DescentBB

Link

check out the video

OT, but that's interesting timing, Ferno. In an article with the same dateline as your post -

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Ira ... 490&page=1

A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested \"carrying out joint operations against foreign forces\" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further \"development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation.\" The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

The report then states that \"Saudi opposition figure\" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. \"The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location,\" it states.

Your video criticizes Bush for saying Saddam had supported Al Queda -- and you post it on the same day as documents come out showing Saddam supported Al Queda.

Back on topic...

Here's something interesting: I clicked the link, watched the video, and saw no contradiction between the two clips they showed--in fact, I heard Bush say the same thing twice, and was struck by how little the story has changed over the last few years. But evidently the narrator sees a contradiction. That says something about perception. (If I may be so bold, it says to me the narrator needs to read Bush's post again, so to speak )

But these are the two quotes:

I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say -- that there was a direct connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was a state sponsor of terror. I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America.

Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Queda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists or help them develop their own. Before September 11th, many believed Saddam Hussein could be contained...

I suppose how you interpret those statements is a commentary on how you see the relationship between Saddam Hussein/Iraq, Terror/Al-Queda, September 11th, and the war on terror.

This may be butchering history a bit, but I see Iraq and Al Queda like Germany and Japan in WWII, and September 11th like Pearl Harbor. The United States was slow entering WWII, believing it a conflict that would be contained to Europe; when Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, we changed our minds. While it was Japan that attacked, we realized that Germany and Japan together represented a common threat that wouldn't stay contained, so we responded to both. Likewise, before September 11th, many believed the correct response to Saddam Hussein was to contain him, but his alliance with Al Queda and Al Queda's demonstrated ability to hurt us made us change our minds and take him more seriously. Even though it was Al Queda that executed Sept 11th, and Saddam had nothing to do with it, Saddam and Al Queda represented a common foe, and together represented the threat of another Sept. 11th

That's what I hear when I hear those two clips, and I nod my head and say, \"A-yup. Aside from the fact that we thought Saddam had WMD when he actually didn't, that's pretty much the way it turned out.\"

The narrator's commentary on this is a little simpler: \"Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda in the same sentence separated by seven words. Sept. 11th and Saddam Hussein -two sentences later, separated by six words.\"

To judge from this, I'm guessing what he got out of the second quote amounts to, \"Al Queda = Terror = Saddam Hussein = Iraq = September 11th = BAD!!\"

Is that more or less what you got, Ferno?

Drakona wrote:The narrator's commentary on this is a little simpler: "Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda in the same sentence separated by seven words. Sept. 11th and Saddam Hussein -two sentences later, separated by six words."

It's almost as if the words in between don't matter. Bush could have said "Saddam was not at all involved in Sept. 11" or "Saddam ordered the attacks on America on Sept. 11" or "Saddam monkey corndog if bleeding deleted goose Sept. 11"; in every case, Saddam and Sept. 11 are mentioned within a few words of each other. All this guy heard was "Saddam Hussein [six irrelevant words] Sept. 11" and obviously to him that means Bush claimed Saddam and 9/11 are equal.

No wonder some people see contradictions everywhere. They don't understand the English language. The words in the middle of sentences matter.

wow. I was expecting the more extreme people on the dbb to be foaming at the mouth in this thread, but the replies from you two are awesome.

I'm gonna re-read them.

This may be butchering history a bit, but I see Iraq and Al Queda like Germany and Japan in WWII, and September 11th like Pearl Harbor.

Just a bit

Drak, i had a read of that article you linked. Looks like just more BS. saddam and al quaeda, saddam and al quaeda. I've heard that pile of crap so many times it's mindnumbing.

anyways...

\"but I see Iraq and Al Queda like Germany and Japan in WWII\"

I must disagree with you there. AQ is not in the business of invading countries one by one and perpetrating 'ethnic cleansing', IE rounding up a certain religion and executing them en masse.

\"when Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor\"

This happened because the US was in a territory that they had no right to. Japan saw the US encampment at Pearl Harbor as an invasion to their 'backyard', and then became a target.

\"Is that more or less what you got, Ferno?\"

Nope, sorry.

What I got from it, is the reporter was saying, \"GW, here you are saying that Hussein aids terrorists, like Al Quaeda, and he could provide a WMD or two to those people. but now you are saying that there is no direct connection between Hussein and terrorists.'

What GW is doing (IMO) is essentially trying to weasel his way out of one huge screwup.


