evil, it is not uncommon to use familiar references.
Originally posted by Toddster: Why? I don't see a statement that Iraq participated in the 9/11 attacks.
"...Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002..." "...including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
You don't see a connection? OOOKAAYYY...
No point in going any farther here.
GL
IP: Logged
12:49 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
"...Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002..." "...including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
You don't see a connection? OOOKAAYYY...
No point in going any farther here.
GL
Not exactly. Read it again:
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
First, it's says "including". It doesn't say "exclusively". As in "including those nations..."
Second, there is evidence that Iraq was involved, somehow and in some capacity, with Al Quaeda.
IP: Logged
01:48 PM
fourfoot23 Member
Posts: 383 From: Orange County, CA Registered: Oct 2003
So, you're willing to trust the Clinton administration when it bolsters this one, eh?
This isn't a question of trust when it is back-up by independent confirmation. I don't trust Clinton the man, afterall who can. He lied to a grand jury, suborned purjury, was impeached by the HOR, and (if you saw his interview last night with Dan Rather) STILL accepts no responsibility for his own conduct. It's all about the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy." Poor Billy. everyone is just out to get him.
The fact is the man was the President of the USA and I will never believe that ANY President doesn't have the security of the nation as his top priority (politics aside). So I am happy to accept his assessment that he considered Bin Laden and Iraq major threats.
quote
Me? Toasted with the facts? Pfft... I wasn't trying to defend 21st economics with 18th century theory. You sir lost that one - toasted toasted toasted. Toasted indeed. Any rate:
Clinton was saying the same things Bush is saying yet he had the political vision not to start a ground war on the basis of assumption. If you read the commission report it does say contacts were indeed made but there was no cooperative relationship. They lived in the same area, I'm sure they did have contacts - but if they weren't collaborating then the relationship isn't justification for war, now is it?
What assumptions!? Clinton outright said just last night that he had launched his strike in the Sudan based on the same intel Bush gets. Jeez Jeremiah you are starting to sound like a lawyer. You want every i dotted and every t crossed before we act on potentially catastrophic information. I hate to tell you this but Managers, Presidents, and leaders world-wide have RARELY had all the facts they needed before they had to make a decision. Invariably they are making decisions on information that is sketchy at best. That is the nature of the burden of the big chair. It's easy to sit back with the benefit of hindesight and say I would have done it this way but when you get down to the minutia of whether or not the KNOWN collaboration of Al-queda and Iraq actually resulted in the production of VX nerve gas, it may be too late to do anything about it.
quote
I didn't agree with Clinton then and I don't agree with him now. As for Mr. Lehman's assertions, they are just that - he says the media went too far and I agree, but they were going in the right direction. Now, if Clinton couldn't prove it to you then and you can't prove it to me now AND no one can prove it to the 9/11 commission, then...well... it just isn't going to be justification.
Mr. Lehman is on the panel and has seen the evidence we have not seen. Hence, I have to lend a great deal more credibility to him than the NY Times and their band of "impartial" journalists.
quote
And, if you followed up instead of believing the first media report you read in your favor (potkettleblack) then you would have found:
I don't see your point. This statement is NOT in contradiction with my observation that there WAS an Iraqi/Al-Queda connection and that the 9/11 commission has not found any evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9/11attacks.
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 06-21-2004).]
I don't see your point. This statement is NOT in contradiction with my observation that there WAS an Iraqi/Al-Queda connection and that the 9/11 commission has not found any evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9/11attacks.
Actually, I never replied to your last post in that thread... I suppose it fell off the screen and I had forgotten about it up until now. I'm debating if I should bring it back up to the top... but, any rate, I was right.
YES. I want all the i's dotted and the t's crossed when it comes to sending our military (or should I say innocent American people) to die. You know, if they want to lob missiles at chemical plants, I wont jump up and down about it, but when we lost an average of 5 boys a day I have to be upset. War isn't something anyone should take lightly and enter into because of speculation and, methinks, if there is one lesson we can pull from Vietnam it’s never take the word of a paranoid administration over obvious logic.
We now have hindsight and it is telling us the relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda was NON COLLABORATIVE, whether there be contacts between the two organizations or not, that point is moot. The over arching point is that the relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda was grossly over-exaggerated to say the least, much in the same sense the WMD was over exaggerated and that, my good man, IS looking at it in hind sight and why it’s so damned scary.
Your arguments are getting thinner... do I smell victory?
I don't see your point. This statement is NOT in contradiction with my observation that there WAS an Iraqi/Al-Queda connection and that the 9/11 commission has not found any evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9/11attacks.
You know its funny to watch the great lengths people will go to when arguing something that doesn't hold water. The Bush administration is saying there are "ties, connections, and relationships" between Iraq and Al Queda. They do agree with the 911 commission that there is no connection to 911.
