Odd post from a man who's blatently ignored facts when accussing people of treason.

Mark,… most glaringly in the "proof" the left offers that President Bush et al tied Saddam to 9/11...this is the pre-conceived notion, what they back it up with are out-of-context quotes (sometimes wildly so)…. How do explain this:

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
March 19, 2003
Text Of A Letter From The President To The Speaker Of The House Of Representatives And The President Pro Tempore Of The Senate
March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush
Source: http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm

So is bush a liar?

"actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Again, the problem is a lack of basic literacy among our Leftwing wards. You see Barney, the word "including" means the parties in question, those who committed 911 are among those, but do not comprise ALL of those colluding in international terror generally, the objects of this particular communication. This is much like the "scandal" of Bush saying that no expert on tap had predicted levee collapse in Katrina and the Libbies declaring that a briefing warning of levee swamping PROVED BUSH LIED!!!! Or that the Downing Street Memo declared that Bush had told Blair... well, I'm not sure at this date what the dreadful utterance of Bush was supposed to reveal but Mark is quite right, not too tough when your opposition is this ign'ant. Hey, if you're not sure what the meaning of "is" is, obviously you are in for a rough patch. Really, this "reality based community" is a boon to those of us who live in ACTUAL reality for we will, of a necessity, care for them in their indolent uselessness. We work. They mooch. We aspire. They gripe. We plan. They bitch. We advance. They decline. And ultimately we will program robots to change their diapers, wipe their drool and nod patronizingly as they indict George Bush for dooming them to lives of wastrel impotence. Not bad, as endings go. For us, I mean.

Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly linked Saddam and al qaida directly and indirectly. Below are a few examples. Linking Saddam and al qaida resulted in the misperception by the American public that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks i.e., If Saddam provided support to OBL, as claimed by Collin Powell (see below) than Saddam was responsible for 9/11 (accomplice to a crime).

“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. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed”…. President Bush 5/1/03

“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more”…. President Bush 5/1/03

“We know that many of the attackers were Saudi. There was also an Egyptian in the bunch. That doesn't mean those governments had anything to do with the attack, that's a different proposition than saying the Iraqi government or Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with Al Qaeda that developed throughout the decade of the nineties, that was clearly official policy”…. Dick Cheney

“Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered Al Qaida safe haven in the region. After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain their today.”

“Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaida. These denials are simply not credible. Last year an Al Qaida associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was, quote, ``good,'' that Baghdad could be transited quickly.”

“Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an Al Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida. “
“We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service.”
“Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaida's appalling attacks. A detained Al Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaida's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.”
“Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery.”
“From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaida organization.” …Collin Powell’s UN speech

Barney,

You just don't get it do you? Or do you refuse to accept anything that doesn't fit your pre-concieved notion about our President?

So what if he did or didn't tie Saddam to al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization with agents and activities worldwide. Saddam-led Iraq was a country providing safe haven, training, and resources to a wide variety of terrorist organizations. Al-Qaeda was just one of many.

If you take time to read the Congressional Acts behind our actions against terrorisms in general, and the removal of Saddam (The 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, the 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force, and the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq) they will lay out the rationale for our actions to fight terrorism.

Politicians from both sides of the aisle agreed throughout the 90's and this decade that Saddam was a threat to world peace, had produced and used WMD, was a supporter of terrorism, and needed to be removed from power.

The actions of the President are consistent with the Congressional Authorizations and were/are the right thing to do. To do nothing about Saddam and terrorism in general (as was done throughout the 90's) was not an option.

Barney, your eagerness to pronounce guilt upon the Bush administration has left your overlooking semantics. I shall now disect every quote you're cited in numerical order.

1) He simply said that the war on terror began after 9/11, and that, by attacking Iraq, the U.S. has shown that they are not going to give up going after countries that harbor terrorists. You can't deny that there were terrorists in Iraq.

2) This one's easy to understand. No reference was given saying that they were directly behind 9/11. Simply that they supported al-Qaeda was said. This is proven by some of the newly released documents.

3) Again, no reference saying Iraq was behind 9/11.

4) Indeed, this does not even say 9/11 in the text. Please note that being associated to al-Qaeda does not mean that someone is directly involved with all of its activities.

5) Arguably, there are links between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda. Research it.

Rest of Collin Powell's speech) Why is it that when people see al-Qaeda, Iraq, and 9/11 in the same paragraph, they think that something is being said that isn't? If I said bread, turkey, and mayonaise in the same sentence, does that mean I'm talking about a sandwich? No! What I said was, "The turkey's phobia of mayonaise is the bread and butter of modern turkey psychological studies."

