stop the deceit (political thread)

[Arabella Figg 2003]

by that logic, N. Bailey, there's also a link between Saddam, bin Laden and Yassir Arafat and Moamar Khadafy. but I don't see us declaring war on Libya or the Palestinians.

Bobbles, ITA

 

[disneydad2]

Originally posted by Bobbles
"With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."

Does this statement from the speech be interpretted as a "tie"?

Yes, I would consider that a tie. I read right through that - phone must have rang at the time. Ironically it was a call from a liberal friend of mine.

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by Arabella Figg 2003
by that logic, N. Bailey, there's also a link between Saddam, bin Laden and Yassir Arafat and Moamar Khadafy. but I don't see us declaring war on Libya or the Palestinians.

Bobbles, ITA

Oh please. Isn't Saddam the one who offered Palestinians money (forget exactly how much) to strap bombs on their bodies and take out as many Israeli's as they could? You're blind as a bat if you can't see that there are definitely provable links to Saddam and terrorists. Perhaps not 9/11, but definitely to terrorists.

 

[Bobbles]

Originally posted by disneydad2
Yes, I would consider that a tie. I read right through that - phone must have rang at the time. Ironically it was a call from a liberal friend of mine.

Please tell me that you're not saying a "liberal" caused you to miss the statement?

 

[Bobbles]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
Oh please. Isn't Saddam the one who offered Palestinians money (forget exactly how much) to strap bombs on their bodies and take out as many Israeli's as they could? You're blind as a bat if you can't see that there are definitely provable links to Saddam and terrorists. Perhaps not 9/11, but definitely to terrorists.

And doesn't Saudi money go to Al-Quida? What are we doing in Saudi Arabia for this "support"?

I understand the Saudi government has recently said it will put effort into restraining this "charity" money from going to terrorist groups.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by disneydad2
Yes, I would consider that a tie.

Wow, I guess that means your credibility is shot, huh?

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by Bobbles
And doesn't Saudi money go to Al-Quida? What are we doing in Suadi Arabia for this "support"?

I understand the Saudi government has recently said it will put effort into restraining this "charity" money from going to terrorist groups.

Well, I don't support our involvement in Saudi Arabia either. I understand that Americans don't wish to pay $10 for a gallon of gas too, so what are you gonna do?

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
Oh please. Isn't Saddam the one who offered Palestinians money (forget exactly how much) to strap bombs on their bodies and take out as many Israeli's as they could? You're blind as a bat if you can't see that there are definitely provable links to Saddam and terrorists. Perhaps not 9/11, but definitely to terrorists.

yes, but Arafat and the Palestinians want to disassociate from al Quaeda. they're "freedom fighters", after all.

good point about the Saudis, Bobbles. amazing how Saudi princes know more about our foriegn policy decisions than our own Secretary of State does.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Ok, let's look at what the Washington Post says:



Now, it doesn't seem to me that they are somehow suddenly agreeing with the administration. Seems to me that they're basically saying that the administration is trying to escape on a semantic technicality.

And oh, by the way...how maby lies can you spot in the quote above coming DIRECTLY from Cheney and the white house ?

I believe the WAPO used a wrong choice of words. The administration never "implied"; the press and some gullible types in the public chose, all on their own, to "infer"

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by Bobbles
"With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda..

I'm wondering where the deceit is in this.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
Well, I don't support our involvement in Saudi Arabia either. I understand that Americans don't wish to pay $10 for a gallon of gas too, so what are you gonna do?

Drill off shore? Nope, greenpeace doesn't like that. Drill in an uninhabitable section of land near the North Pole? Nope, can't do that,either. What to do, What do to? If only the war in Iraq was "blood for Oil"

 

[Bobbles]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
Well, I don't support our involvement in Saudi Arabia either. I understand that Americans don't wish to pay $10 for a gallon of gas too, so what are you gonna do?

That's a darn good question. No easy answers.

Americans don't really pay very much for gas. We are paying well over 4 dollars a gallon and I understand there are others paying in excess of 6 dollars.

So how about limiting our reliance on Middle East oil?
There was an interesting thread here not long ago about why do people drive SUV's. (Not intended to pick on SUV owners) The majority of the replies by the SUV drivers was "my money, my choice".

As bad as this sounds (I know there are people who will get irritated), a lot the money we spend for fuel goes to the Middle East. An assumption can be made that we are supporting terror elements indirectly.

It's all about oil!

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Wow, I guess that means your credibility is shot, huh?

a tie to Al-Queda, not 9/11. Some gullible people are building the false deductive syllogism all on their own.

Some of you people remind me of that scene in Monty Python's Holy Grail

BEDEVERE:
What makes you think she is a witch?

VILLAGER #3:
Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEVERE:
A newt?
VILLAGER #3:
I got better.
VILLAGER #2:
Burn her anyway!
VILLAGER #1:
Burn!
CROWD:
Burn her! Burn! Burn her!...
BEDEVERE:
Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
VILLAGER #1:
Are there?

