It's not what you know, but what you can prove!

The White House continues to assert that there was a collaborative relationship between OBL and Saddam; yet bring forth no evidence to back up their claim.

President Bush said, "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

Time and time again, the administration did link Iraq and the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Vice President Cheney was still spinning the myth yesterday; asked if Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attack, he replied, "We don't know. You know, what the commission said is they can't find any evidence of that." On Meet the Press, Cheney said Iraq was the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Announcing major combat was over in Iraq in May 2003, President Bush said, "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001." Even going into the invasion of Iraq, "Bush and Cheney…sought to tie Iraq specifically to the 9/11 attacks. In a letter to Congress on March 19, 2003 -- the day the war in Iraq began -- Bush said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.'"


MR. BUSH, MR. CHENEY.....EITHER PUT UP, OR SHUT UP!!

PM Putin says "Kestra, shut the fuck up"

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ror/index.html

Frobozz. Did you actually read the article you cited?

- Ashlen

Kestra, I can tell you right now you will believe what ever you want. The administration has said several times that there is no connection between the events of 9/11. After a poll came out that said a majority of Americans thought there was a connection between 9/11 and Sadaam, the President specifically in January at a press conference said there was no connection to the events of 9/11 and Saddam.

Saying that does not mean that there is no connection to Iraq and the war on terror or Al Qeada and Saddam Hussein. If you simply look at Saddam's financial support of terrorist organizations and homicide bombers, his granting of asylum to terrorists, providing them safe harbor within Iraq and use of military intelligence and expertise to aid other organizations, then he has the appropriate connections. BTW, These are connections he had with Al-Qeada. These are things that have nothing to do with 9/11 but have everything to do with the war on terrorism that began on 9/11.

Al-Qeada is not like fighting a centralized government. Its cells or franchises of terrorist organizations that work for a common cause. Many members trained in Afghanistan in the last decade with Bin Laden, but many more did not and have received subsequent help through other paths. Furthermore, this is not an organization that has a limited intelligence or wherewithal to conduct only one operation at a time. They are intelligent. Many of there leaders are university educated (look at the 9/11 hijackers dossiers) and are bright folks. They understand the use of multifront tactics and are not unsophisticated in the battle that they are warring. So aiding 'Al-Qeada' does not mean you have a direct link to the events of 9/11.

Furthermore, this was a premptive war. That was the big complaint of everyone in the wold and the part of the Bush doctrine. We were no longer going to wait for countries who supported terrorists to strike against us. We were going to address those places. Every left leaning, anti-war activist, bitched and moaned about this war for that reason. Now, for some reason they forgot that and are looking for 9/11 as justicification. No one is saying that Iraq was 9/11... the fear was it was a country that was going to lead to something much worse than 9/11.

Finally, I think its funny you use the quotes you do, because none of them say what you think they do.

"No one is saying that Iraq was 9/11... the fear was it was a country that was going to lead to something much worse than 9/11."

I guess you have little faith in the 9/11 commission.

That 70% poll came out long before Bush's press conference in January, and he did very little before that to set the record straight.

If Iraq is America's example on how they spread democracy(leaving DU and undetonated cluster bombs everywhere)......I just assume say "no thanks".

The Bush Administration's position of "just trust us" doesn't fly anymore.
These guys can't even get a terror report right.

And this doctrine of pre-emption is bullshit!! What if every other able country decides to adopt a policy of pre-emption??

Bush Jr. is simply continuing and maintaining the US's strategic
interest in the middle east's oil reserves that started after WW1, under the flag of spreading democracy.


So, again, either they put up, or shut up!!

From 9/11, President Bush has declared war on terror. Iraq was a financer of terrorist groups and also a hideout. Saddam's support for these groups was the reason Bush saw Iraq a staging point. Iraq also was rumoured to have WMDs. Afganistan was different because in Afghanistan it was to topple the regime of the Taleban and to "capture" Osama. Thats his name. Bin Laden means Son of Laden. So the links of terror groups, dictators and strict regimes in the Middle East, goes so far as they supply and finance the terrorist. And if stability of the Middle East can be accomplished. Well your OIL prices will drop dramactically.

Bush has no choice but to fight terror, as there are multidtudes of reasons why stability in the Middle East in important. It not about 9/11 anymore. Its not about getting to overthrow Iraq. Is way bigger then that. This is just the beginning.

I think one of the main reasons for the Iraq war lie in a philosophical vision of the neo conservatives, who dominate the foreign policy establishment, is the belief that the United States does dominate the world as the world's only superpower, that it must assert it's power, globally, everywhere, and that anyone who resists it or defies American power, is absolutely unacceptable, and becomes, automatically, very much the enemy.