The Bush administration is also saying that what the 911 commission stated is the same thing they themselves are saying. The 911 commission actually did say there was no COLLABORATIVE relationship between Al Queda and Iraq, BUT there are ties, connections, and relationships that have occurred over the past ?? years. The Bush administration is claiming to agree but only repeating these words "there are ties, connections, and relationships that have occurred."
The question isn't whether there were any ties, connections, or relationships. The question is was there a working relationship between the two in regards to terror.
Guess what? Nobody denies there were some failed meetings and maybe even some cross connections, but there was never any proof or even good intelligence that there was a WORKING COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP IN REGARDS TO TERROR between Al Queda and Iraq.
The United States has had more "ties, connections, and relationships" to Iraq than AL Queda has.
The Bush administration is trying to confuse people into believing that the two seperate statements mean the same thing, when in fact they do not. They are banking on the ignorance of our people like they have time and again, and its working. But don't sit here and lie to those of us who actually pay attention. I see what they are doing and so do millions of others.
[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 06-21-2004).]
IP: Logged
07:15 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Guess what? Nobody denies there were some failed meetings and maybe even some cross connections, but there was never any proof or even good intelligence that there was a WORKING COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP IN REGARDS TO TERROR between Al Queda and Iraq.
Guess what? There is no more Saddam regime to worry about anymore. I'll take that any day of the week.
quote
The United States has had more "ties, connections, and relationships" to Iraq than AL Queda has.
OK, so who would you rather have "tieing" - Iraq and Al Qaeda, or the new Iraqi government and the U.S.?
This dangerous world is now a little bit safer. Again, I'll take any of that I can get.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 06-21-2004).]
OK, so who would you rather have "tieing" - Iraq and Al Qaeda, or the new Iraqi government and the U.S.?
This dangerous world is now a little bit safer. Again, I'll take any of that I can get.
You aren't addressing the issue my friend. Please dissect what I posted and look for any false information if you want to continue debating what the TOPIC is. Safer or not, lying to the American public is a whole different ball game.
IP: Logged
07:25 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
You aren't addressing the issue my friend. Please dissect what I posted and look for any false information if you want to continue debating what the TOPIC is. Safer or not, lying to the American public is a whole different ball game.
I didn't say anything about false information in my last post. I said the world is little bit safer place now. I've seen enough evidence that the Iraqis were doing *something* with Al Qaeda. If it isn't enough for you, then that's your business.
IP: Logged
08:19 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Your arguments are getting thinner... do I smell victory?
Nope, You neither Connecticut.
You are still using the benefits of hindesight. We didn't know 3 years ago what we know now and nearly every member of Congress, Kerry included, made the same assessment of the facts that the President did in voting for a War resolution in Iraq.
We didn't know the Nazi's were not close to finishing an Atom Bomb either. Should we have stopped the Manhattan project until we KNEW for certain?
The point remains that after 3 exaustive years of trying to deny the Iraq/Al-Queda relationship the evidence keeps coming back that there was one and that it was collaborative to "some" extent. The lengths of which we still don't know fully. So exactly how much longer should we have waited Jerimiah? Should we still be waiting? Care to speculate at the potential carnage in this country if we did? Kinda makes those 1000 US troops lost a lot less painful than the thought of tens of thousands of innocent civilian on there way to work on the subway, or the airlines, or just sitting at their desks doesn't it.
Now who was it that was talking about arguements that don't hold water....hmmmmm?
Now who was it that was talking about arguements that don't hold water....hmmmmm?
It was me, and yours certainly has leaks. We aren't arguing the validity of whether or not Iraq would've possibly allied with AL Queda in some speculative debate. We are arguing if there WAS a collaborative relationship between Al Queda and Iraq in regards to terror, more specifically in regards to terror against the US. Guesswhat, according to all who have officially checked... like the congressionally appointed BIPARTISAN 911 commission... there WASN'T one.
edit: missspellled the weerd regrads
[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 06-21-2004).]
IP: Logged
08:30 PM
Tigger Member
Posts: 4368 From: Flint, MI USA Registered: Sep 2000
You are still using the benefits of hindesight. We didn't know 3 years ago what we know now and nearly every member of Congress, Kerry included, made the same assessment of the facts that the President did in voting for a War resolution in Iraq.
It has nothing to do with hindsight. Nearly every member of congress was cleverly had by Bush and co. They showed us maps where there were large stockpiles of weapons and claims of Al queda had ties when there was none.
If any congressman would have voted against the war he/she would have been labeled UN-patriotic and UN-American for disagreeing with the "overwhelming evidence." If anything I bet congress would like the benefit from hindsight now.