VILLAGER #2:
Ah?
VILLAGER #1:
What are they?
CROWD:
Tell us! Tell us!...
VILLAGER #2:
Do they hurt?
BEDEVERE:
Tell me. What do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2:
Burn!
VILLAGER #1:
Burn!
CROWD:
Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
BEDEVERE:
And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1:
More witches!
VILLAGER #3:
Shh!
VILLAGER #2:
Wood!
BEDEVERE:
So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3:
B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?
BEDEVERE:
Good! Heh heh.
CROWD:
Oh, yeah. Oh.
BEDEVERE:
So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1:
Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE:
Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #1:
Oh, yeah.
RANDOM:
Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
BEDEVERE:
Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No, it floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1:
Throw her into the pond!
CROWD:
The pond! Throw her into the pond!
BEDEVERE:
What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1:
Bread!
VILLAGER #2:
Apples!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1:
Cider!
VILLAGER #2:
Uh, gra-- gravy!
VILLAGER #1:
Cherries!
VILLAGER #2:
Mud!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, churches! Churches!
VILLAGER #2:
Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR:
A duck!
CROWD:
Oooh.

BEDEVERE:
Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1:
If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE:
And therefore?
VILLAGER #2:
A witch!
VILLAGER #1:
A witch!
CROWD:
A witch! A witch!...

VILLAGER #4:
Here is a duck. Use this duck.
[quack quack quack]
BEDEVERE:
Very good. We shall use my largest scales.
CROWD:
Ohh! Ohh! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Ahh! Ahh

 

[Bobbles]

Originally posted by dmadman43
a tie to Al-Queda, not 9/11. Some gullible people are building the false deductive syllogism all on their own.

The problem here is simple.

The administration can state there are links between Saddam and Al-Quida.

That can lead to percieved (right or wrong) links between Saddam and 9/11 can't it? Is the the "false deductive syllogism" to which you refer? Then it's all relative.

"LINKS" is an interesting term. And everyone has a different view of "links". (Dam! That ruined the word for me when I want breakfast sausage!)

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by Bobbles
That's a darn good question. No easy answers.

Americans don't really pay very much for gas. We are paying well over 4 dollars a gallon and I understand there are others paying in excess of 6 dollars.

So how about limiting our reliance on Middle East oil?
There was an interesting thread here not long ago about why do people drive SUV's. (Not intended to pick on SUV owners) The majority of the replies by the SUV drivers was "my money, my choice".

As bad as this sounds (I know there are people who will get irritated), a lot the money we spend for fuel goes to the Middle East. An assumption can be made that we are supporting terror elements indirectly.

It's all about oil!

I don't disagree with you. We should be doing a lot more to find alternative energy sources and finding ways to consume less. Even drilling here, we know though, that's not going to happen! I do not however believe the war in Iraq is about oil.

 

[Fizban257]

I think it should be embarassingly clear to Bush's critics by now that the actual words that came out of his mouth were in fact true: the U.S. government had credible evidence that Sadam Hussein had ties to terrorist groups around the world, that his government had been in contact numerous times with Al Queda, and that Hussein planned to use terrorists to attack us. In fact, Putin, who opposed the war, verified yesterday that his intelligence agancies informed us that Hussein was planning terrorist attacks against us. And, I hope, we can finally put to rest the nonsensical idea that Al Queda, as a religious group, would never work with Hussein's secular government. The commission has shown that overtures were made, and that Saddam failed to consumate. Al Queda WAS willing to coordinate with him and to accept his aid and assistance.

 

[Bobbles]

a tie to Al-Queda, not 9/11. Some gullible people are building the false deductive syllogism all on their own.
Some of you people remind me of that scene in Monty Python's Holy Grail

If only those of us that you refer to as "you people" were as "wise" as you DMADMAN. The the world would be an easier place to live in.

Did you have to use Monty Python's Holy Grail to justify this?

First the word "links" and now Monty Python! My world is being turned around! HA HA!

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

If we played "connect the dots" and went to war with everyone who has links or ties to Al Qaeda, we'd be at war with almost the entire Middle East.

oil has everything to do with it. this is what happens when you put two Texas oilment in charge of our government.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Bobbles
The problem here is simple.

The administration can state there are links between Saddam and Al-Quida.

That can lead to percieved (right or wrong) links between Saddam and 9/11 can't it? Is the the "false deductive syllogism" to which you refer? Then it's all relative.

"LINKS" is an interesting term. And everyone has a different view of "links". (Dam! That ruined the word for me when I want breakfast sausage!)

But the administration never said, and been continuing to reiterate that they never associated 9/11 with Iraq. The press either refused to acknowledge, or fails to grok what what that actually means. Again, the fact the some people and reporters are stupid is not the fault of the administration. Draw all the conclusions you want, but don't assign blame on the administration where there isn't any. Blame yourself for drawing the wrong conclusions.

 

[peachgirl]

a tie to Al-Queda, not 9/11

That wasn't my point, but I'm sure disneydad2 "gets" it.....