Lothar,

Bush could have said \"Saddam was not at all involved in Sept. 11\"

Had this been said, there would be no 'dude, you said he was linked to sept. 11, and now we find out he was not. wtf?'

\"Saddam ordered the attacks on America on Sept. 11\"

If this was said, and proven to be true, people would be goin 'wow he was right'

Weak response, Ferno.

Ferno wrote:

"when Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor"

This happened because the US was in a territory that they had no right to. Japan saw the US encampment at Pearl Harbor as an invasion to their 'backyard', and then became a target.

Warped view of history. Go look at a globe and see how far Hawaii is from Japan.

Japan was in an expansive mode. They wanted control of all of the resources across the pacific. It wasn't that the US had recently expanded into Japan's back yard, but that Japan wanted to make their back yard much bigger.

What I got from it, is the reporter was saying, "GW, here you are saying that Hussein aids terrorists, like Al Quaeda, and he could provide a WMD or two to those people. but now you are saying that there is no direct connection between Hussein and terrorists.'

But if you actually listen to the quotes, GW was saying the same thing twice. The reporter misinterpreted them.

Bush could have said "Saddam was not at all involved in Sept. 11"

Had this been said, there would be no 'dude, you said he was linked to sept. 11, and now we find out he was not. wtf?'

But he didn't say "Saddam was linked to 9/11". He used the words in the same sentence, but listen to the words he used in between "Saddam" and "9/11". The words in the middle of the sentence are important.

Let me say that again. The words in the middle of the sentence are important. You can't just say, "oh, he used the word 'Saddam' and the words 'september 11' in the same sentence, therefore he's saying Saddam is responsible for 9/11." You have to actually listen to the words he uses in between.

Saddam's relationship to such things as Al Qaeda, 9/11, other terrorist groups, etc. is complex. It's always been explained as complex, too, but certain people have consistantly assumed the explanations are simple and ignored everything in the explanation except for the words "Saddam" and "9/11". And then they realize Saddam didn't order the 9/11 attacks and they thinked they were lied to. Yes, you were lied to -- by your own brain's refusal to listen to the whole sentence and understand it.

For example, you say "i had a read of that article you linked. Looks like just more BS. saddam and al quaeda, saddam and al quaeda. I've heard that pile of crap so many times it's mindnumbing." Of course it seems like a pile of crap, because you've consistantly approached it without paying attention, and consistantly misunderstood it.

What good sheep you two have become Lothar and Drak. Everyone has figured out by now that the war was lied for, I cannot believe that you two are still fighting for its just cause. It's been over 4 years since 9/11, do you feel safer now that Iraq is \"free\"? I don't know, I would have liked them to send that fighting force to capture the real people behind the attacks.

Iraq was NOT just one of fronts for this war, it was planned way before by a group of crazy old men. They tried to scare us with wmd, chemical, and germ weapons. Used the mushroom cloud reference how many times to rattle the cages of those that can't think for themselves?

I know the war debate is old, but I thought we were passed this. Didn't know there were still those who believed in it all. I don't even think Bush believes in it anymore.

lol, I still know the reasons why I support it. Reasons people try to diffuse or have forgotten. After 4 years just like with any aspect of a war or even life, perspectives change & objectives have to change. I believe Bush has still got the correct focal eye, he just has to assess it & pursue accordingly. Not to just the issues of the past, but also to what is present.

What a predictable antagonist you've turned into, Zuruck.

Whether or not the war was lied for is irrelevant for this thread. Whether or not there were WMD in Iraq is irrelevant for this thread. Whether or not Iraq was a legitimate front for the war on terror is irrelevant for this thread (as is the hidden assumption you make that the war is on Al Qaeda and we shouldn't bother going after others who weren't directly involved in 9/11. I think that's a foolish philosophy, but that's not the point of this thread.)

What's relevant is the two quotes given above. Did the guy catch Bush in a contradiction or not? Are you even capable of listening to the two quotes and giving a reasoned opinion on what they mean and whether or not they're contradictory, or are you such an anti-Bush sheep that you can't even manage that?

Bush three years ago: \"Saddam Hussein could, if he wanted to, supply arms to organizations like Al Qaeda so they could execute another 9/11.\"

Bush today: \"We never said Saddam Hussein engineered or directed 9/11.\"

Keith Olberman: \"But you talked about the two in the same speech! LIAR!\"

Here's an interesting thought: Olberman is relying on the same implications to convince you of his agenda that you claim the Bush administration used to sell the American public on the idea. Who's doing the manipulation now?

