Okay, seriously, is this administration TRYING to make us look as bad as possible after this invasion?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What I find staggering is this quote: "Although the CPA will cease to exist on July 1, there will still be much work to accomplish and the U.S. will still have many interests to pursue here. Therefore, the logical replacement for CPA is an American Embassy and we expect that CPA, or at least a part of it, will evolve into the embassy."
For anyone that DOESN'T understand why this is outrageous, consider that the CPA is the provisional government of Iraq. What this official is suggesting is that even though the CPA will be officially dissolved on July 1st, following the creation of a new Iraqi government, the LOGICAL REPLACEMENT for the provisional authority is not the Iraqi government itself, which will apparently NOT be housed in the presidential palace, but the United States embassy.
It's like a giant middle finger to the whole country.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm really amazed that more people aren't affronted by this.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Forgive me.
I'm still in shock from the news that the administration will not be allowing the other kids to play "bid" on rebuilding, unless they kiss Bush's **S.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
As you may or may not remember I was in full support of the war on Iraq, and support of Bush (on that issue, not on everything). Well I still think I was right, but I'm becoming more and more displeased with the way he is handling the post-invasion period.
Hobbes Posted by bone (Member # 5277) on :
You people are overlooking the fact this is a report and even in this report it isn't the final choice. You are also overlooking the fact that the Iraqis want us to stay there and help stabilize the country. Unless you are all big fans of leaving them there and allow the country to fall back to Dictatorship. From the sounds of it you guys would have been big supporters of Bush Sr. Pulling out and leaving Saddam in power. Look at what happened with that mistake.
You anti Bush people are really grasping at straws now. Why don't you find some legitimate criticism and find a candidate to back. Because if any of you are paying attention rather than simply complaining it looks very good for Bush to be reelected.
Also note that U.S. tax money should be spent reconstructing Iraq and preferably would all go to American Companies. I am perplexed as why Canada was excluded but Russia, Germany, and France has yet to send a single solider for reconstruction or a single penny to help cover the cost.
[ December 12, 2003, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: bone ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I admit it, I wasn't really reffering to this article specifcally, just the whole post-invasion period in general. The thing is, I also know that however he handles it, leaving Iraq at this point would be far worse than mis-managing it so I'm going to stick through it but I probably wont be voting Bush (or Democrats either who all seem more interested in blaming Bush than solving the problem) come 2004.
Hobbes Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Ah, ah, ah, bone - use "I" statements, please -
(edited to address comment appropriately)
[ December 12, 2003, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Shan ]
Posted by bone (Member # 5277) on :
LoL I think I am remotly repectful in my post. I addressed concerns and other than calling them anti Bush which I think they would admit there was no name calling. It may have been written in the heat of the moment but I stand by the comments which are not meant to be disrepectful.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You are also overlooking the fact that the Iraqis don't want us to stay there and help stabilize the country."
That would seem like something that we'd leave up to the Iraqi government, right? So if we don't trust the Iraqi government to make the "right" decision, doesn't it seem premature to be dissolving the provisional government?
Surely ignoring and marginalizing the official government, when it's established, through the installation of a U.S. "embassy" in the former palace that's designed to continue in the role of the provisional government is a WORSE decision than merely keeping the provisional government around, as it undermines any action taken by the official one just as it's getting off the ground.
Posted by bone (Member # 5277) on :
Tom where the hell do you get the Iraqi people don't want us to stay there? Because a few militants that most likely had cushy places under Saddam are still around? CNN, Gallop and even Al Jurezza (sp?) have aired polls saying a majority of Iraqis think its better now than under saddam and a huge majority think it will be better in 5 years.
Number 1 among their fears? That the U.S. will leave and their country will fall back into dictatorship or chaos. Hmmm seems like they don't want us there. Just like everyone in the U.S. loves Bush right?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom where the hell do you get the Iraqi people don't want us to stay there?"
Did I say that? I actually cut and pasted YOUR quote, in which YOU said that. If you typoed, bone, that's your problem.
Seriously, though, if we assume that we are going to follow through with the timetable for an Iraqi government -- to the point that we dissolve the provisional government -- doesn't it undermine that new government to move the "real" power to the American embassy, headquarted in the former presidential palace? Why wouldn't we just continue to call it a provisional government, since we obviously wouldn't respect the new "official" government any more than the provisional one?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You anti Bush people are really grasping at straws now. Why don't you find some legitimate criticism and find a candidate to back.
What would you consider legitimate criticism then?
