Pol - Give props to Bush
 

He's shown an ability lately to take responsibility for his actions - including the faulty intelligence. I admire that, and it bodes well as to his decision making in the future.


From this article: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/...raq/index.html

Ok, props to him.


EDIT: FUCK THAT POLITICAL SHIT

oh yea what "props" he deserves for this one! Ive shit myself, i shall finally admit it and continue to sit in my dung. hooray!

This will end badly.

Nobody, and I mean, nobody thought you could pull off those shiny, huge-ass buttons and you DID IT.

Hell ya, you did it.


Mad props.

It is a huge feat for a man to accept responsibility for his actions. I'd also like to commend the President for no longer tattling. He's really growing up.

This is not him taking responsibility. This is him wanting to give the impression of taking responsibility while actually blaming the intelligence community. If a losing head football coach said, "As head coach I am responsible for the gameplan. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by firing my defensive coordinator," he wouldn't be taking responsibility, he would be putting the responsibility at the feet of the DC.

If Bush really is accepting responsibility, is he calling invading Iraq a mistake?

But didn't he just say the other day that if he knew then what he knows now, he still would have invaded Iraq? Does that mean the intelligence didn't factor into his decision to invade? If the intelligence wasn't the main reason, what was?

Common sense.

Then you better sign up for the war in North Korea... and Iran... and every South American country with a dictator...

One thing at a time Chubby, one thing at a time.

A copperhead will kill you. It could kill one of my dogs. It could kill one of my grandchildren. It could kill any of my four great grandchildren. They play all the time where I found these killers. And you know, when I discovered these copperheads, I didn't call my wife Shirley and ask her advice, like I do on most things. I didn't yell for help from my neighbors or take it to the city council I just took a hoe and knocked them in the head and killed them. Dead as a doorknob. I guess you could call it a unilateral action. Or pre-emptive or even bellicose and reactive I took their poisonous heads off because they were a threat to me. And they were a threat to my home and my family. They were a threat to all I hold dear.

The U.S. led a war against the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington?

The analogy makes sense, except for the fact that going to war involves putting millions of lives of U.S. soldiers and civilians at risk. Killing a snake takes 10 seconds and does not put anyone at risk other than the guy with the shovel.

I appreciate the force of your convictions, but I just don't think that we can draw a useful analogy between starting a full scale military conflict in every country that we decide is dangerous and killing a garden pest.

Sometimes, you need to fight to protect yourself, and sometimes you need to fight to protect that in which you beleive most strongly. But those decisions must each be made on their own terms, with careful thought and deliberation. War is like nothing else. Analogies to common life just do not serve us well as we try to engage these issues.

I thought this was about newly acquired Brewers pitcher David Bush.

Or maybe, one of those Bush daughters. He can get props for that. Little else.

Except that "the guy with the shovel" in the analogy is "the nation", of which the military is a part.


Like I said, one thing at a time, one thing at a time.


Neither does paralysis by analysis.

Would you accumulate $10,000 in credit card debt and sacrifice one of your children to kill a copperhead on the other side of the county?

I honestly don't think I would mind if Barbara Bush was named Empress of the World.

If it threatened my entire family & all future generations as well ?

It's a sad but telling thing that we're saddled with those who hesitate to answer such a question.

Does a copperhead on the other side of the county threaten your entire family and all future generations? :confused:

EDIT: I guess the question is, how was Saddam threatening your entire family and all future generations?

To use a common day ancedote, the War was more like if Bigglesworth attacked me from behind, getting up, and beating up albion instead of oh, finding Bigglesworth.

That is what the left would like to suggest, but that really wasn't what happened. Iraq was invaded to remove Saddam from power, not to fight terrorism. The WMD and really the threat of the possibility that Saddam would turn over WMD to a terrorist group to attack the US was simply dubbed the poster boy for the war. Later, when it became politically expedient, the Admin. incorporated the War in Iraq into the War on Terror. There were plenty of reasons to remove Saddam from power that had nothing to do with terrorism, just ask Bill Clinton. All of the leading Democrats in the ninties were for regime change in Iraq, because they all believed he had or was working toward WMDs.

From where I sit, the war in Iraq was justified, solely to remove Saddam from Power. I don't believe the Admin lied about intelligence...I think the intelligence just sucked. I believe the admin cited many valid reasons for removing Saddam, and not just the WMD threat. That is why I believe the invasion was justified. I find it duplicitous to argue that Bush was wrong to attack Iraq, when I thought removing Saddam was a good idea back when the Clinton administration came up with it.

As for the thread...I think Bush is too late coming to the table for "props". He initiated a preemptive strike doctrine, that declared that potential threats to the United States would be treated as legitimate targets. When, shortly after the doctrine's first real use, it became apparent that the intelligence portraying a major piece of that threat was wholly incorrect, he made no mention that he might need to re-examine the new preemtive strike doctrine.