I didn't see any inconsistancies or contradictions between Bush's two statemensts. If you listen to what he actually said, and not project what you think his real message or intent is then his statements are consistant.

Where's the love? Let's all hug. =D

Ferno wrote:Drak, i had a read of that article you linked. Looks like just more BS. saddam and al quaeda, saddam and al quaeda. I've heard that pile of crap so many times it's mindnumbing.

anyways...

Eh? You didn't find the fact that Saddam had official government officials meeting with Al Queda representatives at least interesting? If nothing else, it demonstrates that the folks saying that, because of religious differences, Saddam and Al Queda couldn't possibly work together... well, it makes those folks wrong. I'm glad I didn't listen to them.

Ferno wrote:

Drakona wrote:"but I see Iraq and Al Queda like Germany and Japan in WWII"

I must disagree with you there. AQ is not in the business of invading countries one by one and perpetrating 'ethnic cleansing', IE rounding up a certain religion and executing them en masse.

Heh, well AQ doesn't have an Emporer or a samurai mythology, either, nor is its ally European. But this is all beside the point of the analogy.

Of course AQ isn't like WWII Japan in every possible respect, but that it is like it in two respects that make the analogy useful: AQ represents one party of a larger foe, and AQ has demonstrated that it can & will hurt us--making the overall foe more dangerous and demonstrating that containment isn't going to work.

That is the tactical situation.

Ferno wrote:

"Is that more or less what you got, Ferno?"

Nope, sorry.

What I got from it, is the reporter was saying, "GW, here you are saying that Hussein aids terrorists, like Al Quaeda, and he could provide a WMD or two to those people. but now you are saying that there is no direct connection between Hussein and terrorists.'

What GW is doing (IMO) is essentially trying to weasel his way out of one huge screwup.

ROFL. I hit nearer than you admit. The fuller quote of me is,

Drakona wrote:To judge from this, I'm guessing what he got out of the second quote amounts to, "Al Queda = Terror = Saddam Hussein = Iraq = September 11th = BAD!!"

Is that more or less what you got, Ferno?

... To which you responded,

Ferno wrote:GW, here you are saying that Hussein aids terrorists, like Al Quaeda, and he could provide a WMD or two to those people. but now you are saying that there is no direct connection between Hussein and terrorists.

No, he's saying there's no direct connection between Hussein and 9/11. Not terrorists in general, 9/11 specifically. Get out of that "Terrorists = 9/11 = Al Queda = Iraq = Islam = bad" mentality. The situation is more complex than that.

The logic here is really not that complex. Hussein aided terrorists, including Al Queda. Hussein was allied with terrorists, including Al Queda. Al Queda undertook 9/11 without Hussein's knowledge or help. Hussein was in a position to help them undertake another 9/11. Hussein and Al Queda are both at war with us.

This is not that terribly complicated. It isn't as simple as universal equivocation, but it's not really any harder than "Ferno is a pilot; pilots use mega missiles; I got killed by a mega missile; Ferno has mega missiles--though not the exact one that killed me--so he's dangerous." I swear there are all sorts of people wandering around ranting about how Ferno is NOT a mega missile and given that, we're all so stupid for thinking he's a threat. It's uh... I mean, wow. I know logic is tough for some people, but dang...

Zuruck wrote:do you feel safer now that Iraq is "free"?

YES.

Er, wait a minute. I didn't say that right.

YES.

Drakona wrote:

Zuruck wrote:do you feel safer now that Iraq is "free"?

YES.

Er, wait a minute. I didn't say that right.

YES.

Well then you're an idiot. Iraq was absolutely NO threat to us whatsoever.

Zuruck wrote:

Drakona wrote:

Zuruck wrote:do you feel safer now that Iraq is "free"?

YES.

Er, wait a minute. I didn't say that right.

YES.

Well then you're an idiot. Iraq was absolutely NO threat to us whatsoever.

You know, lines like this just crack me up.

Saddam Hussein was the threat. He oppressed the Iraqi people to no end, and even went so far as to kill them in the worst possible ways just for personal pleasure. He attacked, captured, and murdered US troops in cold blood. He even funded Al Quaeda, the very group behind 9/11. Saddam, not Iraq, was the threat.

So, should we feel safer because Iraq is free?

Like Drakona said:

YES.