Barney,

No - but when you only tell part of the story, it does make you a liar:

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.

These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully.

As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

As I've said, you pull quotes out of context - and sometimes quite wildly so - in your efforts to prove your pre-conceived notions...now, I have provided the facts which deny your position and confirm mine, and you will resolutely ignore them.

Barney,

And your link doesn't work...I had to find it myself:

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2003&m=March&x=20030321170629rennefl0.3604242&t=xarchives/xarchitem.html

President Bush
Oct. 14, 2002: "After September the 11th, we've entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man [Hussein] that we know has had connections with Al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use Al Qaeda as a forward army."
Sept. 17, 2003: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties. We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
Sept. 26, 2002: "Yes, there is a linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq."
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
Sept. 25, 2002: There "have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of Al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time."

........ Nope. They've never hinted to any link between Iraq and Al Queda.

Maybe a few of these inferred a link?

"This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda."
---President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/28/2002).

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."
---Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."
---Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).

"One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner."
---Source: President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003).

"And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime. September the 11th, 2001, the American people saw what terrorists could do by turning four airplanes into weapons. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons."
---Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).

"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 planes -- 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."
---Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint."
---Source: President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002).

"And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."
---Source: President Condemns Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002).

"You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam.”
---09/26/2002 George W. Bush

Sick,

But I thought your side was arguing that he linked Saddam and 9/11, not Saddam and al-Qaeda? When Democrats argue this in public, they don't say that Bush accused al-Qaeda and Saddam of having ties, but that Bush accused Saddam and 9/11 of having ties.

Sack of lies,
Thanks for confirming what we have been saying all along. You and your talking points have been saying Bush lied, that he said Iraq was behind 9/11. At least you can read, but you have trouble with 2+2=4.

Stay off the weed.

The argument (from ME anyway), is that in every speech on Iraq, before and after the invasion, would start with the word Iraq and quickly turn to 9/11 and Al Qaeda.

Read this line from the 2003 State of the Union:
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained."

That may not say specifically Saddam was involved with 9/11, but it sure as hell implies a tie.
Is that a lie? Maybe. Maybe not. Is it misleading? ABSOLUTELY.

Then every speech before AND after this the Administration can not talk about Iraq without mentioning 9/11 at some point in the speech.

Is it a lie or is it misleading?

I remember back in 1998 a big Republican outrage over what the meaning of "is" is.
Well, now you may understand why the outrage over the Administrations links to alQuada and 9/11.

How about Dick Cheney?
----------
"If we're successful in Iraq then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," Cheney said.
----------
Again, is that a direct link or do they just want to IMPLY it so everyone makes their own link.

Either way it is pretty damn dishonest.

To me, every statement that is made is truthful. I don't think authorities have the obligation to make everything they say dumbed down so that everyone can understand it.

I think that this is the problem with American society. They are growing tired of the administration's constant references to 9/11. Sometimes I think those further on the left would be less reluctant to see good things in Bush if he would just stop saying certain words, like "9/11" or "al-Qaeda" or other things that people have a fit over for no reason. At least this way Democrats could stop leaping to conclusions with every sentence he speaks. But we know that this would never work, anyway.

Odd post from a man who's blatently ignored facts when accussing people of treason.

Typical post from a raving lunatic who's forgotten 9/11.

Mark, this thread illustrates how our leftist friends cannot partake in simple reading comprehension. Even after you repeatedly explained that just because it was implied that Iraq had ties with AQ, that didn't imply that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

These kooks aren't too smart. Of course, we're talking about Baloney2000, Sick of Facts, and Tommie. Not the brightest bulbs around, except when they're alone...

Omega,
Are you saying that everything they've said are just so intelligent that the average American doesn't understand? Is that right?
Is it that only 35% of America can understand what they say? The other 65% just can't understand their words unless somebody dumbs them down to their level???

So I ask you.... in that 2003 State of the Union address, did he not infer there was a connection?
Here is the quote again in case you missed it:
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained."

Does that not imply that Saddam had some kind of connection to 9/11?

No, it doesn't implicitly imply that. It implies that before 9/11, people had different views about what extremists are willing to do, and how we should treat them.

