New York Times calls on Bush to apologize for waging war on Iraq

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
You've got to be kidding me - you can't see the difference between "no evidence linking Iraq and al-Qaeda" and "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States"?

Why would the commission say there were no ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda when in the very same report they indicate ties?

The NYT lied, pure and simple.

What ties? There were no ties. Or are you trying to do the Bush administration 6-step shuffle to equate contacts with ties? At best, there were nothing more than contacts that didn't amount to anything. Or as the 9/11 commission stated:

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin returned to Afghanistan, BUT THEY DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE RESULTED IN A COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP.

So, what the hell does no collaborative relationship mean to you? For that matter, what the hell does "ties" mean to you?

Another mark in the wrong column for AFR.

 

[DopeyRN]

Well..the NYT is SUCH an open minded paper...they must be right.

 

[Teejay32]

Afaik it means they didn't collaborate on any specific projects, but they did have a relationship (excuse me, "contact") and I believe it was through Pakistan. They could have been getting together for just for poker games....let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Perhaps part of all of this confusions stems from the fact that the administration hasn't been able to get their story straight since 9/11 itself.

Bush, in a brief appearance before reporters, was asked why the administration insists that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had a relationship "when even you have denied any connection between Saddam and September 11, and now the September 11 commission says that there was no collaborative relationship at all?"

The president answered:"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

Oh! I see!

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
What ties? There were no ties. Or are you trying to do the Bush administration 6-step shuffle to equate contacts with ties? At best, there were nothing more than contacts that didn't amount to anything. Or as the 9/11 commission stated:

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin returned to Afghanistan, BUT THEY DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE RESULTED IN A COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP.

So, what the hell does no collaborative relationship mean to you? For that matter, what the hell does "ties" mean to you?

Another mark in the wrong column for AFR.

Nope, not a mark in the wrong column for me, but I admire the way you keep trying.

Ties are just that - connections. And the 9/11 commission stated that there were connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Looks more like a mark in the wrong column for you, ThAnswr.

 

[Melora]

After seeing several papers here in Los Angeles today, apparently the NYT doesn't have a monopoly on the story.

Every single paper out her in LA reads almost identical to the article printed there.

Not to mention all the online news agencies that I've visited.

I guess everybody better apologize!

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Melora
After seeing several papers here in Los Angeles today, apparently the NYT doesn't have a monopoly on the story.

Every single paper out her in LA reads almost identical to the article printed there.

Not to mention all the online news agencies that I've visited.

I guess everybody better apologize!

Gee, media with a liberal bias? Are you serious? Really? I'm shocked.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Nope, not a mark in the wrong column for me, but I admire the way you keep trying.

Ties are just that - connections. And the 9/11 commission stated that there were connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Looks more like a mark in the wrong column for you, ThAnswr.

Your tenacity is breathtaking.

So let's see if I and the rest of the good people here have this straight.

Is it your contention the 9/11 commission stated there were "ties/connections" between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

Here's your chance to shine.........show us where they said just that.

The 9/11 commission did say there were contacts that didn't amount to anything, but they did not say there were "ties/connections".

For anyone who's interested, here's the link (look on page 5):

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/staff_statement_15.pdf

So, step up to the plate, AFR. Let's see your "ties/connections".

 

[ThreeCircles]

I think our dear Brenda is attemting to defend her astute leader, w. It's not an easy thing to do, you know, when he gives you something like this to work with:

Bush, in a brief appearance before reporters, was asked why the administration insists that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had a relationship "when even you have denied any connection between Saddam and September 11, and now the September 11 commission says that there was no collaborative relationship at all?"

The president answered:"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

Here comes the train Brenda, chug-a chug-a chug-a, ready? LEAP!

 

[two4ruff]

I'm sorry to interupt, but you folks are just down right nasty to each other!

 

[kbeverina]

The commissioners themselves were on tv saying that Cheney and Bush were not incorrect in their statements on the Iraq/al Qaeda connections. Hopefully a transcript of their statements will be found in some news source and you can read it with your own eyes and finally understand the distinction between Iraq/al Qaeda vs Iraq/September 11.

The difference is so clear that people truly have to be intentionally pretending not to see it.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Melora
Wouldnt THAT be nice! But we know Bush would never admit to his own mistakes.

