The horror of Sept. 11th, 2001

The end

Could you try to be a little more clear, a little more concise, T2L?

Well everything looks good if you montage and add music

See what happens when you try and get whimsical? Or is that smart-assed?


I don't think it's worth rereading the posts to see if there's anything left to be said about that issue.

I thought I did address your point, though, about Bush not unequivocally announcing to the American people that Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11, but perhaps not.

Clearly he did not make such an announcement and, in retrospect, I would have preferred that he had if for no other reason than it would have put an immediate end to this ever presented tangential argument.

I'm pretty sure though, that even if had made the announcement there would still have been a portion of the population who believed Saddam had been involved. After all it's a lot more likely that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 than the CIA, but no matter what has or can be said to debunk the Truther Conspiracy Theory, there are still morons who believe it.

I'm even more sure that if the Administration had made such a clear and unequivocal announcement, public support for the invasion would not have turned, and most certainly congressional support would not have either. The notion that Congress was at any time duped by the White House is ridiculous.

I'm not saying that that the fact that the announcement would not have significantly changes public opinion is, in and of itself, reason for not making it at all, but I'm having a hard time understanding what the compelling reason was that the announcement be made.

I don't remember the timeline well enough but was it widely known, leading up to the announcement of the invasion, that a large percentage of Americans believed Saddam was partially responsible? Had critics of the proposal to invade Iraq raised this degree of misunderstanding in their opposition? I don't believe the Administration deliberately fed confusion and ignorance on the topic but I also don't believe it blatantly ignored a question that had been in the public eye for weeks prior to invasion.

We've been around the block on this before. For better or for worse, he Bush Administration decided to use WMDs as the excuse for invading Iraq, as opposed to the reason. I've already expressed my disappointment with that decision, but I would never suggest or accept that deciding to use fear as the means to generate public support for the invasion rendered it invalid.

There may have been other reasons to invade Iraq, and fear might have even been the least of them, but as long as it was a legitimate reason I don't think it matters as to the degree of emphasis it received.

(I appreciate that there is an argument that fear was never a legitimate reason, but it's not one I accept)

If the American people accepted fear as a legitimate reason to invade Iraq then I don't see that it make a difference that geo-political strategy might have been a better one, or at least one which the Administration thought was more compelling.

It would not have been realistic to expect, at that period in time, the Administration to somehow be able to maintain a bright line between the fear Iraq WMDs could generate and the fear that the 9/11 attacks had generated. It wasn't possible to accurately allocate to one source or the other its share of general sense of vulnerability prevalent in the country at that time.

The bottom line is that while it certainly wasn't a shining example of governmental ethics at work, it was a pretty common example of politics at work. I don't have a real problem with the Administration not making a concerted effort to disabuse everyone of the notion that Saddam participated in the planning and execution of 9/11, and (more to the point) taking advantage of a known degree of confusion or ignorance relative to the subject.

I can understand why others might have more of a problem than I do but, quite frankly, I find it difficult to believe this is used as anything more than a handy supporting argument as opposed to a basis for invalidating the decision that can stand on its own.

We all know that neither George Bush nor anyone in his Administration stood before the American public and lied to them about Saddam or Iraq being involved in the planning and execution of 9/11, and this is certainly what JTT and others have alleged.

We do not know if the Administration knew or believed that misinformation about Iraq's role in 9/11 (irrespective of its actual source) was working to its advantage in terms of building support for the invasion, or how much of an advantage they might have thought it was. We do not know whether anyone within the Administration recommended to Bush that he make the clear and unequivocal announcement, only to have that advice shot down for fear that it would derail support for invasion.

If you are as convinced as you seem to be that the Administration knew Saddam had no WMDs and falsified evidence in that regard to support an invasion it didn't believe it could justify for any other reason, why you're wasting time on this argument. You can't prove the government did anything illegal, unethical or untoward, you can only ask why it didn't go to an extreme measure.

Or maybe, it would have prevented the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, thousands of babies born deformed from US depleted uranium, countless lives destroyed, inordinate suffering but, you're right, Finn, that's small potatoes compared to Americans having to debate this awfully tiresome issue.

None which weren't war crimes.