Yes I'm happy he said it, but he should have been saying this a hell of a long time ago.

Although you certainly continue to assess & analyze available options, I don't see any reason to bring that up particularly, especially since the doctrine of preemption is clearly the most sound one available to us (in general terms, with regard to entities that threaten this nation, or who attempt to acquire the means with which to do so).

To gin up a quick analogy (because I don't know if what I'm trying to say is all that clear) -- You consciously/sub-consciously decide not to run a red light, because you know it's a bad idea. That doesn't mean there's a need to announce to the passengers in your vehicle "Hey, I've assessed my options & have decided not to run this red light".

If you are basing your decision to preemtively strike a target or another nation on information gathered by our intelligence system, and that system has shown that it may not provite even remotely accurate intelligence, I think it might be wise to reconsider acting on that information.

Until the failings of the intelligence network of the U.S. have been evaluated(and I really don't know what has officially been done in this regard) and corrected, I think the doctrine of preemption should be shelved.

Fine. You say getting Saddam out was a good enough reason. OK, why are the Iraqis more important than the Congolese, Sudanese, and fifty other fucked up places on the planet? Listen, I'd love the ability to knock out every scumbag dictator in the world, but regardless of what some may think, the US still doesn't have that ability. There has to be a threat beyond 'this guy is a MFer' to invade a country.

Second, do you think there was any chance in Hades Bush could've gotten the support to go to war if the reason was 'liberty and democracy?' If ya' do, I have some beautiful wetlands in the Everglades to sell.

well, technically, they thought saddam was a terrorist and would hit us. at least, thats what they said

but if what you say is 100% true, its still beyond retarded. terrorism is the thread, and the world was behind us. we didn't have the resources or need to go into iraq

Agreed. Which, by the way, is why we didn't invade all those other places mentioned and why Saddam Hussein/Iraq was quite a bit beyond that phase.

Except he wasn't. WMD's? Nope. Helping out Osama? Nope, especially when compared to oh - Saudi Arabia. Actual work toward WMD's? He thought he was, but there's evidence that he was near to having a nuke as you and I am. Killing his own people? Sure, but like I said, a lot of places worse than Iraq to be unfortunately.

So again, how was Saddam 'beyond the pale'? An SOB who will hopefully get his balls chewed off daily in Hades if there is, sure. But, worse than twenty other dictators currently murdering and raping? Nah.

To be up front, I'll let you work out the details on your own. There are plenty of answers, many, many of which have been posted on these very boards. I'm not trying to be rude, but you should do some research on your own.

You're the one who waded into this thread and made a defense of the removal of Saddam - you should be the one to provide evidence for that defense.

I'd also add the number one reason that he should have been removed. He thumbed his nose at the U.N. for twelve freaking years. If no one did anything about it, the U.N. becomes the toothless ineffective body that they aspire to be. Also...the WMD thing is something we know in retrospect. Just before the invasion Hans Blix declared that the Iraqis hadn't even come to the fundamental conclusion that they needed to disarm. I find it hard to blame the admin for citing the WMD threat as a reason to remove Saddam, when I think they really believed he had them/was working on them.

Like I said I thought regime change in Iraq was a good idea when the Democrats came up with it in the ninties, I'm certainly not willing to disparage Bush for actually doing something about it.

I think that first part is a bit revisionist. The closest they came was claiming that Saddam might befriend a terror group, based on the same logis as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and provide that group a WMD to use against the U.S.. Now after the invasion started, and they(the admin) wanted to spend more money on Iraq, they lumped Iraq into the War on Terror. This was only done after the invasion was complete, not in the run up to the war.

This I agree with...except for that retarded bit. I do agree that we should have dumped the millitary sources into Afghanistan and cleaned that up(finished the job properly) before we went into Iraq. I'll never forget the first time I learned of the disparity in troop levels between Iraq and Afghanistan. It was stunning.

People seem to forget he invaded Kuwait and basically the entire world agreed force should be used. We removed him from Kuwait and he asked for an armistice. Iraq never lived up to the armistice. People also seem to forget that our troops have been there trying to enforce the armistice and Saddam was shooting at them constantly. Our troops have been in harms way in Iraq since 1990. We have been spending millions of dollars each year since 1991 just trying to enforce the armistice. It's about time we finished the job we started in 1990.

Let's see, we are spending millions of dollars a year and no Americans have died, what should we do? Spend $300 billion and kill 2,000 Americans and 30,000 Iraqi's? Brilliant! We're spending more on debt service now than we spent per year on containment, so the cost of containment argument is a farce.

