TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- So I guess it's official: Iraq had no WMDs and no ties to 9/11
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

So I guess it's official: Iraq had no WMDs and no ties to 9/11

quote:

Bush: 'We're not leaving so long as I'm president' RAW STORY Published: Monday August 21, 2006 US President George W. Bush has announced that the United States will not be leaving Iraq during his presidency, RAW STORY has learned. "Either you say, 'Yes it�s important we stay there and get it done,' or we leave," Bush argued. "We�re not leaving so long as I�m the president. That would be a huge mistake." At a news conference today, Bush also conceded that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Bush opened his remarks at 10 AM, announcing that the nation would be offering $230 million in aid to Lebanon. The president also called for fast deployment of an international peacekeeping force. Late in the conference, when asked what Iraq's role was in the World Trade Center attacks, the president said, "Nothing." But he went on to suggest that by overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime, the United States could forestall future acts of terrorism by defeating resentment with hope, "and the best way to do hope is through a form of government." A full transcript of the president's remarks follow: # .... Bush: Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq: was -- the main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of a world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens. You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the "stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were -- QUESTION: What did Iraq: have to do with that? BUSH: What did Iraq: have to do with what? QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center. BUSH: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq: was a -- Iraq: -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case. And one way to defeat that -- you know, defeat resentment, is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government. Now, I said going into Iraq: we got to take these threats seriously before they fully materialized. I saw a threat. I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world was better off without him. Now, the question is, how do we succeed in Iraq? And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting. Last question. Stretch. Who you working for, Stretch? QUESTION: The Washington Examiner. BUSH: Oh, yeah. I'm glad you found work. QUESTION: Thank you very much. (Laughter.) Mr. President, some pro- life groups are worried that your choice of FDA commissioner will approve over-the-counter sales of Plan B, a pill that they say essentially can cause early-term abortions. Do you stand by this choice? And how do you feel about Plan B in general? BUSH: I believe that Plan B ought to be -- ought to require a prescription for minors. That's what I believe. And -- and -- and I support Andy's decision. Thanks for letting me come by the new digs here. They may be a little too fancy for you. QUESTION: (Off mike.) BUSH: Huh? QUESTION: (Off mike.) BUSH: No, I'd be happy to go back. QUESTION: Tell her when she can go back. QUESTION: Are we coming back? QUESTION: Ever? BUSH: Absolutely, you're coming back. QUESTION: Can we hold you to -- BUSH: Coming back to the bosom of the White House. (Laughter.) I'm looking forward to hugging you when you come back, everybody. (Soft laughter.) When are you coming back? QUESTION: As soon as you tell us. QUESTION: May. BUSH: May? Is that when it is scheduled? May? QUESTION: They've sealed off the door. You know -- QUESTION: The decision will be made by commanders on the ground, sir. (Laughter.) QUESTION: There's no timetable. QUESTION: We want to withdraw -- BUSH: What do you think this is, a correspondents' dinner or something? (Laughter.) Thank you all. http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_calls_Lebanon_aid_troops_0821.html

Please update your talking points.

I thought that it was common knowledge

quote:

Originally posted by sasslife I thought that it was common knowledge

It was! BEFORE we went to war there!!!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley It was! BEFORE we went to war there!!!

Thats not true at all. Leading up to the invasion I dont recall ANYONE saying that Saddam didnt have them. Even opponenets of the invasion and subsequent occupation agreed they had suspisions. The only real argument at the time was plan of action. Containment or removal.. and "we" chose removal.

The only weapons we 'knew' about were the weapons Saddam HIMSELF had told the weapons inspectors he had!

There is nothing here. When did Dubya specifically say the opposite--that Iraq was behind or directly involved in the 9/11 attacks? I have only heard opponents claim that the administration made the connection for them when in reality it seems that many simply drew a false conclusion to help them rationalize their initial jumping on board with a policy they no longer agree with. Now they just say they were duped instead of acknowledging that they essentially duped themselves. Yesterday's press conference was actually quite good.

Here's the video.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/...to-do-with-911/

Yes ditoheads please update your talking points.

quote:

the main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.

So apparently the capacity to make WMDs is a good enough reason to invade a country? Look out everyone except those tiny Pacific islands that no-one can ever remember the names of! If you have the capacity to mix a few chemicals together in a small bowl we're coming for you next!

Also, I've gotta say that reading transcripts of Bush giving unscripted responses really does my head in. The guy is literally incapable of forming a coherent sentence. I mean, what the fuck kind of thought process leads to a sentence with a syntax like this?:

quote:

Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq: was a -- Iraq: -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.

There is concensus all over the world regarding bush's intelligence, or lack there of.

One thing we should all respect him for is, in my opinon, he truly does believe what he says and he does what he feels is right regardless of the concequences.

quote:

Originally posted by sasslife There is concensus all over the world regarding bush's intelligence, or lack there of. One thing we should all respect him for is, in my opinon, he truly does believe what he says and he does what he feels is right regardless of the concequences.

So did Hitler!!!

He calls a guy "stretch", lol.

Did anyone read the 'warning' Bush gave to Iran yesterday if it dosent give up?

He is acting as a spokeperson (sp?) for UN now, like he is the head of UN..

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-08-21-voa46.cfm

quote:

Originally posted by sasslife One thing we should all respect him for is, in my opinon, he truly does believe what he says and he does what he feels is right regardless of the concequences.

That isn't a sign of strength or righteousness, though - it's a sign of obstinate stupidity. I'd much rather have a leader capable of realising when he's made a mistake and "flip-flopping" as a result, than to have a leader who is incapable of admitting fault or recognising that his intractable "course" - in spite of good intentions - might actually be doing more harm than good.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results each time." - Albert Einstein.

quote:

Originally posted by sasslife One thing we should all respect him for is, in my opinon, he truly does believe what he says and he does what he feels is right regardless of the concequences.

