Will this do for a quote where Bush links Saddam to 911?
cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/ … rq.letter/
In particular:" I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq 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. "
What the Hell are you talking about? I’ve never made any such assertion.
An unlikely possibility is still a possibility. And you do not know that such possibioity was unlikely. And you are stupid if after reading all of the reports you still believe that thee was no evidence that such cooperation could develop in the future. And you are really stupid if you think that Saddam and OBL or other terrorists could not cooperate against a common enemy… gee, that’s only happened how many times in history? 
[quote]What I want to know is why, despite documentation proving otherwise, people like Rascal refuse to stop insisting that Bush claimed a connection between Saddam and the 911 attacks.
Will Rascal address that question? Not likely[/quote]
You just above suggested that Bush was responsible for creating the misperception that Saddam was connected in some way to the 911 attacks. Given all that Bush has stated regarding Saddam and the nature of the threat that he posed, there is no excuse for someone like yourself to be confused as to what Bush stated or meant.
You really don’t want me to go looking and quote you again, do you? Last time I did that you got all upset. Don’t make me do it again, Rascal.
[quote=“Rascal”]Nice to see the “new” Tigerman is as agressive as before, still the master of misintepreting and looking at things out of context:
I did not say that Bush made such a definite claim, I clearly speculated why people might have gotten that (mis)perception (from the speeches by himself and his administration).[/quote]
Rascal, each time you make such a post you legitimize such misperception. Each time you stupidly state that Bush might have intentionally implied, you make an unsupportable claim. I’ve already shown you Bush’s statements and the full text of the letter spook cited. How can you possibly still suggest that Bush is to blame for the misperception? Its obvious that those who hold this misperception have not listened to or looked at the statements made by Bush. They have been intellectually lazy, and have accepted second-hand accounts of what Bush allegedly stated. IMO, this is inexcusable.
Why do you insist on pushing such horseshit? You have seen Bush’s statements. You know that Bush did not state or assert any cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda in connection with the 911 attacks. The fact that you continue, despite this knowledge, illustrates your political bias and IMO, dishonesty.
[quote=“Rascal”}So blame the media for “distributing” the speeches and repeating the “misperceivable” (sp?) message, but the source is still Bush & Co.[/quote]
That’s an idiotic statement. How can you blame Bush when Bush NEVER asserted a cooperative connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Wake up from your dreamworld.
Not necessarily. You know, I assume, that the way a question is posed can influence the answer given.
Who’s fault is it if they do not read carefully?
You cannot blame Bush for that. Its idiotic to blame Bush for other people’s carlessness and laziness.
[quote=“thebiggestnose”]Will this do for a quote where Bush links Saddam to 911?
CNN.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/ … rq.letter/
In particular:" I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq 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. "[/quote]
No.
Here is President Bush’s letter again. Read closely:
[quote=“President Bush”]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, [color=blue]I determine that:[/color]
(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) [color=blue]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[/color].
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
[/quote]
It is clear that Bush is stating that his decision to use force to oust Saddam is consistent with the efforts taken against ". . .those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks . . . "
[color=red]“Consistent with” means “compatible with”, and “compatible” means “able to co-exist or to be used in combination”.[/color] It is thus clear that Bush is making a special case for Iraq, and by his language he has differentiated Iraq from ". . . those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks . . . " This much is clear. Bush stated that the action sought to be taken against Iraq was consistent with, i.e., compatible with, i.e., able to co-exist with or to be taken in combination with the action taken against those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks . . . The use of the word those further distinguishes Iraq from those other nations.
[quote=“Tigerman”]…Who’s fault is it if they [others who got the misperception as a result of ‘misreading’ Bush administration statements about the connection between Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and al Qaeda] do not read carefully?
You cannot blame Bush for that. Its idiotic to blame Bush for other people’s carlessness and laziness.[/quote]
Yawn. What about what was said?
Tigerman, your arguments only hold water if we’re willing to suspend common sense.
Sheesh, you guys can’t hold your guy to ridiculously low standards elsewhere (debate expectations, public speaking ability, need for vacation/rest, achievements before assuming POTUS, rush to war in Iraq, ‘who cares of there were no WMD?’, etc.) yet simultaneously hold his words in this area to a ridiculouly high - in fact, lawyerly - standard.
