Michael Moore just said ME....

Originally posted by kbeverina
I'm not providing evidence that there's a link. I'm providing evidence that the Bush administration didn't fabricate this whole idea of a link. That link has been out there for years.

What I'm trying to get from you is not about the evidence itself, factual or not. It's my understanding of your previous posts that you claim the current administration was the first to propose this link and put it out there to justify the war. Is that an incorrect?

Ok, they obviously were not the first to suspect a link. What, exactly, does that prove in your mind ? The Clinton administration obviously did not go to war over this "suspicion"...and had they, I would have been just as against it. You simply do not invade another nation based on supposition and conjecture. We thought there was a link, so that makes it ok, is that it ?
Originally posted by kbeverina
He said:

The whole time I was there [in the White House], I knew of no links.

That's clearly false, as evidenced by the Washington Post article I cited.

Do you think he just forgot about asserting the ties between al Qaeda and Saddam or he's purposely being dishonest in this interview?
Um, no, actually, it isn't. The Post article you cited shows indications of a link between Sudan and al Queda, but not much on the Iraqi front. All it mentions in terms of Iraq is that one line saying "the Clinton administration asserted that Iraq provided technical assistance in the construction of a VX production facility in Sudan, undertaken jointly with al Qaeda, " with no evidence to back that assertion up. Clinton's statement stands as what it is...he said he never saw evidence of any link. Yet a Washington Post article that contains no quotes and offers no proof is supposed to be more credible ? Based on what ?
 
Ok wvrevy, this thread begs a question...

If we had some info that terrorists were going to attack on 9/11, but had nothing that was concrete or detailed enough to have a clear vision of their plan, would we have been justified in going after them before they boarded those planes?
 
Originally posted by treesinger
Ok wvrevy, this thread begs a question...

If we had some info that terrorists were going to attack on 9/11, but had nothing that was concrete or detailed enough to have a clear vision of their plan, would we have been justified in going after them before they boarded those planes?

I'm sure that he'll give you a better answer, but may I try too?

Yes, you described the exact scenario that we had. Why didn't they do more? Thats what a lot of us are asking? Not attack IRAQ, for gosh sakes!:mad:
 
Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
I'm sure that he'll give you a better answer, but may I try too?

Yes, you described the exact scenario that we had. Why didn't they do more? Thats what a lot of us are asking? Not attack IRAQ, for gosh sakes!:mad:
Because the American people would not have allowed it. There would have been many people who would be screaming about the abuse of power by the government. Based on the mood of the country back then, President Bush would almost certainly have been impeached, and quite probably successfully. I would say at least 75% of the country would have backed his impeachment. Even moderate Republicans would have had a hard time backing that action.

We now know the names of those who did the hijacking. Some say we had reason to stop some of them from still being in the United States, and they do have a point. However, there are millions of people who are in the same situation right now. To pick someone out of a group of a millions after they have done something is a lot easier to do than before they do something.
 

I'm still really curious about people feeling duped.

Btw, any lurkers out there want to jump in here? Feel free.
 
Originally posted by treesinger
Ok wvrevy, this thread begs a question...

If we had some info that terrorists were going to attack on 9/11, but had nothing that was concrete or detailed enough to have a clear vision of their plan, would we have been justified in going after them before they boarded those planes?
We did have enough to go after the people that crashed those planes, we just weren't in the kind of mindset that would have resulted in those arrests.

Let me explain what I mean by that...Several of the guys that took those planes down were on lists somewhere in government computers. With very little effort, a system could have been put in place that would have prevented them from ever being able to board those planes. But let me be very clear on this next point: I do not blame Bush or his administration for that. The steps it would have taken (basically, the steps that have been taken since: increased security at the airport, increased communication between government departments, etc) could have been done at any time in our history, and they weren't. That's not Bush's fault.

But to directly answer your question: If we had a suspicion that a crime was about to be committed...ANY crime...then yes, we would be justified in stopping it. HOWEVER....we would NOT be justified in summarily executing the person we suspected was about to commit that crime, which is the equivalent of what we've done in Iraq. There IS a difference in crime (or war) pre-emption (which is what Clinton did with the bombings of Iraq and what the UN was attempting to do with inspections) and what I described above.
 
