Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Hey Taco...Follow

#1 Aug 22 2006 at 7:56 AM Rating: Decent
****
6,318 posts
Your buddy boy Dubbya is a liar!

Quote:

Bush Now Says What He Wouldn’t Say Before War: Iraq Had ‘Nothing’ To Do With 9/11

President Bush was in the midst of explaining how the attacks of 9/11 inspired his “freedom agenda” and the attacks on Iraq until a reporter, Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. “Nothing,” Bush defiantly answered.

To justify the war, Bush informed Congress on March 19, 2003 that acting against Iraq was consistent with “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 September 11, 2001.”

As ThinkProgress has repeatedly documented, Vice President Cheney cited “evidence” cooked up by Douglas Feith and others to claim it was “pretty well confirmed” that Iraq had contacts with 9/11 hijackers.

More generally, in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, the administration encouraged the false impression that Saddam had a role in 9/11. Bush never stated then, as he does now, that Iraq had “nothing” to do with 9/11. Only after the Iraq war began did Bush candidly acknowledge that Iraq was not operationally linked to 9/11.

Digg It!

Full transcript:

BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.


And his poll ratings are the highest in the past 6 months how? I guess the American public does like being decieved and having their troops put in harms way without real justification...
#2 Aug 22 2006 at 8:10 AM Rating: Good
****
4,396 posts
Yeah...that's a real objective site.

Next time you want to put an article thats on "www.bushisabutthole.com" save your strength.


If you are looking for more innonvative journalism, I figure moveon.org is right up your alley.



Edited, Aug 22nd 2006 at 9:16am EDT by Tacosid
____________________________
I voted for the other guy.
#3 Aug 22 2006 at 8:18 AM Rating: Decent
****
6,318 posts
Just because they are not objective doesn't mean they are not right.
#4 Aug 22 2006 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
It would be much more of a resounding blow to the Bush administration if they had ever said that Iraq and 9/11 were linked. Which they never have.

Rather they have constantly alluded to that being the case and allowed the American public to think what it will.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#5 Aug 22 2006 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
****
4,396 posts
These are just some of the people that predicted (via their data) that Kerry was easily going to defeat Bush in 2004.

So they certainly are not likely to be right....No more than you would conceed that Rush Limbaugh is spouting out the truth eh?
____________________________
I voted for the other guy.
#6 Aug 22 2006 at 8:43 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
Looks like desperation for a "gotcha" to me. Lame.

#7 Aug 22 2006 at 8:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Dubya wrote:
"Now look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought (Saddam Hussein) had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction."


I think this is the first time I've seen him quoted as saying this. I wonder if it'll be a right-wing talking point now.

Quote:
"But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq. And I also saw the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my answer to your question is that -- imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens."


I doubt most Iraqis would agree that their lives are better now, or showing any measurable signs of improving even back to the Hussein-era baseline, much less the pre-blockade level.

Quote:
"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."


Yes, and a strong case can be made - has been made, many times - that conditions are more prone to breed terrorists out of resentment and the lack of hope. As for his choice of words, I'd submit that this was "suggested", indirectly. Had he said "Nobody's ever stated as fact...." I'd have less of a quibble.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#8 Aug 22 2006 at 9:05 AM Rating: Decent
****
6,318 posts
bodhisattva wrote:
It would be much more of a resounding blow to the Bush administration if they had ever said that Iraq and 9/11 were linked. Which they never have.

Rather they have constantly alluded to that being the case and allowed the American public to think what it will.

So why did we go in there?

Your right, it wasn't cause Iraq was connected to 9/11, it was to get rid of their WMDs.


Tacosid wrote:
These are just some of the people that predicted (via their data) that Kerry was easily going to defeat Bush in 2004.

So they certainly are not likely to be right....No more than you would conceed that Rush Limbaugh is spouting out the truth eh?


I dunno... I really haven't listened to Limbaugh, so I wouldn't know if he was spouting truth or not.

