Abadd wrote:
Quote:
hat there was never any connection between the Iraqi leader and terrorists
Saddam wasn't handing out 20,000 dollars to the families of muslim nutters that strapped on bomb vests to go kill innocent women and children? huh.
See. Now that's the problem though. Semantic bait and switch if you will. Bush says something like "Iraq is an important front on the war on terror", and Libs respond with "but there was no
formal connection between Saddam and Al-qaeda!!!".
Wait! Is this yet another
false dilemma? Why yes. I think it is...
When Snow says this is nothing new, he's not kidding. Nothing in that report is unknown. Nothing in that report was not already reported on and analysed. In fact, I recall us having this exact discussion last year about the same thing. The issue is twofold. First, does an "informal" connection still represent a significant enough connection? Second, do we assume that Al-qeada == "terrorists" when discussing the issue? If you look at many speeches by Bush, and in fact at the
resolution upon which we went to war with Iraq, you'll see lots of statements like this one:
Quote:
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
does not say which ones, but the fact that it's
plural should be the first hint that we're not limiting this to just Al-qaeda.
Quote:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
True statement. Note, that there's no statement that they're working with the Iraq government at all.
Quote:
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Look! There's the pluralized "terrorist organizations" thing again. Can't just be talking about Al-qaeda. In fact, does not even state that Al-qaeda is any of the organizations being aided.
Quote:
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Oooh! They mentioned 9/11!!! But, they didn't say that Iraq had anything to do with it, only that the attack wakes up the US to the potential of other attacks, which might include WMDs if a country like Iraq is allowed to continue the way they currently are. Again. No mention of Al-qaeda.
Quote:
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Note the wording here. This is kinda everything above in a nutshell. Where is the assumption that Al-qaeda and Iraq are working together? Oh yeah. It's just plain not there...
The reason so many people believe that our government made its case for war in Iraq by tying Iraq and Al-qaeda together is because those opposed to war with Iraq made every effort they could to convince people that the government was making that case. They twisted and re-interpreted the words of the Bush administration in order to convince people of that connection. By arguing against a connection between the two, they convinced people that the "other side" was arguing that there was a connection between the two. Kind of a
strawmman, but that's typical...
