1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

[maineman]

Your own words MM


not "other" words....YOUR words. NOT democrat's words. get it????

and I don't get to define what a lie is, the dictionary does. and the dictionary says that one definition of a lie is "something intended or serving to convey a false impression". Bush's statements about WMD's and Saddam and Al Qaeda demonstrably served to convey a false impression.

and where, in those words of mine do I ever state that Bush directly linked Saddam and 9/11?

 

[red states rule]

and where, in those words of mine do I ever state that Bush directly linked Saddam and 9/11?

Bush's statements about WMD's and Saddam and Al Qaeda demonstrably served to convey a false impression.

Still can't back up your statemnt? Then retract it

 

[jillian]

From the March 14, 2003 edition of the Christian Science Monitor:

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.

By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON –
In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.


"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

The numbers

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

According to Mr. Kull of PIPA, there is a strong correlation between those who see the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who support going to war.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

Or you could go for Cheney as recently as April 6, 2007:

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June,” Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. “As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.”

However, a declassified Pentagon report released Thursday said that interrogations of the deposed Iraqi leader and two of his former aides as well as seized Iraqi documents confirmed that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.

The Sept. 11 Commission’s 2004 report also found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network during that period.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17975678/

But they weren't intentionally trying to mislead or lie or anything like that. *rolls eyes*

 

[red states rule]

From the March 14, 2003 edition of the Christian Science Monitor:



http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

Or you could go for Cheney as recently as April 6, 2007:



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17975678/

But they weren't intentionally trying to mislead or lie or anything like that. *rolls eyes*

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."

The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors."


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

 

[maineman]

Bush's statements about WMD's and Saddam and Al Qaeda demonstrably served to convey a false impression.

Still can't back up your statemnt? Then retract it

creating a false impression of a link between the two is not the same as directly linking the two.

for example:

News reporter: "We're here at RSR's farm. Several barnyard animals have been sodomized by someone. There is RSR over there. The only human around. We are not sure who exactly did have sex with all these animals, but some reports claim that the perpetrator was wearing a red shirt. There is RSR standing over there. The only human around. and, you'll note, he is wearing a red shirt. The investigation continues. Back to you at the studios."

Now....did I create the impression that you had fucked some sheep? yes
Did I directly state that you had fucked sheep? no.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But they weren't intentionally trying to mislead or lie or anything like that. *rolls eyes*

You might be able to show correlation.
You cannot show causation, nor intent.
So, you'll simply believe what you want to believe, regardless of how poorly that belief is supported.

The question is: why?

 

[maineman]

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."

The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors."


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

the Feith memo has been pretty soundly discredited.... but that wouldn't stop the cut and paste king!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Now....did I create the impression that you had fucked some sheep? yes
Did I directly state that you had fucked sheep? no.

OMFG -- Are ewe STILL sore that RSR stole your favoriate lay?

 

[red states rule]

creating a false impression of a link between the two is not the same as directly linking the two.

for example:

News reporter: "We're here at RSR's farm. Several barnyard animals have been sodomized by someone. There is RSR over there. The only human around. We are not sure who exactly did have sex with all these animals, but some reports claim that the perpetrator was wearing a red shirt. There is RSR standing over there. The only human around. and, you'll note, he is wearing a red shirt. The investigation continues. Back to you at the studios."

Now....did I create the impression that you had fucked some sheep? yes
Did I directly state that you had fucked sheep? no.

Have you given up making jokes about my chemo?

BAck to personal attacks when you are backed into a corner

 

[jillian]

Gee... the 9/11 Report and our department of defense... or the weekly standard....

hmmmmmmmmmmm.... which is more credible?

Too bad the psychotic right has problems with the concept of sourcing.

 

[maineman]

Have you given up making jokes about my kemo?

BAck to personal attacks when you are backed into a corner

I am not making a personal attack. I was creating an analogy.

and kemo is spelled with a CH.

How's it going, by the way? My best friend just got done with his a month or so ago. He lost all the hair on his entire body. but it is growing back now! good luck.

