EEzzee,
You have in your signature quoted the following statement made by Bush from the first debate:
I assume you think that statemet is illustartive of Bush’s lack of intelligence.
So, what do you think of this statement made by Kerry yesterday:
Correcting himself, Kerry said:
I’m certain that you will judge Kerry’s mistatement in a different light than you do for Bush, despite the fact that the mistake is identical.
Ok, small correction: possibly selling WMD.
I don’t think I just said I had this misperception, so what’s your point instead of misintepreting me?
Please do, Tigerman - but make sure it’s an actual statement of myself and not a quote of someone else I posted or hypothetical/speculative (thus you need to preserve context).
And do not add your own interpretation nor use semantics to “explain” what I actually said - if the statement is clear then you wouldn’t need to do that.
“Such post” where I speculate legitimizes such misperecption!? And I did say ‘intentionally or not intentionally’.
Besides, I do not think it is stupid to speculate that people get this misperception based on Bush & Co’s speeches.
I used Bush’s speeches as an example, so please stop pretending my suggestion was based on the letter.
I do not count myself to ‘those’, so address this to your 51% fellow Americans who thought that Saddam was personally involved in the attacks.
I merely tried to illustrate how people could get that misperception - it’s a fact that Bush mentioned those terms closely to each other, all or some, in most of his speeches that he made to justify the war.
Please do not confuse my view on the issue (and thus you shouldn’t accuse me of the above) with the speculation why others could get such a misperception.
Yeah, who is at fault for not reading my posts carefully and accusing me of pushing the claim that Bush made this claim when I actually indicated I was speculating about how other people could have gotten such a misperception?
Given that Bush has made so many statements that turned out to be incorrect, misleading etc. I do put part of the blame on him for creating such misperception.
If Bush isn’t to blame then you surely can cite lot’s of wide-spread media sources that state ‘Bush claimed Iraq was involved in 911’. Please?
You’re wrong again.
You stated:
Your correction above doesn’t make your assertion correct. Neither Bush nor I have ever stretched contacts into cooperation. The opposite is true. Bush has stated that we have no evidence to prove any cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda in connection with the 911 attacks. What is so frigging difficult about this simple matter that you seem unable to grasp it?
Its stupid. When the facts clearly illusrate the contrary, your continued questioning of the matter makes you look stupid.
WTF are you talking about. Cite a statement by Bush from any of his speeches where he asserted or claimed that Saddam cooperated with al Qaeda on the 911 attacks. If you cannot cite such a statement, then shut the fuck up already and admit you are wrong.
So what? He has explained clearly whet the perceived threat was. Can you not understand what he stated re the issue?
Are you trying to imply that you understand that Bush made no such statement to the effect that Saddam was complicit with al Qaeda in the 911 attacks? If so, just say so clearly.
If not, then what is your point in raising the subject time and time again re some people’s misperception? Really, WTF is your point?
That’s idiotic. Bush’s statements re this particular matter are clear. If people cannot read properly that is not Bush’s fault.
May I request that we try to tone it down a bit? I expect a little bit of heat, given the nature of this thread, but can we be a little more polite? Thanks.
If you can’t stand the heat – get out of the kitchen or go to the “Open” Forum. 
I don’t know about toning it down. I’m ready for another: I’m not in denial. What you said is absurd, or people can believe whatever they like. Please provide some more (so I can shoot it down, too).
Cheney can’t seem to read properly, either. Reuters: Vice President Dick Cheney probably did not intend to direct millions of television viewers to a Web site calling for President Bush’s defeat but that’s what a slip of the domain achieved. Anyone who heeded Cheney’s advice and clicked on “factcheck.com” was greeted on Wednesday morning with a message from anti-Bush billionaire investor George Soros entitled “Why we must not reelect President Bush.”
I agree that Bush’s influence on the reading ability of present-day voters is probably about nil … we will have to wait a few years to see how much his hypocritical educational policies have damaged future voters’ reading ability.
Regarding your own inability to read others’ posts accurately, might I recommend a good optician? I used to do volunteer literacy teaching when I lived stateside, so perhaps I can help out otherwise.
