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

#41 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 02:01 PM

Hambil quoted:

Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

So? Why can't they believe that? What exonerates Saddam?

The 9/11 Commission confirmed there were numerous contacts between Saddam's government and Al Queda. It's entirely possible there was a connection, that has not been ruled out by anyone anywhere.

What we do know is that we have not found any coordination in that planning of 9/11.

If you think that's relevant to invading Iraq. Go tell FDR. He declared war on Germany despite the fact we never found evidence that Germany had planned Pearl Harbor with Japan. That unilateralist!

-Ogami

#42 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 02:04 PM

Hambil, on Aug 25 2004, 01:48 PM, said:

Drew, on Aug 25 2004, 11:44 AM, said:

Do you still stand by your statement that "no ties to terrorist[s] have been proven"?

If not, will you agree that it is therefore not an example of "the near-lies and misdirection" of Bush & Rove?
I stand by the statement as I clarified it, . . .
Which isn't really what I asked, though. I wanted to know about the original statement.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#43 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 02:06 PM

Ogami:

FDR declared war on Germany after Germany declared war on the U.S.

Timeline:

Dec. 8, 1941: Congress declares war on Japan.
Dec. 11, 1941: Germany and Italy declare war on the U.S.  The U.S. then declares war on Germany.

#44 Ro-Astarte

Ro-Astarte

    goddess of love and blowing things up

  • Islander
  • 3,842 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 02:07 PM

So, FDR was a follower, not a unilaterilist. ;)

Ro

#45 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 02:41 PM

Hambil, on Aug 25 2004, 07:27 PM, said:

Are you honestly going to tell me that the first thing that pops into your mind at the word terrorism is NOT 9/11 and Osama?
Yes

Terrorism for me is still the IRA first, everything else second.

9/11 may have been the most important terrorist attack in the US in recent years, but other places have had major terrorist attacks for years and do not think of 9/11 first.

Edited by Cyberhippie, 25 August 2004 - 03:16 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.


#46 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 03:00 PM

Edit: Cyber fixed it! Thanks!

Edited by HubcapDave, 25 August 2004 - 03:18 PM.


#47 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 03:08 PM

Drew, on Aug 25 2004, 12:02 PM, said:

Hambil, on Aug 25 2004, 01:48 PM, said:

Drew, on Aug 25 2004, 11:44 AM, said:

Do you still stand by your statement that "no ties to terrorist[s] have been proven"?

If not, will you agree that it is therefore not an example of "the near-lies and misdirection" of Bush & Rove?
I stand by the statement as I clarified it, . . .
Which isn't really what I asked, though. I wanted to know about the original statement.
Why quote that part, when in the very next part I say "The original statement was admittedly too vague"? It's like you're looking to fight, rather than talk.

#48 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 03:16 PM

HubcapDave, on Aug 25 2004, 08:58 PM, said:

Cyber,

That's what Hambil said, not me!
oops

edited

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.


#49 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 03:17 PM

Prolog wrote:

FDR declared war on Germany after Germany declared war on the U.S.

Everyone knows that Prolog. This placed us in a state of military hostility with that country, wouldn't you say? Yet we didn't demand proof that Germany knew of the Pearl Harbor attack to consider them our enemy, did we?

We had been in a constant state of military hostility with Saddam Hussein since 1990, we only signed a ceasefire with the Iraqi generals. Unless the constant No-Fly Zone bombing runs done through three administrations was a hallucination on my part.

President Bush never stated that we were liberating Iraq because Saddam Hussein had planned 9/11 with Bin Laden. That is a deliberate lie told by a desperate opposition, desperate to discredit a successful wartime president.

-Ogami

#50 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 03:22 PM

Hambil, on Aug 25 2004, 03:06 PM, said:

It's like you're looking to fight, rather than talk.
Actually, I'm just looking for a yes or no.  :cool:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#51 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 03:24 PM

Drew, on Aug 25 2004, 01:20 PM, said:

Hambil, on Aug 25 2004, 03:06 PM, said:

It's like you're looking to fight, rather than talk.
Actually, I'm just looking for a yes or no.  :cool:
My original statement was ambiguous, as I stated, so no, I can no longer stand by it. Why that is relevant when I've already admitted that by revising my statement, and saying on more than one occassion that the original was flawed, I have no idea. But I guess you'll tell me.  :unsure:

#52 Ro-Astarte

Ro-Astarte

    goddess of love and blowing things up

  • Islander
  • 3,842 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 03:27 PM

No, and I've never heard that stated by the opposition, though cited by you here Ogami. I'll stand corrected if you can  find a source for that, otherwise it looks like spin.