The theory that you can bludgeon political grievances out of existance, doesn't have much of a track record, and essentially, we have been neo-conned by this administration.

This war had nothing to do with terrorism. There was no connection between Iraq and the religious fanatics that perpetrated 911. Saddam Hussein is not a fool. He's a terrible villain, yes, but why would he risk sacrificing his own life and country to terrorists who had completely opposite views to his own?
Iraq was a highly centralized dictatorship, why would Saddam ever want to give up control of that to scatterings of terrorist organizations? He would loose that control. Do you really think
Saddam would trust his fate to OBL and his nihilistic ways??
I don't think so!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
"No one is saying that Iraq was 9/11... the fear was it was a country that was going to lead to something much worse than 9/11."

I guess you have little faith in the 9/11 commission.

---

Bahahaha. That is funny. 12 lawyers walk into a room no one should feel safe. As a fellow member of the bar, I sure as hell have no faith in the 9/11 commision. It is three years since 9/11 and they are just now starting to get to some interesting things. They have no power. No authority other than invesitgative subponea.

I'm sorry, but I don't feel safe when people 'chat' up people about the ingerity of my security. I feel safe when people are standing a post, defending a line, and spying on the guy who wants to kill me. Commision is at best an adivory group and at worst a bunch of partisan hacks of both sides of the ailse who want their moment in the sun.

Second, if you read their report and espcially the one last week. It talks about contacts between the Iraqi regime and Al-Qaeda. It does say that Saddam had no part in attacks on the US while acknowledging links between the two.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra And this doctrine of pre-emption is bullshit!! What if every other able country decides to adopt a policy of pre-emption??

---

The stance on the war on terror is exactly absolutely about preemption. The adminstartion has decided that it was a big enough threat to warrant action. Hello-- the whole point about WMD was not that Iraq had them was that the fear they would fall into terrorists hands. (e.g. Like the recent attempted Chemical Attack on Aman, Jordan). The whole point was that we couldn't let this happen.

As for what if everyone else did, they already have. Our enemies have made significant preparations for our demise. I sight recent events in Iran regarding there so called nuclear program that was supposedly only for energy. It turned out that they have been actually making nuclear grade material and have every plans to have nuclear capabilities--this was added in large parts to our buddies in North Korea and our other commie friends in China. If you think they are not a threat, I just ask you to look at the news paper headlines from 1979-1980... and pick up an atlas and draw a line from their to Israel and eastern europe to appreciate how easy it would be for them to cause a great deal of strife. So I think being a bit proactive with our enemies is quite a prudent act.

If you don't understand the principal, I suggest you read the 2002 state of the Union where the president what is euphamistically called the Bush Doctrine.

2002 State of the Union

I pulled this section for you:
"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. (Applause.)"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
Bush Jr. is simply continuing and maintaining the US's strategic interest in the middle east's oil reserves that started after WW1, under the flag of spreading democracy.

---

First of all, this is such a cookie-cutter-kook response. The fact is the US recieves very little of its patroleum from the Middle East. We get the most from Venezula who is a nation in a great deal of political upheveal. In addition, during the pan-arab nationalism that gripped the region during the 1960's-70's that lead to nationalizing Ameican and British interests, we didn't go to war then. During the first gulf war, we stopped from finishing of Saddam's regime and we chose a tactic of isolating him. Despite the fact oil prices were up and Kuwait was on fire, we kept one of the worlds largest producers of oil segrated for over a decade. So, there is that great blood for oil argument. Finally, middle east sends the majority of its oil to China and Japan-- one ally one not... so I'm not sure if you are just repeating rhetoric, or just don't care as long as you get to bash the guy you don't like. Once again, I go to the first line of my original post, I'm not going to change your mind ... you want to slam who you want tto slam.

"Once again, I go to the first line of my original post, I'm not going to change your mind ... you want to slam who you want tto slam."

As you do as well.



Need I point out that much of their pre-invasion intel was from that con man Ahmed Chalabi, who was finally kicked off America's payroll for all his useless intelligence.

Bush said alot in his SOTU, as did Powell before the UN assembly.
Doesn't make it true. Remember those 16 words in his SOTU regarding the cake from Niger?? You can't tell me that it was a simple clerical error!! When George Tenet says take something out, it comes out!!
Again, why would Saddam allow fanatic terrorists, like the ones who plotted 911 into his country, and run the risk of them screwing things up??
Saddam is not a fanatical Muslim. He's a psychopath, and a sociopath, but he's not fanatical in respect to the Muslim faith.
Osama bin Laden is.