Here's a list - you tell me which ones are legitimate things to criticize:
1. The way in which the Bush Administration is now ignoring Afghanistan 2. The decision to attack Iraq without provocation 3. The decision to attack Iraq without U.N. support 4. The failure to find the WMDs that we claimed we knew existed and that were the justification for the war 5. The subsequent decision to pretend like this war was just about freeing the Iraqis 6. The way in which the administration played on the admittedly false idea that Iraq was connected to 9/11 7. The term "Axis of Evil" 8. The term "Old Europe" 9. Calling the War on Terror "a crusade" 10. The decision to alienate half our allies and make it look like this is all about the money by forbidding them to bid on contracts in Iraq 11. The administration's expression of the notion that dissenting against the war was being unpatriotic 12. The gross underestimation of the cost of the Iraq war, until after we were committed 13. The general lack of planning about post-war Iraq 14. The increasing number of terrorist attacks and deaths in Iraq since the war ended 15. America's attempt to hand-pick the future goverment leaders of Iraq 16. The contracts that have gone to Halliburton and other "connected" companies 17. The desertion of 1/2 of the new Iraqi army because of poor pay (despite the massive amount of money we are paying for Iraq) 18. The failure to find many allies willing to share the cost of the war and reconstruction 19. The possibility that Iraq will now be MORE of a haven for terrorists than during Saddam's reign 20. The way Bush has used the military for political purposes, such as by landing a plane on an aircraft carrier for show 21. The widespread decline in support for America in opinion polls across the globe since the Iraq war began 22. And now the possible decision to use Saddam's palace as America's new embassy, and the seemingly utter ignorance of what that would symbolize
We can add more as they arise....
EDIT: Almost forgot... 23) "Freedom" fries for Congress
[ December 12, 2003, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I think you do have to admit that putting the new goverment in the palace is pretty dumb and unnecessary. The whole point is that we aren't Saddam, we're a new, hopefully much better hope for the Iraq people and for freedom of choice. Tying ourselves to the palace just seems like the worse PR move ever and for what point?
Like I said, I supported, and do support the war, I'm just having issues with how Bush is handling this incredibly important phase.
Hobbes Posted by bone (Member # 5277) on :
1. The way in which the Bush Administration is now ignoring Afghanistan
Yep just because you get your news on CNN, MSNBC, or Fox news and they don't have pretty news reports for you that means we are ignoring them.
2. The decision to attack Iraq without provocation
Nuts you mean they had been complying with the UN mandated inspections all these years? No wait even the U.N. said they weren't hmmm.
3. The decision to attack Iraq without U.N. support
Great because France and Russia were afraid they would lose their debt Iraq owed them we didn't have UN support. Furthermore we were enforcing a UN mandate. Might not be popular with many allies but we saved some Iraqi's something most of the U.N. could care less about.
4. The failure to find the WMDs that we claimed we knew existed and that were the justification for the war
That was just one of the reasons we went to war it did sadly happen to be the most popular however so it got repeated more. Also if we do find WMD buried somewhere in his dessert are you going to admit your wrong? I doubt and hindsight is 20/20.
P.S. President Clinton even defended Bush on this one saying there was no way to be certain whether Saddam still had WMD or not. He also said when you are president you make a lot of choices and sometimes you guess wrong.
5. The subsequent decision to pretend like this war was just about freeing the Iraqis
Who's pretending it was just about freeing the Iraqi's they are still talking about national security among other things. Besides you don't seem interested in freeing the Iraqis.
6. The way in which the administration played on the admittedly false idea that Iraq was connected to 9/11
Find one quote that directly connects Iraq to 9/11. I can guarantee you won't find any out of Bush, Powell, Rice or Rumsfeld. A few statements about how we live in a different world because of 9/11 but they never said Saddam was behind 9/11. That is something that is dreamt up and taken out of context by anti war activists.
7. The term "Axis of Evil"
Agreed no matter how bad those governments are he shouldn't have given that speech. But he is a man of strong vision and goes with it rather than the double speak most political people engage in. That is both good and bad.
8. The term "Old Europe"
Not a huge fan of Rumsfeld and I believe he said he was sorry for that remark.
9. Calling the War on Terror "a crusade"
A slip of the tongue and it's pretty pathetic to attack someone on a slip of the tongue. Do you also think Senator Bird (D) should be removed for his racist slip?
10. The decision to alienate half our allies and make it look like this is all about the money by forbidding them to bid on contracts in Iraq
Personally it is bad for international relations but I hesitantly back the choice if France, Russia and Germany aren't going to send peacekeepers or money. Then American Tax Money should not go to their companies.
11. The administration's expression of the notion that dissenting against the war was being unpatriotic.
I don't recall the administration ever making this comment. Certainly there are those on rights that do make that assertion and plenty of those on the left that are quick to say you say I am not a good citizen because I don't support your war. But again the admin never stated this.
12. The gross underestimation of the cost of the Iraq war, until after we were committed
Yes and No. Yes the war reconstruction is costing more than the media predicted but the Bush Admin never projected how much rebuilding Iraq would cost. Again try to find a source but I can save you some time by telling you it isn't out there.
13. The general lack of planning about post-war Iraq
Agreed on some points we could have done this better. But if you look at the last major U.S. rebuilding efforts they lasted more than 7 years in Germany and Japan. Many U.S. service men also died while rebuilding those countries. But thanks to political pressure everyone wants to rush this thing as fast as possible.
14. The increasing number of terrorist attacks and deaths in Iraq since the war ended
Increasing? I suppose every time there is one more death it is an increase but the attacks have been fairly steady since the end of the war. The big difference being they are moving towards softer and soften targets.