As for President Bush linking Iraq and 9/11, how about in 2003's State of the Union Address?

Quote

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

Saddam Hussein was a sick f*ck and I believe the people of Iraq are better off without him and his sons.

But it hadn't been a reason for US to go to war for many years. So, the justification had to be other than Saddam is a bad man.

Ro

#53 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 03:27 PM

How's this:The statement of Iraq under Saddam being a "terrorist state" is factually true, despite what you might say about Bush trying to link Iraq and 9/11.

Edit: Was replying to Hambil

Edited by HubcapDave, 25 August 2004 - 03:50 PM.


#54 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 03:28 PM

Hambil, on Aug 25 2004, 03:22 PM, said:

My original statement was ambiguous, as I stated, so no, I can no longer stand by it. Why that is relevant when I've already admitted that by revising my statement, and saying on more than one occassion that the original was flawed, I have no idea.
Just wanted to see how entrenched you were. Thanks.  :cool:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#55 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 03:34 PM

Ogami, on Aug 25 2004, 08:15 PM, said:

Everyone knows that Prolog. This placed us in a state of military hostility with that country, wouldn't you say? Yet we didn't demand proof that Germany knew of the Pearl Harbor attack to consider them our enemy, did we?
Given that Germany had, by that point, taken Norway, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc., I'd say the situation was a lot less murky than it is now.  I doubt you'd get too much argument against the invasion of Iraq had they tried to take Kuwait again, for example.

#56 Ro-Astarte

Ro-Astarte

    goddess of love and blowing things up

  • Islander
  • 3,842 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 03:36 PM

HubcapDave, on Aug 25 2004, 03:25 PM, said:

How's this:The statement of Iraq under Saddam being a "terrorist state" is factually true, despite what you might say about Bush trying to link Iraq and 9/11.
You're answering an argument I didn't make.

I was refuting that the Iraq-9/11 link was made up out of whole cloth by liberal Bush haters who were just LYING to get the President.

Ro

#57 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 03:47 PM

Ro-Astarte wrote:

No, and I've never heard that stated by the opposition, though cited by you here Ogami. I'll stand corrected if you can find a source for that, otherwise it looks like spin.

Spin? Try about every speech at the Democrat convention, and three years worth of collective criticism from Democrat pundits, Democrat celebrities, and Democrat congressmen. All saying Bush lied to say Saddam was to blame for 9/11.

As a recent poll shows, many Americans believe that could be possible. Birds of a feather, fellow travellers, use whatever phrase you like. And that's the same result as a poll taken a week after 9/11, it's a natural assumption. But it's not a claim that Bush made.

-Ogami

#58 Ro-Astarte

Ro-Astarte

    goddess of love and blowing things up

  • Islander
  • 3,842 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 03:54 PM

If there are so many examples, you should be able to find me one.

And, again, the linking of 9/11 and Iraq as a terrorist threat was made by this administration.

Quote

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

Look at the high points in these two paragraphs.  Just linking those two phrases in a paragraph creates a link in the listener's mind as well.  They may not remember the exact phrasing, but they'll remember those high points.

Ro

#59 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 03:56 PM

All The President's Spin

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make Ro. I see the use of the term 'terrorist regimes' in this Olympics ad, as the same type of tactic.

#60 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 03:56 PM

Ro-Astarte, on Aug 25 2004, 01:34 PM, said:

HubcapDave, on Aug 25 2004, 03:25 PM, said:

How's this:The statement of Iraq under Saddam being a "terrorist state" is factually true, despite what you might say about Bush trying to link Iraq and 9/11.
You're answering an argument I didn't make.

I was refuting that the Iraq-9/11 link was made up out of whole cloth by liberal Bush haters who were just LYING to get the President.

Ro
I was responding to Hambil, not you!



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