Perverted, God-Hating Frenchies vs. Inbred, Sex-Obsessed Yokels

[Coyote]

These are the stated reasons for invading Iraq. Kindly show the lies. Rumors are rumors and can hardly be attributed to anyone.

I'm not talking about all the many reasons for invading Iraq. I am talking about one specific rumour that the Administration knew was false, most likely started but most certainly allowed to propegate and did not publically deny until well after the start of the war.

I hope you won't pretend that this is honesty.

 

[jb_1430]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/062103A.shtml
and, 6 months into the War, the first official statement from Bush on this:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11 attacks"

Why wasn't this clarified before the invasion? Why were people allowed to believe what was patently false?

Lies.

Evidently youve avoided latter versions of Wesleys silly story.

 

[Coyote]

Evidently youve avoided latter versions of Wesleys silly story.

It doesn't change the fact that the rumor was propagated and allowed to continue until well after the start of the war.

Try again.

 

[jb_1430]

It doesn't change the fact that the rumor was propagated and allowed to continue until well after the start of the war.

Try again.

Nonsense, the belief was there on 9/11. That belief had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Bush administration, AND IN fact you can look at the first 9 months of the administration and there simply isnt any statements even made regarding the topic. The 1990s are why so many immediately suspected Iraq was involved in 9/11.

 

[Coyote]

Nonsense, the belief was there on 9/11. That belief had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Bush administration, AND IN fact you can look at the first 9 months of the administration and there simply isnt any statements even made regarding the topic. The 1990s are why so many immediately suspected Iraq was involved in 9/11.

The belief could have been squashed by the truth.

Why wasn't it?

 

[Coyote]

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

 

[palerider]

I'm not talking about all the many reasons for invading Iraq. I am talking about one specific rumour that the Administration knew was false, most likely started but most certainly allowed to propegate and did not publically deny until well after the start of the war.

I hope you won't pretend that this is honesty.

Rumors are irrelavent. The stated reasons for the war were all put in black and white. The very democrat leaders who lie through their teeth when they say that bush misled them wrote, voted on, and signed into law the document that I provided. Anyone who bases their stance on an issue on rumor when legal documents are available that can put the rumor to bed is, quite simply, stupid.

That document was signed and available to everyone who cared to look long before we ever had boots on the ground in iraq. Anyone who was influenced by rumor or claimed to be misled when the documents were available for review is simply not very bright (or a blatant liar which would encompass every democrat and rino republican who is now claiming to have been misled).

 

[Popeye]

Rumors are irrelavent. The stated reasons for the war were all put in black and white. The very democrat leaders who lie through their teeth when they say that bush misled them wrote, voted on, and signed into law the document that I provided. Anyone who bases their stance on an issue on rumor when legal documents are available that can put the rumor to bed is, quite simply, stupid.

That document was signed and available to everyone who cared to look long before we ever had boots on the ground in iraq. Anyone who was influenced by rumor or claimed to be misled when the documents were available for review is simply not very bright (or a blatant liar which would encompass every democrat and rino republican who is now claiming to have been misled).

True, the Democrats who voted for the war were stupid. It just shows how successful the Republican fear machine was during those days. The entire Bush administration has been built on one thing, fear. I wouldn't be surprised if there were not a small number of Republicans hoping for a terrorist attack before the 2008 elections, fear is really the only issue they have.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

And what do liberals run on? Optimism? Hell no, they play to people's fears at least as much as conservatives do. The only different is we're concerned about actual evil, human enemies like Islamic fascists while your camp gets whipped into hysteria about the impending doom caused by global warming.

 

[Popeye]

And what do liberals run on? Optimism? Hell no, they play to people's fears at least as much as conservatives do. The only different is we're concerned about actual evil, human enemies like Islamic fascists while your camp gets whipped into hysteria about the impending doom caused by global warming.

"Actual evil"? Oh yes, how could I forget, the infamous "axis of evil". More Republican talking points ingrained with fear and more nonsense. Nobody likes the Jihadists but you don't have to cower in fear either, something the fear-mongering right wing would have us do. As for global warming, Republican policies have made that worse, much as their policies have been a recruitment poster for Al Qaeda.

