Point - CounterpointFollow

Ok. I'll ask this again (how many freaking times do I need to do this?):


Why are those to statements counter to eachother?


Why can't Iraq have ties without being linked to 9/11?


/e slams head against wall....

Then why did you write it such that your "point" was the panel saying that there was no link between Iraq and 9/11, and your "counterpoint was that Bush reasserts Hussein-Al Queda link?


Isn't that misleading? Aren't you now doing the exact same thing I'm accusing the media of doing?

It sure looks like you are trying to make the reader assume that a disagreement over whether Iraq had connections/ties/whatever with Al-queda, and the extent of those ties is somehow related to whether or not Iraq was involved with 9/11.


Again. Why even mention 9/11 in your post if that's not what you were talking about?


Madness. You're doing it and don't even realize it.

Edited, Thu Jun 17 19:06:00 2004 by gbaji

Actually, I never said which point was mine. I thought I'd post two contrary points and let people discuss them, but apparently you weren't up for that.

trickybeck you really shouldn't bother arguing with gbaji. His opinions are as imobile as a wall. If god came down from on high, proclaimed all politics and all religions as moot and decreed we should all live in happiness and harmony with each other before asending back to the heavens, gbaji would argue the definition of "moot" if only because he was such an ardent republican.

So you are saying that it's impossible for Iraq to have connections with Al-queda and not be involved in the 9/11 attacks?

Isn't that the flawed logic I've been arguing against this whole time? And here you are unabashedly saying it again! Unbelievable...


Look. When one side of an argument is spending all their time saying: "We didn't say that", it's a pretty good bet that the other side is arguing a strawman.


Draw your own conclusions folks. The administration says that they never claimed that Iraq was connected to 9/11. No one can seem to find any statement by them saying Iraq was connected to 9/11. The Panel confirms the administrations position that Iraq was not related to 9/11. And somehow the Dems are still trying to argue some kind of wrongdoing?


The *only* inconsistency here is between the facts and the imaginary strawman argument dreamed up by the Dems. Just accept that you were wrong and move on...

No, learn how to read. I'm saying the administration is clearly, intentionaly, playing on the fears of the average 10 second soundbite consumer to attempt to foster the impression that there's a link between Iraq and 911.

Continually, persietently. This is why reporters continually ask them straight out the question, to which they answer either "I'm not saying there's any evidence of that" or whatever. Which is fine. No one is arguing they've stated a connection between Iraq and 911.

The point is that they are intentionally putting that rehtoric into the public consumption trough. It's not a mistake. The sheer volume of rhetoric involving linking Al Queda and Iraq is far to massive for it to be a casual thing they mention occasionaly.

Cheney's having tee shirts made, I hear.

The reason people point out over and over that there is no link between Iraq and 911 is that PEOPLE THINK THERE IS. Not because anyone thinks the administration has claimed it.

No one cares if they haven't said it, they've done everything concivably possilbe to communicate it without stating it because they realize that would be a blatant lie.

Look at the polling data about how many Americans think Iraq was directly responsible for 911. That didn't happen accidentaly.

What you're arguing about is the press and the left debunking a COMMON belief among the average person that's been fostered by the administration. If you want to argue that it's just happenstance that people came to that conclusion on their own in spite of no one in the administration making any such claims, have a good time.

That's my point. It's irrelevant to me if anyone in the adminstration said there was a link between Iraq and 911. I don't beleive they have. The issue for me, is that MOST PEOPLE belive they have. The more times I see Bush or Cheney on TV saying there was never a link and that they never said ther was a link is the more times I can hear the average person thinking "they lied to me, they said there was"

That's all I want out of the issue. For the administration to keep stating that there was never a link and they never claimed there was one.

It's not the media's fault that the administration intentionally tried to doster the impression that Iraqi's flew the 911 planes.

It's not a "dammed if you do/don't" situation in the slightest. This administration wanted the idea in people's heads that Iraq was tied to 911. They got it. Now they get teh consequences fo the media beating the drum that it isn't true.

You reap what you sow.

No slant there.

The officials did nothing to disabuse the media of that perception.

It's very simple. Had the administration wanted to make crystal clear that Iraq wasn't involved in 911 they could easily have done so. Instead they did the polar opposite in every way save for blatantly lying. Cheney on meet the press STILL wouldn't acknowledge there was no link in September '03 after polls showed 70 percent of the people in the US belived there was a link.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/


MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

MR. RUSSERT: We could establish a direct link between the hijackers of September 11 and Saudi Arabia.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We know that many of the attackers were Saudi. There was also an Egyptian in the bunch. It doesn’t mean those governments had anything to do with that attack. That’s a different proposition than saying the Iraqi government and the Iraqi intelligent service has a relationship with al-Qaeda that developed throughout the decade of the ’90s. That was clearly official policy


Hard to get around that. It's not ambiguos. It's a clear play to not rule out a connection, because at the time it was good for the administration.

Now it's time to pay the piper.