15. America's attempt to hand-pick the future government leaders of Iraq
Hand pick? You mean by not letting Saddam loyalists back into the government? Let you guess you wanted some of the "good" Nazis to get back into power in Germany?
16. The contracts that have gone to Halliburton and other "connected" companies
Sad truth is that these connected companies are they only ones capable of fulfilling the massive Iraq contracts. You are pretty blind if you think any large corporation that can handle such a contract doesn't have money everywhere. For Example remember Enron? Exactly 2 U.S. Senators (out of 100) and 11 U.S. reps (out of 435) had not received Donations. Hmmm the Democrats have their connections as well....
17. The desertion of 1/2 of the new Iraqi army because of poor pay (despite the massive amount of money we are paying for Iraq)
Poor Pay was one reason given but also many are afraid of the security situation. Rebuilding is going to be a long process and you can't be perfect on everything. Furthermore we are funding this reconstruction almost entirely so far as the U.N. fund (where all the oil money goes) is just now being cleared to pay for Iraqi food and equipment.
18. The failure to find many allies willing to share the cost of the war and reconstruction
Yeah Russia, Germany and France refusing to help Iraq is the Bush admins fault. If they had their way Saddam would still be torturing his people and France would still be selling Saddam Chemicals and heavy industrial equipment banned by the sanctions.
19. The possibility that Iraq will now be MORE of a haven for terrorists than during Saddam's reign
LOL,
Besides if they are in Iraq fighting our army then Bush has succeeded in drawing them away from the U.S. i.e. national security. Good to have as many of them in one place to eliminate them easier.
20. The way Bush has used the military for political purposes, such as by landing a plane on an aircraft carrier for show.
I thought that was cool as hell and many presidents have done such stunts. If you’re worried about money Camp David and Air Force one cost almost as much to operate.
21. The widespread decline in support for America in opinion polls across the globe since the Iraq war began
But they are rebounding especially in countries like Britain, Poland, Australia and other countries that helped free Iraq. Besides everyone being our friend shouldn't be our first worry.
22. And now the possible decision to use Saddam's palace as America's new embassy, and the seemingly utter ignorance of what that would symbolize
See my above post about how this is a report and nothing official has happened yet. My guess would be that they would have moved it and now with this press release they will almost certainly move it. Big reason for using it right now it that exists in an extremely secure neighborhood.
Posted by bone (Member # 5277) on :
Freedom Fries were dumb but again you show your ignorance as that was a decesion by the House Leaders not the president. Nice how everything you don't like is the President's fault. Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
quote:4. The failure to find the WMDs that we claimed we knew existed and that were the justification for the war
Well, then, what do you say about the intelligence we did have? For example, one soldier in the Iraqi military had reported to up that Saddam had chemical weapons.
quote:In an exclusive interview with the Telegraph, Col al-Dabbagh said that he believed he was the source of the British Government's controversial claim, published in September last year in the intelligence dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes.
"I am the one responsible for providing this information," said the colonel, who is now working as an adviser to Iraq's Governing Council.
He also insisted that the information contained in the dossier relating to Saddam's battlefield WMD capability was correct. "It is 100 per cent accurate," he said after reading the relevant passage.
The devices, which were known by Iraqi officers as "the secret weapon", were made in Iraq and designed to be launched by hand-held rocket-propelled grenades. They could also have been launched sooner than the 45-minutes claimed in the dossier.
"Forget 45 minutes," said Col al-Dabbagh "we could have fired these within half-an-hour."
He still stands by his story, despite recieving two death threats.
With intelligence like this, not to act would have been negligent. Whether Saddam had the weapons or just claimed he did for some other reason, it looks exactly the same from the outside. The U.S. has to act on threats like this from people like Saddam.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Hmmm.... eight denials, twelve excuses, and two admissions.
Now who's really grasping for straws here?
I mean, really... You're saying there's nothing the Bush administration did that might have caused France, Germany, and Russia to not want to help us in the rebuilding of Iraq? You're saying that (whether or not they technically said it) the Bush administration didn't imply Saddam was connected to 9/11? (If so, why were all those pro-war Hatrackers claiming that was a major reason for the war back in March?) You're saying you don't think we've taken our focus away from Afghanistan? You're telling me it's good that Iraq's becomming a haven for terrorism these days because they'll be there instead of the U.S.?
[ December 13, 2003, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
that's okay, next week Bush will be being criticized for ignoring equally substantial evidence that he should have known 9/11/01 attacks were going to happen.
Liberating the Iraqis was always a main objective of the war. When the war was looking inevitable, everyone was talking about Saddam's body being the ultimate measure of success (which Bush would always demure on). WMD's were only a concern for the French back then.
I don't think the "allies" who opposed the war should be paid for the reconstruction either. But then, I remember a time Reagan made a strike against Libya, and the French embassy was coincidentally struck. Because France wouldn't let us fly over their country to conduct the strike. So France has a long history of disagreeing with us about the Mid East. It's like their mother, only they are allowed to insult it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:With intelligence like this, not to act would have been negligent. Whether Saddam had the weapons or just claimed he did for some other reason, it looks exactly the same from the outside. The U.S. has to act on threats like this from people like Saddam.