 

[red states rule]

Gee... the 9/11 Report and our department of defense... or the weekly standard....

hmmmmmmmmmmm.... which is more credible?

Too bad the psychotic right has problems with the concept of sourcing.

To the left, facts never matter - only what their talking points lay out

The 9-11 report did list several links to Saddam in the 1990's - as the Weekly Standard published

 

[maineman]

To the left, facts never matter - only what their talking points lay out

The 9-11 report did list several links to Saddam in the 1990's - as the Weekly Standard published

contacts. not links. America had contacts with the soviet union throughout the cold war. I personally served with soviet officers. we were not allies.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gee... the 9/11 Report and our department of defense... or the weekly standard....
hmmmmmmmmmmm.... which is more credible?

I guess that depends on whether or not -you- like what the DoD has to say.
If you do, then you call it credible;
If you don't then you dismiss it.

 

[red states rule]

contacts. not links. America had contacts with the soviet union throughout the cold war. I personally served with soviet officers. we were not allies.

There were contacts

Another facilitator of the relationship during the mid-1990s was Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim (a.k.a. Abu Hajer al-Iraqi). Abu Hajer, now in a New York prison, was described in court proceedings related to the August 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as bin Laden's "best friend." According to CIA reporting dating back to the Clinton administration, bin Laden trusted him to serve as a liaison with Saddam's regime and tasked him with procurement of weapons of mass destruction for al Qaeda. FBI reporting in the memo reveals that Abu Hajer "visited Iraq in early 1995" and "had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence. Sometime before mid-1995 he went on an al Qaeda mission to discuss unspecified cooperation with the Iraqi government."

Some of the reporting about the relationship throughout the mid-1990s comes from
a source who had intimate knowledge of bin Laden and his dealings. This source, according to CIA analysis, offered "the most credible information" on cooperation between bin Laden and Iraq.


This source's reports read almost like a diary. Specific dates of when bin Laden flew to various cities are included, as well as names of individuals he met. The source did not offer information on the substantive talks during the meetings. . . . There are not a great many reports in general on the relationship between bin Laden and Iraq because of the secrecy surrounding it. But when this source with close access provided a "window" into bin Laden's activities, bin Laden is seen as heavily involved with Iraq (and Iran).
Reporting from the early 1990s remains somewhat sketchy, though multiple sources place Hassan al-Turabi and Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden's current No. 2, at the center of the relationship. The reporting gets much more specific in the mid-1990s:

8. Reporting from a well placed source disclosed that bin Laden was receiving training on bomb making from the IIS's [Iraqi Intelligence Service] principal technical expert on making sophisticated explosives, Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed. Brigadier Salim was observed at bin Laden's farm in Khartoum in Sept.-Oct. 1995 and again in July 1996, in the company of the Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti.

9 . . . Bin Laden visited Doha, Qatar (17-19 Jan. 1996), staying at the residence of a member of the Qatari ruling family. He discussed the successful movement of explosives into Saudi Arabia, and operations targeted against U.S. and U.K. interests in Dammam, Dharan, and Khobar, using clandestine al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia. Upon his return, bin Laden met with Hijazi and Turabi, among others.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp?pg=2

 

[maineman]

contacts. not links. America had contacts with the soviet union throughout the cold war. I personally served with soviet officers. we were not allies.

There were contacts

duh. I think I said there were contacts...not links....

there was no operational alliance between them.

 

[maineman]

I guess that depends on whether or not -you- like what the DoD has to say.
If you do, then you call it credible;
If you don't then you dismiss it.

aren't you doing the same thing? who do YOU think is more credible in this instance? the 9/11 Commission and the DoD or the Weekly Standard?

 

[M14 Shooter]

duh. I think I said there were contacts...not links....
there was no operational alliance between them.

And no one ever claimed there was.

 

[red states rule]

aren't you doing the same thing? who do YOU think is more credible in this instance? the 9/11 Commission and the DoD or the Weekly Standard?

If it goes against what you want to believe you dismiss it and attack the messenger

 

[M14 Shooter]

aren't you doing the same thing?

Um... no. I'm not.
I haven't credidted/discredited anyone's source on the basis of the source itself.