At least 69 Iraqis die in Sunday violence
Police found 30 more victims of the sectarian slaughter ravaging Iraq most of them beheaded dumped on a village road north of Baghdad on Sunday. At least 16 other Iraqis were killed in a U.S.-backed raid in a Shiite neighborhood of the capital.
CBS’ Lara Logan
You don’t think that I haven’t been to the U.S. military and the State Department and the embassy and asked them over and over again, let’s see the good stories, show us some of the good things that are going on? Oh, sorry, we can’t take to you that school project, because if you put that on TV, they’re going to be attacked about, the teachers are going to be killed, the children might be victims of attack.
Oh, sorry, we can’t show this reconstruction project because then that’s going to expose it to sabotage. And the last time we had journalists down here, the plant was attacked.
I mean, security dominates every single thing that happens in this country.
Reconstruction funds have been diverted to cover away from reconstruction to — they’ve been diverted to security.Soldiers, their lives are occupied most of the time with security issues.
Iraqi civilians’ lives are taken up most of the time with security issues.So how it is that security issues should not then dominate the media coverage coming out of here?
Related
4,000 Die In Iraq For Bush’s Lie
5 Years Ago Today: Bush Declares Mission Accomplished
The Con Legacy
yea good point ollie,
lets let Saddam out of his cage and just leave…..I mean, if this isn’t going to be fast and easy, we are outta here…!
At least with saddam running the show, they wouldn’t actually report all the deaths and torture etc…and the trains ran on time….
“Those of us that supported this action believe we have to learn from our mistakes and move to improve them while finishing the mission.”
Please point out those changes in policy and strategy that suggest Bush has “learned his lesson.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Woooo! That’s a good one.
You must have missed where W said it would be for “future presidents” to figure out how to get out of Iraq. Of course. that’s how Bush ahs worked his entire life; f**k up royally, and wait for Daddy’s buddies and/or your successors to clean up after you. Hell of a plan, that, but about what we’ve learned to expect from the “party of personal responsibility.”
We’re in year four. Year four and we can’t contain a tin-can middle eastern country.
Don’t you ever get tired of the “blame the left” rhetoric? America is great, and that’s why this war was wrong from the get-go. It hasn’t made life safer for America, our allies, or Iraqis. Yes, we should have worked to depose Hussein, but it is beyond clear now that taking over Iraq was the wrong way to do it - something I said over four years ago. We on the left feel the need to illustrate that this was a bad move because to this day the president and his supporters (like yourself) refuse to concede that any missteps were made, pretending that all has gone according to plan, and pretending that the voluntary invasion and occupation of Iraq is remotely compared to the defense of the world and our sovreignty we engaged in during WWII.
The only sane thing to do is to begin the drawdown of our forces in Iraq. Adding more troops won’t help, and we don’t have any to add anyway. In the long run the future of Iraq is the job of the Iraqi people. In all likelihood it will be another Islamic republic with Sharia law, like Afghanistan, Iran, etc. They’re not going to have a secular western-style government because they don’t want it. Keeping American troops there in the hopes that this will magically happen succeeds only in sending more filled body bags stateside. Our primary mission is the elimination of the terrorist threat to America, and that is what the military needs to be focusing on, not trying to recreate Thomas Jefferson in Baghdad.
OW, it’s all the fault of those of us (including the millions who warned ahead of time that this was a bad f–king idea) who aren’t clapping loudly enough.
“Dr.,” with Saddam ‘running the show,’ there were prisons where people could be thrown in for spurious reasons, then tortured and killed without any due process. Same under U.S. occupation.
Under Saddam Hussein, women could be grabbed off the street and raped by Saddam’s sons and henchmen. Now they can be grabbed off the street and raped by U.S. soldiers.
Under Saddam, at least before the first Gulf War and Clinton’s subsequent illegal bombing campaign, there was plumbing, running water, and electricity in most of the country’s urban areas. Iraq was once a largely modern country. Now, especially after being liberated by Dubya’s freedom fighters, it has become a third-world backwater.