Well yes, but it seems like an appropriate action would be to send inspectors in and determine if there really is a threat, rather than claim those inspectors are just not effective when they can't find anything and instead start a war based on the testimony of an Iraqi dissenter.
And if it really wasn't all about the WMDs, it was not very ethical for our leader to rant and rave about WMDs to give us the impression that it was all about them, just to convince us a war is acceptable.
[ December 13, 2003, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by bone (Member # 5277) on :
Tres did you watch anything prior to the war? The reason we ended up going was Because Saddam was still dicking around with the inspectors like he had for 10 years. Maybe a decade wasn't enough time to give him perhaps?
Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
quote: Liberating the Iraqis was always a main objective of the war. When the war was looking inevitable, everyone was talking about Saddam's body being the ultimate measure of success (which Bush would always demure on). WMD's were only a concern for the French back then.
Direct quote from President Bush during the "Moment of Truth" press conference
quote: The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations. He is a danger to his neighbors. He's a sponsor of terrorism. He's an obstacle to progress in the Middle East. For decades he has been the cruel, cruel oppressor of the Iraq people. On this very day 15 years ago, Saddam Hussein launched a chemical weapons attack on the Iraqi village of Halabja. With a single order the Iraqi regime killed thousands of men and women and children, without mercy or without shame. Saddam Hussein has proven he is capable of any crime. We must not permit his crimes to reach across the world.
Saddam Hussein has a history of mass murder. He possesses the weapons of mass murder. He agrees -- he agreed to disarm Iraq of these weapons as a condition for ending the Gulf War over a decade ago. The United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 1441, has declared Iraq in material breach of its longstanding obligations, demanding once again Iraq's full and immediate disarmament, and promised serious consequences if the regime refused to comply. That resolution was passed unanimously and its logic is inescapable; the Iraqi regime will disarm itself, or the Iraqi regime will be disarmed by force. And the regime has not disarmed itself.
Sure seems like Bush cared about WMDs. Satyagraha
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, but he was also concerned about Saddam Hussein's personal tendency to mass murder. That is what it will keep coming back to, when the Democrat runner is nominated. "Would Iraq and the world be better off if Saddam were still in power?" If the Democrats want to make the election about why the war was waged, they are going to have a tough time of it, since a Democrat-controlled Congress authorized Bush to go to war. I think. October 2002?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I love how it's impossible to praise or critize a single aspect of Bush, his administration, or the war in Iraq without immediately being placed solidly in one camp or another. It is possible to support Bush and still think bone-headed actions were taken. It is possible to be againt Bush's actions and still agree with some of the steps taken.
The concept of using the presidential palace as the permanent American embassy should never have been suggested, not as a maybe, not in jest, not ever. The message it sends, whether intended or not, is that we will be the power behind whatever government arises.
On the positive PR front, I did like the fact that Bush immediately came forward and said that if profiteering occurred, Halliburton will be forced to make good. I'll wait and see if he followsw through, but I did appreciate a swift response.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I would also like to stress that the question in my mind has never been "why did we attack Iraq?" There are plenty of reasons good enough, and you'll have to search pretty far to find an American who's sorry Saddam's out of power.
My question, then and now, is "why did we attack Iraq then?"
We had terrorists to track down. We had economic problems of our own. We had no immediate, desperate reason to attack just then. There are other despotic dictators around, and some of them are our allies. We did have an amazing opportunity to forge alliances with just about everyone in the world to root out terrorism. Instead we rushed the inspections process, flipped off the UN, and invaded.
Yes, Saddam was ignoring the UN commands. Yes, he was a rotating bastard and cruel to his people. But as far as can be determined, all the reasons to attack at that moment, with no other options available, were trumped up in the public's mind. It is that, the way that Saddam was positioned as an immediate threat to democracy and the American people, that is what I'm pissed about.
I have the feeling that Bush and his people have an agenda they're driving for, with goals both domestic and abroad, and they're going to make up whatever excuses they think we'll believe to get there. Even if those goals are laudable, we are being tricked on the way, and that is unconscionable. We are being led by people who believe that the end justifies the means.
[ December 13, 2003, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Bone, that was very well said and I think Tres might want to reinvestigate his rhetoric. He's parroting many of the long-held criticisms that are so often spouted off without being rebutted. Funny how such a despotic government they accuse the US of being, but they can still say such things without fear of repercussion. Perhaps the US isn't the big demon it is made out to be.
Yes, there have been a few boneheaded moves in the War on Terror, but there have been a number of successes, many more successes than failures. And yes, I believe that the Iraqis most definitely have a better future ahead of them than they would have had if this had never happened.
But let's face it, anyone who has spent any time at all in the news business knows, general well-being doesn't move papers or boost ratings.
Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
Of course the world is better off without than with, the thing is, the United States is NOT above international law, and no person, President of the United States or not cannot and should not have the authority or power to just go off somewhere and attack someone unilaterally just because they thing the other person is wrong. And back on topic people, we're in Iraq already, nothing is going to change that. Sopwith, Bone, I have a lot of disagreements with your arguements, but those are all past, what has happened, has happened, now the case is what to do about it. The point of this thread was 1) placing the American embassy in the Presidential Palace, and 2) Placing the US controlled government in there as well. Which both are very bad PR ideas. Satyagraha
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I have a correction to make to your list.
