Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: What Is Said 17

Journal by pudge

Hilarious story on CNN today, Bush slammed for Iraq link to 9/11. Some statements from Bush are quoted, followed by "Democrats accused the president of reviving a questionable link between Iraq and 9/11," and then showing some people slamming Bush.

But what, precisely, was wrong with what Bush said? They don't actually say. Biden says Americans are "smarter than that." Smarter than what? British Labour MP says, "There is absolutely no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda." OK, but Bush didn't say there was. Nice straw man, though.

So what did Bush say that was wrong? Nothing I can see, and nothing that the CNN reporters deemed worthy of note. They just felt it sufficient to imply Bush said something wrong, without actually saying what he said that was wrong.

Also, the story noted, "Monday's poll found that half of Americans do not see the war in Iraq as part of the war on terror that began after September 11, 2001." But the link to the poll doesn't explain that, and I can find no record of the actual question asked, so I can't consider that information interesting or useful.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What Is Said More

What Is Said

Comments Filter:
  • The media is pro-Bush and has a right-wing bias!

    Because liberals say so!
  • There are reports out there if Saddam meeting with Al Qaeda officials, but, for argument's sake, let's say Saddam never had any contact with Al Qaeda.

    Fine. Saddam is still a terrorist.

    He used Chemical Weapons on the Kurds, and Iran, he was paying $25,000 to families of Palestianian suicide bombers, and there may have been a terrorist training facility at Salman Pak - and the list goes on.

    Iraq was clearly a state supporter of terrorism, and therefore, a valid theater in the broader War on Terror.

    • My justification is in two simple points:
      1. Iraq was preventing the progress of the region away from terrorism, by
        1. continuing to threaten its neighbors (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait) and encourage them to become more isolated and authoritarian (i.e., less prosperous and democratic) and
        2. enabling other sponsors of terror (e.g., Syria, Palestinian suicide bombers)
      2. Iraq has committed serious crimes against the world, as judged by the UN Security Council, and further action to bring Iraq in line was requir

  • British Labour MP says, "There is absolutely no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda." OK, but Bush didn't say there was.

    "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting.

    Washington Post; June 18, 2004; Page A09 [washingtonpost.com]

    • I meant in the speech he didn't say there was. There is a connection between the New England Patriots and the KGB too [cnn.com], that doesn't mean we should go after the Patriots if we happen to have a problem with the Soviets.

      Bush never said that this connection represented reason to go after Iraq. It was additional reason to suspect a perhaps deeper connection, but the reasons we went into Iraq were not because of this connection. So attacking that he said, as a means to attack the policy or the war, is a big f

    • "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda. . . ."

      President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended [whitehouse.gov], May 1, 2003

      "The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda."

      President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours [whitehouse.gov], March 17, 2003

      Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.

      President's Radio Address, February 8, 2 [whitehouse.gov]

      • And again, I was talking about NOW, in THIS SPEECH, in the context of how the current conflict is justified.

        • "After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy. Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war."

          "Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: 'This Third World War is raging' in Iraq."

          "The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September the 11

          • Uh ... so again, what did he say that was wrong? Specifically. Tell me what words he said were wrong, and why they were wrong.

            • Well, you've already acknowledged my earlier post of with seven direct quotes from President Bush, each justifying the invasion of Iraq by falsely claiming a connection between Iraq and Al Qeada.

              Then I showed you three quotes from yesterday's speech, where President Bush implies the same false connection between Iraq and Al Qeada.

              There was never a coopertive relationship between President Hussien and Al Qeada. President Bush repeatedly claimed there was a coopertive relationship between President Hussi

              • seven direct quotes from President Bush, each justifying the invasion of Iraq by falsely claiming a connection between Iraq and Al Qeada

                That is false, and it is shifting the goalposts.

                First, false: much (most?) of what Bush said in those quotes is accurate, or we don't know it is false. Iraq WAS harboring al Qaeda terrorists, for example.

                Second, goalposts: I never said Bush never said there was no connection. I was saying that only within the context of the speech. I was also saying Bush never claime

                • Every one of those seven Bush statements declared Iraq and Al Qeada were cooperating. That is false, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. Iraq was not harboring Al Qeada terrorists or assisting them in any other way.

                  Bush repeatedly declared there was a cooperative relationship between Iraq and Al Qeada. He has never recanted those statements. So when he made a connection between Iraq and Al Qeada yesterday, it's natural to assume he is talking about the same relationship.

                  If he wants to talk

                  • Every one of those seven Bush statements declared Iraq and Al Qeada were cooperating. That is false

                    No, it is not. From the 9/11 report:

                    With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995.

                    You can disagree with the 9/11 report, I suppose, but I'll accept it.

                    Further, George Tenet said in 2002, "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade," including in 19

                    • Meeting with does not imply cooperating with. Being in a country does not imply that country is "harboring" you. Sudan was using both Iraq expertise and Al Qaeda funding to build their plant, but that is not equivilent to Iraq and Al Qaeda working together. I stand by my original statements.

                      And I'll add a stronger statement; President Bush was demonstrably and deliberatively deceptive when trying to justify the an invasion of Iraq.

                    • Meeting with does not imply cooperating with.

                      This is intended to back up the statements that there is a "connection," that there were "dealings," as per the quotes you gave that stated that. It is undeniable that there is a connection, that the statement "there is absolutely no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda" is false.

                      Once again, you are trying to shift the goalposts.

                      Being in a country does not imply that country is "harboring" you.

                      Yes, it does, when Iraq knows they are there and doe

                    • I will concede, using your definition, there is a connection between Hussien and bin Laden, not unlike the connection between myself and Kevin Bacon. However, Bush's statements indicated more than that sort of "connection". Bush claimed they were allied and working together. That is not true. (Although Kevin and I do have a project coming up.)

                      There no evidence Hussien knew of any Al Qaeda operatives in Iraqi. Even assuming he did know, there is no evidence he would be able to capture them. Large por

                    • However, Bush's statements indicated more than that sort of "connection".

                      In some of the quotes, yes, like the ones that said they were training al Qaeda. However, you said all of the quotes were false, which isn't true.

                      Unless you want to bring this back to the speech, which is what this whole thing is about, and show how what he actually said was wrong, I see no reason to continue this line of discussion.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong." -- Norm Schryer

Close