Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Daily Show (22/8/06) - President's Comments?  
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12466 posts, RR: 37
Posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1279 times:

I was just watching the Daily Show (we get it in the UK the night after you get it in the US) and an extract from the President's press conference was shown, where he said - in answer to a question - that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and, in a later comment, he said much the same. Now, I seem to recall that in the days after 9/11, the official line was that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda. Is there a place where one can see, in black and white, the major deciding factors which pushed the US to invade Iraq? Was it the threat of its chemical/biological weapons? Al Qaeda? Threat to other countries in the region?

Now, I know this has the potential to be an emotive issue, but I don't want it to be and I'm not out to provoke flamebait or anything; just a simply "yes" or "no".

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineVSLover From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1897 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1269 times:

it evolved from

1--iraq has WMDs
2--alluding that iraq was connected to 9/11
3--iraq could potentially support terrorists
4--iraq was under the rule of a brutal dictator
5--we broke it we must fix it

so in short, there is no CLEAR answer to your question as to the major deciding factors as it has been proven the "deciding factors" were clearly predicated on incomplete intelligence.


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1261 times:

Quoting VSLover (Reply 1):
as it has been proven the "deciding factors" were clearly predicated on incomplete intelligence.

All 5 have some level of truth to them. But there is also the possibility that they all are secondary reasons, and the primary reason is something else. I have my suspicions.

One correction, Iraq DID support terrorist, as in Hezbollah. It is just Al Qaeda that is debatable as to the timing and the extent.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineAC773 From Canada, joined Nov 2005, 1730 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1255 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Thread starter):
Now, I seem to recall that in the days after 9/11, the official line was that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda.

That's true, but as you've said, their official line has changed since then.

Before the US went into Iraq, the Bush administration made the case that Hussein had connections with Al Qaeda and was partly responsible for 9/11. They also said that he had "weapons of mass destruction".

Now that we haven't found any evidence to substantiate either of those claims, the administration has changed their justification for war. They're telling us that Saddam was an evil person and that we needed to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq.

If the administration had admitted from the start that Hussein didn't have anything to do with 9/11, I really doubt the public would have gone along with it.



Better to be nouveau than never to have been riche at all.
User currently offlineQR332 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1223 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 2):
All 5 have some level of truth to them

Not really:

Quoting VSLover (Reply 1):
1--iraq has WMDs

3 years on and no magical WMDs have appeared... I mean, Bush made it sound like Saddam could click his fingers and nuke Washington!

Quoting VSLover (Reply 1):
2--alluding that iraq was connected to 9/11

Islamists hate Saddam, and there was never any evidence of connections to 9/11.

Quoting VSLover (Reply 1):
3--iraq could potentially support terrorists

Under Saddam? Saddam had a very teight reign of terror which made sure no Islamists could flourish under, and when the US invaded and failed to handle the Iraq issue properly, the statement "Iraq could potentially support terrorists" turned into "Iraq is now definatley gonna support terrorists".

Quoting VSLover (Reply 1):
4--iraq was under the rule of a brutal dictator

And Saudi Arabia is the world's most oppressive state, yet America has no problems supporting it.

Quoting VSLover (Reply 1):
5--we broke it we must fix it

The only reasonable argument out of the 5...

BTW, VSLover, i'm not attacking you in any way, i'm just showing that the 5 do not really have any proper degree of truth in them.


User currently offlineVSLover From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1897 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1215 times:

Quoting QR332 (Reply 4):
BTW, VSLover, i'm not attacking you in any way, i'm just showing that the 5 do not really have any proper degree of truth in them.

oh i understand. i just set forth the arguments presented to jusitfy the war. he asked a question and i wanted to answer without going into argument or anaylisis.

in no way do i believe ANY of the five reasons to be reasonable or factual in the least!


User currently offlineJ.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 663 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1199 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Thread starter):
Is there a place where one can see, in black and white, the major deciding factors which pushed the US to invade Iraq? Was it the threat of its chemical/biological weapons? Al Qaeda? Threat to other countries in the region?

We here in the States have no idea why we are really in Iraq. But as a clue I tend to look at the following:

  • The players in first Gulf War.
  • The alleged assassination threat on Bush 1's life by Saddam.
  • The ties of the Bush family to Saudi Arabia.
  • Our Co-President's ties to the company rebuilding Iraq.
  • Coincidence of having Bush JR "in charge" with the same idiots involved with the first Gulf War.

