Originally posted by uzlessIndeed, you are correct. I find it both remarkable and telling that after your post containing direct quotes, and my own post of the video the Bush Adminstration's Kool-Aid drinkers deserted the thread.
unfortunately, no matter how many facts some people are given and shown, they will still refuse to believe it even when the words come right from the administration itself.
The entire article is a joke: quite apart from its predictably crude attempt to rewrite history on the issue of Bush linking Iraq with al Qaeda (can Republicans distance themselves from their own statements and policies any more desperately than they already have this last year?), bin Laden himself is on the record on numerous occasions expressing his hatred for Saddam Hussein, who he considered an apostate, an atheist and a communist.
He even pre-warned the world about the attack on Kuwait and offered to create an army to use against Saddam Hussein - all of this is a matter of record; the Head of Saudi Intelligence at the time noted the fact, and we have in addition this from an al Qaeda insider, Abu Jandal:
"[Bin Laden] called on the Saudi Government to allow for the recruitment of youths and to open the door of jihad in the land of the two holy mosques in order to defeat the Iraqi invasion and expel the invaders from Kuwait. Bin Laden had many reasons to call for jihad. His intentions were geared toward ending the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and rescuing the Iraqi people from the domination of the Ba'ath Party. Sheikh Osama bin Laden was dreaming of this. Therefore, he asked the Saudi Government to open the door for him. He said he was ready to prepare more than 100,000 fighters in three months. He used to say: 'I have more than 40,000 mujahideen in the land of the two holy mosques alone.' He said he was ready to prepare them within a few days. The number of other mujahideen outside Saudi Arabi was many times more."
I expect we'll hear more from Republicans over the next eighteen months about how WMD and al Qaeda were never cited as part of the casus belli. One thing, though: they're going to have to make their minds up about whether al Qaeda is finished or everywhere - it's hard not to notice that the mainstream US media has bought the Republican line that every insurgent in Iraq is to be referred to as "al Qaeda", irrespective of the fac that they account for something like less than 1 percentile and a gnat's ballsack of the actual attacks. Kind of messes up your media lie, boys.
Originally posted by uzlesscongratulations, you just posted a full screen of quotes confirming Tony Snow's point.
Here are some bush administration quotes. You don't see anything implied in these??? The attackers were from Saudi Arabia, the US claimed Bin Laden was in Afganistan and ran the show from there. Why did the US stop chasing bin laden and go after Hussein???? Today, AL Q is based mainly along the afganistan/pakistan border....there were virtually none in I ...[text shortened]... za Rice defending the reasons why the US went to war against Iraq, September, 2003.
Originally posted by zeeblebot
Politics sometimes manages to muddle the obvious. The war in Iraq, authorized by three-quarters of the Senate, was launched in response to Saddam Hussein's refusal to abide by 17 United Nations resolutions — and by the fact that Saddam clearly supported terror movements around the world. We never argued that he played a role 9/11; political opponents manufactured the claim to question the president's integrity. (Tony Snow)
Originally posted by zeeblebot
"We never argued that he played a role 9/11 "
Originally posted by uzless
Come again?
It's only on tape about a hundred times. What Daily Show, PBS documentary, CBC documentary, or network news reel from 2001 to 2002 shall we look at to see the blatant lie put forth by the mouthpiece of the administration?
another lie constantly repeated is: "The war in Iraq...was launched in response to Saddam Hussein's refusal to abide by 17 United Nations resolutions."
a quick time line-
First, Bush argued for weapons inspectors to go see if Saddam had WMDs-- and Saddam let the weapons inspectors in. (at this point the story was "We have to check to see what WMD Saddam is working on)
Second, Bush changed the the weapons inspection agreement to allow troops to accompany weapons inspectors- No one thought Saddam would allow this- but he did.
Third, Bush discredited the weapons inspecting process, the UN and told the world that "We must disarm Saddam"-- note that the evidence of WMD was never presented, but assumed in the word "disarm".
Forth, Bush told the UN Weapons inspectors to pull out because the US was going to bomb Iraq into submission with Shock and Awe. and the US attacked all the while Saddam was Complying with UN Security Council resolutions. Also- one member state in the UN cannot enforce UN resolutions unilaterally. So, even if Saddam was breaking resolutions, the war is still illegal.
The Bush admin continues to lie in the face of facts, be it the war in Iraq or Global Warming. The day the National intel estimate (from the CIA, NSA, FBI...) says Al Queda is Stronger than before 9-11- Bush comes out and says we're winning- that al Queda is weaker than before. he continues to say this. just one of many lies flying in the face of facts and reality. it's sad and embarrasing so many Americans follow along blindly.
I like the indignance in this too:
"The most astonishing argument is the claim the United States (or the Bush administration) is responsible for this terror wave."
Astonished! MY GOD- WHO Could EVER think this??!! (um, the funny folks over at the CIA writing the National Intellience Estimate?)
let's sum up the responsibility:
"Terrorists are responsible for terror, period."
if you include State Sponsored Terrorism in the definition of "terrorism", which is vital to fully understanding the conflict, then this may be the only true thing Tony said.
Originally posted by zeeblebotAll of them imply the connection but how 'bout this one?
which quote did you post "argued that he played a role 9/11"?
The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime.
President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003.
Saddam never sponsored terrorists nor had wmd's. And since most Americans equate "the terrorists" with those who carried out the 9/11 bombings, then Bush is implying that Iraq sponsors the 9/11 terrorists.
This is not media spin. It's straight from his lips and to argue otherwise is like Clinton saying, "It depends on what the definition of IS is" 🙄
Originally posted by zeeblebotSo do you agree with Snow's claim, that; 'We never argued that he played a role 9/11; political opponents manufactured the claim to question the president's integrity.'?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070719/cm_usatoday/opposingviewvictoryiniraqisvital;_ylt=AlzT7h6VkdMQwiaaA9TqYD7MWM0F
Opinion
Opposing view: Victory in Iraq is vital Thu Jul 19, 12:21 AM ET
Politics sometimes manages to muddle the obvious. The war in Iraq, authorized by three-quarters of the Senate, was launched in response to Saddam Hussein's r ...[text shortened]... eginning of the end of the war on terror.
Tony Snow is White House press secretary.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94148
Originally posted by MerkSo I take it you put out fires by fuelling the flames? Some cliches are cliches for a reason. Please try to think of something useful to say on topic rather than complaining about the way that people express a point (again, at least some have one to make).
I bow to your cliche mastery. You managed to cram two of them into a single sentence.
Originally posted by uzlesswhere in that quote does it say anything about 9/11?
All of them imply the connection but how 'bout this one?
The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime.
President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003.
Saddam never sponsored terrorists nor had wmd's. And since m ...[text shortened]... argue otherwise is like Clinton saying, "It depends on what the definition of IS is" 🙄
and your "most Americans" point is just nonsensical.
Originally posted by zeeblebotSo do you agree with Snow's claim, that; 'We never argued that he played a role 9/11; political opponents manufactured the claim to question the president's integrity.'?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070719/cm_usatoday/opposingviewvictoryiniraqisvital;_ylt=AlzT7h6VkdMQwiaaA9TqYD7MWM0F
Opinion
Opposing view: Victory in Iraq is vital Thu Jul 19, 12:21 AM ET
Politics sometimes manages to muddle the obvious. The war in Iraq, authorized by three-quarters of the Senate, was launched in response to Saddam Hussein's r ...[text shortened]... eginning of the end of the war on terror.
Tony Snow is White House press secretary.