Much of the debate about Iraq focuses on should we or shouldn't we have invaded.
But whats always surprised me is how so little debate is done on the reasons America was attacked. What has America done to these groups that have caused them to hate you soo much??


And what infuriates me, more than anything else is that this administration has systematically slandered, and blackened the image of America to your friends and allies around the world.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
But whats always surprised me is how so little debate is done on the reasons America was attacked. What has America done to these groups that have caused them to hate you soo much??

---

Being a Western secular democracy and a symbol of Western culture instead of a radical Islamofascist dictatorship.

If you are attacked by some thugs in a dark alley, are you planning to wonder what it was that caused them to hate you so much?

actually, yes!

Quote:

---

I think one of the main reasons for the Iraq war lie in a philosophical vision of the neo conservatives, who dominate the foreign policy establishment,

---

Kestra, are you exactly certain what a "neoconservative" is? Remember, it's not just a term for "aggressive Republicans I don't like" - there's an actual ideology there, if not necessarily one that is entirely agreed upon within the NeoCon community. Furthermore, NeoCons make up not a majority, not a "dominating" majority, but a MINORITY of the political base that supported this war - because, quite frankly, there aren't that many NeoCons out there. There are people who - gasp - believe in pre-emption as a doctrine that are not NeoCons part and parcel.

Quote:

---

is the belief that the United States does dominate the world as the world's only superpower

---

We ARE the world's only superpower.

Quote:

---

, that it must assert it's power, globally, everywhere

---

See above. Perk of the job. We shoulder MORE than our share of global responsibilities. Is it America's job to address the economic stability of foreign currencies, to seek to curb foreign starvation, or to try and reduce or contain foreign epidemics? No. Is it America's job to prevent foreign genocide, slaughter, and "ethnic cleansing?" No. Is it America's job to intervene whenever the sovereignty of a foreign nation has been wrongly violated? No. Are we called upon REGULARLY to not only *do* all of these things, but to fund the international community in pursuit of all of these goals? Yes. Daily.

Quote:

---

, and that anyone who resists it or defies American power, is absolutely unacceptable, and becomes, automatically, very much the enemy.

---

Guess what? International politics is rarely a realm of "right" and "wrong", Kestra, it's a realm of power and who is in charge. We are, at the moment, king of the mountain. We have a responsibility to use this power in a judicious way, because -no- nation stays "the boss" forever, but we have EVERY right to wield our position as the world's foremost nation to our advantage, and to the disadvantage of our enemies. Should we blunt our might just because our enemies do not have such force? Would you advise that whenever we deploy troops, we outfit -our- soldiers with technology no better than our enemies possess? More fittingly, and more domestically, if you were attacked by a raving lunatic with a tree branch, would you rather the police respond to your situation with, say, guns, or with equally maladroit tree branches?

Having superior force to your foe - believe it or not - is not an immoral state.

Quote:

---

The theory that you can bludgeon political grievances out of existance,

---

Yeah, you can't ever "bludgeon" political grievances out of existence. I mean, seriously, when were the times force managed to subdue radically opposing political views? Let's see. You've got the American Revolution, the Civil War, World War II...and so on, and so on, and so on...

Quote:

---

doesn't have much of a track record,

---

See above. To borrow a phrase: except for communism, slavery, totalitarianism, and fascism, war never solved anything!

Quote:

---

and essentially, we have been neo-conned by this administration.

---

Really witty. What Jaenine Garofalo short did you jack that from?

Quote:

---

This war had nothing to do with terrorism.

---

Are suicide bombers terrorists? Because we've established, ASIDE from Al-Qaeda, Hussein made regular payments to the families of suicide bombers. Or is that not "terroristic enough?"

Quote:

---

There was no connection between Iraq and the religious fanatics that perpetrated 911. Saddam Hussein is not a fool. He's a terrible villain, yes,

---

So leaving a terrible villain - by your own admission - in power is alright, because terrible villain X wasn't helping terrible villain Y?

Quote:

---

but why would he risk sacrificing his own life and country to terrorists who had completely opposite views to his own?

---

Completely opposite? I think you are overestimating the gap between the "secular" - and that's in quotes, because Saddam Hussein CLEARLY was more a deluded megalomaniac with dreams of being a new Saladin than an empirically a-religious ruler - Ba'athist party and Al-Qaeda when put in reference to THE UNITED STATES. Sure, factions A and B in the small world of crazy fucking Islamofascist regimes might not agree on the fine points of whether or not John Q. Infidel should be shot in the streets or boiled in oil, or whether a martyr receives 72 or 73 virgins, but their cultural and philosophical differences PALE in comparison to the wide, wide gulf between either of those sects and the prevailing wisdom of the United States.