If Saddam supported/aided al qaida, and al qaida was responsible for 9/11, than Saddam was an accomplice to the attack. Is this not true? If the administration repeatedly claims that Saddam supported/aided al qaida (training camps, safe passage…) than the President is claiming that Saddam was involved in the attack. A-10, agrees:
"So what if he did or didn't tie Saddam to al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization with agents and activities worldwide. Saddam-led Iraq was a country providing safe haven, training, and resources to a wide variety of terrorist organizations. Al-Qaeda was just one of many"

Webster defines "fact" as. . .
"something that has actual existence"
"an actual occurrence"

like when I say:
"over 2400 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq"
That is a fact. Records of the deceased can be cited as a source, because those records have "an actual existance"

so Mark says. . .

"If the facts indicate that we're winning the liberation of Iraq and the larger War on Terrorism, then that is horrible. . ."

so what are they? the "facts" that "indicate that we're winning"? (I don't think you have any, or you wouldn't say "IF", you would have just listed them.)

So, why not list these facts you speak of? List them here, with the sources that convince you that your statements of fact are "something that has actual existence"

btw. . here are examples of non-facts:

"If you've ever been engaged in long-term debate with our leftwing friends, the most common emotion is frustration - while the call themselves the "reality based community", the universal about the left is that they simply will not acknowledge the facts."

see, that isn't a fact, unless you have some data I can look at which would lead me to the same conclusion. Besides, my take on that is most of the frustration right now is coming from the right.

"What the left has is pre-conceived notions, and all they do is massage the data to come up with confirmation of it."

are you sure you aren't talking about Hannity, Limbaugh, and the rest? Sure there are individuals on both sides that do what you claim, no denying that. but "the left"?. . . all of us? nobody on the right?. . .
not a fact.

"We've all seen it - most glaringly in the "proof" the left offers that President Bush et al tied Saddam to 9/11"

this is a little trickier, but here goes:
the fact is, that words were carefully chosen, and speeches crafted which juxtaposed Iraq(Saddam) and 9/11,leaving a distinct impression that the two were connected. (Yes that is a fact, because you can look at print versions of all the speeches made in the run up to war, and you can highlight each reference of "Saddam", "Iraq", "911" and "Al Qaeda". You will see definative evidence that they are clustered in patterns, purposely leaving the listener with a specific impression)

here is an example:

"And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the IRAQI REGIME. SEPTEMBER 11TH,2001, the American people saw what terrorists could do by turning four airplanes into weapons. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons." (CAPS MINE)

by placing the comments about the "IRAQ REGIME" and "SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2001" next to each other in this manner, gives the impression that this is the meaning the speaker is trying to convey. by NOT actually stating the implication, the speaker can later say "I never said any such thing".

Is that "proof" that President Bush tied Saddam to 9/11? I wouldn't say it rises to that qualification. But to pretend that the careful juxtaposition of Iraq, 911, Al Qaeda, and Saddam isn't what led a majority of Americans to believe there was a connection is just not a credible position.

Barney,

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. If I support the Democrats, and a Democrat is convicted of a felony, does that mean I'm his accomplice? No, it doesn't.

dav,

You sounded reasonable until the second half of your second post. You actually believe that Bush's speech writers are also psychologists capable of predetermining an audiences preconceptions about a speech before it is given? That just sounds like a conspiracy theory. That's like saying that all of Clinton's speeches were arranged in just the right order to appeal to what people think is "cool." IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

Barney/ Sick of Lies,

I have no need to comment because you guys have took Mr Sowells "club" and beat him and the neocons here senseless with it. Your quotes are great and then even greater is watching these guys try to bend them.

It's no coincidennce that a majority of Americans believed Saddam was behind 9-11 and was working with Al Queda.

And the point of their thread here was about ignoring facts....funny....pathetic....

Omega, YES.... speech-writers absolutely think and know how to craft sentences to infer something without actually saying it.
That is what makes a good speech-writer.

Mark, …. Another famous recent example of this is the Downing Street Memos...held up as proof of a nefarious, Bush-led plot, it actually doesn't say what the left asserts it says….

Here it is:
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

The WH memo of 1/31/03 also states that invasion is inevitable and will begin on 3/10/03 regardless of presences of WMD or UN support.

Col. Wilkerson has stated that the intelligence was cherry picked.

Gen. Zinni stated that the intelligence was cherry picked

From the WP: The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

So Mark, what part of the DSM doesn’t actual say what it says?

Barney,

"Facts were being fixed" does not mean "facts were being manufactured".

At any rate, its rather pointless...right after I demonstrated absolutely that your first quote as out of context, out comes another slew of quotes, also all out of context...I've been through this again and again, and you on the left simply will not acknowledge the facts.

As to why this should be so, I leave that to the psychologists to figure out.