    This is why I belive we are there. I am sure the Fox news lovers disagree, but that's their problem. Not mine.

    JM



What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1718 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1189 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Thread starter):
Is there a place where one can see, in black and white, the major deciding factors which pushed the US to invade Iraq?

Obviously Bush made a variety of speeches on Iraq, but this one made on October 7, 2002 in Cincinnati prior to the Congressional vote was the most lengthy and detailed.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineMaury From United States of America, joined May 2005, 532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1165 times:

An eerie, doom-laden silence...none of our resident flag-wrapped Bush defenders ("truth be damned--he's the President, and you're either [say it with me] with us or agin' us!") have chimed in yet with their tortuous, disconnected "yes it certainly was Iraq, and if it wasn't, it's too late to apologize now" lines of reason?

Ah--it's the thread title. The Daily Show's on Comedy Central, not Fox. They don't recognize the show's name. Put "Ann Coulter" in the title--you'll see some reactionary reaction then! They scan for her name like pigs scan for truffles. A lot like, in fact.

QR332 handled The 5 pretty well.


User currently offlineItsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2768 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1160 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Thread starter):
that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
I don't follow most of President Bush's press conferences as they are simply too painful to watch but I did see the one Jon Stewart profiled. Is this the first time Mr. Bush has admitted, publicly anyway, that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11?

Edited for content: Just wanted to add that my question was genuine and is not meant to be inflammatory. I know our reasons for attacking Iraq have changed over time but I don't recall this administration ever admitting, publicly, that Iraq had no connection to the 9/11 attacks.

[Edited 2006-08-24 08:25:05]

User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1160 times:

Quoting Maury (Reply 8):
An eerie, doom-laden silence...none of our resident flag-wrapped Bush defenders ("truth be damned--he's the President, and you're either [say it with me] with us or agin' us!") have chimed in yet with their tortuous, disconnected "yes it certainly was Iraq, and if it wasn't, it's too late to apologize now" lines of reason?

Well, well, well, Maury -

I'll toss a comment in here just to make eat a small bit of crow.

I don't think you'll see a lot of Bush-defenders in here because a lot of us are so damn tired of  banghead  and listening to  dopey  comments from members of your ilk that continue to  cry  and have constant  hissyfit  about the same old shit over and over and over.

It's called monotonous . . . look it up.

These types of threads pop up once a week or so and they always end up the same way with the same people saying the shit - frankly, they're borish.

Want some participation - tell you and your fellow Bush Bashers to come up with something new. You people are  bored  yawn  zzz  the hell out of most of us.

Next?


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21461 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1151 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 10):
the same old shit over and over and over.

You'll see most of it vanish the second the Bush apologists stop justifying and defending the indefensible, thereby basically stating that they'd be all for it again the next time around!

And unfortunately it's not water under the bridge at all - the shit has hit the fan but is still in full flight at this point and contaminates all our lives in one way or another.

If a repetition was impossible, there would be much less point in discussing it, but people who find nothing wrong are already in preparation for a repeat. And that must be fought tooth and nail.

Sorry for the inconvenience.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1148 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 11):
You'll see most of it vanish the second the Bush apologists stop justifying and defending the indefensible, thereby basically stating that they'd be all for it again the next time around!

I honestly don't believe that Klaus . . . really.

There will always be, no matter what, some numbnut that pipes in with Bush this and Bush that no matter what. Just like the numbnuts that continue to pipe in with Clinton this and Clinton that.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 11):
unfortunately it's not water under the bridge at all

DIdn't claim that it was . . . I said it was BORING. Monotonous.  bored  yawn  zzz 

Come up with some new material.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21461 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1140 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
I honestly don't believe that Klaus . . . really.

They'd have hardly a chance of actually starting a new adventure right now, but denying that anything had been wrong with the policy is the immediate preparation for a repeat at the next opportunity. That's why it can't stand.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
DIdn't claim that it was . . . I said it was BORING. Monotonous.

I wouldn't really disagree - but even so, certain lines of argumentation cannot be allowed to stand without objection.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
Come up with some new material.

I sincerely hope there is no requirement for me to do so...!  mischievous 


User currently offlinePadraighaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1139 times:

Quoting Maury (Reply 8):
Put "Ann Coulter" in the title--you'll see some reactionary reaction then! They scan for her name like pigs scan for truffles.

