Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Bush Ad References the Olympics

Bush Politics Campaign Ads Olympics Soccer Team

  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#1 Shaun

Shaun
  • Islander
  • 788 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 05:58 PM

Quote

Unwilling participants
Iraqi soccer players angered by Bush campaign ads featuring team

PATRAS, Greece -- Iraqi midfielder Salih Sadir scored a goal here on Wednesday night, setting off a rousing celebration among the 1,500 Iraqi soccer supporters at Pampeloponnisiako Stadium. Though Iraq -- the surprise team of the Olympics -- would lose to Morocco 2-1, it
hardly mattered as the Iraqis won Group D with a 2-1 record and now face Australia in the quarterfinals on Sunday.

Afterward, Sadir had a message for U.S. president George W. Bush, who is using the Iraqi Olympic team in his latest re-election campaign advertisements.

In those spots, the flags of Iraq and Afghanistan appear as a narrator says, "At this Olympics there will be two more free nations - - and two fewer terrorist regimes."

"Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign," Sadir told SI.com through a translator, speaking calmly and directly. "He can find another way to advertise himself."

Continues...

http://sportsillustr...ers/08/19/iraq/


Quote

Bush in strife over Olympic mention
From correspondents in Washington
August 21, 2004

US President George W. Bush's re-election campaign will continue to run a television advertisement that mentions the Olympics, despite questions about whether that violates the by-laws for the Games.

US Olympic Committee officials had contacted the campaign about the ad and were awaiting a reply, USOC spokesman Darryl Seibel said in Athens today.

But campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said there were no plans to pull the ad.

Continues...

http://news.com.au/c...55E1702,00.html

They can't even leave politics out of this. It's absolutely shameful.

**
Iraq are now due to play Italy for the Bronze medal. Best of luck to them! :)

Shaun
Shaun
Veni, vidi, vici

#2 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 06:01 PM

why, why must even the olympic games become a political tool, as opposed to a celebration of athletes and their crafts :(

Edited by Cyberhippie, 24 August 2004 - 06:02 PM.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#3 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 06:26 PM

Ah yes not like the non political games of the cold wars, or the very non political  games of 1936. Yes Bush is so evil.


Basically politics have always been part of the games.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#4 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 06:29 PM

Finally, after all the lying yap about Bush doing bad, wrong things in the campaign, he actually does one! And ironicly, his enemies probably won't pay as much attention to this as to the ones they made up.

I saw the ad before I read the article, and it's a pretty bad one in another way, too, though this time in terms of potential effectiveness rather than whether or not it's "right". If you divide the number of "new democracies" they say there have been in the last whatever-number of years by the number of years they say, you get an average rate of new democracies per year... spanning several different American Presidencies... and Bush's rate as presented is LOWER than average.

#5 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 07:22 PM

The thing that bothers me most about this ad, is calling Iraq, under Saddam, a terrorist regime. It was a horrible place, and Saddam is a horrible man, but, no ties to terrorist have been proven.

Why does this bother me? Because it is an example of the near-lies and misdirection that Bush & Rove has been doing from day one. And, because people buy into it like sheep.

#6 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 07:30 PM

Hambil, on Aug 24 2004, 05:20 PM, said:

The thing that bothers me most about this ad, is calling Iraq, under Saddam, a terrorist regime. It was a horrible place, and Saddam is a horrible man, but, no ties to terrorist have been proven.
  :blink:  :eek4:

You're kidding, right?

Saddam harbored the guy responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, among others. There were active terroist camps in Iraq (though not Al Quida) at the time we went in.

Let's not forget the money Saddam paid to the families of homicide bombers.

I also suppose that gassing thoughsands of your own people could also be considered a terrorist act.

#7 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 07:42 PM

HubcapDave, on Aug 24 2004, 05:28 PM, said:

Hambil, on Aug 24 2004, 05:20 PM, said:

The thing that bothers me most about this ad, is calling Iraq, under Saddam, a terrorist regime. It was a horrible place, and Saddam is a horrible man, but, no ties to terrorist have been proven.
:blink:  :eek4:

You're kidding, right?

Saddam harbored the guy responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, among others. There were active terroist camps in Iraq (though not Al Quida) at the time we went in.

