DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[kapkomet]

Wow. Seriously dude. Zarqawi's group was actually in the area of Northern Iraq where they were only fighting the Kurds at the time of the invasion...and tha area of Iraq was basically a no-go zone for Saddam's entire armed forces because it was protected by the No Fly zone. And beyond that, MSNBC reported a few years ago that the U.S. had plenty of chances to go after that group before the war, but chose not to do so.

Blaming Saddam for Zarqawi being in Iraq makes about as much sense as blaming the U.S. for 9/11 because the hijackers were in this country before they did it. He was not operating at all in cooperation with the Iraqi government; he was only able to operate at all because of the no-fly zones.

I didn't. But I did say he was there. Even if implicitly, he was there, and a part of the larger Al Queda structure. I know that's subtle... but the larger point remains the same.

 

[Balta1701]

I didn't. But I did say he was there. Even if implicitly, he was there, and a part of the larger Al Queda structure. I know that's subtle... but the larger point remains the same.

Which is exactly the dodge the Bush administration used. You prevent Saddam's forces from going into an area of his country, allow a group tentatively linked to Al Qaeda to set up there, and then say "See, there's an Al Qaeda linked group in Iraq". Never mind the fact that Saddam has nothing to do with that group. Seriously, how in the world that could have been used as a justification for a war would absolutely bewilder me, if not for how I already felt about this country's news media.

[kapkomet]

Which is exactly the dodge the Bush administration used. You prevent Saddam's forces from going into an area of his country, allow a group tentatively linked to Al Qaeda to set up there, and then say "See, there's an Al Qaeda linked group in Iraq". Never mind the fact that Saddam has nothing to do with that group. Seriously, how in the world that could have been used as a justification for a war would absolutely bewilder me, if not for how I already felt about this country's news media.

I also think that's a part of the MSM's hard on to go to war. I mean, really, how much CRAP did we have leading up to it? For at least a year, it was "are we going to invade Iraq?" They wanted a news event to cover, and now they backtrack, just like the rest of the country, when BushCo actually did it.

 

Or Mrs. Bill Clinton's line of "I really didn't know what I was voting for..." Please.

 

The reality is, for most Americans, this is a "play station" war. It doesn't effect a damn thing to nearly everyone over here, and that sucks. People don't understand that we are trying to win an idealogical battle as well, and team BushCo is TERRIBLE at relaying that point. "They'll be sacrifrices..." BY WHO? About 500,000 people, MAYBE a million, have to sacrifce while their loved ones do our dirty work.

 

That's all part of the problem. People here don't get it, except for about 6 months after 9/11.

 

[StrangeSox]

No, they didn't. They may have said the two ideas in the same speech, but they NEVER said that 9/11 and Iraq were directly connected. Now, they did say that Iraq was a part of the larger war on terror. That is TOTALLY different then what you are trying to insinuate and the distinction needs to be crystal clear here.

 

Again, that is more on the MSM. It's called a bait and switch... by both sides.

 

They mentioned them together deliberately to link them in the minds of Americans. They knew that by constantly mentioning them together, people would link the two and support the war without question. If that wasn't their intention, they would have clarified it when something like 70% of Americans believed Saddam was responsible/ linked to 9/11 around September 2002.

[kapkomet]

They mentioned them together deliberately to link them in the minds of Americans. They knew that by constantly mentioning them together, people would link the two and support the war without question. If that wasn't their intention, they would have clarified it when something like 70% of Americans believed Saddam was responsible/ linked to 9/11 around September 2002.

They did! Holy s*** you people have selective memories. The White House said OVER AND OVER that 9/11 and Iraq were NEVER directly linked... yet you people STILL want to focus on something that was a MEDIA phenomenon.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

They did! Holy s*** you people have selective memories. The White House said OVER AND OVER that 9/11 and Iraq were NEVER directly linked... yet you people STILL want to focus on something that was a MEDIA phenomenon.

I would have to say you have the selective memory. Every single speech leading up to the war included the words "9/11", "Al Qaeda", "Bin Laden", and "Iraq". They kept using those words in the same speeches to hammer into our heads that all 4 are somehow connected.

[BigSqwert]

Great post on the trib today from a reader:

GEORGE W BUSH IS SOFT ON TERRORISM. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are in Pakistan, and apparently Musharaf isn't going to go after them and neither is Bush. So frankly, this is one arena where saber rattling makes sense, as opposed to the counterproductive "Saddam Hussein= Osama Bin Laden" jibberish that this Administration prefers to traffic in.

 

If George Bush really was the take-no-prisoners bad azz that his supporters seem to think he is, he would have told Pervez 6 YEARS AGO: "we are going to get Bin Laden. If you won't assist us, we will be sending special forces in to get him. We're giving you huge military aid and weaponry, and the quid pro quo is we're going to get Bin Laden no matter what it takes. If your troops fire on us, we will fire back. What are you going to do about it, nuke India?"