So, “Dr.,” you want to remind us how bad things were before your hero went in and took out Saddam Hussein? Fine. The facts– clear to the entire world outside of your Bush-ass-kissing echo chamber– show that Iraq is pitifully so much worse post-Saddam.
What was the point of that invasion again?
Remember, 30,000 reprisal killings in europe after wwII.
Seriously, you just live to say that the US is a failure, why not just admit it? It is the only possible way that your party can make any inroads in this country.
Why not actually come up with a set of solutions (but please, something other than “stategic redeployment” a hollow idea if ever there was one), instead of knocking down the solutions of actual leaders, people who had to make hard decisions and then live with them.
The american people are tired of “leadership” that consists of voting in support of something and then knocking the results when it didn’t turn out to be as easy as they thought…
“You must have missed where W said it would be for future presidents to figure out how to get out of Iraq. ”
Touché.
“…and the trains ran on time& .”
Is this not exactly the kind of thing that the Bush administration is asking the mainstream media to report more of? 30 more victims of the sectarian slaughter ravaging Iraq? But look over there an internet cafe and the future site of a potable water project.
And pedro, there are only two choices for what to do in Iraq. Go all in with more troops and even more money (minus the corruption) or get out ASAP. Unfortunately, we haven’t got the troops to spare and Bush’s tax cuts aren’t helping on the money front. That leaves only one option left. Your own boy Bush has back himself into a corner, pedro. There’s no one else to blame. Idiot.
The leaders in this governent, both republicans and democrats agreed that saddam was a threat. Kerry did, Clinton did, Gore did, etc etc. So, decisions were made with the information available, threat was asessed and we responded. Saying that it is “clear now” that it wasn’t a good idea is a cowards way out, as hindsight is always twenty-twenty.
I have never said that mistakes were not made, they were inevitable. The difference is that those of us that supported this action believe we have to learn from our mistakes and move to improve them while finishing the mission. Leaving Iraq for the powerful with weapons to again subjugate the helpless is not a plan.
You may yet be right about the ultimate outcome, and if they don’t want it there is ultimately nothing we can do about it. However, America is clearly “safe” as demonstrated by four years without an attack on american soil, which is something that the left refuses to acknowledge, all the while crowing over the loss of american life.
“… four years without an attack on american soil …”
Gee, remind me pedro, how long was it between the first World Trade Center attacj and the second? I suppose we can gather from your logic that Clinton’s homeland security plan kicked ass.
And, as if on cue, further evidence that Bush lied about wanting to avoid war if possible, and that he pretty much never gave a damn about weapons of mass destruction either.
Not only will Iraq go down as one of the greatest debacles in the history of American foreign policy, but this Administration will go down as one of the most criminally abusive of its power as well.
Whoops, there I go with the treason again!
Saying that it is clear now that it wasn t a good idea is a cowards way out, as hindsight is always twenty-twenty.
I’m no genius, yet I knew better. It ain’t hindsight.
Leaving Iraq for the powerful with weapons to again subjugate the helpless is not a plan.
That’s different from Sunday how? The time for fairyland tales is over. This is about protecting America and our allies. As JFK said of Vietnam: “In the final analysis, it’s their war”. I hope they embrace democracy, but I ain’t willing to throw more US soldiers into the mulcher in order to force Iraq that way.
DRDoper has a slightly hazy view of the past. Bush swore up and down that the decision for war had not been made. He lied. Bush said he needed the threat of war to bully Hussein into inspections. He got the inspections but still went to war. Then DRDoper, he fucked up the war and failed to plan for the aftermath, failed the diplomacy so we didn’t have much foreign help, and then failed to send enough troops to provide security. On every front of the war you can find Bush mistakes turning Iraq into the mess it is today.
And that’s b.s. too.
The question of the day is: Was Iraqi civil war inevitable after Saddam? Or did it come about because of US missteps? I’m agnostic on that question. But I’ll grant that it’s hardly a question Bush supporters wanted to be asked three years hence back in 2003.
That’s pretty funny coming from DRDoper. He’s happy our soldiers are getting killed in Iraq because then the terrorists are content there instead of coming here.