Because they no longer have Saddam and the Taliban forcing them to fight us. He is now on trial, possibly facing the death sentence for his war crimes, as well as the countless people he murdered in cold blood. Iraq, on the other hand, is developing into an indepenent, well-established nation, thanks in part to US involvement.

You assumed that he meant Iraq was a threat to being with. He was saying that we are safer because the PEOPLE who were the threat are no longer in a position to pull another 9/11. Saying a person is a threat is entirely different from saying a whole country is a threat.

Well then you're an idiot.

I resent that word. Anybody who throws it at everybody that disagrees with them is just as much the idiot they think the other guy is. So on that note, congratulations, Zuruck. You have earned the title of grade-A idiot. Here's your sign. Have a nice day.

Don't call anybody anything you don't want thrown back in your face.

\"No, he's saying there's no direct connection between Hussein and 9/11. Not terrorists in general, 9/11 specifically. Get out of that \"Terrorists = 9/11 = Al Queda = Iraq = Islam = bad\" mentality. Wink The situation is more complex than that.

The logic here is really not that complex. Hussein aided terrorists, including Al Queda. Hussein was allied with terrorists, including Al Queda. Al Queda undertook 9/11 without Hussein's knowledge or help.\"

Lothar and I discussed this via IM. he should have said something about it.

\"Hussein was in a position to help them undertake another 9/11\"

I don't believe you.


Robot:

Saddam Hussein was the threat. He oppressed the Iraqi people to no end, and even went so far as to kill them in the worst possible ways just for personal pleasure. He attacked, captured, and murdered US troops in cold blood. He even funded Al Quaeda, the very group behind 9/11.

this is mixing fact with fearmongering. I keep seeing these 'saddam funded AQ' speculations over and over again both here and in the news with very little to back it up.

Since the Gulf War, Hussein has done nothing newsworthy until the invasion of Iraq was reported. During that time, there was a mission conducted called Operation Desert Fox. Operation Desert Fox was a three day military campaign in 1998, ordered by Clinton which hit targets they believed to be WMD sites.

It's kind of hard for Iraq to have any kind of WMD when they've already been bombed by a little known air strike campaign.

Also, that little bit of saddam attacking planes in the no-fly zone? He was shooting back. because they were DROPPING BOMBS.

Oh and here's an interesting quote from Clinton.

\"reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.\" These \"predators of the twenty-first century,\" he said \"will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.\"

Makes you wonder if the Bush speechwriters took Clinton's and changed the wording a little bit.

Bombed then because of WMD, and bombed now because of WMD. I'm will not be decieved again by the WMD speech.

I found a bit about the 'meeting of saddam with Osama'. it was quite interesting.

According to published reports, Saddam Hussein immediately sought revenge against the U.S. in a manner that would allow him to deny responsibility. They claim that Saddam sought to direct terrorist organizations to attack U.S. targets. Farouk Hijazi, Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, reportedly met with bin Laden. ([5], [6]) Corriere della Sera, a Milan newspaper, translated by the CIA, reads: “Saddam Hussayn and Usama bin Ladin have sealed a pact. Faruk Hidjazi, the former Director of the Iraqi Secret Services and now the country’s Ambassador to Turkey, held a secret meeting with the extremist leader on 21 December.” The newspaper had direct quotes from Hijazi without specifying the source of the quotes. (Page 328)(PDF)

But:

No such attacks ever materialized. The 9/11 Commission report notes that after American missiles destroyed Iraqi intelligence headquarters in 1993 as punishment for a bungled assassination plot against George H.W. Bush, \"no further intelligence came in about terrorist acts planned by Iraq.\" [9] It also reported that the Commission's investigation had uncovered no \"evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States,\" and no evidence of any \"collaborative operational relationship.\"

the case supporting the ties between saddam and aq is looking very weak indeed.

Good luck Ferno trying to convince them. They are all excellent sheep, they should make Karl Rove very, very proud. Anybody here watch Bill Maher on HBO? Last week he had Rep Rohrabacher on...that man is a joke. He said the main reason why Saddam was taken out before any of the other ruthless dictators was that he had a \"blood feud\" with America. He was a terrible man, nobody is denying that, but he was heavily contained. Last time I checked, 2400 Americans didn't die when he was in power. Then again, it's all relative because as Cheney said in the past \"We will be greeted as liberators and the insurgency is in its last throes\".

If your point of view requires you to think Drakona is an idiot, your point of view is wrong.