McCain loves to have the press fawn over him now and then, and this is his way of doing it. I've watched the man a long time, and one of the reasons I hope I don't have to vote for him.
I never got the impression it was going to be a day at the beach. I don't know where McCain heard that. What is the matter with the man? Some of us have a memory as well. Who said it was going to be a day at the beach?
okie wrote: I hope I don't have to vote for him.
the very definiton of "yellow dog" and I was beginning to think the "yellow dog" died with my grandmother's generation.
Bush just said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But he made a number of statements in the past conflating Iraq with 9/11, and Cheney flat-out said they were related. Unfortunately, much of the public believes, or believed, that Iraq was behind 9/11.
Advocate wrote:
Bush just said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But he made a number of statements in the past conflating Iraq with 9/11, and Cheney flat-out said they were related. Unfortunately, much of the public believes, or believed, that Iraq was behind 9/11.
END OF QUOTE
that is not true. that is a lie. I defy Advocate to prove what he? She?is saying.
As usual, Advocate just writes any old garbage at all and never posts evidence!
BernardR wrote:Advocate wrote:
Bush just said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But he made a number of statements in the past conflating Iraq with 9/11, and Cheney flat-out said they were related. Unfortunately, much of the public believes, or believed, that Iraq was behind 9/11.
END OF QUOTE
that is not true. that is a lie. I defy Advocate to prove what he? She?is saying.
As usual, Advocate just writes any old garbage at all and never posts evidence!
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON - In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Intrepid wrote:BernardR wrote:Advocate wrote:
Bush just said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But he made a number of statements in the past conflating Iraq with 9/11, and Cheney flat-out said they were related. Unfortunately, much of the public believes, or believed, that Iraq was behind 9/11.
END OF QUOTE
that is not true. that is a lie. I defy Advocate to prove what he? She?is saying.
As usual, Advocate just writes any old garbage at all and never posts evidence!
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON - In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
What an idiot Linda Feldmann makes herself out to be. It's obvious she has an axe ti grind and is incapable of simple reporting without her own, slanted editorial spin.
We invaded Iraq because of 9/11
What does that mean to you? If you are a scum-sucking, knee-jerking, yellow-bellied liberal, then that means you believe that statement somehow means Iraq was behind 9/11 or somehow involved.
If you are none of the qualities listed above, you realize that 9/11 and Iraq can be mentioned in the same sentance with having a causal relationship.
We did invade Iraq because of 9/11. We wish never to see and event like that on American soil again. To prevent that, we have decided to preemptively strike at those that threaten us the most through terrorist relationships, support and arming.
So, McGentrix, you are saying that you agree with the premise put forth by BernarR? Or, are you saying that Advocate is right? Or, are you saying that you don't know what you are talking about?
Only somebody who deliberately proof texted the President's remarks to distort his thesis would say he linked Saddam Hussein with 9/11. But then the Bush-haters among us wouldn't do that, would they? And they wouldn't keep repeating their intentionally drawn erroneous conclusion to mislead the other quite gullible and willing souls souls out there would they? Naw..........
Only if the Pope is Catholic.
Advocate wrote:Bush just said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But he made a number of statements in the past conflating Iraq with 9/11, and Cheney flat-out said they were related. Unfortunately, much of the public believes, or believed, that Iraq was behind 9/11.
Only the shallow minded and the people that apparently never listened to what Bush actually said, or what Cheney actually said, don't get it to this day.
I understood exactly Bush's reasoning before we entered Iraq, and I still understand it the same way. There was no ambiguity about it, except to those that wish to obfuscate the issue and twist it to suit their own political agenda.
What Bush's advisor on terrorism says.
CBS) In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.
The charge comes from the adviser, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes.
The administration maintains that it cannot find any evidence that the conversation about an Iraq-9/11 tie-in ever took place.
Clarke also tells CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl that White House officials were tepid in their response when he urged them months before Sept. 11 to meet to discuss what he saw as a severe threat from al Qaeda.
