Point - CounterpointFollow

First off, let me say, this is a great thread. Pretty decent, rational, discourse that involves a serious issue that will effect us for decades to come.

Now, to business.

From reading both Smash's and Gbaji's posts I find that I am inclined to side with Gbaji on this particular topic for the following reason:

It seems to me that Smash is arguing from the idea that it is the administrations fault for the inferences people make from their statements.



What is the administration supposed to do in order to let people know that Iraq was not involved in 9/11? They've said numerous times, especially recently, that there was never a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. I know, the Bush admin. has always had a problem with press relations and communicating to the populas but, should they be condemned for the way people think about an issue despite the president coming out and saying that Iraq had no ties to 9/11? What more could they do?

Addressing the statements made by VP Cheney while being interviewed by Tim Russert. Cheney did release the accusation made by the Czech Republic that "Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack." BUT, in the next sentence Cheney said "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." In fact Cheney did not know of a relationship between Iraqi officials and Atta, it was suspected, but as far as we can see now, the information was discredited (As a link between Iraq and the 9/11 attackers would have been highly publicized).

How is the administration supposed to answer a question when, in fact, they do not have an answer. Wouldn't they have been lying if they had said yes or no to whether Iraq had a connection to 9/11? Being as how lying to the American public can have a negative impact on an administrations credibilty (baring Clinton of course :>)I dont see anyway they could have answered the question posed by Mr. Russert.

What is my argument, in your fantasy world of a mind? I'm very curious.

A rose is a rose is a rose. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

No significant ties? Ok, so Iraq still had ties to Al Qaida then. The invasion is justified-- just like it will be if we decide to invade another country for even thinking about having ties with Al Qaida.

Why?

Because it's our perogative. End of story.

Totem

Sure. But there are two issues here Grady. At the time that particular interview was taken, the administration was trying to win support for a war in Iraq.

You can't just leave it at "We know of no connection". Because that only addresses one of the issues at hand. The Bush administration had to show how Iraq qualified under the umbrella of the "war on terror". That means that they *have* to talk about Iraq's connections with terrorist groups including Al-queda.


If a certain percentage of the population is going to assume that "connections to terrorist group like Al-queda" implies connection to the 9/11 attacks, there is no way to make that connection to terrorism without leaving that impression in the minds of those people. There's no way.


That's why it really is a "damned if you do, damned if you dont" situation. They have no choice. They felt that they had legitimate cause to go into Iraq. That cause had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, but everything to do with Iraq's past and present connections with a number of terrorist groups, and presumed future ability to supply those groups with WMD. And guess what? Some people are not going to understand the distinction between being related to 9/11 and being part of the war on terror. There's nothing the administration can do about that.


So yeah. Blame them for misleading the people if you want. I personally don't see it. Everything the administration said was correct. Everything they said was what they had to say. I just don't see any way they could have removed the 9/11->Iraq link in many people's eyes, without simply abandoning the effort in Iraq totally. Now maybe that's the goal of those crying about this, and perhaps they would have preferred that course of action, but I don't see how the administration should be forced to avoid an action simply because some people are going to make wrong assumptions about why we're doing it. If it needs to be done, then it needs to be done.


I'd personally rather an administration be in power that's willing to do what they think is needed, then not doing it purely because some people might misunderstand after the fact. I have no problem with people bringing up legitmate issues about choice by the administration. But to essentially say that the administration was wrong because dumb people didn't understand what was going on is kind of a stretch IMO.

I can say that, pickle. Saddam is out of power and in jail. Granted, civil war fomenters are making life miserable, but then my contention is we go in, we break things, kill people, and leave. Personally, I believe any problems anybody has after we leave is not my concern.

Maybe next time we can do just that and walk away.

Totem

I think you made Smash's point.

Now GFY.

Eb