“…crowing over the loss of american life.”
You are absolutely despicable, pedro.
elrod,
The number of civil wars that occurred in areas where there was never any American “intervention” (former British colonies in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, the Balkans, former Soviet republics, etc.) would seem to vanquish the notion that civil war only occurs as a result of American foreign policy and military mistakes.
The “blame America first” crowd has yet to grasp this simple idea; nor can they bring themselves to acknowledge that most of what is going on in Iraq today is not “civil war,” but rather violence perpetrated by foreigners (many of whom were in Iraq before the US invaded) who wish to destroy any attempt to create a democratic state. We are learning now that much of the support for the terrorists in Iraq is coming from Iran.
If you want to see what a real civil war looks like, and what real slaughter is, just look at the horrors committed in Rwanda a decade ago. Nothing on a scale even remotely close to that is happening in Iraq.
Oliver, how long are you going to count the days and the dead? It’s getting old, and it is (aside from being macabre) truly pointless.
People die in wars.
It is not news.
It is not a reason to run and leave Iraq in the lurch.
Sorry, broken link…
http://tinyurl.com/h3z4q
Pidgy-widgy…you’re screwing up the talking points again……!
You see, Ollie says it is just a coincidence that we have had no attacks on US soil, while you say it is because they are busy fighting Marines in Iraq…which is it?
Having served with Marines, I can tell you that assuming you are correct that terrorist are “content” fighting them in Iraq, the vast majority of Marines would like nothing better to think that they were keeping terror out of the US while fighting. You see, that is actually what the armed forces do. I guess you like it better when the terrorist blow up unarmed civilians?
Wilbur did you read Ollie’s post? I think THAT is despicable, not my calling it out for what it is. Don’t shoot the messager….
War with Iraq = WWII = Stuck on Stupid.
Some thoughts from Alan Caruba
Key graf:
Frame, unfortunately that kind of programming of the wingnuts is what has prevented any real solutions to any of this country’s problems.
Try to find a reasonable solution to end the Iraq conflict with dignity, and you’re helping the terrorists.
Talk about a reasonable solution to end the Iraq conflict, and you hate Iraqis and want them to live under a tyrant.
Try to intelligent design out of science class, and you are trying to drive religion out of the country.
Try to find a solution for global warming, and you are taking away American jobs.
Is it possible for sane legislators to try to find a way out of Iraq without being demagogued out of office?
“Increasingly, we re told, Americans deem the Iraq invasion and occupation a mistake. The bigger mistake, however, would have been to do nothing after the United States was attacked on 9-11.”
Another false choice from a wingnut idiot (one who I’ve had the displeasure to meet personally).
How about if we’d finished the job in Afghanistan? How about if we provide more resources to remove stray nuclear material from the old Soviet Union, like the program Clinton spearheaded? How about if we spend more resources flushing Al Queda out of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries that actually had Al Queda cells, and continue to have them.
If you want to compare the Iraq conflict to WW2, try this one: What if we had responded to Pearl Harbor by invading Ecaudor? That is what we did in Iraq.
“The number of civil wars that occurred in areas where there was never any American intervention … would seem to vanquish the notion that civil war only occurs as a result of American foreign policy and military mistakes. The blame America first crowd has yet to grasp this simple idea.”
Mike –
Elrod never suggested that civil wars only occur in places where America has intervened. You have to be an absolutelty simple-minded moron to suggest that he did. Your response is a classic example of how the right has approached the entire question of terrorism since 9-11: Don’t think, don’t reason, just shoehorn every event, policy and response into an a priori talking point. The overriding priority of Conservatives since 9-11 has been to make the world fit into a set of narrow preconceptions no matter the damage done to our democracy, our reputation or the world at large.
Ok Frank, what’s your solution? Bomb every country that looks at us cross-eyed?
I’m all for violence (Television has taught me that it solves all problems) but we can’t just run around acting like we own the place. A) It pisses off a lot of valuable friends B) our army can’t go into 156 different nations at the same time and C) its hypocritical. EX. Iraq was an imminent threat because they “might” have nukes and North Korea, which we KNOW has them, is not?
