Tampering with a quote to prove your point is lying. When the whole quote is read, it doesn't help Wookie's cause it all, and in fact hurts it. What about this is hard to understand? A Kindergartener could understand this concept.

Like the media never tampers with anything any leaders (especially Bush) says? There are always omissions when proving a point, you don't list out a whole speech when trying to show something. And no it doesn't hurt, it is was one person's analysis, only part of the analysis was shown which is not lying, intellectual dishonesty maybe, but not lying. Intellectual dishonesty is something which almost every news media even the ones libs quote are guilty of, so i'm not condoning it. Its just when conservatives do it in a quote, everybody jumps all over it.

Yes, I am.. what of it? I'm not exactly sure what you're so upset about: it's pretty clear that there was a failure of United States intelligence services in regard to 9-11 and the trumped up charges of WMDs.




I'm referring specifically to the CIA and those that pressured them to embellish reports of supposed WMDs.



I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but I didn't concede anything.

Nothing in the full quote contradicts the abridged version that was merely one reference in the two pages I offered.

And it is idiotic to think that we have to invade every Arab dictatorship in order not to be hypocrits. Look at Europe. Every country there didn't have to be invaded to spread democracy.

Err, that'd be because the concept of democracy ORIGINATED in Europe.. in case you didn't hear about that.

Hardly the reason.

He meant spreading of democracy after it was taken over by fascists and communists in the 20th century.

Wookie: Your source is untrustworthy. It selectively edits quotes to give inaccurate information. Find another. Try to avoid Rush Limbaugh.

Incidentally, I guess this explains your uncanny ability to regugitate talking points.

Noone ever believed Iraq had WMDs. The WMD argument was the most extensive appeal to emotion (fear) that I ever saw. If you want to make someone your *****, you use fear (like the WH apparently used by constantly changing the nation's alert level - green to orange, orange to red, red to orange, etc... Which they of course stopped doing after the 2004 elections. Why do they still refer to 9/11? Does that make sense? NO.).

Let's look at this part scientifically: your government believing Iraq had WMDs is a theory. That theory makes certain predictions: the White House posessed certain data, such as: sattelite photo's, knowledge of irregular troop movements, defectors, documents, convoys etc etc etc....

*So where is that justification?*

What does it say about a theory when those proposing it refuse to justify it?

What does it say about this particular theory when those who propose it, only months earlier said the exact opposite: "Iraq is no threat, and has no capability to build or use WMDs".

What does it say about YOU when you refuse to ask for that justification of the theory, when you refuse to ask for an explanation of the discrepancy between bs A and bs B - and remember: calling people on their bull**** is the basis of democracy.

You know what scientists call those big theories which are proposed without any justification? I believe the technical term is BULL****.

Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Signed - YOUR government

Facts being fixed around the policy
Signed - Bush and Blair, who BOTH REFUSE to answer questions about this memo.

Or maybe the fact that Iraqi national companies have been denied contracts to rebuild Iraq. Contracts who HAVE been awarded to companies who have a special relationship with the people you label 'government'. By all means, check it out.

Iraq is a damn goldmine. But only to the right people.

Or maybe imminent peak oil, which will define the global economic structure. You know what I'd do to take the hit and stay on top of the game (against upcoming nations such as China and India)? I'd invade Iraq (like *they said themselves BTW*)

Believe me, the list of REAL reasons goes on.

I think you're being played like violins.

Bull. In the incomplete quote, I am led to belive that Bin Laden and Iraq had a collaborative relationship in which Iraq helped Bin Laden procure weapons. The full quote goes on to say that Iraq never responded to this request and there was never a collaborative relationship between Bin Laden and Iraq.



And how do I know the other quotes haven't been tampered with? Ictus exposed your source as untrustworthy.

If the UN had balls, all of what's happening now would have taken place in 1991, but that wasn't the case. Had the UN taken care of business, we wouldn't be in the current situation. Had Bush Sr. won re-election, I'm sure this would have been dealt with then, but alas, Clinton didn't do squat regarading the Iraq situation, or any of the other terrorists events that took place durring his presidency. (The first WTC attack, the USS Cole incident, the embassy bombings). Hell, Clinton could have had bin Laden, but he dropped the ball.



Are you claiming 9/11 was preventable?

Yes, absolutely, but that's a seperate issue.

Do you what the odds would be of making the right contact at the right time to know the who, what, when where and how of such an attack? Seriously, so you even have a clue as to how intelligence works?

Just because the odds are against it doesn't mean it wasn't preventable. You seem to be suggesting that there was absolutely nothing we could have done to avoid 9-11 and that the terrorists had a 100% chance of success. They only suceeded because our intelligence services failed to respond to the threat. True, they get thousands of tips and information and whatnot about things that never happen, but had they acted on what they knew, 9-11 could have been prevented.

And what did they know? You do know that hindsight is always 20/20, yes?

I'm sure someone knew something, as the "whistle-blowing" memos would seem to show, but regardless of WHAT they knew, there's no way you can say that 9-11 wasn't preventable. How can you say that it wasn't?

Like a lot of vague tips that give you nothing to work with? Again, hindsight sure makes things look all pretty in your eyes, but you have to put yourself in a pre 9/11 state of mind when reading those things. At best they are vague tips that don't say anyhting more than maybe this is happeneing some where at some time. Without details, what are you supposed to do?