Which reminds me, why is it that Bush is only held to high standards (i.e., lawyerly definitions) when you guys are trying to bail his ass out of whatever jam his ‘policies’ have gotten him into at the time? Jesus, the rest of the time it’s hell, W is just a West-of-the-Mississippi, anti-elitist, populist Jed Clampett, ingrained with good 'ol American common sense, who cares if he can’t talk for two minutes without blinking like that kid in Deliverance?
Why can’t we hold him to these same high standards all the time?
Besides, Congress has already released a report documenting Bush’s misleading statements concerning the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. For example, from the Congressional report*:
[url=http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf][b]"D. Statements about Iraq
[quote=“Tigerman”]…Who’s fault is it if they [others who got the misperception as a result of ‘misreading’ Bush administration statements about the connection between Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and al Qaeda] do not read carefully?
You cannot blame Bush for that. Its idiotic to blame Bush for other people’s carlessness and laziness.[/quote]
Yes, what about what was said? I’ve read what was said and Bush never said that Saddam was responsible in any way for the 911 attacks.
Huh? Read the statements and then tell me how you can possibly maintain that assertion. Better yet, cite one statement by Bush that asserts a connection between Saddam and the 911 attacks.
No. I expect that people intelligent enough to engage in political debate and hold opinions to be able to read and understand the meaning of statements made. I’m holding you guys to a higher standard than you all obviously hold yourselves to.
[quote=“flike”]Besides, Congress has already released a report documenting Bush’s misleading statements concerning the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. For example, from the Congressional report*:
[url=http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf][b]"D. Statements about Iraq
strike9.com/8FE325B14A/vpdebate.jpg
I notice the above poster “appealing to common sense”. Haha, there’s no such thing in political debates! HAH!
When have you ever seen some politician for e.g. say “Gee, Your argument appeals to my common sense and rationalism. I sincerely concede the point. May we move on in a spirit of unity.”
HAH! (and certainly not from posters, with posters in this forum).
[quote=“flike”]
Tigerman,
I’m curious as to what “nations” you believe “those nations” refers to, if not Iraq, the chief “ally of al Qaeda” outside of Afghanistan.
Who else could it logically be?
The only alternative is that it’s some sort of “John Doe” indictment of nations yet unidentified but that’s an even weaker legal theory than the Democrats’ challenge of the voting results in the Florida 2000 election.
The Bush administration is smart enough not to make a direct accusation of Saddam’s supposed involvement in 9/11 because that would require some pretty damning evidence, which of course does not exist and never has. Instead, the Bush administration uses the following process of implication: al Qeida attacked America… Saddam is linked to al Qeida… From an msnbc.com article today:
[quote] Cheney, challenged by Edwards, insisted last night that
[quote=“Jack Burton”]I notice the above poster “appealing to common sense”. Haha, there’s no such thing in political debates! HAH!
When have you ever seen some politician for e.g. say “Gee, Your argument appeals to my common sense and rationalism. I sincerely concede the point. May we move on in a spirit of unity.”
HAH! (and certainly not from posters, with posters in this forum).[/quote]
Jack, you know full well that common sense appeals are a poor substitute for an argument supported with facts.
[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“Jack Burton”]I notice the above poster “appealing to common sense”. Haha, there’s no such thing in political debates! HAH!
When have you ever seen some politician for e.g. say “Gee, Your argument appeals to my common sense and rationalism. I sincerely concede the point. May we move on in a spirit of unity.”
HAH! (and certainly not from posters, with posters in this forum).[/quote]
Jack, you know full well that common sense appeals are a poor substitute for an argument supported with facts.[/quote]
Actually, I believe there does exist one common sense appeal that trumps any argument supported by any number of facts. It’s called the popular vote.
See you at the polls!
[quote=“spook”]Tigerman,
I’m curious as to what “nations” you believe “those nations” refers to, if not Iraq, the chief “ally of al Qaeda” outside of Afghanistan.
Who else could it logically be?