Likewise, saying Bush was only following Clinton's lead is comical and quite sophomoric in its understanding of the situation. Clinton kept Iraq and Saddam in line with surgical attacks and tough talk. Clinton's forced regime change rhetoric was meant to show resolve and to keep Saddam in line, which worked perfectly. There are several reasons why it was never an actual policy goal of the United States, best stated by George H.W. Bush in his rationale not to go all the way to Baghdad in the first place:


Except for the capture of Saddam, that's downright prescient. Bottom line is that Clinton did not invade Iraq, he did not want to invade Iraq, and we are not in Iraq because of Clinton.

I agree with you that they lied to/extorter the public after the invasion started, but I came across these quotes with a two minute Google search:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3433613.stm

I think that pretty much proves you wrong on the pre-war stuff, but I can find more quotes if you think it would be helpful.

Can't....Stop.....Laughing.

Really? How many WMD's did they find in Iraq? How was the nuclear program coming along? Clinton's Iraq policy produced results, that's a fact.

I think most people don't know what the word 'extortion' actually means.

I never said anything about Clinton. Besides he was too busy with interns to really solve the problem. He just sat and watched. He offered no real solution to the Saddam problem. The issue here is how long do we do containment, which btw, our friend Osama says is why he attacked us. We were containing from the land of the holy sites. The problem had to be solved and finished. So we either go into Iraq or leave Saudi Arabia with Saddam in power. I'm guessing we can see that just leaving is not a good answer. We need stability in that part of the Middle East. At least some. Our economy and the rest of the worlds is dependent on it. Taking out Saddam is a risky choice (actually very risky), but the one with the most potential.

Let's talk WMD and Nukes. There is no doubt about Iraq having WMD's and wanting to get Nukes. There was no documentation of the WMD's ever being destroyed. Iraq never completely cooperated with the UN inspectors. Don't listen to the Dem's talking points. Every Major country assumed the WMD's were still there, and yes the President and Congress saw mostly the same info. Blame Bush all you want, but Congress passed the authorization of force easily, not just along party lines. They're all at fault some what. It is Bush's vision and he should take the most heat. Did he lie, probably not. I'd bet my money that the boys in intel gave the administration what it thought it wanted to hear. Please the boss.

Bottom line is. We are taking a huge risk with possible huge rewards. A somewhat secure non radical, capitalist Iraq can help solve a lot of issues. A properous Iraq with all Irqis benefitting will be a model for the rest. The biggest problem in the Middle East is the growing population with stagnant economies. Saudi Arabia for example is rich, but it is not creating opportunity or hope for all Saudi's. Politically this area is way behind the rest of the world. Tribes and things are still important. We can only try to help them get it right.

It only took me 30 seconds to find this quote:

"In the months prior to the war, the Administration stressed that regime change through U.S.-led military action would yield benefits beyond disarmament, including liberation from an oppressive regime for the Iraqi people and enhancement of the prospects for peace and democracy throughout the Middle East. The goal of regime change in Iraq had been declared U.S. policy since November 1998. Even before then, U.S. efforts to oust Saddam had been pursued, with varying degrees of intensity, since the end of the Gulf war in 1991."

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/19708.pdf

November 1998. huh. Who was President then??????

I guess Clinton believed Saddam had to go as well. Again, too busy to figure it out. He had more important issues to discuss as he mentored his interns.

I'm glad you didn't feel the need to bring up the Lewinsky thing not once but twice. It doesn't really help the cause of the "we're really ticked because of perjury" people when there's a really large contingent that clearly cared about the sex scandal of it. Never mind that these aren't mutually exclusive groups and there are a lot of people who shout about how evil the perjury was but, in reality, it's the sex part that pisses them off. Ok, just had to get that out of the way. On to the useful stuff:

I think the point a couple of people have brought up in this thread is that while a lot of people believe Saddam should be removed, I bet the US has files about 20 or 30 countries that look like that- talking about removal of potential problems. The important question out of this is "why Saddam?" You can produce as many documents as you want saying Saddam was bad- no one is disputing that. What the dispute arises over is why go after him, in particular? If we went after every 2-bit dictator we wanted out at the cost of $300B and 2000 lives- well, the budget would be really fun.

That's why there are a lot of people who say it's a good war and a just war- he should have been removed from power. But, that doesn't mean we had to do it now and in this manner. And it seems like the info was doctored or at least fudged to convince people he was an emminent threat when he wasn't. But hindsight is 20/20, I suppose.

SI

Sex Scandal or no, any PRESIDENT who commits a FELONY should no longer have been President, regardless of what he lied about. Now, onto your other points:

Because he was a danger TO US. Those 20 or other dictators were not a a danger to Americans, but Saddam was. You think for a quick second that if he knew he could get away with it, he wouldn't aid a terrorist group in some fashion to attack us again? If you want to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt, dispite his past records, that's you. Of course, if the Dems had their way, we're be trying to find out WHY Osama attacked the US, or trying to NEGOTIATE with Saddam so we can do UN-mandated inspections. 12 years of Saddam thumbing his nose at us is long enough.