Originally posted by MJames41
Because the American people would not have allowed it. There would have been many people who would be screaming about the abuse of power by the government. Based on the mood of the country back then, President Bush would almost certainly have been impeached, and quite probably successfully. I would say at least 75% of the country would have backed his impeachment. Even moderate Republicans would have had a hard time backing that action.

We now know the names of those who did the hijacking. Some say we had reason to stop some of them from still being in the United States, and they do have a point. However, there are millions of people who are in the same situation right now. To pick someone out of a group of a millions after they have done something is a lot easier to do than before they do something.

::yes:: ::yes:: ::yes:: ::yes::
I don't know about the "impeachment" part, but the rest of this I agree with. The country just wasn't prepared to accept 3 hour waits and random searches at the airport, and it would have been tough to get any kind of support from either side of the aisle for what would have seemed to be random decisions to make life more complicated.

Like I said, I don't really blame Bush for that...I don't think any politician (or even an actual statesman) would have done what it would have taken to prevent the attacks from happening. The reason I've said in the past that he should apologize is that it happened on his watch and, wether he could really have done much about it or not, it is still his responsibilty. The problem I have with him is that he and his shills have pretty much blamed everybody else in the world, but refuse to take even the slightest bit of responsibility on themselves. A leader gets credit when things go well, but a true leader also takes responsibility when things don't.
 
The same people who are bashing Bush for not doing something before 9/11 and now bashing Bush because he has taken pre-emptive action in Iraq! The hypocrisy is baffling!

All the Democrats in the US would have bashed Bush had he taken big time pre-emptive action in 01, yet he did it in Iraq and it's wrong.

You people are just making the case for Bush without realizing it!
 
Originally posted by JoeThaNo1Stunna
The same people who are bashing Bush for not doing something before 9/11 and now bashing Bush because he has taken pre-emptive action in Iraq! The hypocrisy is baffling!

All the Democrats in the US would have bashed Bush had he taken big time pre-emptive action in 01, yet he did it in Iraq and it's wrong.

You people are just making the case for Bush without realizing it!

:scratchin :confused3 :confused3 :confused3 :scratchin
 
the Iraq war was about much more than the terrorist connection, it also had to do with not allowing weapons inspectors in the country....and playing games with the UN since the end of the first Gulf War


if there were no WMD....why was Saddam afraid of weapons inspectors.......

as far as stating that it's factual there are no WMD's because we haven't found them yet....I guess I can factually state that a million dollars doessn't exist .because I've personallly never seen that either..

I do know one thing though....now that I know Roseanne Barr , and Howard Stern, support Michael Moore, his movie must be 100% factual....they've got to be 2 of the most credible people in the world..:smooth: :smooth:

oh and another thought..I personally don't care what Al Gore has said in the past, nor the present or says in the future..

the man claims to have invented the internet for crying out loud,,,
 
I would not believe a word that came out of MM's mouth or films. He is scary.
 
BUSH'S PERSONAL FINANCIAL TIES TO SAUDIS RUN DEEP: According to various sources, Bush has been awash in Saudi money for years. Journalist/author Craig Unger in his new book "House of Bush, House of Saud" traced millions "in investments and contracts that went from the Saudis over the past 20 years to companies in which the Bushes and their allies have had prominent positions - Harken Energy, Halliburton, and the Carlyle Group among them." According to the Boston Herald, that includes a $1 million gift from Prince Bandar to the Bush Presidential Library in Texas.

The above is enough for me not to vote for Bush in the upcoming election.

Quote taken from
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=47995
 
Originally posted by JoeThaNo1Stunna
The same people who are bashing Bush for not doing something before 9/11 and now bashing Bush because he has taken pre-emptive action in Iraq! The hypocrisy is baffling!

He's going after the wrong people.
 
Originally posted by dennis99ss
Right now aI believe it is actually about 150k troops in Iraq, with more to be called up. If you take into account all of the contractors providing security, supplies, etc. which, previously had been in house duties, but which are now farmed out to private companies like Hallibutrton, there are "hundreds of thousands" in the country.