LOL

Thats because he is retarded, he dosent know what is right and what is wrong.

And how you know that he feels what he is doing is right, maybe he knows he is wrong in doing that but still does it to secure oil for his greed and to please his voters..

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka There is nothing here. When did Dubya specifically say the opposite--that Iraq was behind or directly involved in the 9/11 attacks? I have only heard opponents claim that the administration made the connection for them when in reality it seems that many simply drew a false conclusion to help them rationalize their initial jumping on board with a policy they no longer agree with. Now they just say they were duped instead of acknowledging that they essentially duped themselves. Yesterday's press conference was actually quite good.

These are all quotes from offical white house transcripts:



http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2002/...os-angeles.html

quote:

From the White House website, Bush's comments about Saddam Hussein: (Campaign speeches only. For period of October 10 - November 04.) 1. OCT 28 Remarks by the President at New Mexico Welcome "This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda." 2. OCT 28 Remarks by the President in Colorado Welcome "He's got connections with al Qaeda." 3. OCT 31 Remarks by the President at South Dakota Welcome "This is a guy who has had connections with these shadowy terrorist networks." 4. NOV 01 Remarks by the President at New Hampshire Welcome "We know he's got ties with al Qaeda." 5. NOV 02 Remarks by the President in Florida Welcome "We know that he's had connections with al Qaeda." 6. NOV 02 Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome "He's had connections with shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda." 7. NOV 02 Remarks by the President at Tennessee Welcome "We know that he has had contacts with terrorist networks like al Qaeda." 8. NOV 03 Remarks by the President in Minnesota Welcome "This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda." 9. NOV 04 Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome "This is a man who has had al Qaeda connections." 10. NOV 04 Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome "He's had contacts with al Qaeda." 11. NOV 04 Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome "This is a man who has got connections with al Qaeda." Plus this speculation: * OCT 14 Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome "... we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind." * NOV 03 Remarks by the President in South Dakota Welcome "And, not only that, he is -- would like nothing better than to hook-up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come and do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action. " * NOV 03 Remarks by the President at Illinois Welcome "He is a man who would likely -- he is a man who would likely team up with al Qaeda. He could provide the arsenal for one of these shadowy terrorist networks. He would love to use somebody else to attack us, and not leave fingerprints behind. "

I know all politicians lie, but I miss the good ol days when Presidents used to lie about getting head and banging Marilyn Monroe.

Having connections with Al Qaida and being behind/involved in 9/11 attacks are two completely different issues. If you can't discern between them (which much of the public seems to have an issue with), it is your own fault. Show me where someone specifically said Iraq was involved with the planning of 9/11, or was somehow complicit in the specific event, then we'll have something to discuss.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Having connections with Al Qaida and being behind/involved in 9/11 attacks are two completely different issues. If you can't discern between them (which much of the public seems to have an issue with), it is your own fault. Show me where someone specifically said Iraq was involved with the planning of 9/11, or was somehow complicit in the specific event, then we'll have something to discuss.

Clearly the connection is implicit in those remarks and numerous others. The remarks were intended to link 9.11 and Saddam in the public's mind.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20030321-5.html

quote:

"The use of armed force against Iraq 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 Sept. 11, 2001."

I suppose you could rely on the carefully crafted wording to debate what the meaning of "is" is (in this case debating what the word "including" includes), but you'd be merely parsing words.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Jun17.html

quote:

"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. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...8/20060821.html

quote:

Q What did Iraq have to do with that? THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what? Q The attack on the World Trade Center? THE PRESIDENT: Nothing!! [...] Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

Nobody has suggested? I beg to differ.

At the very least this administration misled the public to believe Iraq and Al Q and 9.11 were directly connected, and was quite effective at doing so initially.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Also, I've gotta say that reading transcripts of Bush giving unscripted responses really does my head in. The guy is literally incapable of forming a coherent sentence. I mean, what the fuck kind of thought process leads to a sentence with a syntax like this?:

Conservative pundits are now starting to wonder as well.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whhbPVrb5KM

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ Clearly the connection is implicit in those remarks and numerous others. The remarks were intended to link 9.11 and Saddam in the public's mind.

I'm sorry, but I have never jumped to that conclusion.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Also, I've gotta say that reading transcripts of Bush giving unscripted responses really does my head in. The guy is literally incapable of forming a coherent sentence. I mean, what the fuck kind of thought process leads to a sentence with a syntax like this?

Actually, as much as I dislike Bush, I must admit that's pretty much the way most of us speak in real life.

Organised paragraphs, coherent flows of ideas... it all belongs to the realms of written language. "Viewing" the language allows you to have this greater organisation, but once you leave that behind (i.e. you're speaking rather than reading), context plays an important role, and the neat organisation you see in writing disappears.

We hardly ever notice these blanks, gaps and non-sense because of context - that's what matters in real life. Coherence and cohesion play even a lesser role once the person speaking is tense and/or confused. That's normal when you're responsible for 250 million people and half of them want you to get out of there.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley So did Hitler!!!

ah yes...the ole liberal Bush = Hitler adage never gets tired does it?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r ah yes...the ole liberal Bush = Hitler adage never gets tired does it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

quote:

Originally posted by Lira http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

omg....I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

That's just loco...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r ah yes...the ole liberal Bush = Hitler adage never gets tired does it?

You're the only one who's drawing comparisons with bush and Hitler mate, either that or you're a bit slow on the uptake?

Re: So I guess it's official: Iraq had no WMDs and no ties to 9/11

Well, there's not really much need for propogating that myth now. They got the public to go along with their pre-conceived war policy.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.