 

Instead, Mr. Bush's plan is to quietly pressure Musharaf. This lead to Musharaf SIGNING A FREAKIN' PEACE TREATY with Al Qaeda. Its time for the cowboy President to remember where our real enemies are: they are in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and are harbored by regimes we somehow consider "friendly."

 

What happened to no safe harbor for terrorists?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

They did! Holy s*** you people have selective memories. The White House said OVER AND OVER that 9/11 and Iraq were NEVER directly linked... yet you people STILL want to focus on something that was a MEDIA phenomenon.

 

Several years later, yes. About September 2004, IIRC.

[BigSqwert]

Several years later, yes. About September 2004, IIRC.

Indeed. For about 3 years they kept inferring there was a link.

[kapkomet]

I would have to say you have the selective memory. Every single speech leading up to the war included the words "9/11", "Al Qaeda", "Bin Laden", and "Iraq". They kept using those words in the same speeches to hammer into our heads that all 4 are somehow connected.

It was, is, and always will be that they NEVER said they were linked in any way to the attacks. It amazes me how much people want to distort things to pin particular "fact" on this administration. I don't give a s*** what poll said what, they NEVER EVER said that they were linked, yet everyone jumped to that conclusion, and they REPEATEDLY said that they knew there was ZERO evidence linking the two together. It is a fact, though that Al Queda and Iraq were linked. That's completely different then saying 9/11 and Iraq were linked.

 

[kapkomet]

Great post on the trib today from a reader:

That's true. I wish he did have more balls then he now has... to do exactly what he said he would. He wimped out.

 

[Balta1701]

That's completely different then saying 9/11 and Iraq were linked.

Well, Dick Cheney was repeating the repeatedly debunked Atta/Iraqi Intelligence Agent meeting all the way through around 2005 or so, and I think that one counts for something.

 

It is worth asking one other question on this subject...what exactly was the point of saying that Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked in 2002? The exact same thing could be said about every single country in the Middle East, and in fact, could be said even more so about most of them. According to the 9/11 commission report, it turned out that Iran had far more links to AQ, including allowing its members to pass willingly through its borders, than Iraq did. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia had given them far more funds, and had far greater AQ presences, as did almost every other nation in that region. Iraq had the Zarqawi group, which was stuck in the northern part of the country and literally protected from Saddam by the U.S.

 

So what exactly was the point of even saying that Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked?

[Gene Honda Civic]

No offense, but then you are a weak minded idiot. It was, is, and always will be that they NEVER said they were linked in any way to the attacks. It amazes me how much people want to distort things to pin particular "fact" on this administration. I don't give a s*** what poll said what, they NEVER EVER said that they were linked, yet everyone jumped to that conclusion, and they REPEATEDLY said that they knew there was ZERO evidence linking the two together. It is a fact, though that Al Queda and Iraq were linked. That's completely different then saying 9/11 and Iraq were linked.

January 2003 SOTU speech...

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein.

IMAGINE!

Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

[Balta1701]

That's true. I wish he did have more balls then he now has... to do exactly what he said he would. He wimped out.

Unfortunately, there's one more big issue, and its' perhaps the biggest issue in that entire region: the Pakistani bomb. Unless the actual reason is Bush being an idiot, it's the only reason I can find why the U.S. would put up with this sort of behavior from Pakistan. The U.S. has essentially no choice but to try to keep the army in charge in Pakistan, for the simple reason that if this government falls and either chaos were to erupt or even worse an actual Islamist, Taliban style government were to take some amount of control...that government would have the bomb. And that is essentially the worst possible result I can imagine.

 

People can talk tough all they want about going into Pakistan and getting Bin Laden...about how we should have badgered Musharraf into helping us...but if we were to take those actions, have everything work, but also have the Pakistani government fall, it would be an unmitigated disaster even if it destroyed every remaining fragment of Al Qaeda.

[BigSqwert]

On the afternoon of 9/11, according to contemporaneous notes, Secretary Rumsfeld instructed General Myers to obtain quickly as much information as

possible.The notes indicate that he also told Myers that he was not simply interested in striking empty training sites. He thought the U.S.response should consider a wide range of options and possibilities.The secretary said his instinct was to hit Saddam Hussein at the same time—not only Bin Ladin.

 

SOURCE: 9/11 Commision Report

[kapkomet]

So what? It still does NOT link Iraq and September 11 (none of these posts do), it simply says that Iraq was a "terrorist state" and that they will link THAT ELEMENT in the greater war on terror. You can use imagery all you want, but it is an UNDENIABLE FACT that Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and the Bush Administration never said they were linked. So, IMAGINE IF Saddam Hussein coordinated a terrorist attack SIMILIAR TO 9/11 - funded and done by Saddam... it STILL does NOT say that they were linked to 9/11. Yes, people, it's semantics, but you're trying to twist something that was NEVER said. There's a BIG difference.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Vice President Dick Cheney 9/14/03 on an Saddam-9/11 link

 

We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know.