 

[Coyote]

Rumors are irrelavent. The stated reasons for the war were all put in black and white. The very democrat leaders who lie through their teeth when they say that bush misled them wrote, voted on, and signed into law the document that I provided. Anyone who bases their stance on an issue on rumor when legal documents are available that can put the rumor to bed is, quite simply, stupid.

Rumors are not irrelevent when they are used to sway public opinion to support a war that is on shaky footing. Why do you think we couldn't do much of anything about terrorism before 9/11? The pubic wouldn't go for it, and Congress was taking an isolationist stance towards foreign intervention. The public supported Afghanistan because of 9/11. They were hesitant on Iraq. Having the public behind him puts pressure on Congress to go along with it as well. And don't think I don't blame the cowardly Congress for going along with it.

It also doesn't make it any less of a lie.

That document was signed and available to everyone who cared to look long before we ever had boots on the ground in iraq. Anyone who was influenced by rumor or claimed to be misled when the documents were available for review is simply not very bright (or a blatant liar which would encompass every democrat and rino republican who is now claiming to have been misled).

Why was the rumor allowed to propogate until 6 months into the war when it was finally, officially squashed by Bush?

To attempt to defend it is at best intellectually dishonest.

 

[jb_1430]

To attempt to defend it is at best intellectually dishonest.

To rant and rave that Bush lied, when the best example you have is that he allowed a rumor to continue, is at best intellectually dishonest.

 

[Coyote]

To rant and rave that Bush lied, when the best example you have is that he allowed a rumor to continue, is at best intellectually dishonest.

So you are saying deliberately letting a wrong (lie) but advantageous rumor go unchallanged in order to persuade the public to support a war is some how "honest"????

No wonder we have problems. People seem to think that it's not a lie if they don't get caught (or not under oath), or if it's a dishonest rumor they leaked and could have corrected - well that isn't a lie either. I guess that is ok with you guys. Deliberate deception is par for the course as long as it's not an outright lie on oath?

------
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday there was "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States, contradicting one of the Bush administration main reasons for war. We look at how the White House repeated the false claims to justify the invasion of Iraq. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/17/1436250
---------
A $15 million TV media blitz launched by Freedom's Watch, an advocacy group allied with the White House, makes an overt attempt to link the 9/11 attacks with Iraq. "Iraqis did not attack us on 9/11," concedes group founder Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary. "The point is not that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. They're not. But 9/11 should be a vivid reminder to everyone about how vulnerable our country is and that's why we need to win in Iraq."
-------------

 

[jb_1430]

what friggin nonsense. September 13 2001 78% of Americans believed Saddam was likely involved in 9/11 before anyone in the Bush administration had even a chance to say anything publicly about the topic. There were no rumors leaked. A decade of our experience with Saddam Hussein lead the people to believe he was likely involved.
If you want to see a lie, that would be Democracy NOW's claim that the Bush administration "repeated the false claims to justify the invasion" that "Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States". The claim was never even made once. And that would make you a liar for repeating it. Feel free to quote any statement from before the war that supports your blatant lie.

So you are saying deliberately letting a wrong (lie) but advantageous rumor go unchallanged in order to persuade the public to support a war is some how "honest"????

No wonder we have problems. People seem to think that it's not a lie if they don't get caught (or not under oath), or if it's a dishonest rumor they leaked and could have corrected - well that isn't a lie either. I guess that is ok with you guys. Deliberate deception is par for the course as long as it's not an outright lie on oath?

------
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday there was "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States, contradicting one of the Bush administration main reasons for war. We look at how the White House repeated the false claims to justify the invasion of Iraq. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/17/1436250
---------
A $15 million TV media blitz launched by Freedom's Watch, an advocacy group allied with the White House, makes an overt attempt to link the 9/11 attacks with Iraq. "Iraqis did not attack us on 9/11," concedes group founder Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary. "The point is not that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. They're not. But 9/11 should be a vivid reminder to everyone about how vulnerable our country is and that's why we need to win in Iraq."
-------------

 

[Coyote]

what friggin nonsense. September 13 2001 78% of Americans believed Saddam was likely involved in 9/11 before anyone in the Bush administration had even a chance to say anything publicly about the topic. There were no rumors leaked. A decade of our experience with Saddam Hussein lead the people to believe he was likely involved.

You are dodging the issue.

Between 9/13/01 and the invasion of Iraq the Administration could have quelled the rumor with truth. It didn't.