In particular, you are slightly misinformed in regards to #12--
quote:12. The gross underestimation of the cost of the Iraq war, until after we were committed
Actully, its A gross understimation of the cost of the Iraq war, until after his big Tax Cut was approved,
In all the math and figures and details that went into supporting the major tax cut, not once was the cost of the upcoming war put into the formula. It was kind of saying, "We can repair the hole in the roof by next Tuesday, and their won't be a drop of rain until next Thursday" as you ignore the approaching blizzard.
One note: I don't think Bush did this to get $ to his rich friends (though Chaney might have.) I think he did this because he committed himself to getting that tax cut through, and can never admit a mistake or allow himself to change his mind.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
bone wrote:
quote:3. The decision to attack Iraq without U.N. support
Great because France and Russia were afraid they would lose their debt Iraq owed them we didn't have UN support. Furthermore we were enforcing a UN mandate. Might not be popular with many allies but we saved some Iraqi's something most of the U.N. could care less about.
Uh, it wasn't just France and Russia. It was the majority of the European nations. And of the UN. Nice debating tactic, but please provide a more substantial response than this. This was about the sovereignty of a UN nation, this was about setting dangerous precedents, this was about fear that the US could invade any country it wanted as long as it didn't have nuclear weapons or allies.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres did you watch anything prior to the war? The reason we ended up going was Because Saddam was still dicking around with the inspectors like he had for 10 years. Maybe a decade wasn't enough time to give him perhaps?
No, it seemed to be enough time. After all, I saw the inspectors go in, claim they could find nothing, and then be seemingly proven right by our searches. The only question is, why did we go in anyway after they found nothing?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Tresopax said: the Bush administration didn't imply Saddam was connected to 9/11?
Please point to one statement issued by the Bush administration in which the Bush administration implied this. Just one, that’s all I’m asking.
quote:JonnyNotSoBravo said Uh, it wasn't just France and Russia. It was the majority of the European nations. And of the UN. Nice debating tactic, but please provide a more substantial response than this.
Nice debating tactic yourself. France and Russia were singled out because they have veto power on the security council – had they changed their votes, the invasion would have been authorized by the UN. Pointing out their economic incentives to not invade is a perfectly justified action in the context of this debate.
Great Britain, Netherlands, Denmark, Ukraine, Portugal, Italy, Spain , Czech Republic, Cyprus, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and Malta all supported the war. France’s president made threats that Romania’s and Bulgaria’s support of the war threatened their chances for admission to the EU, although he later withdrew that statement.
Leading the opposition in Europe were Russia, France, and Germany. Although the European Parliament passed a resolution opposing the war, the governments of 6 out of 15 member nations officially supported the invasion. The remainder of the 20 nations listed above are not part of the European Parliament. There are 52 nations in Europe, not all of them took a position. Do you know what Kazakstan’s position on the invasion was?
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Please point to one statement issued by the Bush administration in which the Bush administration implied this. Just one, that’s all I’m asking.
President's State of the Union Address, January 29, 2002.
"...Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.
"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.
"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
"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."
A direct connection? No. But a strongly implied one. He frequently mentioned the two in speeches, letting the public draw a connection even if one was never stated.
In a March speech about Iraq's "weapons of terror," Bush said: "If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 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."
Then, in declaring the end of major combat in Iraq on May 1 (the aircraft carrier speech), Bush linked Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on.
"That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions."
Moments later, Bush added: "From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down al Qaeda killers.
"Nineteen months ago I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States. And as of tonight nearly one half of al Qaeda's senior operatives have been captured or killed.
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense.
We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."
Whenever the war was mentioned, it was called a war on terror. "Afghanistan and Iraq are two theaters in the global war on terrorism." (Colin Powell) "We fully recognize that Iraq has become a new front on the war on terror." (President Bush) "Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror..." (VP Cheney)
[ December 13, 2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, all those statements link Iraq with terrorism. Which one accuses Iraq of participating in some way in 9/11? Which one says, “All terrorists work together?”
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Please point to one statement issued by the Bush administration in which the Bush administration implied this. Just one, that’s all I’m asking."
You didn't ask for direct accusations. You asked for implications. There they are. I can go Google for awhile and pull up all the other places where a link was implied by linking Iraq to terrorism as personified by 9/11, if you want. Or I could just cut n paste every public statement Bush and Cheny and Rumsfeld made before and during the war, it amounts to the same thing. But if you're going to change the question because you don't like my answer, let me know first.
[ December 13, 2003, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
They all imply a link with terrorism. None of them imply a link with 9/11.
Dagonee.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Frpm Chris Bridges' quote of Bush(43) above:
quote:The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding.
Iraq is directly implied to be an ally of al Qaeda here. Nevermind that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda ever shown. So Iraq, according to Bush(43), is an ally of the same terrorists who were behind the 9/11 attacks and a source of their funding? So if you say that someone paid a guy to plan to blow up a bunch of buildings, some of them probably American, then that someone is not responsible for the attacks? Is that a direct enough link for you in that speech?
