15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 06:18 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

So you admit that Bush NEVER said that Saddam was responsible for or connected to 9/11?

That directly contradicts your earlier claim, but at least you can admit you were wrong.


The piece says that Bush strongly implied it. Cheney was even stronger in implying it. I think that if I really researched the matter, I would find explicit statements by the two. Moreover, they succeeded in getting a good majority of the public believing it.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 06:22 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
I think that if I really researched the matter, I would find explicit statements by the two.


OK, find them.

They dont exist!!
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 12:30 am
@mysteryman,
Quote:
MM opined: OK, find them.

They dont exist!!


Quote:
Cheney Admits to Lying About Iraq-9/11 Connection, Sort of

Former vice president Dick Cheney told a gathering at the National Press Club on Monday that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al Qaeda and no link to the attacks of 11 September 2001. He had previously been a committed proponent of intelligence reports (never published) he claimed demonstrated such a link.

According to a book by Washington Post investigative reporter Barton Gellman, former Republican House leader Dick Armey, who was skeptical of the need to invade Iraq, at the outset, has said he changed his mind when Cheney, then vice president, told him in no uncertain terms "that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had direct personal ties to al-Qaeda terrorists and was making rapid progress toward a suitcase nuclear weapon".

As reported by the Washington Post:

Cheney's assertions, described by former House majority leader Richard K. Armey (Tex.), came in a highly classified one-on-one briefing in Room H-208, the vice president's hideaway office in the Capitol. The threat Cheney described went far beyond public statements that have been criticized for relying on "cherry-picked" intelligence of unknown reliability. There was no intelligence to support the vice president's private assertions, Gellman reports, and they "crossed so far beyond the known universe of fact that they were simply without foundation."

In fact, for several years, Dick Cheney was the most vehement supporter of the theory that Saddam Hussein might have had links to the attacks. While he tended to prefer public statements alleging a "direct link" or "secret meeting in Prague", Cheney was persistent, until long after the invasion of Iraq, about his assertion that Iraq was involved in helping al Qaeda to fund and plan its attacks.

In 2004, CNN reported:
Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."

"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."

"The press, with all due respect, (is) often times lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in the press said without doing their homework."


http://open.salon.com/blog/je_robertson/2009/06/02/cheney_admits_to_lying_about_iraq-911_connection_sort_of





0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 07:33 am
@mysteryman,
I see that JTT did the research and did find explicit statements by Cheney linking Iraq to 9/11. Are you big enough to admit to this?
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 07:35 am
Hamas has test-fired a missile that is capable of hitting Tel Aviv. Since the Arabs have a tendency to use whatever weapons they have, this is a disturbing development that portends serious future consequences.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jz-wjOiiE0XGHLcteNvrzIkEYxmw
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 08:09 am
@Advocate,
Sure, Cheney said it.
And he was wrong to do so.

However, the charge was that Bush said it, not Cheney.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 11:50 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Sure, Cheney said it.
And he was wrong to do so.

However, the charge was that Bush said it, not Cheney.



The administration spoke with one voice.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 02:26 pm
@Advocate,
Does this administration speak with one voice?
If Biden or Hillary or anyone else in the admin says something, is Obama bound by it?
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 02:38 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Does this administration speak with one voice?
If Biden or Hillary or anyone else in the admin says something, is Obama bound by it?


Good point! They need some work on this.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 02:42 pm
@Advocate,
So if the current admin isnt speaking with one voice, why do you think the Bush admin, or any admin for that matter, did?
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 02:57 pm
@mysteryman,
You cant be so politically stupid that you think the vice president would make a statement, more than once, without checking with the administration.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 03:19 pm
@rabel22,
Have you read some of Joe Bidens statements?

http://www.rd.com/blogs/loose-cannon/top-eight-biden-gems/post10268.html

http://americanaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/joe_bidens_best_political_gaffes_of_2008_2009

http://www.slate.com/id/2228872/

From the slate article, we have some of Bidens statements where he is apparently setting policy for the US govt.

Quote:
"The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy.""Contradicting own administration's economic message in an interview with ABC's This Week, July 5, 2009


So he was saying that the admin was wrong.
I s that the official position of the govt?


Quote:
"Israel can determine for itself as a sovereign nation what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran or anyone else, whether we agree or not. … If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.""Appearing to give Israel the green light to bomb Iran in interview with This Week, July 5, 2009


So the Obama admin will allow Israel to bomb Iran?

Quote:
"You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking.""Not joking around in C-SPAN's Road to the White House series, June 17, 2006


So, the Obama admin is racist?

And here is an interesting one...
Quote:
"Barack Obama ain't taking my shotguns, so don't buy that malarkey. … I've got two, if he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem.""Issuing a warning at a campaign event, Castlewood, Va., Sept. 20, 2008


Is he threatening to shoot Obama?

So, since he is the VP, is he speaking for himself or the Obama admin with most of these comments?



InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:28 pm
@mysteryman,
In the case of the first statement you quote from Biden the Obama Administration let the statement stand, with Biden himself having further said in that selfsame interview that despite the fact the admin. stood by the stimulus package.

In the case of the second statement you quote, Obama himself went into damage control reiterating that the US is absolutely not giving Israel the green light to attack Iran.

In the case of the last two statements, the Obama Administration hadn't even existed, and Biden wasn't yet Vice President.

Contrarily, not once did the Bush Administration try to muzzle or correct the misleading and outright false statements Cheney had disseminated throughout the media.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:31 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
In the case of the second statement you quote, Obama himself went into damage control reiterating that the US is absolutely not giving Israel the green light to attack Iran.


So, you do admit that the current administration is not "speaking with one voice".

Then how can you reasonably expect any other admin to do that?

Quote:
Contrarily, not once did the Bush Administration try to muzzle or correct the misleading and outright false statements Cheney had disseminated throughout the media.


The initial charge was that BUSH blamed Iraq for the events of 9/11.
I have repeatedly asked for anyone to provide proof of that statement, yet nobody has done so.

Why is that?
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:50 pm
@mysteryman,
As was pointed out in the case of the second statement that you quote, the current administration clarified a misstatement of a member of said administration. The administration misspoke with one voice, and it clarified that misstatement with one voice.

In the case of the Bush Administration, it spoke with one voice, and failed to correct its misleading and fallacious statements.

The reason no one can provide proof that Bush blamed Iraq for the events of 9/11 is because there is none.

Bush and his administration did, however, conflate 9/11 with his cause to invade and occupy Iraq.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 05:56 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
The reason no one can provide proof that Bush blamed Iraq for the events of 9/11 is because there is none.


But thats exactly what the initial charge was, that Bush said it.

So, are you admitting that he didnt say it?
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 07:00 pm
@mysteryman,
Actually, the initial charge was that, "The Bush administration linked Iraq to 9/11, which was a big lie."

You, MM, as is your wont, are merely flailing against your own straw-man argument that it was claimed that "Bush said it."
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 08:05 pm
@InfraBlue,
Mysteryman has got a real bad case of brandonitis.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Nov, 2009 12:59 pm
Of the 23 “Whereases” (i.e., reasons) given by the USA Congress for its October 16, 2002 resolution, 13 were subsequently proven true. The remaining 10 were subsequently proven false. The 13 true reasons are more than sufficient to justify the USA invasion of Iraq. The false reasons are therefore irrelevant, and are therefore excluded from what follows.

Congress wrote:

www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002 (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Now therefore be it, Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.

InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Nov, 2009 03:36 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
The 13 true reasons are more than sufficient to justify the USA invasion of Iraq.

Says you!
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 03:27:58