Getting back to the U.S. presidential debates and the recent veep show, the GOP is in a lot of trouble. Kerry’s big jump in the polls, combined with Cheney’s inability to land any hard blows mean that the GOP is back to having Bush try to stumble his way through two more awful performances. Maybe in the upcoming debate Bush can remind that the “Coalition of the Willing” includes cans of Spam from Palau, ice cubes from Iceland, and monkeys from Morrocco. (“Ummm, you forgot Palau…”)
Said issue was referring to you, not Bush. Everytime the issue comes up you post something about Al Zarqawi in Iraq and thus imply there was a cooperation of some kind that could potentially develop into Saddam selling WMD to Al Qaeda.
That he was in Iraq and might be an Al Qaeda member is not what’s being questioned, instead the question is was there any indication that Iraq did support or intend to support Al Qaeda, including potentially selling WMD to them - but based on the reports the answer is rather no than yes, thus the means taken (war) against Iraq were not warranted.
Facts - aren’t that those things that can also be wrong, in particular if the come from the Bush administration?
Since I did not state that Bush made such a claim I do not need to cite such and hence I am not wrong.
Maybe you take your own advise and read more carefully instead of trying to fault others for your comprehension problems.
Waiting for you to quote me as requested.
I can but that doesn’t mean others (those who had the misperection) could. Again: don’t confuse my view with ‘those’, because it leads you to wrong assumptions.
How much clearer can it get? Are you now going to invoke some semantics argument to show that the statement isn’t clear or do you for once admit that you are not reading properly?
‘Time and time’ only because you seem not to understand that I was referring to them (people), causing me to repeat it.
The point is (IMO) that people are prone to misperceptions based on Bush & Co’s speeches. Unless you can show that someone else is at fault (e.g. the media by e.g. distorting his statements or incorrectly quoting them etc.) I still consider this as a likely possibility.
If somebody shows that there were other factors that outweight the argument about the speeches I happily ditch the speculation based on that.
So are you denying that Bush & Co. made statements that were e.g. incorrect? The [true] facts speak otherwise and you know it.
I think I have worked it out and understand Tigerman stance. The reason that so many Americans believed that Saddam was connected to 9/11 is really quite simple, but it is not because of the administration’s constant use of speaches which go ‘Iraq… terror… saddam. …9/11… OBL… tourists… terrorist… OBL… Iraq…terror…Iraq… 9/11… lesson of… Iraq… 9/11… Iraq… lesson of… Iraq… 9/11…’ etc.
Now if you think that’s what caused the misperception you have probably been suckered by the liberal media conspiracy that has been out to get Bush from day one. See what happened was this…
One day in 2001 all the major players in the liberal media came up with this great plan. ‘Why don’t we confuse the American people in such a way that they support the war that this president (whom we hate) wants to wage by linking it to a completely untrue belief.’
Strange you think. Why would they want to help the president like this if they hate him so much? Well this is where the plan shows the cunning of a fox. They decided that they would take all this misunderstaning they had caused and claim that it was actually the fault of the president. This would be the perfect way to dicredit ‘W’ in the run up to the election.
So you see, it was all a long term media scam to take the words of the Bush administration and warp and twist them to produce the misconception of Iraqi involvement in 9/11. And Bush and co. tried so hard to battle this scam. But in the end the effort that Bush and co put into making sure that no misperception was likely, failed to put off the blodthirsty liberal media in their quest to dupe the American people.
Rascal:
So you admit that you cannot prove that Bush made such a statement linking Saddam and the 911 attacks, but you believe, if I understand this correctly, that Bush deliberately misled US public opinion. Can you prove that?
Also, given that the media is ultimately the one responsible for carrying these messages and defining these messages, then how is Cheney or Bush responsible for the misperception? Look at the endless media questioning and insinuations regarding Cheney and his involvement with Halliburton (all unproved).
Reporters are supposedly trained to act tough questions not roll over and accept things. Given that there is extensive proof of media bias, do you think that the US media which is 89% liberal is going to give Cheney or Bush a pass? Do you believe that the media has given Bush and Cheney a pass?
This is the same media that relentlessly hounded Bush about Joe Wilson’s claims and then did not even carry follow-up reports when it was proved that Joe Wilson was completely uncredible. Ditto for the CBS report by Dan Rather. So the media is letting Bush and Cheney’s comments pass unfiltered and therefore this is having such a huge influence on the American people? Do you honestly believe this?
What if it is far simpler than this? If 51% of the American people mistakenly believe that Saddam was DIRECTLY responsible for 911 could it be that the DIRECTLY is not the operative word here but “involved” or “linked?” Is this because Bush misled them or because now the media is making such a big issue of this fact and that it is once again policizing the debate by pretending that Bush and Cheney were responsible for the misperception rather than the media itself.