Hundreds of thousands of troops, huh? Can someone provide a link where I can get that information?

Richard
 
Originally posted by richiebaseball
Hundreds of thousands of troops, huh? Can someone provide a link where I can get that information?

Richard

"Rumsfeld said Wednesday that security is "the one thing that's central to success" and the United States has a plan to provide it. But he said the 142,000 U.S. troops inside Iraq, plus more than 15,000 additional troops to arrive soon, could not restore order instantly."

This is a snipit from an AP article released May 15, 2003.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1911307
 
Since we still don't have an answer, I'll ask - where are the "hundreds of thousands of troops" that we've sent to Iraq?
 
Originally posted by MICKEY88
oh and another thought..I personally don't care what Al Gore has said in the past, nor the present or says in the future..

the man claims to have invented the internet for crying out loud,,,
And this, gadies and lentlemen, is the power of political "spin"

Al Gore never claimed to have "invented the internet". Not once. Read below from Snopes.com. This claim is patently false, yet republicans to this day try to make a farce of the ex VP by repeating it over and over until those too gullible to look up the information themselves take it as gospel :rolleyes:

When you make those kinds of statements, it becomes obvious that you could care less about the truth...only about furthering your own agenda.

-------------------
Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.

Status: False.

Origins: No,
Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The derisive "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs are misleading distortions of something he said (taken out of context) during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible for helping to create the environment (in an economic and legislative sense) that fostered the development of the Internet. Al Gore might not know nearly as much about the Internet and other technologies as his image would have us believe, and he certainly has been guilty of stretching (if not outright breaking) the truth before, but to believe that Gore seriously thought he could take credit for the "invention" of the Internet — in the sense offered by the media — is just silly. (To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean the same thing: If they mean the same thing, then why have the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the Internet when he never used that word? The answer is that the words don't mean the same thing, but by substituting one word for the other, commentators can make Gore's claim sound [more] ridiculous.)

However, validating even the lesser claim Gore intended to make is problematic. Any statement about the "creation" or "beginning" of the Internet is difficult to evaluate, because the Internet is not a homogenous entity (it's a collection of computers, networks, protocols, standards, and application programs), nor did it all spring into being at once (the components that comprise the Internet were developed in various places at different times and are continuously being modified, improved, and expanded). Despite a spirited defense of Gore's claim by Vint Cerf (often referred to as the "father of the Internet") in which he stated "that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it," many of the components of today's Internet came into being well before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977, and it's hard to find any specific action of Gore's (such as his sponsoring a Congressional bill or championing a particular piece of legislation) that one could claim helped bring the Internet into being, much less validate Gore's statement of having taken the "initiative in creating the Internet."

It's true that Gore was popularizing the term "information superhighway" in the early 1990s (when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet) and has introduced a few bills dealing with education and the Internet, but even though Congressman, Senator, and Vice-President Gore may always have been interested in and well-informed about information technology issues, that's a far cry from having taken an active, vital leadership role in bringing about those technologies. Even if Al Gore had never entered the political arena, we'd probably still be reading web pages via the Internet today.
 
Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Since we still don't have an answer, I'll ask - where are the "hundreds of thousands of troops" that we've sent to Iraq?
Oh, for crying out loud :rolleyes"

Sorry...Make that 143,187 (minus any casualties since my last briefing from the pentagon)

Give me a friggin' break with that.
 
Originally posted by wvrevy
Oh, for crying out loud :rolleyes"

Sorry...Make that 143,187 (minus any casualties since my last briefing from the pentagon)

Give me a friggin' break with that.

Sorry, I can't do that. ;)

You know as well as I do that throwing around terms such as "hundreds of thousands" conjures up visions of things that don't really exist. The impact of having 150,000 troops in-theater is enough without embellishing the numbers to make it seem like there are twice as many as there really are.

Kind of like last year when a former poster here on the DIS was tossing about hysterical predictions based on the fact that "half of the active duty military is currently deployed to Iraq!!" when in fact it was half of the active duty Army ground troops.
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top Bottom