The only alternative is that it’s some sort of “John Doe” indictment of nations yet unidentified but that’s an even weaker legal theory than the Democrats’ challenge of the voting results in the Florida 2000 election.[/quote]
Its obvious that “those nations” refer to Afghanistan, Iran. N. Korea and Syria. The US and its coalition were at the time and continue now to be taking actions in Afghanistan and also were and continue to be taking actions against or are attempting to influence the others. And yes, it is an indictment, IMO, of any nation not yet identified… and that is not a weak legal theory. Our police say that if you’re bad, they will come get you. What’s wrong with saying that?
[quote=“flike”][quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“Jack Burton”]I notice the above poster “appealing to common sense”. Haha, there’s no such thing in political debates! HAH!
When have you ever seen some politician for e.g. say “Gee, Your argument appeals to my common sense and rationalism. I sincerely concede the point. May we move on in a spirit of unity.”
HAH! (and certainly not from posters, with posters in this forum).[/quote]
Jack, you know full well that common sense appeals are a poor substitute for an argument supported with facts.[/quote]
Actually, I believe there does exist one common sense appeal that trumps any argument supported by any number of facts. It’s called the popular vote.[/quote]
That’s not an argument. Its an expression of collective opinion. It proves nothing other than which candidate is more popular.
Tigerman is clinging to an incorrect belief. It seems he is becoming ever more Clintonian t in his defense of the language of Bush and cronies. However, it is clear that due to the evidently overwhelming number of Americans who believe Saddam had a hand in 9/11, by repeatedly inferring and insinuating such a link-and indeed, by doing so when America was in shock and willing to support and follow the president, Rove and Bush’s speech writers have been effective and successful. Tigerman has been duped as well.
You want to have your cake and eat it too? War/defend any (flip-flopping) justification for said war.
[quote=“Danimal”]The Bush administration is smart enough not to make a direct accusation of Saddam’s supposed involvement in 9/11 because that would require some pretty damning evidence, which of course does not exist and never has. Instead, the Bush administration uses the following process of implication: al Qeida attacked America… Saddam is linked to al Qeida… From an msnbc.com article today:
[quote] Cheney, challenged by Edwards, insisted last night that
That is absurd. I ask you again to cite a Bush statement where he claims that Saddam cooperated with al Qaeda in connection with the 911 attacks.
You folks are really disappointing me. Has reading comprehension really fallen to such low levels?
Nonsense.
Can you read? If yes, please cite a statement by Bush where he claims that Saddam cooperated with al Qaeda in connection with the 911 attacks. If you cannot find such a statement, then be a big guy and admit that you have no factual support for your assertion.
You want to remain ignorant? That’s your choice.
[quote=“Tigerman”]Bush and Cheney made much of the many contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime not because they saw evidence of complicity in the 911 attacks, but because they feared a development of ties between Saddam and al Qaeda.
You folks are unbelievably biased against Bush. And its funny, because many of you regard us Bush supporters as being “blinded” by loyalty.
The opposite is obviously true. :s[/quote]
Wrong. Bush and cronies made much of the tenuous links because they wanted to drag US into a (wrong) war for strategic/personal/neo-con reasons (which I stated elsewhere)
You Repubs are unbelievably blinkered in support of Rove’s mouthpiece.
In this line of chat it migt be timely to remember some things that were uncovered in Iraq. Such as…
[url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm]]Salman Pak / Al Salman
References
Iraq
[quote=“Tigerman”]Bush and Cheney made much of the many contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime not because they saw evidence of complicity in the 911 attacks, but because they feared a development of ties between Saddam and al Qaeda.
You folks are unbelievably biased against Bush. And its funny, because many of you regard us Bush supporters as being “blinded” by loyalty.
The opposite is obviously true. :s[/quote]
Look, that’s nothing more than opinion and speculation.
I challenege you to either put up or shut up.
Please cite a statement by Bush where he claims that Saddam was complicit in the al Qaeda attacks of 911.
If you cannot do such a simple task, then you should shut up.
All you bring to the table is an opinion. I want to see some facts.
Amazing. I’ve illustrated with actual statements why it is that you are clearly wrong. All you have to offer is unsubstantiated opinion.