Ok, all I'm trying to say is that it was preventable. I'm not talking about specifics. Obviously if they had done some things different it would never have happened. Yes, this IS hindsight, but that's not the point.

Stuff like wire taps and not needed warrants to arrest suspected terrorists and looking and various personal private records with out one's knowledge?

No, more like background checks on immigrants or closing the borders completely, because preventing a terrorist attack at the cost of freedoms just is not worth it.

I'm sure that would fly really well.

That's an interesting unintentional play on words.

So it's a choice between the deaths of some Americans (many of whom are immigrants), or the reinstating of an isolationist, xenophobic America?

Because if someone is honest about their views then they can't be trusted. You consider my source untrustworthy, fine, but that has no bearing on the sources cited in the article.



No, not really. The full quote contains their conclusion which does not change the facts preceding it.



His opinion that my source is untrustworthy is not an exposure. The other quotes are likely edited for length to contain the information relevant to the article. They're all cited. Easy to look up, I imagine.



9/11 could have been prevented fairly easily. It's just that the tools which could have done so are politically incorrect, even after 9/11 has happened. A bunch of young Arab males paying cash for one way tickets? Within a day they seemed to have mountains of information on these men. The intelligence was already there but we're just too scared of offending people.

It's hilarious, and also sad to read the first post of a multi-page political thread on massassi, then read it's last post and note how it ALWAYS ends up the same way. Mort-Hog arguing with his own political ideals, and everyone else ebbing him on.

Seriously people [This isn't at all against mort-hog, who I actually almost always agree with], why must EVERY political thread suddenly be about Bush and his war? I mean, I can see why they'd all end up there, but you people have probably argued the SAME OPINION NINE MILLION TIMES. Give it up already! No one's opinions are going to change, and you're not really SOLVING anything. We already know your moral stances on all of these issues, we really do. Stating them over and over again just makes this place impossible to surf!

JediKirby

I agree with Kirby. You guys sure know how to **** up a thread.

And you're helping how?

I never said I was any better, I just really can't stand reading the first post of a thread, reading the last page of the thread, HOPING there's going to be something in between, and after reading 6 pages, NOTHING has changed about the thread than what you got from your original first and last post read.

Live 8 will certainly cure aids!!!!!

woohoo

It is always the people who don't actually participate in the thread or care about what is being discussed are the ones who seem to complain. A way to feel superior or be a mini-mod? Good job, guys.

Incorrect. I do care about this thread's contents. You can go back about a month or 2 or 3 ago when I argued my points about this. I read through this entire thread seeing if I could donate a new opinion, or find a new opinion to challenge or agree with. Nope. All the same people arguing all the same ideas.

JediKirby

This isn't true. Read this article, authored by George Bush Sr. and appropriately titled "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam". The UN had nothing to do with it: the decision was Bush's, and he decided that it wasn't in our best interests.

Kirby, there's like one political post at any one time, and they're easy to identify. Skip it if you don't like it. Also, this isn't (shouldn't be) about expressing opinions. This is about taking opinions and proving how wrong and unfounded they are for a cheap rush. Also as a tiny "**** you" to real opinion-makers.

Wookie, it's propaganda for the easily persuaded party faithful. It has two distinct elements.

First, quotes from the 9/11 commission and news sources detailing contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda that have been manipulated to sound about a hundred times more dire than they actually are. The rebuttal is simple: the 9/11 commission, which is about a million times more qualified than you or Rush Limbaugh or a Rush Limbaugh lackey, has determined that there were contacts, but no collaberation, between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Second, you have prewar rhetoric by administration officials based on false testimony and falsified documents from unreliable INC types that's being foisted on partisan idiots, despite being demonstratably false for the last couple years.

I'm sorry, but this is really sad. I had always thought you were reading original documents before spinning them, instead of repeating partisan press releases.

No, this thread is about the attack in London. It was never intended for the bull**** that it has turned in to.

Exactly. Make a political thread and keep it bumped so you guys can continously repeate the same things over and over again that you always repeate in these threads.

So are you now citing George H.W. Bush as a credible source?



Did you not finish the last sentence? Don't you mean they determined there was no collaberation on attacks against the US? I mean, if you care so much what they actually said. They determined that there was no credible evidence Iraq had collaborated with Al Qaeda on previous attacks against the US. Since nobody had claimed that they had that wasn't really news.



Examples? I'm assuming one of your examples might be the "yellow cake" stuff which is irrelevant anyway.



OMG, and I always thought my opinions were my own! Okay, next time I'll link seperately to each citation rather than provide a convenient compilation. WTF?



But the attack in London was political although I don't understand how this turned to the war in Iraq. That really doesn't make sense. But the bombing in London while certainly newsworthy was largely a failure anyway. London's Mayor responded best to it but I warn you not to take anything in the following link serious because I first heard about it from, gasp, Rush Limbaugh.

linky

It happens to all threads of this nature. It shouldn't be a suprise to you that this happens. If it pisses you off, don't click on the thread. Coming here at *****ing about it is the acomplishes the same thing that gets you annoyed in the first place.

Your getting almost as cynical as me! Quick, someone change his custom title!

:p

I wasn't trying to be cynical or anything, though. I was just saying.

Not according to the general who ran the war and had the most complete access to intelligence that any other American, let alone most people period.

But no, he can't be credible at all because he doesn't support your viewpoint.