I'm working on a reply to what you last said regarding my other post...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Iraq was a source of terrorist funding, and their have been links to al Queda. None of that says Iraq was linked to 9/11.
Again, not all terrorism equals 9/11.
Not all al Queda terrorism equals 9/11.
One of the major premises from the beginning was that Iraq's WMDs were dangerous because he might give them to terrorists. Apparantly, you either want Bush to not talk about Iraq's potential connection to terrorism or to have a big disclaimer in every speech: "Iraq has not been directly linked to the 9/11 attacks. There are OTHER terrorist activities in the world. We're talking about them."
Dagonee PS, can't wait to see your other reply.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
From Cheney, "If we're successful in Iraq, then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of terrorists who had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001 -- and still goes on."
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Dagonee,
quote:I said: Uh, it wasn't just France and Russia. It was the majority of the European nations. And of the UN.
This was referring to the number of nations that did not support the war in Iraq. Support is active and requires either a vote and/or statement of position of said support. If the members did not vote or state their support, they did not show support (if you wish to argue that some nations might have supported the war but not shown it, I say how do you support something without saying or doing anything related to it). From your own numbers, 32 out of 52 nations in Europe decided to not support the invasion of Iraq. This is a majority. Kazakhstan did not show support. Would you like me to list all the nations that did not show support? Because I know listing them all will make it seem like an incredibly large number, but I think you get my point.
A lot of my information seems linked to this article. Maybe too much information. It definitely influenced my feeling that the Bush administration has been misleading the public (inadvertently, or not) and so has a lot of the media. Not everyone tries to educate themselves as much as you do about what has actually happened. The public sees broadcasts and gets the wrong impression. By not vocally saying there has been no connection proved between al Qaeda and Saddam, and between Saddam and 9/11, the broadcasters (who may have misperceptions themselves) and the Bush administration may have been instrumental in these misperceptions.
I have just spent some time online looking up information at the UN site but I'm having trouble locating some specifics. Can you include links to your sources, please? Obviously, you do your homework before you enter a debate which I applaud and find admirable. I wish more debaters did their homework as thoroughly as you do so they could provide a good representation of the pro-Bush side. Thanks for making me look articles up and back up my posts!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Fair enough, although we could quibble that abstainers don't count to the vote total .
Your statement could be interpreted as stating that the majority of European nations actually opposed the war, which I have not been able to find stats to prove or disprove (and I've looked).
Would you agree that neither of us has shown that a majority of European nations supported OR opposed the invasion? And that France and Russia's opposition is much more relevant to the discussion since they were the two votes that blocked Security Council approval?
I find if you can figure out what you agree on, the rest of the debate is easier and more fun.
Dagonee
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
9 opposed, 11 in favor, 6 never made up their minds.
Posted by bone (Member # 5277) on :
quote: A war on terror that began on 9/11 how again does that say Iraq was behind 9/11 other than he is lumping the war against terrorists into one war...
The Cheney quote I have never seen before where did you get that?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
There are more, but are you seriously saying that you don't believe Bush made direct statements that Hussein and 9/11 were linked? Are you from another planet? Bush has been using 9/11 as a justification since at least January.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The only thing in that link about 9/11 was “‘I am not going to forget the lessons of 9/11 -- September 11,’ Bush said.”
This does not qualify as a “direct statement[] that Hussein and 9/11 were linked.” It restates the rationale that 9/11 drove home the dangers of terrorism to our citizens. It refers to the fear that giving WMDs to people who could cause that much destruction with 4 airplanes is not something we wanted to allow Sadaam to be able to do.
“Bush has been using 9/11 as a justification since at least January” is a true statement, although I would quibble with the word justification. 9/11 made us instantly aware of the dangers of terrorism. This made us consider the danger Sadaam posed with regards to terrorism. It is likely that we would not have invaded Iraq if 9/11 hadn’t happened. But it’s also true that 9/11 is not Sadaam’s crime constituting the reason (stated, implied, or otherwise) for the invasion.
And using 9/11 as a reminder of the dangers of terrorism is not the same as saying that Bush has claimed that Iraq assisted in 9/11 or was otherwise linked to it.
At least the other people making this argument were claiming he implied it, leaving open the possibility of debating whether a given statement was an implied statement of the link. I know you can’t find any “direct statements that Hussein and 9/11 were linked” made by Bush.
Dagonee
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
You are seriously on another planet. No, I do not have printed out statements where Bush said it, but if you take your own time to get the print of every speech he made since January, you will see at least five references that Hussein was the cause of 9/11. The CIA even had to make an apologetic report that Hussein did, indeed, have no connection to 9/11 this past September, partially in response to Bush's statements. Are you really trying to stick to saying that Bush never made direct references to Hussein having a part in 9/11? If so, anyone who wishes to invest the time to get the text of his speeches, especially in January and February, can easily show you otherwise. However, you seem so thoroughly convinced that even showing direct quotes will probably not sway you. Hence the "another planet" remarks. You are so completely convinced that it's almost religious to you. He said it. Accept it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Please point to one statement issued by the Bush administration in which the Bush administration implied this. Just one, that’s all I’m asking.
