DontTreadOnMe wrote:Ticomaya wrote:DontTreadOnMe wrote:dude, you're just playing the word game, ...
The word game, DTOM, is being played by the anti-Bush folks who assert that Bush claimed the Iraq threat was "imminent," when it's clear he did not.
Quote:"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
LINK
if that was the case, what is the explanation for not allowing the u.n. inspectors the additional few months to do their work?
if the threat was not imminent, that means that there was no "urgency" to take overwhelming action.
c'mon tico... you're a lawyer. you know words have specific meanings, that's why we use them. to convey specific mental imagery of a thought.
and, to pretend that there is no such thing as "implication" in the use of language is disingenuous.
there's a distinct difference between saying "someday, the guy could be trouble" and that "he is a threat of unique urgency".
----
that said, how ya like the new gilmour record ?
How about the fact that they'd been doing this job for a dozen years without providing any finality to the issue, and had many times been denied access to places they tried to search? Isn't a dozen years enough time for Hussein to abide by his agreement to provide convincing proof that he had destroyed his WMD and development programs? Based on the history of these events, there were a number of scenarios that might have been true. If Iraq had been stalling while they perfected and amassed WMD, eventually they might be finished and something terrible could then happen. It was in our interest not to let them stall until Hussein simply announced, like North Korea has, that he now had a stockpile of WMD, and that no one had better try to mke him do anything anymore. He could then have invaded and dominated his neighbors using the threat of his WMD, or even the WMD themselves, to force everyone to give ground. He might even have had a WMD smuggled into the West and set off in a densely populated city to get us off his back. Of course, he would have claimed innocence and offerred to assist our relief efforts.
McGentrix wrote:Indeed. It should tell you that A2K has a small group of conservative posters compared to the overwhelming majority of nattering nabobs.
Yes, a large percentage of enlightened intelligent people against an extremely small percentage of idiots and morons! You're right McG!
Anon
cicerone imposter wrote:Brandon will never "get it."
When this administration repeated adnauseum about 9-11 and Saddam in most of their speeches, most people came to the conclusion that they are connected. HOw else do you think almost 50 percent of Americans still think that? Are you living in the real world? Are you claiming you didn't hear Bush and Cheney say "9-11 and Saddam" in the same speech? If you are, you're all liars.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this one, but Bushie supportiers keep asking for proof he said or didn't say 9-11 was connected to Saddam. Either their school lacked logic or semantics, or their brains have become calcified to protect their messiah.
When claiming something, it's conventional to provide evidence of it, and those who ask for evidence are not engaging in bad behavior. You seem to now have admitted that Bush never said that Iraq was behind 9/11. Please provide a quotation in which Bush comes really close to saying that Iraq was behind 9/11.
blueveinedthrobber wrote:i meant there's a small minority of nattering nabob consevatives..... not very well put I realize....
I restated for you BVT ... Not that they will understand any better!
Anon
Anon-Voter wrote:McGentrix wrote:Indeed. It should tell you that A2K has a small group of conservative posters compared to the overwhelming majority of nattering nabobs.
Yes, a large percentage of enlightened intelligent people against an extremely small percentage of idiots and morons! You're right McG!
Anon
Let's make sure I understand your rational.
Anyone who you feel has sold themselves to a political party (Dem or Repub) or their stereotypical phrase (Liberal - Dem or Conserv - Repub) is either intelligent or an idiotic moron?
Where does that leave me who will never sell themselves to any political party or be labeled by a "phrase"?
snood wrote:It's clear they cannot acknowledge a simple truth - Bush and Co. tried to sell a connection between Hussein and 9/11.
I think it's like someone has explained earlier in this thread - if they acknowledge this, it makes it necessary to acknowledge a whole lot of ugly things about their administration - something they cannot do. It is their definite character weakness on clear display for all.
Why can't you provide a quotation in which Bush and Co. are doing what you claim they are doing? Indeed we should not accept a proposition that you folks have made without evidence and repeatedly refuse to substantiate with quotations.
snood wrote:cjhsa wrote:There was absolutely a connection between Hussein and 9/11, whether Bush & Co. tried to sell it or not.
To think otherwise is to put your naiveity on display for all.
...'nuff said
cjhsa is not Bush, nor a member of his cabinet. How is his statement of opinion enough to substantiate your allegations about the administration in Washington? I fail to see the steps of your deduction.
1.
washingtonpost.com
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed
By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01
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.
Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."
But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. 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 staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994.
cjhsa wrote:There was absolutely a connection between Hussein and 9/11, whether Bush & Co. tried to sell it or not.