Why is it that wingers don’t want to talk about the number of war dead? Guilt?
Pedro, I can’t find any evidence for the 30K in reprisal killings after WWII. Please provide proof.
mjb, we went through this before, he had no proof, but that didn’t stop him from churning up this lie again.
Remember, if you say it seven times, it’s not a lie anymore!
“Pedro, I can t find any evidence for the 30K in reprisal killings after WWII. Please provide proof.”
Reprisal killings occurred in many occupired countries such as France and Poland but were largely low in number and limited to areas of those countries where the Nazis were in retreat but allied forces had not yet arrived. Yugoslavia was different. Pedro’s 30,000 figure is entirely comprised of a rough estimate of retaliation killings in Yugoslavia in the immediate post-WWII ere when long standing ethnic tensions fueled the animosity between Communist and fascist forces. http://www.grin.com/en/preview/49718.html
The revenge killings extended well after the immediate post-war years as the communists used the charge of collaboration to exert their authority over political enemies.
You’ll note that the the author of the study I linked to writes this: “It is a general phenomenon in history that transformation processes of states and societies have always been accompanied by persecution, retaliation and political trials and cleansings.”
It’s astounding to me that Pedro thinks this somehow offers a historical rationale/defense for the chaos in Iraq. Yugoslavia is an example of just how out of control this kind of violence can get and yet the Bush administration told us repeatedly that no one could have anticipated this insurgency. Indeed, according to today’s NY Times Bush and Blair agreed that there was no need to worry about post-war violence: “Bush predicted that it was “unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups,” and Blair agreed.”
Pedro is suggesting that Europe should be a benchmark for measuring the disaster in Iraq when, in fact, it is really a measure of how shortsighted and incompetent Bush really is. Post-war Yugoslavia is the nightmare scenario and Bush ignored it. It’s a classic case of repeating history due to ignorance. Pedro is an idiot.
How long can we milk 9-11? Isn’t there a statute of limitations on symbolic posturing? Everytime I hear a right wing moonbat invoking the events of 9-11 to obfuscate the issues at hand, it makes me thorw up a little. It is a disservice to everyone who died that day, and every one who has died in Afghanistan and Iraq since.
Oliver, I say you should stop posting the days and the dead when they stop using 9-11 as a shield.
Oliver, how long are you going to count the days and the dead? It s getting old, and it is (aside from being macabre) truly pointless.
And that is entirely the point, Frank.
“… the Bush administration told us repeatedly that no one could have anticipated this insurgency.”
And certainly no one anticipated the siutation we have now in which death squads, backed by the government we installed, are killing dozens of people a day.
Well done Frame, I’m sure Pedro will now “disappear” only to revisit this issue with the same tired talking point at a future date.
Republican philosophy in a nutshell:
“Some people criticize us for pronouncing false dichotomies, but it would be worse if we said nothing at all”
Frank- What’s a win? A stable democracy that gives us dicounted oil? Or just something less than a raging s**t-storm?
LB: Lessee: Run out of Iraq, allowing the civil war predicted by the left (may not happen, but you have said so), and the possible return of the Baathist regime, or a sharia driven Islamic regime, or “Bomb every country that looks at us cross-eyed?
Well, duh, gee, that’s a tough one… Run out of Iraq?
How about stay and win? Naaah…
factcheck (If ever there was an inappropriate name for you, that is it) What if we responded to an attack on Hawaii by landing troops in North Africa? That is what we did.
Why is it that the left will not stop talking about the number of war dead? Pursuing a political agenda through guilt?
duros: How long can we milk 9-11? You’re not serious, are you?
I think Dr P should prove that 30,000 people were killed in reprisals after WW II, right after AlexC proves that millions of people demonstrated against the Iraq War, when it began.
FrankD, a little hint for you, We aren’t winning. Bush & Co have no adaptability, no plan and no idea what is going on over there.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and it seems you idiots are saying we needed to make an example of an Islamic nation that defied the US to turn around decades of backing down. Bush’s blunder has really shown them.
