[Proto]

BBC News

[luvtolean]

Yep, pretty embarassing for Cheney...I'd guess he spoke too quickly when he said that initially, and I don't think anyone ever really took that statement very seriously (other than his detractors) but he should own up to it and admit being wrong.

[Bacchus]

Surprise, surprise...

[nomad]

[aussie_929]

LOL What a surprise!!!!!! Anyone told Bush yet? They better make sure the report has pictures or he might not understand it.

[nomad]

haaha... you guys are a bunch of trolls. heheh.... I notice how quiet it is in here though. I'm still waiting for the usual knuckle draggers to come in and start ripping it apart.

[nhfirefighter13]

Oops.


So what? Deal with it. A country full of knuckle-draggers just took out one of the guys who has his pic on the evolutionary chain....4th from the left, I believe.


Tell you what, I'll have Bush send Sadaam to live next to you guys since you seem to like hime so much. Sound good?

Oh, sorry, let my lift my knuckles off the ground.

[nomad]

haha, sorry NH, that bait was meant for a few other specific folks. I was just playing someone else's game... clearly too well.

[ER]

I'm not arguing for or against the results. The probe says that there is no credible evidence that Iraq helped Al-Queda carry out the attacks. Was that Bush's claim, or was he simply claiming that Iraq had connections with Al-Queda? The two are separate.

[ER]

Funny, I was just on Neal Boortz's website to read his daily Nuze and saw this:

We're starting to get some leaks about the contents of the 911 Commission report. Yesterday the Associated Press said that the report "bluntly contradicts" the Bush Administration's claims that Saddam Hussein was linked to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Now it is true that the 911 Commission report actually says that there was no evidence of a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. So ... what is my problem here? The problem is that the Bush administration never ... and I mean never made a claim that such a connection existed in the first place. In fact, George Bush has repeatedly said that there is no evidence that such a connection exists. This creates a bit of a question, then, about the AP story. How can the 911 Commission report "bluntly contradict" that claim that has never been made? There can be no "blunt contradiction" of a claim that has never been made. So, what did George Bush say? He said that there is no question that Saddam had Al Qaeda connections. The 911 Commission report, by the way, agrees.

Hmmmmmmmmm is right. Perhaps I'm not the only one wondering whether or not Bush had originally claimed that Saddam helped Al-Queda on 9/11? Just another point of view.

[luvtolean]

I am fairly sure someone in the administration said it publicly, and I seem to remember Cheney doing it.

[ER]

I'd like to see some links to quotes from the Bush Administration. I don't doubt that it's possible they could eat crow over claims they've made, but most things coming from the AP need to pass the litmus test first.

The article says this:

It contradicts remarks by the US vice-president about Saddam Hussein's "long-established ties" with al-Qaeda.

Iraq's alleged links with al-Qaeda were part of the justification the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq.

The 11 September attacks killed nearly 3,000 people after members of Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network flew three hijacked planes into New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with a fourth crashing in Pennsylvania.

The commission, drawn from both Republicans and Democrats, published two separate preliminary reports: an overview of al-Qaeda and an outline of the 11 September plot.

It concludes that senior al-Qaeda suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed initially proposed a hijacking attack involving 10 planes to hit an expanded list of targets that would include the CIA and FBI headquarters, unidentified nuclear plants and tall buildings in California and Washington state.

The more ambitious plan was reportedly rejected by Bin Laden.

A final report on the commission's findings is due on 28 July.

But preliminary statements published by the commission on a range of issues are building up into a complex picture of missed opportunities and some of it does not make pleasant reading for the Bush administration, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus.

This simply says that the administration stated that Iraq had ties with Al Queda. It doesn't mention anything about anyone saying that they were a part of 9/11. Yet, the article is titled, "Probe rules out Iraq 9/11 links". So, someone please show examples of the administration making those claims.

I'm not taking either side of this debate. I only take anything I read from the BBC or other left-leaning outlets with a grain of salt.

[ER]

Here's Bush's response:

"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda," he said.

"We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with [Usama] bin Laden, the head of Al Qaeda in Sudan."

The president added that Saddam gave safe haven to Al Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search). An Iraqi interior minister on Thursday alleged that Zarqawi was responsible for a car bombing on Thursday that killed 35 Iraqis as they were signing up to join the nation's new army.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122956,00.html

So if he's lying, it should be easy enough to prove with recorded statements from his administration saying otherwise, right? Someone should be able to dig them up if they were said.

Again, I'm not trying to take a particular side, but the media's willingness to paint Bush in bad lighting has scarcely been kept a secret. Claiming that there was an established link between the two is different than accusing Iraq of orchestrating 9/11.

What some people have forgotten is the President's response to 9/11. He made it clear that this was going to be a war against ALL terrorists, not just those responsible for the attack on the towers.

[luvtolean]

That does not matter. Just because I agree with going into Iraq, doesn't mean I think the leaders can say whatever they want to sell it. He has to answer for hinting at or even discussing the possibility of the tie in the media.