While I do not believe that Saddam was DIRECTLY involved in 911, I believe as Bush has stated that these matters are linked in the sense that it is all about terrorism, dysfunctional regimes and the need to “drain the swamp.” In that context, Saddam IS in fact part of the OVERALL problem. That is how I see it. That is how Bush has presented his argument and I agree.
You can engage in all the Rascalian shifts on commas and semicolons and what this may or may not appear to be and how phrasing something this or that way may influence how people perceive something but the simple truth is that for all these sophistries, I believe that Bush is right. All these conflicts are ultimately if not DIRECTLY linked and despite the media’s best efforts, that message has gotten through. GOOD!
I congratulate Tigerman on his patience is dealing with posters who cannot prove their facts nor support their positiions. I will give you credit Rascal in that you make a very persuasive argument but one that is ultimately based on discrediting an argument by splitting hairs. Perhaps, it is just your personality and how you absorb information. You are a small picture kind of guy that obsesses over where every word in a sentence is placed. Fine. We need people like that. I think however Bush is a big picture kind of guy and for all these criticisms and “nuances” understands what’s what. He has his eye on getting the job done.
Saddam no matter how you slice it was a serial offender and you are acting the part of the slick trial lawyer by focusing on technicalities. The man was bad. He was up to something. The proof may not exist now, but he was on probation and he did not have “rights” to a “fair trial.” We took him out because we believed that he was a threat. I still do. Can you convince me that he was not? You have tried and failed. Ultimately, we will have to agree to disagree on this but it is our blood and money and therefore you can have an opinion but you have no right to have a “say” in what we ultimately do. Sorry about that.
BB:
Cute but I got the message and so did many other Americans. We cannot wait for another 911 attack. We have to clean up the mess at its source. That includes Iraq, Syria, Iran and Afghanistan and anywhere the al Qaeda are. I am sorry if that is so difficult for you all to grasp. I got the message. No one told me that Saddam was directly involved in the 911 attacks and I do not believe that he was. I do believe that he was part of the overall problem and removing him was part of the overall solution.
In a way, Bush’s unnuanced approach seems to be so simple that smart liberal types just cannot seem to fathom it. They are spending more time than Madonna with her kabalah trying to figure out hidden meanings and numerical values that add up to hidden messages. Good luck. Those of us who can listen to an argument and see the big picture however will continue to support Bush while those who want to find any way regardless of whether it is factual or makes sense will continue to attack Bush not because of what he really said or did but just because they hate him. Fine, but don’t pretend that the message or arguments that they present are factually-based or make sense. They don’t.
Oh, wonderful, a reading expert. Perhaps you then can cite one statement by Bush wherein he asserts that Saddam was complicit with al Qaeda in connection with the 911 attacks.
Go on, be a good boy and show us all how well you can read.
I don’t recall ever posting anything about Al Zarqawi… and certainly I do not post about him “everytime” the issue is raised…
[quote=“Rascal”]… and thus imply there was a cooperation of some kind that could potentially develop into Saddam selling WMD to Al Qaeda.
That he was in Iraq and might be an Al Qaeda member is not what’s being questioned, instead the question is was there any indication that Iraq did support or intend to support Al Qaeda, including potentially selling WMD to them - but based on the reports the answer is rather no than yes, thus the means taken (war) against Iraq were not warranted.[/quote]
Bullshit. You are stating an opinion only based on the reports, which have been incomprehensive at best. This gets, however, to the crux of the matter. The idea that you are apparently unable or unwilling to grasp is that after 911, we didn’t want to live with even a potential… thus, the use of pre-emption. The threat was les than imminent, but the consequences of error on the wrong side were/are too horrible to leave to chance.
That is a simple notion. Why you cannot understand it is beyond me.
Yes, facts can be wrong. Unfortunately for Rascal, you need to prove the facts false, just as you need to prove them true, if you wish to rely on them. Rascal hasn’t proved any facts false yet, has he… 
You needn’t have made such a statement for my question to be valid. As usual, Rascal refuses to answer a question the answer to which undermines his argument.
Really? So, does Rascal admit that Bush did not state that Saddam was complicit with al Qaeda in connection with the 911 attacks? Please reply.