I still say WMD's were there, and Iraq simply moved them. Saddam knew he couldn't beat us, knew we were gonna invade, why not move them and try to make the US look like a food internationally?

He WAS an eminent threat. I for one am tired of the US being a reactive country. I'm tired of the "Let's wait until they attack us, so we can justify reacting" attitude of the Clinton Democrats. Looks great to the international community, but then again, they're not the one being attacked. If we're proactive, and take out the threats before they truly become threats, we minimize innocent American lives. And AMERICAN lives are the only ones I care about.

What problem? There were no WMD's, he was no threat to us, at least not any more of a threat than Castro has been for 60 years. I mentioned already why Bush hasn't provided any solution: the cost paid was much worse than decades of containment.

What happened to the WMD's, did the magic WMD fairy come and take them from under Saddam's pillow one night?

Are you serious? Seriously, I mean, how could you even believe that? There have been about 50 million reports about other countries that warned the US that there was no evidence for Iraq having WMD's, including France and Germany. And they both saw the same info? Are you kidding? The president gets a daily brief and is in charge of the intelligence and report making faculties of the country. This has been debunked by every major news organization.

Congress deserves some of the blame, especially for the decision to go to war, but not so much for the terrible way in which it was conducted. The Dems in congress were fighting the first Persian Gulf war again. They got burned in the first vote, and didn't want to get burned again. They were on the wrong side of both votes, one reason I didn't cry any tears when Daschle was ousted.

Then what do you make of the reports of Bush not taking the IAEA and CIA's advice and refusing to take items, since found to be bullshit, out of his speeches, specifically about the aluminum tubes and search for Uranium in Africa?

Clinton: Saddam should not be in charge of Iraq.

Bush: Saddam should not be in charge of Iraq, and we are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and sacrifice thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives to take him out and leave behind crappy state anyway

It's a subtle but important difference.

How was he an imminent threat?

But clearly, it wasn't the perjury you like to focus on. That's all my point was.

You don't think those others who we'd like to be removed are a threat to us in that fashion. If we want them out of power, it's not because we think they're all flowers and sunshine. Using your test, "if {insert X dictator} could get away with it, {insert X dictator} would aid a terrorist group in some fashion to attack us", too. We'll get back to this below.

Oh, I like how you slipped in "again" there. Because, as it has been shown time and time again, it was Saddam who helped aid the terrorists who went after us. Wait, he didn't? Wow- it's impressive the way people bite at propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

Yeah, I'm still a bit unclear on the eminent threat. There's no effing way in hell he has missiles that could make it over here. He was an eminent threat to the region (read: Israel) but those aren't the American lives you care about.

So, to sum up. You were worried about Saddam going after Americans. Never mind that he never has been able to attack Americans nor was he going to be capable of attacking Americans. Tho he might have been able to supply terrorists with weapons to go after us, tho we've never found a link to that. Just checking.

By this logic, we should be invading every country with a dangerous dictator in it, since, if given the chance they would go after us. So, when should we hit North Korea- they've actuallly got a nuclear program that people have seen? So has Iran and they've got it in for us. Heck, I'm sure Castro would fund terrorists if given the chance and we wouldn't even have to sail halfways around the world. So, when are we going to go after these countries and with what troops and what money?

SI

That's all well and good... he's taking responsility for going into Iraq and responsibility for fixing the intelligence. He should have taken responsibility for that a long, long time ago.

Now if he took responsibility for the intelligence he relied apon to go into Iraq and the refusal to listen to the "good" intelligence... then I'd give him props.


It would be nice if that "one thing at a time" strategy used some sort of meaningfull priority list in the future...

BTW... Clinton had sex!!

Giggles You provided quotes that said exactly what I said they said. They feared that Iraq might give WMDs to a terror group based on the "enemey of my enemy is my friend" possibility. All the quotes you did is show that the admin was touting that Saddam had contact with terror groups. You've cited quotes backing up my argument. They didn't equate Saddam with Terrorism in the run up to the war. They feared he might aid terror groups, but they didn't claim he was a terrorist by any stretch.

As for Clinton talking tough and using surgical strikes to what was it? In Line. That's what I found laughable. We blew up some anti aircraft weaponry. President Clinton continued to enforce the sanctions against Iraq that were put in place by the U.N. before he was President. There may have been tough talk, but the issue was settled before he was in office. Saddam was simply not bothered by the things the Clinton Admin did to him. He was just as big a problem for Bush II as he was for Clinton.

Yes, None, Not as well as Saddam wanted, in fact almost non-existant.

As for President Clinton's policies accomlishing those things? No. The sanctions were from the U.N., and they were already in place when he took office.