Quote:

---

Iraq was a highly centralized dictatorship, why would Saddam ever want to give up control of that to scatterings of terrorist organizations?

---

Give up control? "Control" of his country? Don't be absurd. No one is implying that SH was going to turn the reins of Iraq over to OBL. That is a ridiculous fallacy you reply to - what is implicated is that SH gave SHELTER and FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE to OBL's network, which was, as the despot of an oil-rich land, wholly within his power.

Quote:

---

He would loose that control. Do you really think
Saddam would trust his fate to OBL and his nihilistic ways??
I don't think so!!

---

First of all, OBL is not a nihilist. He's one crazy motherfucker, but he's not a nihilist. He is an exceptionally pragmatic, tactically intelligent (if strategically idiotic) individual with a vitriolic bent against the United States. Saddam Hussein has ABSOLUTELY no love for the U.S., for reasons that need no elucidation. Have you never heard, Kestra, of the concept of plausible deniability? Is it so absurd to presume that if enemy X of ours has a country, and enemy Y also wants to blow us up, enemy X might set aside his differences with enemy Y in order to allow enemy Y to do his work - and thus please enemy X, by fucking with the U.S. further?

Aside from those presuppositions, however, you stated it already - Saddam Hussein was a 'terrible villain.' He was a wicked, despotic man, who ruled millions underneath an iron fist with the only alternative being state-sponsored torture, rape, and execution in ways so grisly even the most hardened, chiseled psyches cringe to consider them. I don't care if iota of evidence -ONE- is never proven to your liking that SH and OBL had any link whatsoever. Saddam Hussein was - note the post tense, now, was - a horrifyingly brutal, evil man, whose days of terror are over because the United States had the courage to use its position as foremost superpower in the globe to make it so. That is a consummately moral act.

wait wait wait

"It's not what you know but what you can prove"

So if I KNOW that you were murdered, I saw it... I witnessed it, I watched it, the guy walked up to me and said "Hah, I killed that bitch" and then storms off... I know what happend, I saw what happend but how can I prove it?

Quote:

---

So if I KNOW that you were murdered, I saw it... I witnessed it, I watched it, the guy walked up to me and said "Hah, I killed that bitch" and then storms off... I know what happend, I saw what happend but how can I prove it?

---

I believe the question at hand is, would you care enough to bother?

One might also mention here that Saddam not being involved in September 11th does not equal to Saddam having no connections with Al Qaeda or terrorist organizations in general. Yet somehow, while the commission only stated the former, anti-Bush partisans are subverting it to mean the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Solmyr
One might also mention here that Saddam not being involved in September 11th does not equal to Saddam having no connections with Al Qaeda or terrorist organizations in general. Yet somehow, while the commission only stated the former, anti-Bush partisans are subverting it to mean the latter.

---

While working yesterday I heard on the news that the commission stated that there was indeed connections between Saddam and the Al Qaeda. However, Saddam just was simply not directly involved with 9/11.

Just thought I would rehash your point, since it seems to be so confusing to some people. =)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
This war had nothing to do with terrorism. There was no connection between Iraq and the religious fanatics that perpetrated 911.

---

Err.... wanna tell that to thousands and thousands of his own citizens that have been slaughtered at his order, all whom where Muslims, but of a differing ilk, or spoke out against his regime.

There's a blight on the world where people run slap bang into a cause because they are bored or have to feel like they belong to something, yet they don't know the full story about what the fight for. Kestra, bless your cotton socks, i think your one of them.

Just because we didn't find Chemical weapons, doesn't mean there wasn't any. Put your self in the boot of Blair or Bush....would you wait to find out...i doubt it. Would you sit by idly as a nation was terrorised by a crack pot dictator...i'd hope not.

Your Blairs and Bushes of the world are put on the spot, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. So they have to go by what the think is right at the time.

"Just because we didn't find Chemical weapons, doesn't mean there wasn't any. Put your self in the boot of Blair or Bush....would you wait to find out...i doubt it. Would you sit by idly as a nation was terrorised by a crack pot dictator...i'd hope not"

The Bush administration made it very clear what they said they knew before the invasion. They left no room for doubt when
presenting their intelligence.