Let's not forget the money Saddam paid to the families of homicide bombers.

I also suppose that gassing thoughsands of your own people could also be considered a terrorist act.
None of which is what Bush means. He is drawing a link (again) to Osama that does not exist. Bush has closer ties to Osama than Saddam does.

Edited by Hambil, 24 August 2004 - 07:43 PM.


#8 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 07:59 PM

Hambil, on Aug 24 2004, 05:40 PM, said:

HubcapDave, on Aug 24 2004, 05:28 PM, said:

Hambil, on Aug 24 2004, 05:20 PM, said:

The thing that bothers me most about this ad, is calling Iraq, under Saddam, a terrorist regime. It was a horrible place, and Saddam is a horrible man, but, no ties to terrorist have been proven.
:blink:  :eek4:

You're kidding, right?

Saddam harbored the guy responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, among others. There were active terroist camps in Iraq (though not Al Quida) at the time we went in.

Let's not forget the money Saddam paid to the families of homicide bombers.

I also suppose that gassing thoughsands of your own people could also be considered a terrorist act.
None of which is what Bush means. He is drawing a link (again) to Osama that does not exist. Bush has closer ties to Osama than Saddam does.
  :rolleyes:

Putting aside the fact that you are now saying two things, Bush never tried to directly link Iraq to 9/11. There is ample evidence of a relationship between Saddam and Al Qaida.

http://www.davekopel...dered_Americans

Specifically, look at this:

Quote

Iraq and al Qaeda

Deceit 42-43



Moore declares that George Bush fabricated an Iraq/al Qaeda connection in order to deflect attention from his Saudi masters. But consider the facts presented in Stephen F. Hayes's book, The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004). The first paragraph of the last chapter (pp. 177-78) sums up some of the evidence:

Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000. Satellite photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en masse to a compound in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated openly in Baghdad and received medical attention at a regime-supported hospital in 2002. Documents discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal that Saddam's regime harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack...

Hayes is a writer for The Weekly Standard and much of his writing on the Saddam/Osama connection is available there for free; simply use the search engine and look for articles by Hayes.


#9 Morrhigan

Morrhigan
  • Islander
  • 1,546 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 08:13 PM

G1223, on Aug 24 2004, 03:24 PM, said:

Ah yes not like the non political games of the cold wars, or the very non political  games of 1936. Yes Bush is so evil.


Basically politics have always been part of the games.
Um, G...? It looks like you're saying Bush isn't evil because he isn't doing anything different than what Hitler did in '36. I'm not sure that's helping your cause. :lol:

However, I do agree that the Olympics have been used for political purposes long before Bush came along. It's unfortunate, but it's nothing new.
Posted Image

#10 Morrhigan

Morrhigan
  • Islander
  • 1,546 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 08:24 PM

HubcapDave, on Aug 24 2004, 04:28 PM, said:

Hambil, on Aug 24 2004, 05:20 PM, said:

The thing that bothers me most about this ad, is calling Iraq, under Saddam, a terrorist regime. It was a horrible place, and Saddam is a horrible man, but, no ties to terrorist have been proven.
:blink:  :eek4:

You're kidding, right?

Saddam harbored the guy responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, among others. There were active terroist camps in Iraq (though not Al Quida) at the time we went in.

Let's not forget the money Saddam paid to the families of homicide bombers.

I also suppose that gassing thoughsands of your own people could also be considered a terrorist act.
Pakistan harbored the schools which produced the Taliban and Al Queda. Saudia Arabia and Egypt are more popular terrorist stomping grounds than Iraq. So, by your reasoning, shouldn't they be called "terrorist" countries? Yet they're our good buddies. Hm. go figure.
Posted Image

#11 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 09:17 PM

Morrhigan, on Aug 24 2004, 07:22 PM, said:

Pakistan harbored the schools which produced the Taliban and Al Queda. Saudia Arabia and Egypt are more popular terrorist stomping grounds than Iraq.
Evasion: The original claim was that Iraq had no connections to terrorists. You can't undo that being proven false by tossing red herrings on the trail.

Quote

So, by your reasoning, shouldn't they be called "terrorist" countries? Yet they're our good buddies. Hm. go figure.
Nobody here has claimed that everything's peachy with those countries either, so that amounts to a false accusation and a staw-man argument, in addition to an attempt at distraction.