To think otherwise is to put your naiveity on display for all.
Thank you for proving my point CJ!
Anon
2.
Published on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 by the Associated Press
9/11 Commission: No Link Between Al-Qaida and Saddam
by Hope Yen
WASHINGTON - Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was ``no credible evidence'' that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States.
In a chilling report that sketched the history of Osama bin Laden's network, the commission said his far-flung training camps were ``apparently quite good.'' Terrorists-to-be were encouraged to ``think creatively about ways to commit mass murder,'' it added.
Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said in the staff report, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.
Chairman of the National Commission on Terrorists Attacks Upon the United States (9-11 Commission) Gov. Thomas Kean looks on at the beginning of their final two-day hearing at the National Transportation Security Board conference center in Washington, June 16, 2004. The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks began its final hearings on Wednesday before delivering its findings at the end of next month. REUTERS/Larry Downing
While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a ``collaborative relationship.''
The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq.
woiyo wrote:Anon-Voter wrote:McGentrix wrote:Indeed. It should tell you that A2K has a small group of conservative posters compared to the overwhelming majority of nattering nabobs.
Yes, a large percentage of enlightened intelligent people against an extremely small percentage of idiots and morons! You're right McG!
Anon
Let's make sure I understand your rational.
Anyone who you feel has sold themselves to a political party (Dem or Repub) or their stereotypical phrase (Liberal - Dem or Conserv - Repub) is either intelligent or an idiotic moron?
Where does that leave me who will never sell themselves to any political party or be labeled by a "phrase"?
Smarter than the rest of us!
Anon
Brandon9000 wrote:snood wrote:cjhsa wrote:There was absolutely a connection between Hussein and 9/11, whether Bush & Co. tried to sell it or not.
To think otherwise is to put your naiveity on display for all.
...'nuff said
cjhsa is not Bush, nor a member of his cabinet. How is his statement of opinion enough to substantiate your allegations about the administration in Washington? I fail to see the steps of your deduction.
Where?!? What?!? I see nothing!! NO-THING!!!!!
3.
June 29, 2005, 9:12 a.m.
It's All About 9/11
The president links Iraq and al Qaeda Specifically, against Islamo-fascists who slaughtered 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. But they are not the primary goal of this war, which is to destroy the network of Islamic militants who declared war against the United States when they bombed the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, and finally jarred us into an appropriate response when they demolished that complex, struck the Pentagon, and killed 3000 of us on September 11, 2001.
That is why we are in Iraq.
I can find many more, but it won't make any difference to the liars that support the contention that Bush never said "9-11 wasn't connected to Sadddam."
People that still refuse to understand the simple truth needs to understand what "inference" means. When something is repeated often enough to connect "a" and "b" by any president, it becomes a truism whether it was said "a" and "b" is so. In this case "a" = Saddam, and "b" = 9-11. It was not necessary to say "Saddam was responsible for 9-11" for most people to make the connection.
cicerone imposter wrote:2.
Published on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 by the Associated Press
9/11 Commission: No Link Between Al-Qaida and Saddam
by Hope Yen
WASHINGTON - Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was ``no credible evidence'' that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States.
In a chilling report that sketched the history of Osama bin Laden's network, the commission said his far-flung training camps were ``apparently quite good.'' Terrorists-to-be were encouraged to ``think creatively about ways to commit mass murder,'' it added.
Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said in the staff report, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.
Chairman of the National Commission on Terrorists Attacks Upon the United States (9-11 Commission) Gov. Thomas Kean looks on at the beginning of their final two-day hearing at the National Transportation Security Board conference center in Washington, June 16, 2004. The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks began its final hearings on Wednesday before delivering its findings at the end of next month. REUTERS/Larry Downing
While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a ``collaborative relationship.''
The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq.
This is irrelevant. We're not discussing any generic connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. We're talking about whether anyone in the administration said that Iraq participated in 9/11. Just post any quotation in which Bush and Co. claim that Iraq participted in 9/11.
snood wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:snood wrote:cjhsa wrote:There was absolutely a connection between Hussein and 9/11, whether Bush & Co. tried to sell it or not.
To think otherwise is to put your naiveity on display for all.
...'nuff said
cjhsa is not Bush, nor a member of his cabinet. How is his statement of opinion enough to substantiate your allegations about the administration in Washington? I fail to see the steps of your deduction.
Where?!? What?!? I see nothing!! NO-THING!!!!!
It is to your discredit that you prefer irrelevangt jibes to on-topic argument. If you can, please explain how a statement by an A2K poster is evidence that Bush et al claimed the same thing.