Given that what the times thinks is not accurate, apologizing would solve....what?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
I think our dear Brenda is attemting to defend her astute leader, w. It's not an easy thing to do, you know, when he gives you something like this to work with:

Bush, in a brief appearance before reporters, was asked why the administration insists that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had a relationship "when even you have denied any connection between Saddam and September 11, and now the September 11 commission says that there was no collaborative relationship at all?"

The president answered:"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

Here comes the train Brenda, chug-a chug-a chug-a, ready? LEAP!

Well, thanks for posting two completely unrelated, yet accurate statements. The Administration has NEVER linked Iraq to 9/11 vial Al-Queda. It's hack journalist and the gullible public that make that false deductive syllogism

The Administration (and the UK) has ALWAYS maintained that there are links, ties, relationships, what have you, between Al Queda and Iraq. Thanks for pointing out those two accurate points.

 

[kbeverina]

From the Washington Post in 2002:

In 1998, the Clinton administration asserted that Iraq provided technical assistance in the construction of a VX production facility in Sudan, undertaken jointly with al Qaeda. In retaliation for al Qaeda's August 1998 truck bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, President Bill Clinton ordered the destruction of the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan's capital.

Clinton's advisers released scant public evidence about al Shifa, and the Tomahawk missile attack was widely regarded as a blunder. Top Clinton administration officials, and career analysts still in government, maintain there was strong evidence behind the strike but that it remains too valuable to disclose. During last year's New York trial of the embassy bombers, prosecution witness Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl, a onetime operative who broke with al Qaeda, offered limited corroboration. He named al Qaeda and Sudanese operatives who had told him they were working together to build a chemical weapons plant in Khartoum. He said nothing about Iraqi support for the project and named a site near, but not in, the al Shifa plant.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42876-2002Dec11?language=printer

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by kbeverina
From the Washington Post in 2002:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42876-2002Dec11?language=printer

You're kidding, right??? That doesn't prove...er...um...well...I'm not sure what it doesn't prove. I mean, I can't really discredit the WP and believe the NYT, can I? So, I'm sure I can find a reason why it's all lies. Just let me think for a minute.

 

[kbeverina]

And in case the other thread doesn't reappear, I wanted to give TheAnswr the link that was requested:

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Please, do give us a link when you find the article. Thanks in advance.

No problem. I purposely chose The Guardian since it's so often quoted and found to be reliable by those against war in Iraq.

This article was written in 1999.

Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.

The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.

Since RAF bombers took part in air raids on Iraq in December, Bin Laden declared that he considered British citizens to be justifiable targets. Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of CIA counter-terrorist operations, said: "Hijazi went to Afghanistan in December and met with Osama, with the knowledge of the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar. We are sure about that. What is the source of some speculation is what transpired."

and more:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html

The relationship has been alleged for years and the media knows it--they reported it.

 

[Truth]

two4ruff,
you are not interupting. Anyone is welcome
to post anything on a "Truth thread".

preference in no particular order

funny, informative, interesting, orginal, true and
extra points for combining more than two at once.

As far as nasty, well that can be quite subjective,
seems better to assume a misunderstanding than the worst.

As a Diser once said,

Anyone is free to believe anything, unfortunately many do.



and for two4ruff only,

P.S. on posting anything, that's staying inside the DIS guidelines of course.

 

[Viking]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
You've got to be kidding me - you can't see the difference between "no evidence linking Iraq and al-Qaeda" and "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States"?

Why would the commission say there were no ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda when in the very same report they indicate ties?

The NYT lied, pure and simple.

Nevertheless that war was based on no credible evidence. If you don't recognize this, you must be either blind or... - Unfortunately the posting rules prohibit to specify this further

 

[Viking]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
I think our dear Brenda is attemting to defend her astute leader, w. It's not an easy thing to do, you know, when he gives you something like this to work with:

Bush, in a brief appearance before reporters, was asked why the administration insists that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had a relationship "when even you have denied any connection between Saddam and September 11, and now the September 11 commission says that there was no collaborative relationship at all?"

The president answered:"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

Here comes the train Brenda, chug-a chug-a chug-a, ready? LEAP!

You must always take into account that American conservatives don't know the difference between 'belief' and 'knowledge' - So believing something is knowing. You only have to 'believe' that somebody has WMD to attack him. OK, 'knowing' he has oil also helps