Text 8387, 127 rader
Skriven 2006-09-13 22:04:00 av Robert E Starr JR (8884.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: ABC backs down on 9/1
=================================
* * * This message was from Vorlonagent to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <se6dnV3pWfdW_5XYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY:
<0001HW.C128B859001614ABF0407530@news.verizon.net><MMIMg.4388$MF1.2148@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net><0001HW.C128D87D001D52


"Paul Hahn" <manynote@wustl.edu> wrote in message 
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0609130633010.25983@eclipse.wustl.edu...
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Vorlonagent wrote:
>> "Paul Hahn" <manynote@wustl.edu> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0609121334491.13156@eclipse.wustl.edu...
>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Vorlonagent wrote:
>>>> You may wish to review administration rhetoric for a better quote that
>>>> more
>>>> directly asserts Iraq's complicity in 9/11.
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/
>>
>> Try again.
>>
>> Cheney does not say Iraq was complicit in 9/11, just that Iraq had 
>> Al-Queda
>> ties.  Cheney holds open the possibility, but that's all you get.
>
> Stipulating that for the moment--even _that_ isn't true.  Richard Clarke
> has been saying in public for years, and was telling Bush and Cheney in
> private before that, that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were natural
> enemies and had no connection with each other.  The 9/11 commission
> report found no significant ties.  And just a few days ago a Senate
> Intelligence Committee report came out saying that, indeed, Hussein saw
> Al Qaeda as a threat, not an ally.

I do not accept Richard Clarke as a reliable source.

....Yet Zarkawi was taken to Iraq for medical treatement when he was wounded 
in afghanistan.

Only of tangential importance to me.  Iraq as a terrorist enabler was the 
important thing.

I'm not willing to agree that Iraq had no ties to Al-Queda.  Certainly 
Saddam would identify Al-Queda as a threat to his long-term aim of 
dominating the mideast, but that wouldn't stop him from working with them in 
2002.  Iran has the same aim and harbors Al-Queda just fine.  And they're 
Wahabbists--Sunnis--and the Iranians are shia.  Even with extra reasons to 
despise Al-Queda, Iran is providing them a safe haven.  No reason Saddam 
wouldn't have done the same.

"Keep your freinds close, you enemies closer."


> [snip]
>> Bush and Cheney's assertions are right in line with what I thought they
>> were.  No direct role for Iraq in 9/11.
>
> Of course they were, when they were pinned down about it.  But only
> then.  Look, most Americans had very little reason to suspect Iraq on
> September 12, 2001, and I'd be willing to wager most of them didn't.
> Then for months and years, Bush and Cheney both seem constitutionally
> unable to mention Iraq without mentioning 9/11 in the same sentence.  At
> By the time of the beginning of the Iraq invasion, and even up to pretty
> recently, a scary percentage of Americans (pick your survey) believed
> that Iraq had _something_ to do with 9/11.  If you believe this is a
> coincidence, I have a bridge to sell you.  The mere fact of the
> administration _implying_ a connection all those times far outweighs the
> few times when they were questioned about it and admitted explicitly
> that there was no causal relationship.  Even when they do, as Cheney did
> on _Meet the Press_, the phrasing is usually that "we can't _prove_ a
> connection yet"--the implication being that we still suspect there is
> one, and that we'll prove it eventually.  Yes, if you parse everything
> down to the letter, they never out and out _say_ there's a causal
> connection, but then, if you follow Bill Clinton's reasoning about the
> meaning of all the words and phrases he used, he never lied about
> Lewinsky either.

I take this as an indication you don't have a better link to prove the Bush 
Admin alleged Iraq complicity in 9/11.

I rememeber people thought that there might be an Iraq/Al-Queda link.  I 
don't remember the Bush Admin driving it.  Why did people want to equate the 
two?  Two words: cognitive dissonance.

As for clinton, there's a stain on a blue dress that proves he lied.  When 
you have such a smoking gun, we can equate Clinton and Bush.  Find something 
reliable that proves the Bush admin drove the an Iraq-9/11 link or Bush 
remains a cut above Clinton by your own comparison.


>> Remember this is just Cheny's opinion.  Bush's stated opinion was "no 
>> role
>> for Iraq in 9/11".  It's obvious Cheney is speaking for himself, not the
>> Bush Admin as a whole.
>
> You asked for adminstration rhetoric.

...and He didn't say what you claim he said.


> | "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq
> | and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between
> | Iraq and al Qaeda," the president said.
>
> Doesn't sound that different to me.  (And--see my first paragraph
> above--it's still not true.)

Reminder: Amy claims that the Bush administration said Iraq was complicit in 
9/11.  Alleging a "relationship" with Al-Queda does not allege complicity in 
9/11.

That is the point I was defending when you replied to my post asking Amy to 
find a better quote.  You poets that CNN article, which no better proves 
Amy's point than her own article did.

As I said: Try again.


-- 
Terrorist actions are not provoked by the projection of force but inspired 
by the perception of weakness"

--Dick Cheny, 1/4/2006
                           
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)