Now that nothing has been found, they fudge their statements.
Condi Rice
Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year [that Iraq acquires nuclear weapons]." [Source: PBS Web site]

Fact:
"[Iraq] could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." - President George W. Bush, 10/7/02

“We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11.” [Source: DOS Web site]

Fact:
President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against “nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” - Globalsecurity.org

Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 “I think it's not surprising that people make that connection” between Saddam and 9/11--he had no evidence to back up his claim. - Meet the Press, 9/14/03



And Bramond, I do know what I'm talking about, but you're entitled to think whatever you like. I have family and friends who have been in combat, so I don't have to take any bullshit from anybody, nor will I.
When the emperor has no clothes, we need to have the presence
of mind, and courage to stand up and say "the emperor has no clothes"

i almost hope Bush loses the next election so we won't have to listen to Kestra's babbling for another 4 years.

almost

Quote:

---

When the emperor has no clothes, we need to have the presence of mind, and courage to stand up and say "the emperor has no clothes"

---

And when the liberal makes no points, we need to have the presence of mind and courage to stand up and say, "The liberal makes no points!"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaviani
And when the liberal makes no points, we need to have the presence of mind and courage to stand up and say, "The liberal makes no points!"

---

Silly Gaviani, liberals never make points!

Quote:

---

And Bramond, I do know what I'm talking about, but you're entitled to think whatever you like. I have family and friends who have been in combat, so I don't have to take any bullshit from anybody, nor will I.

---

Kestra, all this proves is that you are willing to exercise your first amendment rights to be an ideological nuisance at the expense of the blood and sweat of your family and friends. It makes you no less open to criticism and argument should you say something stupid and/or arguable.

Further, if I were you, I would be hideously embarassed to say something like "I know people who have been in combat, so I'm not going to take your shit", but maybe that's just because I'm in the military and realize how absolutely ridiculous that sounds.

You do not get a "Get Out of Someone Pointing Out My Baseless Arguments Free" card for every person you've ever met who has had a weapon fired at them in anger.

Kestra, I am going to give you a free piece of advice about making a convincing argument: Actually read what quotes says and read the sources from which you are quoting.

You have cited snippits of things and say "look this is what they say." The reality is that if you read your quotes they do not claim to say what you said.

I'll give use these quotes as an example:

Quote:

---

“We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11.” [Source: DOS Web site]

Fact:
President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against “nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” - Globalsecurity.org

---

The first is a statement similar to ones that have been made by the president and administration officals. Because you did not give us a person at the state depart or a time it was said, just the website, I'll give you the benifit of the doubt that your quote is true and accurate.

The second is a citation of a letter in line with the authorizing resolution required by the War Powers act. (Here is the resolution text and here is the president's letter.

The resolution empowers the president not only to those organizations or states who are connected to 9/11 directly, but also recognizes the broader issues with the war on terrorism. The second half of the sentance you site reads: "or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." Furthermore, the letter the president sent is not an explanitory document. He is sending the letter as legally required notice to legislators so they are made aware of the deployment. Finally, the resolution gives the president the perogative (as is his constitutional right under the constitution) to make these decisions as to regards to this use of force.

In regards to the letter you sight itself, it actually reads in section (2): acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing 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. This paralells with what the resolutions says. Gee, go figure. You mean he didn't have to link 9/11 and Iraq to act according to the law. And whoa, this means the policy wasn't about going after 9/11 attackers but the general problem of terrorism. Whoa there goes that Bush Doctrine and that preemptive strike issue again.

Furthermore, the president has laid out contacts between terrorist organizations and Iraq. He need not make any more of than that to meet the needs of the authorizing legislation.

If you do not see the error of your technique, I'll use another quote of yours.

Quote:

---

Condi Rice
Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year [that Iraq acquires nuclear weapons]." [Source: PBS Web site]

Fact:
"[Iraq] could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." - President George W. Bush, 10/7/02

---

I did you a favor and looked up these quotes completely.

For Dr. Rice's go
here .
For the President's go here . Oh, I compliment you on this choice as its the Cincinnati speach. This is my home town and was all to proud when he gave it.


I'll deal with the Cincinnati speach first because I am more familiar with it. The president actually said: "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed" Interesting you left off the conditional parts that are needed to make the result true. Furthermore, if you go through this speach, it details a broader set of issues. The nuclear question is not even addreseed until the final parts of the speech after he has made several other key points in regards to terrorist contacts and other security issues associated with Iraq. So if you take Dr. Rice's statement as completely true, you will see in fact that she said is true.

But, now lets actually lets look at what she said. Your quote is from an interview on The News Hour interview. She said: "Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year, but the question was that if it was possible that he might have one by the end of the decade, and if it was possible, as the national intelligence estimate said, that if he acquired fissile material, it might be far sooner than that. Was that a threat that you could allow to sit unanswered?" Wow, actually when expanded to the entire quote, these two statements actually aren't fudging at all. THey are consistent. Holy Crapoly.

You need to think and read. You are sloppy and insulting and just spewing falsehoods--not to mention that you make logical errors I don't have the energy or inclination to correct.