No, it isn’t sufficiently clear. You state that Bush did not state “directly”. Do you mean that he did state “indirectly”? If yes, how so? Please cite a statement by Bush wherein he stated indirectly that Saddam was complicit with al Qaeda in the 911 attacks.
This is bullshit. Don’t try to claim that you are being clear when you are not at all. Just for once state an opinion without hedging your position. What the fuck is “indirectly”? How can one state something indirectly while at the same time stating the contrary? What a load of shit.
Of course not. WTF are you talking about?
Cite an incorrect statement made by Bush where he asserted that Saddam was complicit with al Qaeda in the 911 attacks.
You know that Bush never made any such statement and that in fact he stated that no evidence of cooperation re 911 has been found. Unless you can cite Bush stating otherwise, the fault with respect to any misunderstanding lies with the people who are too lazy to read properly.
Who appear, in the main, to be republicans…
[quote=“Rascal”]Unless you can show that someone else is at fault (e.g. the media by e.g. distorting his statements or incorrectly quoting them etc.) I still consider this as a likely possibility.
If somebody shows that there were other factors that outweight the argument about the speeches I happily ditch the speculation based on that.[/quote]
Here is a typical example of how the media has distorted Bush’s statements and argument regarding the reason for invading Iraq:
[quote=“The Washington Post”][url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48970-2004Jun17.html]In yesterday’s hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.
The report challenged one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq.[/url][/quote]
Bush did NOT justify attacking Iraq because al Qaeda and Iraq previously had ties and or contacts. One of his justifications was that after 911, and knowing that the terrorists desire to use WMD against the US, Bush did not want to give Saddam’s regime and any terrorists an opportunity to develop collaborative ties.
The media has jumped on the Commission report which indicates that there is no evidence at this point of functioning collaborative ties and asserted that this finding undercuts Bush’s justification for the invasion.
Never mind that the media have misrepresented the Commission findings (the media reported that the Commission determined that there ws no collaboration between Saddam and al Qaeda… but, actually, the Commission found only that no evidence of such collaboration has been revealed), the above report is complete bullshit.
Bush stated clearly that he wanted to PRE-EMPT such collaboration. He never stated that any cooperative collaboration existed and he certainly never stated that Iraq was complicit in respect to the 911 attacks. Bush was trying to pre-empt the possibility that such collaboration might evolve in the future.
Thus, the media’s claim that a finding of no collaborative ties undermines Bush’s argument and or justification for going to war is nothing but a strawman argument.
I am amazed that some of you folks cannot see this. :s
Disagree with the decision to invade… that’s fine. But, to misrepresent the President’s arguments and or justifications is inexcusable.
Who appear, in the main, to be republicans…[/quote]
No, democrats are just as guilty. For they have latched on to a blatent misrepresentation of Bush’s argument.
As I have said, I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with the decision to invade Iraq… but I think misrepresenting the President’s justification for doing so is unacceptable in debate.
[quote=“Rascal”]Unless you can show that someone else is at fault (e.g. the media by e.g. distorting his statements or incorrectly quoting them etc.) I still consider this as a likely possibility.
If somebody shows that there were other factors that outweight the argument about the speeches I happily ditch the speculation based on that.[/quote]
Here is another example of how the media has distorted Bush’s statements and argument regarding the reason for invading Iraq:
Bush never suggested that Saddam assisted al Qaeda and neither was this a reason used by Bush to justify attacking Iraq. One of Bush’s justifications was rather that after 911, and knowing that the terrorists desire to use WMD against the US, Bush did not want to give Saddam’s regime and any terrorists an opportunity to develop collaborative ties.
Fun to see Tigerman get all ranty again. Given that his pelt has been taken again and again in this forum for his lack of adherence to any facts, it’s great. Perhaps he can pull out his 1913 Webster’s online dictionary again and try to come up with how the word “fact” is also inclusive of “false facts”. His penchant for trying to spin new meanings for words should give rise to a new moniker of “DJ Tigerman”.
I agree with Tigerman:
Basically this whole thread boils down as to whether anyone can supply ONE quote that Bush linked Saddam with al Qaeda’s attacks on 911. No one has been able to do so and so there is a lot of skating around about whether then Bush “misled” the American people.
Yet, Tigerman has showed numerous flaws in media reporting which clearly indicate media bias. Take Bush’s comments. Find one that links the two. This should be quite simple given the hysteria over this issue. Surely with all of this media frenzy, one simple sentence linking the two directly can be found. If not, then this arguement is over and the Bush detractors have lost.