Best line I've read in ages!

 laughing 

Padraig Houlahan


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1117 times:

Quoting QR332 (Reply 4):
Under Saddam? Saddam had a very teight reign of terror which made sure no Islamists could flourish under, and when the US invaded and failed to handle the Iraq issue properly, the statement "Iraq could potentially support terrorists" turned into "Iraq is now definatley gonna support terrorists".

Wrong, Saddam was funding Hezbollah suicide bombers attacking our allie.

Quoting QR332 (Reply 4):
And Saudi Arabia is the world's most oppressive state, yet America has no problems supporting it.

Support hem? How?

Quoting QR332 (Reply 4):
3 years on and no magical WMDs have appeared... I mean, Bush made it sound like Saddam could click his fingers and nuke Washington!

As if the possibility of them being exported to Syria or somewhere else is so remote. The remaining WMDs documented by the UN are partially unaccounted for, that is a fact. We cant find the original films of the moon landing, is it any surprise that things like this cant be found?

Quoting QR332 (Reply 4):
Islamists hate Saddam, and there was never any evidence of connections to 9/11.

Are you saying that it is impossible, that there was no reason to suspect?

Quoting QR332 (Reply 4):
i'm just showing that the 5 do not really have any proper degree of truth in them.

In your opinion based on the information you have available.

Quoting J.mo (Reply 6):
But as a clue I tend to look at the following:

I suggest that you simply look at a map for clues. We have inserted ourselves between Iran and Israel, and Iran and Pakistan.

We have surrounded Iran, it is so obvious. Why do you think they are sabre rattling?

This is about Iran, and us preventing them from taking Iraq, attacking Israel, and continuing to corrupt Afghanistan. It is a containment tactic that has long been a mainstay of US foreign policy all over the world.

This is not a concept most Americans would understand because the middle east is just not all that important or familiar to most. They had to make it simple.

That is how I see it, and I am not alone in this view.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineCaptaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1111 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 10):
Next?

Well, supposedly over 40,000 civilians have been killed in the Iraqi conflict so far. Perhaps you find that boring as well?

Approximately 3,000 people were killed in 9-11, which is absolutely tragic. But how can we brush off the fact that over 40,000 civilians, on top of coalition soldiers, have been killed as a result of the Iraqi war?



"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1105 times:

Quoting Captaingomes (Reply 16):
Well, supposedly over 40,000 civilians have been killed in the Iraqi conflict so far. Perhaps you find that boring as well?

Approximately 3,000 people were killed in 9-11, which is absolutely tragic. But how can we brush off the fact that over 40,000 civilians, on top of coalition soldiers, have been killed as a result of the Iraqi war?

I don't brush that off or take it lightly at all . . . .

But you show me where in any reply - up until yours - there was any mention of that. Nope, not at all - just the same old bullshit rhetoric about WMD, Saddam, blah, blah, blah . . . . monotonous.

Curiously, I wonder how many of those people were killed by there fellow countrymen and how many were killed by coalition troops? Not that there deaths are any less tragic just that I think all too often people seem to forget they're killing themselves off at a record rate . . . because their various and sundry RELIGIOUS factions can't pull their heads outta their asses long enough to sit down and get something accomplished for the good of the country.


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1098 times:

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 9):
Is this the first time Mr. Bush has admitted, publicly anyway, that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11?

You're right.

And from the Washington Post today:
Bush's New Iraq Argument: It Could Be Worse

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 24, 2006; A01

Of all the words that President Bush used at his news conference this week to defend his policies in Iraq, the one that did not pass his lips was "progress."

For three years, the president tried to reassure Americans that more progress was being made in Iraq than they realized. But with Iraq either in civil war or on the brink of it, Bush dropped the unseen-progress argument in favor of the contention that things could be even worse.

The shifting rhetoric reflected a broader pessimism that has reached into even some of the most optimistic corners of the administration -- a sense that the Iraq venture has taken a dark turn and will not be resolved anytime soon. Bush advisers once believed that if they met certain benchmarks, such as building a constitutional democracy and training a new Iraqi army, the war would be won. Now they believe they have more or less met those goals, yet the war rages on.

While still committed to the venture, officials have privately told friends and associates outside government that they have grown discouraged in recent months. Even the death of al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq proved not to be the turning point they expected, they have told associates, and other developments have been relentlessly dispiriting, with fewer signs of hope.