#12 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 09:38 PM

Delvo, on Aug 24 2004, 07:15 PM, said:

Morrhigan, on Aug 24 2004, 07:22 PM, said:

Pakistan harbored the schools which produced the Taliban and Al Queda. Saudia Arabia and Egypt are more popular terrorist stomping grounds than Iraq.
Evasion: The original claim was that Iraq had no connections to terrorists. You can't undo that being proven false by tossing red herrings on the trail.

Quote

So, by your reasoning, shouldn't they be called "terrorist" countries? Yet they're our good buddies. Hm. go figure.
Nobody here has claimed that everything's peachy with those countries either, so that amounts to a false accusation and a staw-man argument, in addition to an attempt at distraction.
Oh it's a straw-man alright, but it's your straw-man. My original point was deliberately distorted (which is how a straw-man works). I already clearify my original claim before you even posted, which didn't even really need clarification, but I did it anyway because people were being silly:

"He [Bush] is drawing a link (again) to Osama that does not exist. "

As for Bush never saying there is a link between 9/11 and Iraq, I guess the 759,000 web pages returned in my google for "Bush links Iraq to 9/11" are just more crazy liberal press.  :rolleyes:

#13 Morrhigan

Morrhigan
  • Islander
  • 1,546 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 10:51 PM

Delvo, on Aug 24 2004, 06:15 PM, said:

Morrhigan, on Aug 24 2004, 07:22 PM, said:

Pakistan harbored the schools which produced the Taliban and Al Queda. Saudia Arabia and Egypt are more popular terrorist stomping grounds than Iraq.
Evasion: The original claim was that Iraq had no connections to terrorists. You can't undo that being proven false by tossing red herrings on the trail.

Quote

So, by your reasoning, shouldn't they be called "terrorist" countries? Yet they're our good buddies. Hm. go figure.
Nobody here has claimed that everything's peachy with those countries either, so that amounts to a false accusation and a staw-man argument, in addition to an attempt at distraction.
No. I was responding to the phrase "terrorist regime."  Whose "original claim" are you referring to?

My point is that there are many governments with known ties to terrorists, but they are not being called a "terrorist regime." I don't understand why Iraq gets that particular title when other countries are far more deserving.

If this has nothing to do with what's being discussed, here, then I have lost track of whatever the point of this conversation is supposed to be, in which case, um... never mind.
Posted Image

#14 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 07:03 AM

Shaun's article quoted:

"Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign," Sadir told SI.com through a translator, speaking calmly and directly. "He can find another way to advertise himself."

This is wonderful, Shaun. Thank you for posting this as proof positive that Iraq is not a puppet state by any standards. Iraqi players are free to speak their minds about our president, which is the freedom that our soldiers fought for, on their behalf.

Not wanting your family rounded up by Saddam's secret police does not mean one automatically trusts Bush or America. Such trust can only be earned.

For now, I don't doubt the Iraqi players are sensitive to accusations from their "fellow" arabs that they are just stooges of the Americans. They want to distance themselves from that accusation, more power to them!

This is a great day.

-Ogami

#15 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 11:56 AM

Hambil, on Aug 24 2004, 07:36 PM, said:

Delvo, on Aug 24 2004, 07:15 PM, said:

Morrhigan, on Aug 24 2004, 07:22 PM, said:

Pakistan harbored the schools which produced the Taliban and Al Queda. Saudia Arabia and Egypt are more popular terrorist stomping grounds than Iraq.
Evasion: The original claim was that Iraq had no connections to terrorists. You can't undo that being proven false by tossing red herrings on the trail.

Quote

So, by your reasoning, shouldn't they be called "terrorist" countries? Yet they're our good buddies. Hm. go figure.
Nobody here has claimed that everything's peachy with those countries either, so that amounts to a false accusation and a staw-man argument, in addition to an attempt at distraction.
Oh it's a straw-man alright, but it's your straw-man. My original point was deliberately distorted (which is how a straw-man works). I already clearify my original claim before you even posted, which didn't even really need clarification, but I did it anyway because people were being silly:

"He [Bush] is drawing a link (again) to Osama that does not exist. "

As for Bush never saying there is a link between 9/11 and Iraq, I guess the 759,000 web pages returned in my google for "Bush links Iraq to 9/11" are just more crazy liberal press.  :rolleyes:
He's not calling your arguement a straw man, but Morrhigan's. You just moved the goalposts on yours.