So do us a favor, come armed to the fight please with stuff you have read not whatever web site you got your quick wit from.

there certainly are a lot of "if"s in your quotes and statements.
How many of them have been proven?

I stand by my original statements, it's not what you know, but what you can prove, and the onus of proof is on this administration.
The chemical threat has not been proven, nor has the potential nuclear threat.
"Just trust us" no longer works for this administration.

And by the way, I dish it out, and I can take it.

Thing is Kestra. I demonstrate to you the mistakes of both argument and your citing sources. Yet over and over again you stick your fingers in your ears like a little kid, spin around going--- I'm not llistening, I'm not listening. Your point all along has been the administration has said Iraq was part of the 9/11 plot and they are a bunch of liars. Yet when shown over and over and over, and may I say over, again that has never been the case, you insist it was.

You claim this adminstration should show the relationship between OBL. They have. You claim they have associated 9/11 to Saddam Huessin. They have not. You claim they have said Saddam Huessin would have a bomb in a year. They did not. You claim that they are inconcistent. THey are not.

You say you can dish it out, then please do. Dish something out that is based on fact and truth. Dish something out that shows that you have control of the issue and that you are not just some rhetoric spewing hatemonger.

For the record, I haven't had the time to read this whole thread yet, I would just like to point out two things.

1) One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter
2) What's the difference between our attack on Iraq and the "terrorist" attack on 9-11? Both actions were pre-emptive, both actions were spurred by a fear of what would happen if no action was taken, the only difference is that the U.S. had the ability to follow through.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mushii

1) One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter
2) What's the difference between our attack on Iraq and the "terrorist" attack on 9-11? Both actions were pre-emptive, both actions were spurred by a fear of what would happen if no action was taken, the only difference is that the U.S. had the ability to follow through.

---

This is moral relativism at its absolute worst. Furthermore, it is wholly inaccurate. You have equated in the first sentence efforts of popular revolutionary fronts with 'terrorism.' The purpose of a terrorism is to cause political change not through popular efforts, but target politically sensitive targets with such force as to illicit fear and change in other party. Terrorists are not interested in gaining popular support or wide ranging rights of the population, they are interested in what they believe is an evil world that must conform to the minorities desires. A freedom fighter is a person with much broader issues. They are concerned with oppression and condition of their people. You can claim they are the same thing, but they are far from it.

In the second, you claim that 9/11 was a preemptive strike relative in value to the war in Iraq. This is so horrifically misplaced. The terrorists attacked both a civilian target and a military target if you wish to use the analogy. Their desire was to kill and cause harm to people indiscriminately. There desire was to bring death to as many people regardless of their association to the underlying regime or government. The war in Iraq is a classic example of a war against a government and effort depose its leadership and to replace it with a domestic, non-hostile government. The people who have been targeted (and to an amazing efficiency given the nature of war) have been the combatant themselves. While all war has civilian casualty, they are not the targets of the war effort. We are talking two different views of life and one is very much a strike against innocent actors, while the other is a political fight that has goals and directive that try to limit harm to people. To equate these two acts as the same and only different because the US can follow through is horrendous.

Quote:

---

2) What's the difference between our attack on Iraq and the "terrorist" attack on 9-11? Both actions were pre-emptive, both actions were spurred by a fear of what would happen if no action was taken, the only difference is that the U.S. had the ability to follow through.

---

I don't know, let's, say, call it the intentional targetting of a massive civilian population with as much musterable force as possible versus the intentional exclusion of non-combatants from casualty to the maximum plausible extent of current military technology.

You know.

To start with.

Just prior to the invasion of Iraq in March of last year, more than two-thirds of the public believed that Iraq was directly involved in the attacks on this country. I don't remember Bush or Cheney doing anything to correct the public of this idea.

Confronted with the point that the 9/11 Commission's report last week asserts no credible evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between the two, Cheney tries to escape, saying that the 9/11 Commission is wrong, he knows more secret stuff than it does but can't get into specifics.

This is something this administration continues to do, they know better than anyone else, but can't talk about it.
Is this supposed to re-assure us? One would think that by making such claims, the administration would have all their evidence to show the 911 commission right then and there.

What Bush and Cheney are doing is what they have been doing since the summer of 2002 -- confusing the concepts of war in Iraq and war on terrorism. In fact, Bush and Cheney have always made it a point to emphasize that their concept of a nation at war is defined as a war against terror -- almost never Iraq.

His initial line is that the press hates them, because it is confusing an important issue, that the absence of any information linking the former Iraqi regime to the 9/11 attacks is not the same as any assertion that there was no "tie" between Osama bin Laden's murderous organization and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.



