A little bit of honesty from Bush

flavio

flavio

Banned
It aint much...but we'll take what we can get.

He immediately was challenged about the number of Iraqis who have lost their lives since the beginning of the war.


"I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis," Bush said. "We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq."
Click to expand...
Another questioner challenged the administration's linkage of the Iraq war to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Bush said Saddam Hussein was a threat and was widely believed to have weapons of mass destruction — a belief that later proved false.
Click to expand...
Separately, the Pentagon has acknowledged paying Iraqi journalists and newspapers to print favorable articles.
Click to expand...
Source...
 
I personally never believed in a link between Iraq and the 9-11 crowd. They diferences between the ideologies of the two groups was to the point of loathing. The Iraqi regime was a purely self-enriching secular dictator setup while the Al-qaida cowboys were always a pack of religious throwback psychotics that hated the 'western corruptions' that were taking place on their turf ...like Iraq; fancy cars, liquor, sattelite tv, Mr T. starter kits of gold chains, fancy British suits, and porn. The 9-11 would loved to have shucked Saddams oyster just as much as he would ours (US).
 
Exactly, but due to the BushCo propaganda machine almost half the country thought Saddam was personally involved. Without that and the WMD BS though he wouldn't have got the invasion he had planned.
 
We've been thru this. Bush & his administration didn't link 9/11 & Iraq. The link is general terrorism & Iraq & there is plenty of evidence of that. It's the anti-war left that tied the two.
 
flavio said:
Exactly, but due to the BushCo propaganda machine almost half the country thought Saddam was personally involved. Without that and the WMD BS though he wouldn't have got the invasion he had planned.
Click to expand...

So you'd rather have Saddam still in power in Iraq?

It doesn't really matter, now, why we went. We're there, and we have a job to finish. How does that help, say, my brother, an E-7 in the Army over in the AOR now, or me and my team of 30, who are going sometime in January? What does that do for us, the servicemembers sent there to finish a job started by the first President Bush, hyped by President Clinton, and, finally, continued by the current President?
 
Gonz said:
We've been thru this. Bush & his administration didn't link 9/11 & Iraq. The link is general terrorism & Iraq & there is plenty of evidence of that. It's the anti-war left that tied the two.
Click to expand...
No, anti-war groups have always emphasized the distinction.

From the same article I already linked....

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.
Click to expand...
Encouraging this ridiculous conception was how Bush took the 9/11 tragedy and used it as an opportunity to further his own agenda.
 
flavio said:
Encouring this ridiculous conception was how Bush took the 9/11 tragedy and used it as an opportunity to further his own agenda.
Click to expand...

Accepted. The real issue, tho, is where to take that.
 
Gonz said:
We've been thru this. Bush & his administration didn't link 9/11 & Iraq. The link is general terrorism & Iraq & there is plenty of evidence of that. It's the anti-war left that tied the two.
Click to expand...
:rofl:
 
chcr said:
:rofl:
Click to expand...

Judging from the smilie, I take it you wish to be opposed to what was stated by Gonz. No problem...just show where Bush and Company linked the two, from the beginning (2001) period and all is well...;)
 
Gato_Solo said:
Judging from the smilie, I take it you wish to be opposed to what was stated by Gonz. No problem...just show where Bush and Company linked the two, from the beginning (2001) period and all is well...;)
Click to expand...
Sorry Gato, don't really care that much whether you agree or not. It was quite clear from 9/11 on that the administration was using the 9/11 attack to justify a war in Iraq without actually saying so in so many words. Believe what you want, some things are self-evident IMO. Note that if 9/11 had never happened however, there would have still been a war in Iraq. That was a foregone conclusion when Bush became president. Likely would have happened in any case.
 
chcr said:
Sorry Gato, don't really care that much whether you agree or not. It was quite clear from 9/11 on that the administration was using the 9/11 attack to justify a war in Iraq without actually saying so in so many words. Believe what you want, some things are self-evident IMO.
Click to expand...

Show me. If it's so self-evident, then you should find it quite easily. A speech from 2001...a newspaper clipping...a blog...anything will do.
 
chcr said:
It was quite clear from 9/11 on that the administration was using the 9/11 attack to justify a war in Iraq without actually saying so in so many words.
Click to expand...


Again, an accepted part of political manipulation of the flock. A greater challenge would be to find a president that hadn't used it at one point or another. Used by politicians, PR men, and sales people day in, day out.
 
*sigh* Don't you ever draw your own conclusions? I do. :shrug: It's an opinion, based on news reports from all manner of sources from 9/11 through the present. The administration... You know what, I have neither the time nor inclination to hash this out yet again, I have an opinion, you have another. Debate it with someone who thinks it'll make a difference.
 
chcr said:
*sigh* Don't you ever draw your own conclusions? I do. :shrug: It's an opinion, based on news reports from all manner of sources from 9/11 through the present. The administration... You know what, I have neither the time nor inclination to hash this out yet again, I have an opinion, you have another. Debate it with someone who thinks it'll make a difference.
Click to expand...

Actually I draw my own conclusions all the time. I just want to know how you came about with yours. If it's so easy, then why hide it?
 
Gato_Solo said:
Actually I draw my own conclusions all the time. I just want to know how you came about with yours. If it's so easy, then why hide it?
Click to expand...
*sigh* Hide what? I gave you my opinion. I can't give you specific sources because I read and watch news from dozens of sources here and abroad. Frankly, I don't remember specifics. What, specifically is it that you think I'm trying to hide?
You know what? I give up, you win. You're completely right, I'm completely wrong and clearly deluded, quite possibly insane. Happy? :lloyd:
 
chcr said:
*sigh* Hide what? I gave you my opinion. I can't give you specific sources because I read and watch news from dozens of sources here and abroad. Frankly, I don't remember specifics. What, specifically is it that you think I'm trying to hide?
You know what? I give up, you win. You're completely right, I'm completely wrong and clearly deluded, quite possibly insane. Happy? :lloyd:
Click to expand...

I never said that, either. If you have a damning source, post it. That's what I'm asking for. It just has to be from the same time period as 9/11. Anything beyond March of 2002 is suspect.

One more thing...since we're dealing with honesty..How honest are you being when dealing with the President? You're damning his decision to go to war on flimsy evidence, yet you are using the same premis to damn him for going...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top