 

Vice President Dick Cheney 12/9/01 on a Saddam-9/11 link

it's been pretty well confirmed that he (hijacker Mohammed Atta) did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

 

Vice President Dick Cheney 3/24/02 on a Saddam-9/11 link

We discovered . . . the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague.

 

President George Bush on 5/1/03

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions

 

President George Bush on 1/9/03

Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida.

 

President George Bush on 1/28/03

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.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

 

Condoleeza Rice, September 2003

Saddam was a danger in the region where the 9/11 threat emerged.

 

I don't know how anyone could have ever thought this administration was distorting a link between 9/11 and Saddam either. It seems so clear to me.

[kapkomet]

Again, not one quote that says Saddam Hussein or Iraq WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11. NOT ONE. Was Al Queda and Iraq linked? Possibly. That's two different things. Linking Al Queda and Iraq vs. Iraq and 9/11 are two completely different things.

 

[Balta1701]

Again, not one quote that says Saddam Hussein or Iraq WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11. NOT ONE. Was Al Queda and Iraq linked? Possibly. That's two different things. Linking Al Queda and Iraq vs. Iraq and 9/11 are two completely different things.

Yes. Very different things.

 

One of them would be a Causus Belli. One would not.

 

Which is why it didn't seem anyone in the Administration went out of their way to correct the pre-war polls that found some 70% of Americans believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Because they needed the American people to believe that to have their war.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Balta1701

[kapkomet]

Hypothetical.

 

Rex, you're a swell guy.

 

Balta, you're a real jackass.

 

(now I'll be the fall guy... )

 

Kap, you're a swell jackass.

 

All three have different meanings but by word association things can be taken differently.

 

I've read several times today that you all are trying to say the Bush Administration said that Iraq had to do with 9/11. On a strict interpretation, no, that was NEVER said. Was it inferred? It was, if and only if, you then say Al Queda was involved in Iraq.

 

Or another sentance construction:

 

Iraq = Al Queda

9/11 = Al Queda

 

You all are trying to say that BushCo said therefore, 9/11 = Iraq, and that was never said. Only the first two elements were said, and that does not mean Iraq = 9/11 like you all keep saying it does.

 

Holy s***, it's reading. NOT INFERRING, READING.

 

[kapkomet]

Yes. Very different things.

 

One of them would be a Causus Belli. One would not.

 

Which is why it didn't seem anyone in the Administration went out of their way to correct the pre-war polls that found some 70% of Americans believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Because they needed the American people to believe that to have their war.

I just do not believe that - but then again, I'm not sheeple, either, and I'm intelligent to know the difference.

[Balta1701]

I just do not believe that - but then again, I'm not sheeple, either, and I'm intelligent to know the difference.

Then you were part of the 30% who paid attention to more than the words "Saddam" and "Al Qaeda" in those speeches in 2002-2003, I applaud you for that, and still think that the conflating of the 2 in the minds of the majority of Americans was fully deliberate and 100% necessary for the war to have happened.

[kapkomet]

Then you were part of the 30% who paid attention to more than the words "Saddam" and "Al Qaeda" in those speeches in 2002-2003, I applaud you for that, and still think that the conflating of the 2 in the minds of the majority of Americans was fully deliberate and 100% necessary for the war to have happened.

I concede that, and I did a long time ago... but for some folks to say that BushCo has DIRECTLY connected 9/11 and Iraq, it's just plain wrong, and I find it irritating.

 

There's plenty of crap to pile BushCo on, and this is NOT one of them.

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I concede that, and I did a long time ago... but for some folks to say that BushCo has DIRECTLY connected 9/11 and Iraq, it's just plain wrong, and I find it irritating.

 

There's plenty of crap to pile BushCo on, and this is NOT one of them.

 

They linked them indirectly, but intentionally and deceptively. That is how they built up support for this war in the first place, along with all of the other turns-out-its-total-BS boogeymen they marched out in 2002-2003.

[southsider2k5]

I think that was exactly my point...that keeping the electoral college around vastly increases the likelihood that an error in counting in 1 state can have a major impact at the national level, so the thing you'd want to do to prevent that is make the pool as large as possible. When you sub-select into 50 groups smaller groups, each with a certian margin of error, it's much more likely that one of those states will simply wind up being wrong than it is the full national vote.

 

So what do you think of the plan being floated in California to change the way that their electoral votes are awarded, esentially to award one vote per district winner, instead of winner take all in that state?