The sanctions were working. That appears to be clear now. Before the war though, that wasn't the case. Blix felt they hadn't even come to grips with the idea that they needed to disarm. They actively interfered with the inspectors at every turn. There was plenty of reason to believe that Saddam had, or was hiding on WMDs. We didn't know if the sanctions were working. France and Germany weren't even saying that Iraq didn't possess WMDs (They said they had no Proof, that was it. They certainly weren't running around citing intelligence to the contrary, or even disputing the U.S. Reports). They just argued we should let the process drag out ad-infinitum. You can pull out an odd report or two from the period claiming that Iraq didn't have WMDs, but honestly not many folks doubted that premise in the run up to the invasion. The Admin chose that as the poster boy for war for a reason...they thought it was true.



I clearly haven't drunk the Kool-aid that some have. As I'm not willing to go out as far on a limb as WVU, but really I'll argue all day about whether or not the invasion was the right thing to do or not. I'm still behind it 100%. As for the post war planning(or lack thereof), the timing, the rush to war, and some other things I'm right there criticizing the admin. For the choice to go to Iraq in the first place....I'm still a believer. Saddam needed to go.

Oh NOES!!! Let's get rid of this immoral regime right this minute...


oh.. he's no longer president? oooookay.

Btw.. I hear there are WMD in the United States.. should we invade? Whaddayasay?

Blen, here they are again:


I've highlighted all of the verbs. If, as you say, they are saying that Al-Q and Iraq MIGHT get together, then the verbs should be in the future tense. But what do we find? They're all in the past tense! I'd think you'd be hard pressed to find another single person on the planet not in the Bush administration that would say that those statements are forward looking and not implying a current connection between Al-Q and Iraq.

Some anti-aircraft weaponry? I know it wasn't a huge war where we could show other countries how big our manhood was, but I guess that Desert Fox got the job done. If anything, it was a lot cheaper than Bush's plan:

Blen, you sometimes have good comments, but you are just plain factually inaccurate in your posts in this thread.

Im not so sure that was a concern at all of ours considering our thumbing our nose at them to move out on our terms. At that moment I think we executed and labeled them as ineffective and toothless. Just pointing that out.

Glen:
I think that that is not true at all, not calling you a liar but we have already shown that simply stating something in the presses repeatedly is effective and the admin. repeatedly harked on the meeting between the 9/11 operative and the top level intelligence people of Iraq in Austria. As a matter of fact, This was stated during the VP debate. That was an insinuation, that IMO the smart guys in the admin. knew would lead a great majority of Americans to connect the dots that the two "had a relationship". No one noticed the printed edits the next day from the admin.

Biggles:
when you start a retort by purposely misspelling a persons name, as opposed to a non-pol thread, your initial disrespect isn't going to get them to take you more seriously, if they ever would anyways (i dont know)

I'm pretty sure I started that. In fact I know I did. It's just that Biggle's opinions often make me Giggle.



I appreciate you not calling me a liar. This is something that we simply have different opinions on. Some believe that the Admin insinuated that Saddam was linked to 9/11, and that was enough for Americans to jump to the conclusion.

I don't believe the admin insinuated there was any Iraq connection to 9/11. The closest they came was citing the, eventually withdrawn/discredited report that one of the 19 terrorists met with an Iraqi intel official some two years before the attacks. All that does is say that an Al Qaeda operative and an Iraqi Intel person met. It's an allegation that they had ties. It doesn't connect any of the dots required to put Saddam in the loop regarding 9/11. It simply wasn't an administration claim.

Oh and Bigglesworth. You are correct. I had forgotten that toward the end of Clinton's presidency Iraq had so hampered the inspection process that we recalled the inspectors, and bombed some targets. I still don't believe President Clinton did anything effective with regard to keeping Iraq in line. He simply maintained the status quo.

Also, given what we know in retrospect, those bombings probably didn't hit anything anyway. Bad intel regardind WMD, you know.

President George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address:


It's easy to google a number of lists of quotes from senior administration officials linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda. Since the U.S. public already knew that 9/11 = Al-Qaeda, it's not that hard of a connection to draw.

Given this, then, at the very least you have to admit that while admin official might not have technically linked 9/11 to Iraq, they did deliberately spread enough misinformation so that such a conclusion would be drawn.

Or not. Given that you sniped one line out of a speech, and decided on your own how you would interpret it. Let's try again.


Again more of we don't want Saddam to provide terrorists with WMDs. My stated position.

I think you miss my point. If you take all the instances where someone in the admin places Saddam & 9/11 in the same sentence, or Saddam and Al-Qaeda in the same sentence, eventually you get to the point where the admin is tacitly suggesting a link there.

But perhaps this administration is just horribly misunderstood? ;)

In another thread though we extrapolated, via Dutch, that Perception is reality and we all agreed that that is true, for most Americans in the information society. So, when the VP said this on TV, and it was entered into papers everywhere, the later whisper of a retraction does not combat or let off the hook that the seeds were planted prior to going to war and the retraction came after the consequences were rolling forward. You cant have it both ways.