The administration has already spent six months trying to avoid the truth that, again contrary to its assertions, Iraq had no stockpiled, ready-to-use weapons of mass destruction at the time of the invasion. They wouldn't give UN inspectors more time, only to turn around down the road saying that their own inspectors have to have more time. Rumsfeld tells the press
that they'll probably find what they're looking for by finding a guy
who knows a guy who'll lead them to what they're seeking. This goes beyond lame and pathetic.

This administration with all it's inquries, scandals, and commissions, have done nothing to leave me to believe that they
know what they are doing. They're fumbling from one screw up to the next, keeping Powell and Rice around, and Ari Fleischer before that to explain away their screw ups.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
Just prior to the invasion of Iraq in March of last year, more than two-thirds of the public believed that Iraq was directly involved in the attacks on this country. I don't remember Bush or Cheney doing anything to correct the public of this idea.

---

He has said thre is no connection. He said it before the war. The interest in going to war was NEVER about any connecition to the attacks of 9/11. The policy of the country was to attack before being attacked. And how many times does he have to say it before he made it clear. He is also the president of the united states! He has a job of meeting a broad agenda of things. If he never says, something why does he have to explain someone else. And even when he has, peopel don't listen. So what is your point... he should go for the 3-4 time to correct the record because you don't want to read the entire paper.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra Confronted with the point that the 9/11 Commission's report last week asserts no credible evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between the two, Cheney tries to escape, saying that the 9/11 Commission is wrong, he knows more secret stuff than it does but can't get into specifics.[/B]

---

First the information you are sighting from last week is from at a staff report and therefore is draft. A draft goes through many changes before it is final. Second, it is not what the draft says or the commisioners have. On Meet the Press just yesterday, commionerss have said that its only in reference to 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, they show in that same draft numberous contacts between OBL, Al-Qeada and Iraq. It makes the conclusion though that the per the commissions mandate (the 9/11 atacks) there was no relationship. Even the commisioners have said they are NOT in conflict with anything the administration has said.

Finally, how can the administration avoid the truth when they keep telling you what you want to hear. He tells you himself, through his surrogates, through his speaches, that there is no connection. What the hell do you want? He's already done what you are talking about.

SIght anything from the adminstration that proves your point. Please.

*gives Kestra a chill-pill and a clue*

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra

This administration with all it's inquries, scandals, and commissions, have done nothing to leave me to believe that they
know what they are doing.

---

last time i checked our presidents were more concerned with the opinions of American citizens and not Canadian ones, so it doesn't really matter if you're convinced or not.

Sadly, Bush pre-emption policies affect the whole world, so I think I do have a right to be concerned.

I find it amazing that some people view the 911 commission with distrust as just a bunch of lawyers and career opportunists; yet are so willing to trust the administration and their supposed altruistic policies of pre-emption and the spread of democracy.

Pre-emption has it's consequences and will not make this world safer. You can't go around invading countries that "could" be a threat and not expect some kind of retaliation.
And the overtone of good vs. evil, is simplistic and is more fitting for fiction novels and fairy tales.

Holy crap.

I have never witnessed anyone's EVERY point being summarily rendered into tiny little useless bloody particles so completely.... and yet you still come back with the bandwagon liberal quote-fragments and step right back up to the plate, to be beaned in the cranium by the fastball of reality.

You need to stop soon, before the democrats with VALID POINTS lynch you.

my points and opinions are valid, and I stick by them.
This administration is the worst in American history.
Pre-emption is a policy that will make the world more dangerous, not safer.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I find it amazing that some people view the 911 commission with distrust as just a bunch of lawyers and career opportunists; yet are so willing to trust the administration and their supposed altruistic policies of pre-emption and the spread of democracy.

---

I am, as well as a dozen people who play this game, a lawyer. These people are not altruistic. The whole composition of the commision is designed with the political reality in mind. That is why the commision was designed with equal representation of both parties. I also wish for you to read the commisioner bios. Not one of the members has not been a large poltiical figure in a recent administration. Furthermore this war on terrorism has spread democracy to two nations that were opressed by nothing other than a fascist regimes. So I'm not sure people are all that silly to think that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
This administration is the worst in American history.

---

Lovely hyperbole. And I'll take a chance to demonstrate this one as well. I will sight for you the Harding adminstration who sold large oil stores in the teapot dome scandal. In addition, I will give you Andrew Johnson who succeeded Lincoln after his assination. He was both impeached and threated the newly reunified Union.

I'll also give you a sight that talks about this issue. Opinion Journal (Wall Street Journal's edit page's online sight) recently did this when Reagan passed. I thought it was fun and I am sure when you look at the list, this president addressing a national catastraphy with such commitment to his people will never make that bottom half.