I am serious Frank, but you misuderstand what I mean. I’m talking about conservatives invoking the memory of 9-11 as a shield to blunt any and all criticism of the current state of events.
So Frank, did FDR “invade” North Africa with the intention of drawing the Japanese into a battle in North Africa? Admit you made a mistake in your analogy and move on.
BTW, Oliver, what do you have lined up for Day 1,062?
mjb: You’re article mentions 850,000 — less than 1 million…Not even millions — demonstrating your (and AlexC’s inability to count)
BTW, the amount of people you can muster to yell and scream in the street has little to do with the rightness or wrongness of a policy.
Please don’t tell me what I rely on. I’m not the least bit interested in comparing Iraq to World War II — Oliver does it way more than I.
JSA — thanks for (incorrectly) answering my response to factcheck. You might recall that the Doolittle Raid took place some time after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The fact is, as you noted about North Africa, wars are fought where the combatants are.
LB: Maybe a stable democracy, with landing permission, and an equitable price for oil, and a free Iraq, and a guard on Iran’s back door, yes, that’s a victory.
pidge: Stop saying Iraq had nothing to with 9/11. Incidentally, the connection between Iraq and Al - qaeda (OBL) is becoming clearer everyday. Should we stay because of it? — I don’t think so. That’s not why we’re there, and you should know that by now. No one I know of is pretending that that is why we are there. And, please, no three year old quotes from CNN, please. Now is now.
duros: How do you propose we get the American people to support a war on terrorism without metioning 9/11? Or should we stop talking about the GWoT and 9/11, and pick up our marbles and go home?
And wait for a Madrid style bombing?
“What if we responded to an attack on Hawaii by landing troops in North Africa? That is what we did.”
We responded to the attack on Hawaii by bombing Tokyo (the Doolittle raid).
We responded to Germany’s declaration of war against the US by landing in Africa to fight the Afrika Corps.
“How about stay and win? Naaah& ”
Frank,
Simply staying in Iraq will not automatically lead to victory. This is something of a glib analogy but when a pitcher is flagging on the mound will simply keeping him in the game produce a win? No. And yet this is all the Bush adminstration and it’s supporters have to offer: staying = victory.
As others have pointed out, it’s the Underpants Gnome Strategy writ large.
The alternative, if, indeed, you think we need to stay is this: stay + radical change in strategy = victory.
Where’s Bush’s radical change in strategy? At best we’ve seen a reactive response on the reconstruction front in which we’ve shifted from large scale projects to smaller, localized projects because the terrorists kept blowing up our higher profile efforts. Plus, we’ve simply run out of money for large scale reconstruction. That’s not a meaningful shift in long term strategy, that’s a defensive reaction to unexpected conditions on the ground. When it comes to troop levels and training, what really counts when it comes to security, it’s simply more of the same. “Stay the course” is simply not working.
Frank, you sound like a magic eight ball, “things are becoming clearer every day”. Your own quote mentions 9-11 and the need for action. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, making the need for action in Iraq murky as relates to your quote.
“Dr P should prove that 30,000 people were killed in reprisals after WW II, right after AlexC proves that millions of people demonstrated against the Iraq War, when it began”
Frank,
Or you could just actually be serious about facts and truth. If pedro is wrong, which he is and it undercuts that dumb argument of his and by extension all of yours because you all rely on WWII to some dumb extent, you should be curious as to whether his statement is true. Its truth has nothing to do with the truth of some non-related statement.
BTW, millions did protest before the war - http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.main/. Does that now make Pedro’s statement true or not, or does it just demonstrate your dishonesty and inablility to google?
If we were going to make an example of an Islamic nation, then invading Saddam-controlled Iraq fails that criteria as well.
A nation populated chiefly by Muslims is not necessarily an Islamic nation. (See Turkey.)
You brought up the comparison to Pedro’s numbers, so don’t try to distance yourself from it. Do you still stand by it? Does your reliance on it still depend on whether the protest numbers were correct?
“Stop saying Iraq had nothing to with 9/11.”
Iraq had something to do with 9-11?