At no point was I expecting to have you go "OMG! You are right, Bush is teh debil!", I just wanted to point out that a belief commonly held by Americans was denounced, and make my own implication that Bush is playing mind games with his people.
#9 Aug 22 2006 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
Dubya wrote:
"Now look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought (Saddam Hussein) had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction."
I think this is the first time I've seen him quoted as saying this. I wonder if it'll be a right-wing talking point now.
Don't tell Santorum that! Or Gbaji... Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Aug 22 2006 at 10:43 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
PsiChi the Flatulent wrote:
I just wanted to point out that a belief commonly held by Americans was denounced, and make my own implication that Bush is playing mind games with his people.

I wasn't aware the belief was so commonly held among Americans.

Also, if Bush is so effectively playing mind games with his people, then either you have a much higher respect for his intelligence than the consensus view, or you think most Americans are REALLY, REALLY, fUcking dumb.
#11 Aug 22 2006 at 10:52 AM Rating: Decent
****
6,318 posts
Jawbox wrote:
PsiChi the Flatulent wrote:
I just wanted to point out that a belief commonly held by Americans was denounced, and make my own implication that Bush is playing mind games with his people.

I wasn't aware the belief was so commonly held among Americans.

According to the Harris Polls
Quote:
U.S. adults believe that the following are true about the war in Iraq:

* Seventy-two percent believe that the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein (slightly down from February 2005 when 76 percent said this was true).
* Just over half (55%) think history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq (down substantially from 64% in February 2005).
* Sixty-four percent say it is true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (the same as 64% in February 2005).


Or are the Harris Polls all liberal bullshit too?


Quote:
Also, if Bush is so effectively playing mind games with his people, then either you have a much higher respect for his intelligence than the consensus view, or you think most Americans are REALLY, REALLY, fUcking dumb.

Well, B may be right, but I was going along the lines that he is trying to insinuate things to get the public's backing (i.e. war in Iraq) when he knows the insinuations are false.
#12 Aug 22 2006 at 11:14 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Sixty-four percent say it is true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (the same as 64% in February 2005).


It is one thing to believe that Hussein and Al-Qaeda had strong ties, it is another to believe that Hussein had much direct involvement with 9/11.

It makes sense that Hussein would help out Al-Qaeda in any way that he could. Mutual enemies, and all that. But I highly doubt that bin Laden was foolish enough to actually tell Hussein that they were planning 9/11 due to security concerns.

#13 Aug 22 2006 at 11:14 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
PsiChi the Flatulent wrote:
Jawbox wrote:
PsiChi the Flatulent wrote:
I just wanted to point out that a belief commonly held by Americans was denounced, and make my own implication that Bush is playing mind games with his people.

I wasn't aware the belief was so commonly held among Americans.

According to the Harris Polls

Yes but the issue is whether Iraq had direct ties to 9/11, not ties with al Qaeda.
#14 Aug 22 2006 at 12:30 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Why are you such a pu55y about kicking some Muzzie a$$, Psi? What, are you afraid of those sand humping goat lickers? Grow some balls, dude.

Totem
#15 Aug 22 2006 at 12:33 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Ahh, intentionally misleading the public. Great way to run a superpower nation.

There has been lots of conjecture regarding the amount of co-ordination between al-Qaeda and Hussein's regime. I'd imagine that Hussein would have realized that any war against terrorists would end up in Iraq regardless and would not have instigated it himself. A 9/11 attack would be considered premature; he would have waited until he actually had useable WMDs before condoning any such actions.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#16 Aug 22 2006 at 12:33 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,318 posts
Jawbox wrote:
PsiChi the Flatulent wrote:
Jawbox wrote:
PsiChi the Flatulent wrote:
I just wanted to point out that a belief commonly held by Americans was denounced, and make my own implication that Bush is playing mind games with his people.

I wasn't aware the belief was so commonly held among Americans.

According to the Harris Polls

Yes but the issue is whether Iraq had direct ties to 9/11, not ties with al Qaeda.


Well what part of al Qaeda would he have ties with? The humanitarian aid department?

That is like saying "I believe Hess had strong ties with Hitler but had nothing to do with the holocaust."
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 260 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (260)