Keefer,

I've actually taken the time in the past on those quotes - it isn't even remotely as the left presents them...if you actually look up the quotes and see them in context, you'll find that they don't say what the left thinks they say and, most of the time, they say the exact opposite of what the left wants you to believe they say.

dav,

You aren't paying attention to what I said ,nor to what Mr. Sowell say...in fact, I think you illustrate the problem, even as you blithely don't understand what you are doing.

Its really rather pathetic...ignorant is not the way to go through life, and to be determined to be ignorant just so you can hate President Bush? That is asinine.

Mark, I never said “manufactured” the intelligence was cherry picked. You do not need to manufacture intelligence, when you can purposely use bad intelligence to advance your agenda.

Why does Senator Robertson keeps stalling on the Senate Select Committee phase two report? Because they know that Bush fixed the intelligence to push the war.

Mark,
Here are the 4 or 5 paragraphs leading up to the quote I supplied from the 2003 State of the Union.
Now you tell me... where did I take the quote out of context? If anything, these paragraphs show how he was talking about Iraq and their weapons and how they tried stonewalling the inspections. Then out of nowhere he brings up 9/11 in the same sentence.
------------
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

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.

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. (Applause.)
------------
Was it taken out of context or was does this lead one to tie them together?
There were like 5 more paragraphs about Iraq up to where I started. He wasn't talking about 9/11. He was talking about IRAQ and SADDAM. Then all of the sudden, he brings up 9/11 in speaking of Saddam.
You can't spin it Mark, the inference was there and it is NOT out of context.

SOL, Just because YOU and other left-wingers who are bent on hating Bush misunderstood the administration's comments, does not mean that the administration inferred anything. This is so stupid. You inferred something, and because of your emotional misunderstanding, that is somehow proof that Bush lied.

Think crtically about this. YOU are connecting the terms Saddam, Al Queda, and 9/11 in a way that the administration DID NOT connect them. I think you are willfully misunderstanding President Bush just so that you can feed your emotions of hate, pre-conceived notions, and as Mark says "frustration".

After all, if you decide to see this clearly it would mean letting go of a big reason you have to hate Bush. It is you with the misunderstanding. The administration has been totally consistent and truthful and the American people realized that and voted for George W. Bush's re-election in numbers never before seen in American politics. George W. Bush got over 50% of the American vote, which is more than Clinton ever got. You are in the minority. 62 million of your fellow Americans did not make the same inferrence you made. There was no misunderstanding with them. They voted for a second term for George W. Bush. Thank God that George W. Bush is our President until 2009!

ND, Don't forget Bush got more votes AGAINST than any other President as well.
Just because the Dems put up a weak contender doesn't mean 62 million people didn't make the same inference.
-----------
From 9/6/2003 Washington Post:
Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.

Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll. That impression, which exists despite the fact that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals acting for al Qaeda, is broadly shared by Democrats, Republicans and independents.
-------------

ND, I would say from that more people than you think made the same inference.

ND, ….. George W. Bush got over 50% of the American vote, which is more than Clinton ever got… Talk about cherry pick’n facts. Clinton beat his nearest opponent in ’92 by 9% points and 7% points in ’96. W beat his nearest opponent by 2% points in ’00 and 3% points in ’04. Who delivered the bigger ass-ripping on his opponent?

See you can find facts to support any position, but there is no denying that Bush deliberately mislead this nation into war.

SOL, I haven't forgotten that. I know it helps you to feel better that "Bush got more votes AGAINST than any other President as well.". But I look at it this way: More people voted against Bush than voted against any other president in American history AND HE STILL WON BY OVER THREE MILLION VOTES!!! That is an incredible, incredible victory. It is a RESOUNDING rejection of Kerry and all the more IMPRESSIVE endorsement of President Bush.

If a candidate could see into the future, what candidate would want to run in a race where more people would vote against him than voted against any incumbent president in American history? This was the situation against Bush and HE WON!!!

Here's a different study which doesn't "toe the line" with either left or right on the "Saddam had ties to 911" argument.

For Barneyg2000, SickOfLies, et al, you might wish to peruse this study. It offers substantive facts as to the connections and "ties" to terrorism that were clearly established by the Butcher of Baghdad and any and all terrorists who would cooperate with him...

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

The author concluded, after abundant research and corroboration, among other things, that,

"...Thus, there is abundant and undeniable evidence that Saddam Hussein provided money, diplomatic services, shelter, medical care, and training to terrorists of every stripe, including those complicit in the 1993 WTC bombing and — according to a Clinton-appointed federal judge — the September 11 attacks. The Iraqi dictator aided al-Qaeda and other global terrorists who murdered Americans, both at home and abroad...."