Finn makes a great pretense of being a calm, deliberate fella, a regular guy who makes reasoned responses but really, anyone who can't see through the charade is blind as a bat.

Finn is nothing but an apologist for war crimes and terrorism committed by his governments. That makes him a damn despicable human, and I use the term 'human' reservedly.

I guess we can expect the US to initiate the invasion of Israel any day?...

Rogue State: Israeli Violations of U.N. Security Council Resolutions
by Jeremy R. Hammond
January 27, 2010

Following is a list of United Nations Security Council resolutions directly critical of Israel for violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions, the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Conventions, international terrorism, or other violations of international law.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/01/27/rogue-state-israeli-violations-of-u-n-security-council-resolutions/

Who might be holding the half a million Iraqi kids that the US thought fit to kill with an immoral embargo - and that was before the illegal invasion in 2003?

You're such an obfuscater that it makes me laugh sometimes. You say because the Truthers say the CIA was involved that somehow means Iraq was more likely involved?

If you'd read the Rumsfeld article I posted here, directly after my initial response to you
http://able2know.org/topic/176937-38#post-4744210

You'd know that 70% of Americans believed in Saddam's direct involvement at that time - you don't think a misapprehension of that magnitude deserves addressing?

You'd know:



That's a lie.

For all your faffing about on motivations, a lie of omission is still a lie. I understand you are happy to be lied to by your govt (or at least you're happy that they lie to the unwashed masses) if the end result suits you. You've said as much before.



That's the funniest thing in your whole post. Violating a UN security council resolution isn't at least 2 of those three things? Even in your eyes? Need I go on and list the illegal, unethical or untoward things the then administration (and its agencies) did around that time period? (Faking WMD evidence, outing CIA operatives blah blah blah)

I thought it was more your 'go' to accept that they did some questionable things but the ends justified the means? You've long been the quintessential '**** you jack, I'm OK' on A2K.



I'm only wasting my time arguing with you - we've been here enough times before - but this is a public board and other people read it. I take T2L at his/her word, ie Trying2Learn. Both sides of an argument should be heard and the evidence weighed. I'm just holding up my side, you have every right to hold up yours.

If that's the case, that Finn has the right to hold up his side of any argument, then how come he never does.

As you've so rightfully noted, Finn is nothing but a master obfuscator. I don't believe for a second that you came to this conclusion right after my post, # 4,751,061.

It's so alarmingly apparent that you think it would cause him some slight sense of shame.

I tried to answer your question honestly, acknowledging the weaker points of both my argument and that of the Administration, and without taking gratuitous personal shots. You either didn't recognize this or didn't appreciate it, but that's OK.

Still not interested though in trading insults so I'm going to pass on anything more of a reply.

When you are obfuscated out, obfuscate your way out.

Huh? Why don't you try reading what Finn wrote a second time?


Bullshit.


Bullshit.

Didn't actually mean to be personal, you just said some stuff that doesn't bear up under scrutiny. You do have a habit of addressing a tangential topic when something you say is challenged, hence the 'obfuscation' charge. I too was trying to be honest.

I freely acknowledge that you were saying you weren't deliriously happy about some of the administrations actions, but you still ultimately supported them and told me I couldn't prove that they'd done anything 'untoward' - that's plain weird - I'd be stunned if any government could claim that they had never done anything 'untoward'.

Tico - using a small group of 'morons' as an excuse not to do something about a misapprehension held the majority of US citizens is woeful. I should have worded that better, my point was the truthers thing is completely unrelated to the 'Saddam helped 911' thing but Finn associates them for no purpose other than obfuscation, IMO.

To your two 'bullshits' I say Plame Affair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame_affair

Some people are ideologically incapable of admitting faults in their partisan heroes.

If they are incapable there's no point in addressing them.

Yeah, the Valerie Plame story was widely discussed here on A2K back when it was happening, and the leftist allegation of "outing CIA operatives" was bullshit then, and unless information has come to light that I'm unaware of, it remains so.

Many pages of discussion ... peruse at your leisure:

http://able2know.org/topic/56457-1

http://able2know.org/topic/54736-1

Um Tico - you do know Libby was indicted for


And convicted on four of five charges?

Guess I'll re-read those A2K threads and get the real story. Thanks guy.