I still maintain that almost no one believed that Iraq was behind 9/11. I keep hearing people on the left cite that as fact(that the Admin confused the Public), but really anyone actually paying attention to the news couldn't have come to, or even reasonably jumped to, that conclusion.

Not to mention there was lively debate on what the various evidence presented meant, and how crediblie it was ... there was plenty of cover for the Dems to hide behind if they wanted to object to the war, but they didn't.

but most, most people aren't as educated on politics, either side, as we are. AAMOF, in some past threads we have shown that while there may be a spectrum of intellect on the awareness scale BUT most Americans DID hear that and Im sure I could find a poll that backs the fact that a GREAT deal Americans did connect those dots and far fewer would've heard or considered the retractions. Whether or not the poll is believed is a whole different ball game. Your assumption, and the reality of Americans today regarding attention span, intellect on politucal matters, and care I think are not in line and I would like to say probably just help make your point. The fact of the matter is, the admin did Tacitly implicate Saddam and when the evidence did not bear out they would whisper the retraction, and then their pundits would continue to pound the message long after the retraction was out. What you say, on this matter, is simply not accurate when accepting the perception is many people's reality. maybe not true but their reality nonetheless.

not debating this, moreso debating American's acceptance of rhetoric and not hearing the retractions THAN connecting dots....its really not a partisan issue Im talking about here.

Here's a link to a report from the University of Maryland that contradicts your claim:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir...a_Oct03_pr.pdf

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. What I am objecting to is the idea that the GOP tricked the public into accepting this war. There was always an opposition to this war, much more so than in Gulf War I. The Dems in Congress ignored them as much as the Republicans.

I nearly mentioned that poll in my response above. It isn't directly from the University of Maryland. It comes from a VERY liberal organization affiliated with UM, PIPA. I'm familiar with the poll. It basically claims that Republicans are morons. IIRC it claims that something like 60+% of Republicans believe that Iraq was responsible for the September 11th attacks. I think that is simply so far from reality that it should stretch the limits of those who would even want to believe it, like yourself. At the time the poll was taken, I don't think you could find six Republicans on this board who believed that Iraq was behind the September 11th attacks. I doubt you could find one, but I wouldn't rule that out, because there are freaks everywhere.

PIPA simply doesn't have the same reputation that Zogby or even Newsweek has for polling. The results simply don't hold water. The results seem outlandish enough to call for a snopesing.

Care to point out where it says Republicans are morons? The bulk of the article mentions news outlets. There is only one paragraph mentioning political leanings, and it states that significant numbers of all political persuasions had the misconceptions. Hardly a Republican bashing at all.

Here's an article from just last year where the VP was still harping on an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...iraq.al.qaeda/

Harris Poll, 2/18/05:


Washington Post Poll, 9/6/03

Here's the only poll I could dig up. Unfortunately, I have no idea how reputable it is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...data082303.htm

SI

Here is a full list of polls:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...vasion_of_iraq

and the Flasch186 poll (basically my marketing degree and an ability to remember and come to a conclusion based on all of the "touches" I have to outside society (meaning what I see and hear) says that it is plainly obvious that joe american (not the pol. junkies - like myself [why isnt there a good sim for politics?]) heard the rhetoric but rarely heard the retractions and continue to believe the inertia even when it has been debunked by the main stream sources (partially because the partisan hacks like Rush and Sean continue to bang the drum even after information has been debunked).

I recalled the PIPA poll showing that 60+ percent of Republicans believed there was a connection between Iraq and September 11th. It appears that instead it declares that close to 70% of all Americans believed it. That is even less credible.

My argument that that poll didn't hold water is the same today as it was when the poll was released. I hear all of this about how polls indicate that huge portions of our population were hoodwinked into having this belief, that I have yet to see anyone credible state as their own. If it was such a freaking popular belief, more people here or elsewhere would be espousing it. That simply isn't my experience.

I simply refuse to believe the poll. Poll results can be spun, especially when the organization doing the polling has an agenda. PIPA does. All that has to happen is ask a question that requires a low threshold of belief to generate a positive response. Like..."Do you believe that Iraq had ties to the Terror organization that attacked the United States on September 11th?" or "Do you believe there is evidence that Saddam Hussein worked with Al Qaeda?" If someone believes there is an iota of evidence, they give a possitive response. Sum up all of the affirmitive responses, and declare that that percentage of people believed Saddam was behind it all.



The bit about Cheney last year...I thought we were discussing what the Administration said leading up to the invasion.

Dola,

Does anyone believe that I was one of the folks who said I wouldn't give Bush props for his recent declaration?

alright Im going to go ask my cleaning LAdy, she could care less about Politics and find out what she thinks TODAY.