Frank, read the whole article. Worldwide there were millions, regardless of how you add it up. Still wrong. BTW, you brought up the protests.
OK, fine, there were millions of protestors. However, the real point is, what difference does it make? Do you think all those people were protesting because they thought the war in Iraq wasn’t going to turn out well?
Were they protesting because they they thought Hussein was a good guy who shouldn’t be interfered with?
It was just another “Whatever you’re for, we’re against it” aimed at Bush and America. (And, as I said above, “The amount of people you can muster to yell and scream in the street has little to do with the rightness or wrongness of a policy.”)
I wouldn’t try to pawn it off as a well - reasoned opposition to Bush’s strategy.
factcheck, the mistaken analogy was yours. And as long as you, or anyone else, (you’re not the first) uses it, I will point that out.
As far as the relation between Iraq and al-qaeda goes, I did some bad editing. Let me say it again:
1) I have never said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, and I don’t know who has. What I meant to say was, “Stop saying we went into Iraq because they had something to do with 9/11, and that’s not true, so we shouldn’t be there.” Nobody is making such a connection.
2) The connection between Iraq and terrorism — al-qaeda / OBL — is becoming clearer everyday. You just don’t want to admit it.
LB: I have no idea when your dog will learn to do quantum physics, notwithstanding the fact that one doesn’t do quantum physics, one understands it, and /or makes use of it. For all you know, he may be well -versed in it, and just not sharing the information with you.
I would say the same is true of the measurement of success in Iraq. Just because it is not being shared with you, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, nor does it mean it will never be done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_protests_against_war_on_Iraq#January_16.2C_2002
2003
Main article: February 15, 2003 anti-war protest
Millions of people protested, in approximately 800 cities around the world. Listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest protest in human history, protests occurred among others in the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Syria, India, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and even McMurdo Station in Antarctica. The largest demonstration this day occurred in London, where 2,000,000 protesters gathered in Hyde Park; speakers included the Reverend Jesse Jackson, London mayor Ken Livingstone, and Liberal Democrats leader Charles Kennedy.
Not to mention the other protests on other days before and since the Iraq War started. So are you ready to admit that you were wrong, or are you going to change the subject again?
Sunday Summary
Good roundup of all that’s been in the news today. As Olbermann says every night, there is a countdown since the President said “Mission Accomplished.”
Do you mean the connection where Al Qaeda operates freely in Iraq where before the invasion they didn’t. Do you mean the connection where now Al Qaeda can blow up, shoot and behead American soldiers where before the war they couldn’t? Yeah, ok, I admit that’s happening. I’m not sure that turning Iraq into an Al Qaeda recruiting and training ground is a selling point for staying there though.
I agree, I said before the invasion that invading Iraq was a means for Bush & Co to plant 75,000+ American troops in the middle east where they could attempt to dominate the area. It isn’t working.
Frank, seems like you’re devining the intentions of the protesters. That’s a no-no, right?
“I would say the same is true of the measurement of success in Iraq. Just because it is not being shared with you, doesn t mean it doesn t exist, nor does it mean it will never be done.”
Riiiiiiiiight. You know that if Bush were anywhere CLOSE to success he and the Republicans would be running down the street screaming their lungs out. I somehow doubt they’re really going for the “stealth” victory.
“Maybe a stable democracy, with landing permission, and an equitable price for oil, and a free Iraq, and a guard on Iran s back door, yes, that s a victory.”
If that’s the case buddy, you best be prepared to stay the course for a looooooooooong time cause that’s comin’ about the time my dog does quantum physics.
Actually, I was talking about what they were not doing. If you think they were actually running teach - ins and policy discussion workshops, you’re welcome to correct my error. That seems to be what you’re all best at.
I think I’ve borne the burden of proof long enough. It’s your turn now. This is, after all, a discussion, not a cross - examination.
The connection between Iraq and terrorism al-qaeda / OBL is becoming clearer everyday. You just don t want to admit it.
http://tinyurl.com/flvje
1) I have never said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, and I don t know who has. What I meant to say was, Stop saying we went into Iraq because they had something to do with 9/11, and that s not true, so we shouldn t be there. Nobody is making such a connection.