You dispute Iraq being labelled a "terrorist state", I show you that Saddam had plenty of ties to terrorism. You then "explain"(read: modify) by saying that what Bush "meant" was a direct connect between Osama and Saddam, and that no such relationship exists. While this is a different arguement than your first, I still show you evidence that there was a relationship (the strength of which can be debated, but it did exist).

As for those other 759,000 pages, it probably is! We know that the majority of newspapers misreported the preliminary findings of the 9/11 commission by concentrating solely on the title, while ignoring the meat of the report.

#16 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 12:02 PM

Morrhigan, on Aug 24 2004, 08:49 PM, said:

Delvo, on Aug 24 2004, 06:15 PM, said:

Morrhigan, on Aug 24 2004, 07:22 PM, said:

Pakistan harbored the schools which produced the Taliban and Al Queda. Saudia Arabia and Egypt are more popular terrorist stomping grounds than Iraq.
Evasion: The original claim was that Iraq had no connections to terrorists. You can't undo that being proven false by tossing red herrings on the trail.

Quote

So, by your reasoning, shouldn't they be called "terrorist" countries? Yet they're our good buddies. Hm. go figure.
Nobody here has claimed that everything's peachy with those countries either, so that amounts to a false accusation and a staw-man argument, in addition to an attempt at distraction.
No. I was responding to the phrase "terrorist regime."  Whose "original claim" are you referring to?

My point is that there are many governments with known ties to terrorists, but they are not being called a "terrorist regime." I don't understand why Iraq gets that particular title when other countries are far more deserving.

If this has nothing to do with what's being discussed, here, then I have lost track of whatever the point of this conversation is supposed to be, in which case, um... never mind.
I'm sure those states ARE labelled as such. Remember what we are talking about: a campaign ad in which Bush shows the Iraqi soccer team winning a game at the Olympics. For the purposes of the ad, there is no point bringing up other states as the ad only talks about Iraq and Afghanistan.

#17 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,316 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 12:14 PM

Hambil, on Aug 24 2004, 08:40 PM, said:

None of which is what Bush means. He is drawing a link (again) to Osama that does not exist. Bush has closer ties to Osama than Saddam does.
I agree with HubcapDave that this seems to be changing what you said after others have disputed what you said.  

However, just dealing with this statement directly - how is it to be proven that what Bush really means in these ads is that Iraq is linked to Osama bin Laden?  

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#18 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 12:32 PM

Handmaiden07, on Aug 25 2004, 10:12 AM, said:

Hambil, on Aug 24 2004, 08:40 PM, said:

None of which is what Bush means. He is drawing a link (again) to Osama that does not exist. Bush has closer ties to Osama than Saddam does.
I agree with HubcapDave that this seems to be changing what you said after others have disputed what you said.  

However, just dealing with this statement directly - how is it to be proven that what Bush really means in these ads is that Iraq is linked to Osama bin Laden?  

HM07
"Two less terrosist regimes."

Obviously Afghanistan and Iraq.

Afghanistan = Osama and 9/11 in most peoples minds.

So, the link is created.

There is an entire book about this, called All The President's Spin.

#19 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 12:35 PM

That's not a link; that's naming two countries whose regimes have been replaced.

That was a really weak attempt.

#20 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,316 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 12:38 PM

ok........  Um.

Afghanistan DOES equal Osama and 9/11 in that context.  

And is a totally separate issue from Iraq...

If your argument is that there is a passive link, I'll have to say that its very passive, because there is no other way to have run that ad.  What other two countries has the US helped become democratic since Bush became president?  Is there ANY way for him to have mentioned these two wars without being accused of passive linking?  Or, is it your contention that he ought not mention these two wars as part of his campaign?

The travesty of politicizing the olympics for the sake of an election is sufficient reason in my mind to really dislike the ads.  The accusation of passive linking in a situation where the only way to avoid it is to not have mentioned the two wars at all is not.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Bush, Politics, Campaign Ads, Olympics, Soccer Team

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users