Lay off the crack. The correct answer to the question was and is "There is no evidence at this time to indicate Iraq was involved in 911. At all, period. If we uncover such evidence we'll let the public know at that time"

Let me say again, it doesn't matter to me at all. Be as much of an apologist for the Administration as you'd like. The people who will feel betrayed are the people who thought the administration had stated there was a connection. They arrived at that state (70 precent of people in September '03) because of what the administration said. If there was a media bias it would have to exist on every single press outlet in the country, particularly places like Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Show, both of whom's viewers/listeners were MORE likely to find a link. Those who listened to NPR were LESS likely to find a link.

If that's because the administration poorly communicated the lack of a connection, then it's their fault.

If it's because they intentionally fostered the idea that there was one, then it's their fault.

No where in this equation does the media suddenly become responsible.

Edited, Sun Jun 20 04:54:00 2004 by Smasharoo

Look, I'm not arguing this any longer. If it's your contention that the administration never attempted to imply such a leak, fine.

The right wing media put the story foward on their own, whatever makes you happy.

http://www.strawman.net

Yee-haw!

Eb

Hmmm... Considering that I was doing competitive debate when you were still in gradeschool, I highly doubt it.


Um... Can you at least make an effort to respond to the content of the post instead of resorting to personal attacks? I know you've done nothing but dig yourself into a hole, but you could at least try...


Kinda too bad when your own quote debunks your own argument though, right? Guess you should have maybe read it a bit more closely. Amaturish mistake really.


So. How's finding some reason other then media hype as to why that poll showed so many people connecting Iraq and 9/11 coming? I'm sure you can find *something* to link the administration to it. Afterall. They only officially stated that there was no evidence of any such connection. Surely, they must have used some kind of secret subliminal messages or something to convince people of the opposite...

Ok. I can buy that for a dollar. Certainly, the Bush administration "cashed in" on the concern after 9/11 to help push their agenda in Iraq. Heck. I've said that myself on several occasions. I just don't think it's that shocking of a thing. Find me a politician who doesn't take advantage of recent events to push something. Can't do it? Not surprising. Also kinda meaningless to make the accusation.


My problem is with the twisting around of the issue. It's a cause/effect issue really. 9/11 creates a heightened sense of concern about terrorism, and the administration then looks at Iraq and sees in it the potential for more lethal attacks in the future.

Does that mean they are related? Sure. But in the other direction. 9/11 changed the political landscape, in exactly the way the Russians testing their firt A-bomb did. It showed citizens in the US that they could be attacked. It showed they that they were not safe. More importantly, it showed every terrorist in the world that the US *could* be attacked. It was a reasonable and prudent assumption that there would be more attacks as a result. So yeah. They're related in that 9/11 makes the potential for organized terrorist attacks against us more likely, and Iraq has the potential to provide terrorists with weapons to use.

It certainly changed the way the administration had to look at Iraq. This was no longer just a rogue state with a ruler who had dreams of traditional conquest. This was a state with the ability to build WMD (I'm not even going to debate whether they had them at the time since that's irrelevant), the will to use those weapons, a marked hatred for the US, connections to a number of different terrorist groups with whom they shared a hatred of the US if nothing else, and a political environment in which more terrorists might wish to make larger attacks against US soil.


Look at it another way: Wouldn't it have been nearly criminal in the face of what we knew about Iraq to pretend that this potential threat simply didn't exist? Should you play down their connections with terrorism? Remember, the same foggy understanding of terrorism and terrorist groups that fostered the confusion about 9/11 and Iraq in the first place still exists. If you start insisting that Iraq really had nothing at all to do with 9/11, some people would think that means that Iraq isn't a threat. After all, if they assume that 9/11 == Al-queda == Terrorism, they'll make the obvious (and equally flawed) assumption that if Iraq isn't connected with 9/11, then they aren't connected with terrorism. While would result in a reduction of support for the war also for the wrong reasons.



You're arguing that the government should have actively dissuaded people from supporting an action that the administration felt was important. Doesn't that seem a bit silly? If X percent of the people are going to make their mind up for the wrong reasons anyway, you may as well have them agreeing with you then disagreeing. I think it was more expedience then anything.


So yeah. If you want to argue that they didn't go out of their way to debunk every single person who implied that Iraq was related to 9/11, fine. I'll grant you that. But (as I said earlier) I don't feel it's the government's job to do that. It's our jobs as citizens to be informed and be able to look at the information we are given and make a decision. I saw the same news reports as everyone else in the country. Oddly, not once did I *ever* think that Iraq was behind 9/11 in any way. I never saw anyone in the administration say they were, and I never saw any substantiated evidence that even suggested it. It's not my fault that 40% (or whatever the figure was) of the US population is too dumb to be able to figure something out that was inherently obvious to anyone with a modicrum of intelligence. It's also not the US government's fault (although you could argue that our public school system is to blame for not teaching critical thinking at all, and that's funded by the government, but that's another issue).



People are dumb. It's really just that simple. Trying to pin the blame on the administration for decieving them, when all the administration did was not walk over, slap them silly and make them see the facts that were right in front of them is ridiculous. I do not expect my government to think for people. I don't want my government to think for the people. And for anyone who thinks they were decieved, you need to start thinking for yourself instead of letting the local talking heads think for you.


Sheesh.