Presidential List

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
Pre-emption is a policy that will make the world more dangerous, not safer.

---

It has not so far. The number of terrorist attacks over the last year are down. I will concede that the number of serious events-- meaning strikes like car bombings near malls or suicice bombers are either slightly up or the same.

However, every day the military men from the Coalition are fighting the terrorist on the ground. Everyday you may here about unforunate sacrifice and death these men make, but you will also how they are taking down the terrorist at a much higher rate. I thank the Lord as I live on Capitol Hill in DC (if there is a major chem or nuke attack on the capitol-- I'm dead) that those men are there.

Finally, you can say your points are valid. But once again, you don't back anything accept your opinion based on inaccurate information.

I did not think you knew about the policy of premption. You were shocked when I pointed out before.

I know when I've been out-debated. There are plenty out there who are opposed to this war who are much more eloquent than I am, and could surely present a better arguement than I.

Having said that, my opinions about this war and this administration have not changed, and I never trusted this administration from day one.
I still believe pre-emption is wrong. Iraq is a mess, and a terrible way to introduce democracy.
Did you know that Bush was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize?
Can you really see him along side Mandela, Mother Theresa, and Martin Luther King? Ridiculous.

Reading what Kestra keeps putting up is like watching a really gruesome train wreck.

You know you want to look away, but you can't.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
IDid you know that Bush was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize?
Can you really see him along side Mandela, Mother Theresa, and Martin Luther King? Ridiculous.

---

If he has been it should tell you something. The greatest scientific minds in the world see what he has done and recognize it as something worthy of the prestige of being nominated.


Also, guess what. Shit doesn't get fixed by throwing tax dollars to a committee. It gets changed by people going places, kicking ass and making shit work.

We were hit. And we were hit hard. We responded quickly and with overwhelming force. It was EXACTLY what every red-blooded American wanted. We wanted people punished or their attack on us. But what it did was set into motion the gears of change. It opened up to us the possibility of going to war against terrorism. not Al-Queda. While they are stil a large threat they aren't the only threat. But rather than sit back and let others try and blow us up. Instill fear in us. Make us submit to their fanatical will we instead opted to say "Fuck you. we're number one cuz we can be. We're number one cuz we earned it by defeating EVERYTHING we thought was wrong in our lives and you will not be the last thing we fight against."

Quite frankly, the war in Iraq started out as a war against terrorism. But the terrorists who were in power were knocked down. Now, it's a war to rebuild their country with a solid foundation of democracy. That takes years and the first steps are always gonna be brought about through acts of violence. That's just the way of the world. People will only listen to power.

Do you honestly believe that if we said "Oh, Saddam, that's mean. You should hand out daisies instead of body bags!" that he would listen?

That's almost as ridiculous as the mythical "Stress Card".

"If he has been it should tell you something. The greatest scientific minds in the world see what he has done and recognize it as something worthy of the prestige of being nominated."

Actually, only one person nominated Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mushii
::reminds himself he has a life::

"Winning a debate on a message board is like winning a race in the Special Olympics, you may have won, but you are still retarded."

---

Why even post this or post at all? Your point seems to be that intellectual excercise of debate is useless. The whole point of systems like this is people engage in conversation, exchange ideas, debate and argue to figure out what matters to them. Your sort of cynical comment is useless. Provides nothing. While I disagreed vehemently with Kentra, I admire her willingness to fight the fight and put herself out there. You just berate people who want to do that by essentially leveling the classic school yard-- your retarded, no you are! Have a little back bone and join the conversation or just keep to yourself.

Quote:

---

Have a little back bone and join the conversation or just keep to yourself.

---

Man, I might want to buy a Quotox action figure.

What, someone considers the Nobel Peace Prize worth a damn? I mean, it's been given to such paragons of pacifism as Yasser Arafat. Heck, even Mandela isn't the saint he is often portrayed as.

Kestra is not a she. Kestra is a gender bender (remember his famous "the gender bending rules suck" flame war?). I see people calling Kestra "she" in this thread and that is a tad jarring.

Incidentally, I highly recommend the forum software's ignore feature.

It is divine.

As for Kestra, I agree with Serith. I don't recall a time in recent history I've seen someone's attempt at an argument get so THOROUGHLY wtfpwned.

I guess this is what happens when someone's arguments are directly lifted from extreme, frothing-at-the-mouth left wing websites like Move On.org. They give you propaganda snippets but they don't teach you how to debate.

I'll be back!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I'll be back!!

---

Well, I suppose if you're gonna go down, go down in flames. At least your threat to return is actually something we don't want to see come to pass.