Alright, vickie, she's like a second mom in that she keeps our life sane, she does so much more than just cleaning, anyways (Ill have her around forever), anyways. ...she thinks the following:

Iraq and Al Qaeda were related
9/11 and Alqaeda and IRaq were related
some of the people who were on the planes were Iraqis (she said some were saudis too)
she says she doesnt really pay much attention to politics (but her mom does)
she says now were "liberatin' 'em"


BTW while she pulled up to my hosue today she hit my mailbox. I dont know how to fixit other than to pour some qukcrete down it since now its so wobbly.

So Blen, what about the NYT/CBS poll, the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, the Pew Research Center/Council on Foreign Relations survey, the CNN/Time poll, the Princeton Survey Research Associates, the CBS news poll, the Washington Post survey, and the Harris poll that I posted that all same the smae thing? Are they all liberal organizations with an agenda that are out to make you look bad?

I really don't understand the point of this debate. Even if every stupid American believed that Saddam had ordered 9/11, what would that prove?

And anyway, there obviously is some relationship between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.

islamic terrorism
regional instability in the middle east
americans now being targeted by islamist organizations

It's not a direct connection, obviously. But what are we getting at here? I don't understand what you all are trying to convince each other of.

probably nothing

Well, Bush/Cheney/aides kept insisting that Iraq and September 11th were related and that it was in our best interests to stop him because we might be in danger. They then parlayed that into public support to go to war. If the public got lied to about that, which is looking a lot like the case, then I think people have a right to be angry about this. If the pretexts to going to this war were false and deliberately false, then that's a problem. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

SI

more props to Bush and the Admin for finally coming to their senses, this time on the McCain torture ban:

Bush Accepts McCain's Ban on Torture

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 51 minutes ago

WASHINGTON -
President Bush embraced Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record)'s proposal to ban cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terrorism suspects on Thursday, reversing months of opposition that included White House veto threats.
ADVERTISEMENT

Bowing to pressure from the Republican-run Congress and abroad, the White House signed off on the proposal after a fight that pitted the president against members of his own party and threatened to further tarnish a U.S. image already soiled by the abuses at
Iraq's
Abu Ghraib prison.

Bush said the ban and accompanying interrogation standards will "make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad."

After months of fierce negotiations, McCain declared "a done deal" that he said shows that the United States "upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are."

"We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists," the Arizona Republican said while appearing alongside the president in the Oval Office to announce the agreement.

The agreement still needs to be approved by Congress, whose GOP leaders hope to adjourn for the year in a few days.

The deal keeps McCain's original proposal, which was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate and endorsed by the House. One of the final stumbling blocks in negotiations was removed when language was added allowing
CIA interrogators the same legal protections as those afforded to military interrogators.

Those rules say the accused can defend themselves by arguing it was reasonable for them to believe they were obeying a legal order. The government also would provide counsel for accused interrogators.

That language was McCain's own counterproposal to the White House's early calls, pushed by Vice President
Dick Cheney, for an exemption for CIA interrogators. The administration had also sought some protection from prosecution for such agents accused of violating the standards.

Also added, officials said, was a statement explicitly rejecting immunity from civil or criminal lawsuits for those who violate the standards.

After the deal was announced, Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he would block completion of one of the two defense bills that includes the ban unless he got White House assurances that "the same high level of effective intelligence gathering" would be achieved if the agreement became law.

But Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., Hunter's counterpart in the Senate, was on board and appeared with Bush and McCain in the Oval Office.

"We're going to get there," Warner predicted.

House and Senate officials said the McCain provisions were likely to remain in the must-pass $453 billion defense spending bill that provides $50 billion for the Iraq war and that Congress planned to approve before adjourning for the year.

The agreement was reached a day after the House — in bipartisan fashion — endorsed McCain's proposal. That vote put both GOP-controlled chambers behind McCain by veto-proof majorities, putting pressure on the White House to reach an agreement.

It came as the president finds himself defending his wartime policies daily amid declining public support for the Iraq war and his own low standing in opinion polls. The United States also is feeling pressure and facing questions from its European allies over its treatment of detainees held abroad.

The Bush administration had long said a ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading practices did not legally apply to suspects held overseas. During a trip to Europe last week, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice was pressed repeatedly on the topic, finally saying that "as a matter of U.S. policy," such treatment was banned for U.S. personnel wherever they are.

The agreement reached Thursday would put the prohibition into law.

The White House initially sought to kill the proposal altogether, arguing that the ban and interrogation limits could tie the president's hands during wartime. The administration later switched gears and Cheney made a rare personal appeal to all GOP senators for a CIA exemption. Later, the administration sought some protection from prosecution for accused interrogators.

Congressional sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of the ban, and McCain, a former Navy pilot who was held and tortured for five and a half years in Vietnam, adopted the issue.

The legislation would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held. It also would require that service members follow procedures in the Army Field Manual during interrogations of prisoners in Defense Department facilities.