I typed "long established ties and cheney" into Yahoo and here's what I got, first hit.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/06/....terrorism.ap/

[nomad]

They're politicians. No matter if you are right, left, African or a businessman... If you know how to play politics, you also know how to play semantics. IIRC, the Bush administration never game a 'straight' answer about why they went to war... You can assume they already knew they didn't have an excuse or they figured they would leave an open door to exit from. Whichever, it doesn't matter. I doubt they would ever have committed to a specific reason for going to war.

I've heard everything from Saddam threatened the US to Saddam had links to Bin Laden to Saddam broke UN resolutions to Saddam threatened the US with their WMD... It depends on who and when you ask the question, "So why did the USA attack Iraq?" I think the last reason I heard was to free the Iraqi people from tyranny... I doubt they approached the UN with that line.

*shrug* The bottom line is they are politicians and will never directly answer that question.

[ER]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

That does not matter. Just because I agree with going into Iraq, doesn't mean I think the leaders can say whatever they want to sell it. He has to answer for hinting at or even discussing the possibility of the tie in the media.

I typed "long established ties and cheney" into Yahoo and here's what I got, first hit.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/06/....terrorism.ap/

I still don't get it...

In making the case for war in Iraq, Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam's decade-long contacts with al-Qaeda operatives. They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public...

The BBC's article was titled "Probe rules out Iraq 9/11 links" yet Cheney's assertion was that Iraq and Al-Queda had connections prior to the attack. He didn't say Saddam was behind it. That was my original demand -- show me where anyone said that Iraq was responsible. I don't care whether or not they said it - just show me.

Once again, Bush's response to 9/11 was to weed out and destroy terrorism wherever it may exist. Did he use that as a way to oust Saddam? I dunno. His reasons for going in were WMD and terrorist-links, right? The WMD debate has been beat into the ground, but what about Saddam's communications with Al Queda?

I suppose everyone views these debates in a different light, but what has stood out to me the most is the media's relentless attempts to smear Bush.

[luvtolean]

What's not to get?

The first paragraph:

ORLANDO, Florida (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Saddam Hussein had "long-established ties" with al Qaeda, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.

Was it implied Saddam funded the 9-11 attack? I suppose your assertion is that it wasn't?

So, if you give a loaded gun to a 2 year old child and he shoots and kills himself, you're not liable for his death? What is your defense on the stand, "I just gave it to him to look at, not to shoot"?

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by nomad

*shrug* The bottom line is they are politicians and will never directly answer that question.

It has not always been so in politics. There have been men and women of honor and integrity, and I'm sure there still are at the lower levels, we just can't seem to send them to the White House lately.

[rocket]

[quote=nhfirefighter13]Oops.


So what? Deal with it. A country full of knuckle-draggers just took out one of the guys who has his pic on the evolutionary chain....4th from the left, I believe.
QUOTE]

You must have watched Jay London's stand-up last night. That cat is funny.

"I work at Bed, Bath and Beyond. I work in the Beyond department."

[ER]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

What's not to get?

The first paragraph:

ORLANDO, Florida (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Saddam Hussein had "long-established ties" with al Qaeda, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.

Was it implied Saddam funded the 9-11 attack? I suppose your assertion is that it wasn't?

So, if you give a loaded gun to a 2 year old child and he shoots and kills himself, you're not liable for his death? What is your defense on the stand, "I just gave it to him to look at, not to shoot"?

Consider the steps. We get attacked. Bush vows to root out terrorism wherever it may be. We invade Afghanistan because of Al Queda. Bush's administration claims that Iraq has ties to Al Queda, along with the fact that they haven't disarmed. We invade Iraq.

I don't read "Saddam's responsible" from the assertion that Iraq and Al Queda had ties before 9/11. I know there was a lot of initial speculation that we'd uncover some evidence stating that he was, but who said that he was responsible when we invaded? Cheney claimed that the two had ties. Ok, so if he was lying then prove otherwise on that ground. But the assertion that somehow Bush is in the wrong because Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11 when he never made that claim in the first place just goes along with much of the smear-tactics I've seen.

The invasion of Iraq is a touchy subject for sure. All this latest story is (to me, anyway) is another shot at discrediting Bush. I'm not support or defending - that's just the way it looks.
I didn't really get how your example of the gun applied to this.

[nhfirefighter13]

[quote=rocket]

Originally Posted by nhfirefighter13

Oops.


So what? Deal with it. A country full of knuckle-draggers just took out one of the guys who has his pic on the evolutionary chain....4th from the left, I believe.
QUOTE]

You must have watched Jay London's stand-up last night. That cat is funny.

"I work at Bed, Bath and Beyond. I work in the Beyond department."

I did. He's a funny dude. The knuckle-dragging comments reminded me of it.

Nomad...no harm no foul...now, let me get back to dragging my knuckles. You Canadians should try it sometime, it's fun.

[nomad]

Originally Posted by nhfirefighter13

You Canadians should try it sometime, it's fun.

No can do, I'll get frostbite on my fingers.

[nhfirefighter13]