As a general rule, I don't spend my time looking for specific facts to formally prove things I think we both already should know are true, just so I can score debate points or something. I mean, if I found such a quote would you really change your mind?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dag -- if Bush wasn't implying such a thing (for most people's definition of implying), then where in the heck did most of the country get the idea that Saddam was directly linked with 9/11 ?
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
I don't want to rain all your parade, but I thought you might be interested. It was a memo written to Hussein by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, who was in charge of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. It, basically, says that the mastermind of the attack was trained in Iraq. It turns out that his talents would be
quote:responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy.
It also links Iraq to a mysterious shipment from Niger. Perhaps Joseph Wilson's string of formal meals with a few dignitaries weren't definitive after all. In any case, hearing about things like this makes me more and more glad that we invaded when we did.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Man. Every instinct I have tells me that document's a forgery.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Given the administration has failed to trumpet about it during the Saddam capture (they could ensure a high percentage watching, and the political double punch would be devastating), I suspect you're not the only one. If they had good reason to believe it real it would be in every press release.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The mistake was headquartering the military and Occupation Authority in Saddam's palaces in the first place: ie symbolicly replacing Hussein&gang with another set of aristocrats.
Shoulda housed the grunts there: ya know, the underpaid soldiers who actually did some fighting, who actually risk themselves to keep peace&order. Woulda better given the message that the war was for the benefit of regular folk. Command tents are more than luxurious enough for command officers and the Occupation Authority.
[ December 14, 2003, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by bone (Member # 5277) on :
quote: Man. Every instinct I have tells me that document's a forgery.
Lol perhaps it is I am not going to believe it quite yet either but it's funny because your instincts tell you to ignore possible evidence that goes against your view.
On Bush using 9/11 he certainly has used it for justification for fighting the war on terror and Iraq is part of the war on terror he is conducting. But the difference is that people are claiming Bush or his administration has stated Saddam was behind 9/11. Which is a very different stance and please don't confuse them there is a very important distinction.
Because using 9/11 as an exmple for fighting terrorist and "rogue" states is much different than Bush saying Saddam attacked us on 9/11. Which is why many Bush opponents are attempting to call him a liar.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"your instincts tell you to ignore possible evidence that goes against your view."
Nope. My instincts -- and these are instincts that, mind you, are generally pretty good -- warn me that the source is biased, the publishing paper has not shared the information or background, and that the information appears customized to buttress claims that were already publicly challenged and/or disproved. It's therefore a "convenient" letter, and one that hasn't been properly investigated. Ergo, I strongly suspect that it's a fake.
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
Or it is simply possible that the supposedly disproved claims weren't disproved after all. All I ever heard was that there was "no evidence" for what the document claims. Now we have evidence. Viola.
"the publishing paper has not shared the information or background,"
I don't understand what you mean. The first sentence of the article says it comes from Iraq's coalition government. Do you mean that they didn't say where they got it? I would say that they might not be able to just yet, as it might endanger their source.
And if the U.S. hasn't been trumpeting it, it might just be because it the capture of Saddam completely overshadowed it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The uranium smuggling documents were thoroughly disproven, and in fact were such bad fakes that anyone who had done a high school report on the country could see they were fakes.
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
Having some evidence turn out to be bad is a far cry from having negative evidence. I have seen no negative evidence for uranium smuggling. Furthermore, the British have always claimed that they had other evidence besides those documents.
By the way, on what do you base your assertion that it was so easy to see that they were fake?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
What about the negative evidence that we haven't found any smuggled uranium after many months of searching?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"By the way, on what do you base your assertion that it was so easy to see that they were fake?"
It's been a while since this was in the news, but I'm pretty sure that the letter was printed on a poor imitation of governmental letterhead and cited officials who were not in office at the time the letter was dated.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The documents were "signed" by individuals (in their official capacities) who had left power around a decade ago. The documents were supposed to be much more recent. These were high level officials such that anyone doing a report on the country would likely run into.
Anyone who read them who knew anything about those people at all would recognize them as forgeries instantly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: Jutsa Notha Name said: No, I do not have printed out statements where Bush said it, but if you take your own time to get the print of every speech he made since January, you will see at least five references that Hussein was the cause of 9/11.
Who the hell is on another planet now? You’ve gone way beyond the implied people with this one – if you know there are 5 statements, why can’t you point me to one of them. Because there is not one direct statement that “Hussein was the cause of 9/11.”
quote: Jutsa Notha Name said: Are you really trying to stick to saying that Bush never made direct references to Hussein having a part in 9/11? If so, anyone who wishes to invest the time to get the text of his speeches, especially in January and February, can easily show you otherwise.
But several people have invested the time, and no one has shown such a “direct” statement. None of them have claimed the statements were direct – we were discussing whether he implied it. Had a direct statement existed, I have no doubt Chris Bridges or jack would have found it.