The provision that was added was modeled after the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which says military personnel accused of violating interrogation rules can defend themselves if a reasonable person could have concluded they were following a lawful order. Those rights — and the right to legal counsel — would be extended to CIA interrogators under the agreement.

Bush said the agreement ensures "protections for those who are the front line of fighting the terrorists."

McCain said there were "legitimate concerns raised by the administration concerning the rights of interrogators," leading to the additional language.

The Senate had included McCain's provisions in two defense bills but the House omitted them from their versions. Both bills have since been stalled.

The ban defines "cruel, inhuman and degrading" as treatment prohibited by the U.S. Constitution as defined in the U.N. convention against torture.

Been busy. Too busy to mess with this now.

Gigglesworth...I don't have the time to dig into those polls, but I don't think they show anywhere near the outrageousness of the PIPA poll.

Flasch..I'm surprised you're able to find someone who thinks Iraq was involved in 9/11. Actually my planned response to your mission to ask your house keeper was "Like you're an unbiased source." =) Honestly though she doesn't pay attention to politics or news, so how can Bush be blamed for these misconceptions?

On the PIPA poll. Use some common sense. If close to 70% of the people, not just Republicans(another PIPA poll shows that over 75% of Republicans/Bush Supporters believe that WMD were found in Iraq, that was the Republicans are stupid poll I was referring to.) We would have seen these people. It has to be obvious to anyone that the absence of people actually laying claim to a belief that 70% of us supposedly have is somewhat contradictory to the poll results.

There had to be some gerrymandering of the responses. I'm saying the only way they could come up with the numbers they have is by either using very subjective language or by grouping questions questions together to the extent that if you believed that Iraq and Al Qaeda had contacts that they lumped you into the misperception bunch. It's not like this is the first time this has happened. Anyone remember the poll that declared in big headlines that more than half of Americans believed we should eliminate some civil rights for muslims? A bit of delving into the actual data showed otherwise.

If you have any doubts about the agenda of PIPA, all you have to do is read some of the reports for their interpretation. Bush supporters apparently suffer from a "cognitive dissonance" and a "resistance to information". Those are quotes.

Again, I have a hard time blaming the Presidnet for communicating a message to the American people that Saddam Hussein was behind September 11th...When the President has actually never made that claim.

The left says he communicated the message through inuendo, in some sort of verbal sleight of hand. All carried out by a public speaker who is known for stumbling about through his speeches more than Gerald Ford actually stumbled.

All of the "damning" quotes offfered up in this thread have been interpreted by the supporters of this theory in the way most favorable to them rather than the context in which they were offered. Bush has never proclaimed that Saddam was involved with or even knew about the plan for September 11th.

Blen, before you said that everyone took exception to:
Now you say it just isn't 'near the outrageousness of the PIPA poll'. So, to you, is the 30-50% of the population 'almost no one', or are you taking back your earlier statement?

...because she is thetype of person who watches the local news, sometimes. Catches snippets of this and that here and there. Which bolsters my statement that outside of the people like you and me who dig for more info. Those that simply pick the low hanging fruit and only catch the sound bites followed the rhetoric and their perception became their reality. Those types of people did not hear the apology, did not hear the retraction, do not hear the debunking....they only catch the press conference snippet, the headline of the paper (remember the FTU here is written at a 5th grade reading level, admittedly)....therefore the conclusions they draw are those the administration wants them to draw, ESPECIALLY during the election (remember our own VP made the statement during the debate) which was long after it had been categorically debunked. Im almost of the opinion that this is inarguable that those who do not dig deeper draw their conclusions for the common stream media, snippets, and sound bites and connect the dots. The question is, did ROVE (which I absolutely have no doubt he knows this) plan a media gameplan wherein the right dots would be connected? I believe he did.

your assuming that dots are not connected are saying that cognitive reasoning should not exist. People have different avbilities to reason and I would argue that the common people (as opposed to Political junkies when referencing politics) have about the same amount of reasoning, when it comes to issues that are not high on their priority or interest list. IOW, my reasoning is about the same as everyone else when it comes to weather for those of us who aren't weather junkies. I know where it's hot, I know where its cold but Im not really sure necessarily when why or how, and dont care. Our reasoning is basic. Most americans reasoning when it comes to politics is basic. They connect the dots that are laid out to them and dont dig to find those retractions or debunking. they dont have their TV on CNN or Foxnews all day.

So dont try to discount reasoning and say its not XY or Z's fault that reasoning exists. It is exactly the knowledge that it does which allows me to say, My neighbor has kids, my other neighbor is a pedophile, the first neighbor hates the second neighbor and wants to kill him.....and watch people make all sorts of assumptions and connect all kinds of dots but they dont see that the "pedophile" stole the first neighbors car and wrecked it without paying for the damages. They connected the dots I wantedthem to, because I want the pedophile pressured to move out.