"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."
Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."
The No. 2 man on the president's National Security Council, Stephen Hadley, vehemently disagrees. He says Mr. Bush has taken the fight to the terrorists, and is making the U.S. homeland safer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.
Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking.
Clarke is due to testify this week before the special panel probing whether the attacks were preventable.
His allegations are also made in a book, "Against All Enemies," by Free Press, a subsidiary of Simon & Schuster. Both CBSNews.com and Simon & Schuster are units of Viacom.
********
From Seattlepi:
Bush's statement [that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11]was the latest in a series by administration officials this week that appeared to distance the White House from the widely held public perception that Saddam was a key figure in the attacks.
Publicly, at least, Bush has not explicitly blamed the attacks on Saddam. In speech after speech, however, the president has strongly linked Saddam and al-Qaida, the terrorist organization of bin Laden, the renegade Saudi whose followers hijacked jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania.
In his May 1 declaration of military victory in Iraq from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, Bush said, "We have removed an ally of al-Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding." He also said, "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror."
Two months earlier, in a speech aimed at mustering public support for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Bush said, "The attacks of September 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."
Critics have said the steady drumbeat of that message has tied Saddam to the attacks in the mind of the public. A recent poll by The Washington Post found that nearly seven Americans out of 10 believe Saddam played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, a notion the administration has done little to tamp down.
But retired NATO commander Wesley Clark, in a little noticed appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press" on June 15, charged that "a concerted effort ... to pin 9/11" on Saddam began in the fall of 2001, and "it came from people around the White House." Clark, who declared his campaign for president yesterday, did not identify anyone by name.
It was just weeks after the terrorist attacks that the first link between Saddam and al-Qaida was alleged by the administration. It came from Cheney, who said it had been "pretty well confirmed" that Mohamed Atta, the man held responsible for masterminding the Sept. 11 hijackings, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in April 2000, an allegation congressional investigators later dismissed.
Interesting. Some posters here can not differentiate between news and editorials. No wonder bush sits in the WH.
McGentrix wrote:We invaded Iraq because of 9/11
What does that mean to you? If you are a scum-sucking, knee-jerking, yellow-bellied liberal, then that means you believe that statement somehow means Iraq was behind 9/11 or somehow involved.
Certainly, McGentrix. Because "We invaded Iraq because of 9/11" is so
obviously something totally different than "We invaded Iraq because it was behind 9/11".
Too bad that the majority of Americans, in that case, are not intelligent enough to differentiate between the two. Or why else would you say that 70% of those polled stated that it was "likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda?" Oh wait. They are all "scum-sucking, knee-jerking, yellow-bellied liberals." Right.
The number of American soldiers fighting in Iraq who believe that Sadaam was involved in 9/11 is over 70%.
Just remember that 50% of the people are of below average intelligence... in any country.
McGentrix wrote:Just remember that 50% of the people are of below average intelligence... in any country.
I am giving you a fair warning. Edit this post before anyone else sees it. The comments that it will generate will not set well with you.
A commentator -- sorry, I was out of the room when the discussion began, so I do not know who he is -- on NPR this morning said that he watches the kindergarteners walk by at 3:30 on their way to day care and he knows that at least one of the children in the group will fight in Iraq.
War is the right wing abortion.
Yes, we invaded Iraq because of 911. We took troops that we could have sent to Afghanistan when we might have actually had Bin Laden in our sights, and sent them into Iraq to "liberate" the Iraqi people and save ourselves from a possible future terrorist threat.
The Bush Doctrine. Genius!
We should use that same strategy to deal with today's troubles in Iran.
Invade Yemen!
100 is average on the IQ scale. It is based on the theory that roughly 50% of the people will fall below that number and 50% will be above that number.
Average is NOT the same thing as "normal".
Roughy 50% of the population will fall within the 'normal' range between 90 and 110. About 25% will be above that range and 25% will be below that range.
But average is still average.