Of course, if such a statement really existed I bet you would have found it, too. But it doesn’t, and you were tired of googling, so you just posted a link that happened to mention Iraq and 9/11, stated your conclusion that this was a “direct statements that Hussein and 9/11 were linked,” and asked if I was from another planet. For the record, I’m either from Earth or have very credible implanted memories.
You can either revise your claim to be that of an implied link as the others have said, you can post some evidence of a direct statement, or you
quote:Tresopax said: As a general rule, I don't spend my time looking for specific facts to formally prove things I think we both already should know are true, just so I can score debate points or something. I mean, if I found such a quote would you really change your mind?
Just for future reference, could you point me to the master Hatrack list of “things I think we both already should know are true” so I can avoid debates that touch on those in the future? If you found a quote that said something like, “Capturing Sadaam is a measure of justice for the victims of 9/11,” that would be implying. If you found something that said, “The invasion of Iraq is needed to punish/bring to justice/get revenge on/slightly annoy the people responsible for 9/11,” that would be implying. Either of those or any of thousands of possible variations would cause me to change my mind.
Statements that basically say, “We invaded Iraq as part of a global war on terrorism that began on 9/11” do not imply that Iraq was an accomplice in 9/11.
Again, a simple argument: Terrorism <> 9/11. No one has bothered to refute it. Ignoring Justa Notha Name, who is still saying Bush directly claimed a link, all anyone has done is list speeches where Bush mentioned both 9/11 and Iraq. How is that implying (“to express or indicate indirectly”)?
What he has explicitly said: “We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks.” He has also said 9/11 demonstrates the danger associated with leaving a man with WMDs or the ability to create WMDs in power since those WMDs can be used by terrorists with greater effect than the planes were in 9/11. He has not said, “Iraq was connected to 9/11.” And I don’t consider any of those statements to imply such a statement.
quote:fugu13 said: Dag -- if Bush wasn't implying such a thing (for most people's definition of implying), then where in the heck did most of the country get the idea that Saddam was directly linked with 9/11?
Probably for the same reason people think that Gore got a majority of the popular vote; that a majority of European countries actively opposed the Iraq invasion; that most abortions happen because of teenage pregnancy, rape, or incest; or that Columbus had to convince people the world wasn’t flat to get permission for his voyage.
Dagonee
[ December 15, 2003, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dag, is it sincerely your contention that Bush and his staff never meant to imply any connection between Saddam and the events of 9/11?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: TomDavidson said: Dag, is it sincerely your contention that Bush and his staff never meant to imply any connection between Saddam and the events of 9/11?
If you mean by connection, did Sadaam or any agent of Sadaam’s government know about it in a general sense (they planned to hijack planes and crash them into civilian targets), then I sincerely mean that they never meant to imply a connection. I also don’t think Bush and his staff implied that Sadaam provided any resources that were directly used in the attack.
They have definitely stated (implicitly or explicitly) that there are links between al Queda and Sadaam, that these links included support of the general al Queda infrastructure and possibly training. I also believe Bush was aware of and made use of the universal outrage over al Queda’s acts on 9/11 in emphasizing these links. I’m not naïve about political campaigning.
However, relying on outrage generated by truthful (as far as I know at this point) links between two of our enemies is very different than accusing a sovereign nation of knowingly participating in, or providing specific resources that were used in, the 9/11 attacks. This is how I interpreted the accusations of Bush implying a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
I believe Bush’s implied or stated connection between Iraq and 9/11 has been that 9/11 awoke us to the dangers of terrorism, and made us capable of imagining what they could do with WMDs. I believe Bush has explicitly stated that one of his justifications for going in now is the threat of those WMDs being provided to terrorists. It is likely we would not be invading Iraq if 9/11 hadn’t happened. In this sense, there is a connection between the 9/11 attacks and the justification for invading Iraq.
I really am able to be convinced on this. I’m also not entirely happy with the way the war has been presented to the public. But I absolutely do not believe Bush has implied a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, as I defined it above. If other people are defining connection differently, then I could very possibly agree that Bush has implied a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, and I don't think Bush minds that people have this misimpression.
But he did explicitly state that there is no evidence linking Sadaam to 9/11 in September.
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I believe Bush's implications helped sell the idea of the war, by linking Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, because there was not enough justification without that implied link to get the vote, and I think the implications were made for that very reason. I think he did what any politician in the same position would do, which is to push an idea in the public mind to achieve his goals without coming right out and stating anything.
Stating that there was no link after the war is a little too late to play the 'I never said..." game.
There was no reason to go after Iraq when we did that was more compelling than using the international goodwill to build a worldwide rout of terrorist cells, something I consider to be the biggest wasted opportunity in American history.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You're exactly right about the reason being the same: because someone kept repeating it. I wonder who that could have been.
It is completely possible to state one thing explicitly and persuade people to get the exact opposite impression through consistent implication.
[ December 15, 2003, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually fugu13, I was thinking because the American public as a whole has zero sophistication in the way it assimilates information. But your reason can stand as a corollary if you slightly modify: because people keep repeating things that allow the unsophisticated news consumers to jump to conclusions.
Just finished Torts exam, so am slightly logy. Only fun threads for the rest of the evening.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)