Bush acknowledged this week that he has been discouraged as well. "Frustrated?" he asked. "Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. This is -- but war is not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times and they're difficult times and they're straining the psyche of our country."


User currently offlineCaptaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1098 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 17):
But you show me where in any reply - up until yours - there was any mention of that. Nope, not at all - just the same old bullshit rhetoric about WMD, Saddam, blah, blah, blah . . . . monotonous.

You may find it monotonous, but what does it take to make some people realize the importance of this? If just a fraction of deaths were being experienced here in North America, the reaction would obviously be much different.

I also won't deny that a lot of those deaths are surely as a result of their own acts, but let's not minimize the importance that the cowboy attitude by Bush has resulted in disgusting amount of deaths abroad that cannot under any circumstances be justified.



"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1085 times:

Quoting Captaingomes (Reply 16):
Well, supposedly over 40,000 civilians

'Civilians'? Are you not lumping in insurgents and terrorists into that number? No uniform does not actually mean civilian.

Please do not take this as minimising the deaths of innocent Iraqis where 1 was of course too many.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineCFCUQ From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 712 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1080 times:

try this. After some 25ish years of financially and militarily supporting Saddam, Saddam anounces that the unit of trade for Iraqui oil will henceforth be the Euro, not the U.S. dollar. The economic fallout for the U.S. economy would have been disasterous, if not economically fatal. Presto, instant motivation for an invasion.

User currently offlineMaury From United States of America, joined May 2005, 532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1075 times:

By the way...isn't "Borish" the guy from Rocky & Bullwinkle? Or am I thinking of Borak...whatever ANCFlyer called it, I don't think he meant that adminsitration-defenders, other than himself, see the discussion as borING, since they expend a great deal of energy defending Bush's policy decisions in the court of public opinion.

If indeed Sarge finds anti-Bush opinion "borish," perhaps he should start a well-documented "Bush adminsitration positive highlights" thread, and invite comment from all. Or...just go back to watching Fox "News." There...that's better.


User currently offlineCFCUQ From Canada, joined Sep 2005, 712 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1075 times:

BTW, looks like I killed another thread .......

User currently offlineMaury From United States of America, joined May 2005, 532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1066 times:

Quoting CFCUQ (Reply 23):
looks like I killed another thread

No no, they just find discussions like these "borish." Whereas many find their attitudes (dismissive, patronizing, marginalizing, jingoistic, tunnel-visioned) "boorish."


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 25, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1060 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 11):
If a repetition was impossible, there would be much less point in discussing it, but people who find nothing wrong are already in preparation for a repeat.

"WASHINGTON, Aug. 23 Some senior Bush administration officials and top Republican lawmakers are voicing anger that American spy agencies have not issued more ominous warnings about the threats that they say Iran presents to the United States.

Some policy makers have accused intelligence agencies of playing down Iran’s role in Hezbollah’s recent attacks against Israel and overestimating the time it would take for Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

The complaints, expressed privately in recent weeks, surfaced in a Congressional report about Iran released Wednesday. They echo the tensions that divided the administration and the Central Intelligence Agency during the prelude to the war in Iraq. "


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/wa...62045bd83&ei=5094&partner=homepage


Deja vu, anyone?



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Daily Show Segment On Library Masturbator posted Sat Sep 30 2006 16:56:38 by AC773
Pervez Musharraf On "The Daily Show" posted Tue Sep 26 2006 05:38:44 by Bobster2
New Orleans Elections Will Take Place On 4/22/06 posted Wed Apr 12 2006 15:38:14 by PHLBOS
Stephen Colbert Was Better On The Daily Show posted Sat Apr 1 2006 03:54:24 by FSPilot747
IL Gov. Unaware "Daily Show" Was A Parody! posted Fri Feb 24 2006 04:08:39 by USAFHummer
"Daily Show" New Set...AAAGGHH! posted Fri Jul 15 2005 05:12:03 by USAFHummer
The Daily Show posted Thu May 23 2002 05:11:57 by CannibalZ3
Dirty Sanchez The Movie Out 22/09/06 posted Fri Sep 8 2006 17:15:00 by Leezyjet
Comments On Headlines "Ozzy Osborne Reality Show." posted Tue Feb 19 2002 00:38:32 by 747-600X
Offical 06/07 N. Hemisphere Ski Season Tread posted Fri Nov 24 2006 01:59:23 by ZBBYLW