Take your time. Digest it fully. Then come back and deny everything...

I have no need to comment because you guys have took Mr Sowells "club" and beat him and the neocons here senseless with it.

Actually, you have no need because you are a moron, who, like Barney, is a moron when it comes to writing skills. What the heck does "you guys have took" mean?

Nice cheerleading, morongeo. That's what one does when one is too stupid to join in...

*Chuckles*

This is a great thread. The original post is about how folks (Specifically on the left but obviously this can be the right as well) can filter out what they want to hear or believe and here we are proving it again.

We have long since stopped talking to one another to speak past one another. Even on things that we should be able to talk about like Abortion and Gun Control. Unfortunetly both sides have allowed emotions and personal views to get in the way of any argument (reasoned or otherwise) from the other side.

Which is why folks on both sides do their darndest to do things that "appear" to work to the most people. Spending more money on education "appears" to help the schools. It has always been part and parcil with politics. Heck I'm sure back in 1776 we had folks arguing about similar things in similar ways.

The humor of it all is that all of these things are so very important!

From Lies own quote (emphasis mine):

From 9/6/2003 Washington Post: Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.

Your own quote proves that people's belief in the Saddam/9-11 connection is not FROM the administration. They have drawn their own conclusions.

Evidence shows Saddam had miriad links to terrorists, including Al-Qaeda. Given his support of them, it is certainly possible, if not verifiable, that he may have known about 9/11... it's not a ridiculous conclusion to draw. It may not be supported by facts, but neither do the facts deny the possibility.

The administration's speaking of them both in the same speech... or even in the same paragraph or sentence... does not mean the administration is trying to make people believe that Saddam was involved specifically in 9/11... only that they are tying them BOTH to terrorism. Your attempts to make it more than that are the (obvious and pathetic) lie.

Whether they were colluding specifically on the 9/11 attack or not, they were both involved in terror, and as such, both were valid targets in the War on Terror.

Barney,

"Fixed" doesn't mean "cherry picked", either.

You really should keep in mind that the memo is a third or fourth hand paraphrase...once you grasp that annoying fact, you realise that its just a report about how the bleak reality is understood and preparations are being made based upon solid assumptions regarding how Saddam would behave...

SOL,

Geesh, you are stretching - President Bush wasn't tying Iraq to 9/11, he was pointing out in that in a post-9/11 world, threats like Saddam cannot be allowed to fester and grow.

The annoying fact you are resolutely ignoring here is that President Bush was just giving a comprehensive view of the issue...he doesn't think in little, leftwing boxes which are labelled "terrorism", "Saddam", "bin Laden", "Lebanon", "Syria", "North Korea"...and never have anything to do with each other.

The world is a highly inter-connected place, and only someone determined to hate President Bush at all costs would fail to see this.

"We have long since stopped talking to one another to speak past one another"

So, how 'bout those Floriday Gators?

*Chuckles*

Didn't they just kick UCLA's butt? While I live here in So Cal I'm not a UCLA fan. (Colorado State thank you very much.)

Psssst. Don't let Barney know I told you this, but his mental development stopped at about 5 years old. Please humor him.

"Its really rather pathetic...ignorant is not the way to go through life, and to be determined to be ignorant just so you can hate President Bush? That is asinine."

Now, now. Thats just a personal attack, isn't it. And I don't recall saying I hate the President. I am diametrically opposed to 98% of his positions, but I have no personal beef with the guy.

to answer your point, I am paying attention, I just disagree. Was not your point that the left has a monopoly on fact dodging? My point was that just isn't so, and I made the bonus point that just because one labels a statement"fact" doesn't make it one.

and Paul,

I say THROW THE BOOK AT MCKINNEY!!! How is that for slithering!

dav,

But at no time did President Bush, or any of his people, even so much as hint at a Saddam/9-11 connection - but that is the contention the left holds: that President Bush deliberately linked Saddam to 9/11 in order to bamboozle the American people into conquering Iraq for Halliburton (or Israel, or whatever paranoid conspiracy theory is current on the left).

What you are essentially demanding is an absurdity - that in conducting the War on Terrorism, that we not mention 9/11 - in your apparant view, any mention of 9/11 is an attempt to fraudulently use 9/11 to do something nefarious.

You can believe that if you wish, but it is the position of ignorance...willfull ignorance, at that.

Gozer, You must be okay after all. My wife works at Colorado State. Go Rams