2) The connection between Iraq and terrorism al-qaeda / OBL is becoming clearer everyday. You just don t want to admit it.
You contradict yourself in the same breath.
To use Right-wing reasoning, Iraq and al-qaeda shared a connection (even though they didn’t). Al-qeada shares a connection with OBL.OBL attacked us on 9/11. Therefore, Iraq attacked us on 9/11.
“The connection between Iraq and terrorism al-qaeda / OBL is becoming clearer everyday. You just don t want to admit it.”
I haven’t seen anything in these “explosive new documents” that suggests anything more than we already knew: Iraq had contact with but no operational ties to Al-Qeada. The closest you get is the suggestion that Iraq agreed to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda into Saudia Arabia in 1995. Did they follow through? The report and the article you linked to doesn’t say. All you have is a bunch of neocons hoping desperately to find the proof they’ve been lacking for four plus years. From the article:
“Many more documents are to be released in the coming months. Quite possibly, they will vindicate the decision to undertake the Iraq war …”
Quite possibly? That’s what you’re going with?
OK, factcheck, you say potahto, and I say potayto.
I’m reasonably certain that you wouldn’t say I was gay (”not that there is anything wrong with that”), unless you thought there was “something wromg with that.” Why pick that to say?
A Froodian Sloop, perhaps?
You guys crack me up.
“I think I ve borne the burden of proof long enough. It s your turn now. This is, after all, a discussion, not a cross - examination.”
Well, see, Frank, the problem is that you have never met the burden of proof.
You want us to debate your false talking points, when you are unwilling to prove their merit.
It’s like if I said “I think Frank is gay”(not that there is anything wrong with that). Unless I come forth with data that is not faulty, it isn’t a issue worth discussing.
No, duros, that’s you’re (pretense at) reasoning, not mine.
You are saying, A and B are connected, B and C are connected, C and D are connected, therefore, A and D are connected.
I am saying A and B are connected, and C and D are connected. This doesn’t connect B to C, so A and D are not necessarily connected.
If I help a guy break into a house in January, that doesn’t mean I helped him in February.
I agree with you. Why doesn’t the administration?
The fact is there are millions of people in this country and thousands of troops in Iraq who believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam was somehow behind 9/11. Why is it the GOP is not in a big hurry to dispell them of that misconception?
Because it keeps the fear level up and resistance down, at least among their base.
The fact is there are millions of people in this country and thousands of troops in Iraq who believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam was somehow behind 9/11.
It’s not a fact. I disagree. Since I don’t believe your premise, I don’t believe your conclusion.
“You can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.”
President George W. Bush, Sept. 25, 2002
It is a fact, regardless of whether you disagree. Disagreement does not equal reality, Frank.
Check this out.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
* Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam s role in 9/11, most don t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) 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.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
“It s not a fact. I disagree.”
Do you still disagree or shall I continue?
Seems like only three and a half years ago…
And I thought you were gonna go fish for a quote from a long time ago.
And, of course, this is proof that
1) Bush meant Hussein was involved in 9/11
2) Millions of people think the same
3) Thousands of troops in Iraq do, too…
And not even a link — I wonder why?
The numbers
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either “most” or “some” of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
Americans still believe Iraq involved in 9/11
Catholic New Times, Oct 10, 2004
new
Save a personal copy of this article and quickly find it again with Furl.net. It’s free! Save it.
NEW YORK — The latest Newsweek poll, released in mid-September, revealed that 42 per cent of Americans continue to believe that Saddam Hussein’s regime was “directly involved” in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, despite all the evidence to the contrary. That’s nearly as many as the 44 per cent who disagree.
It seems to matter little that every official federal probe, most recently the much-lauded 9/11 Commission, has debunked this myth, in high-profile reports. Yet the percentage of Americans clinging to the Iraq connection has declined only slightly in the past year.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_15_28/ai_n6260690
How about a poll from last December?
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2005/12/poll_22_believe_planned_911/
Where are you Frank? Those facts a little inconvenient for you?
“The article was published March 27, 2006. That isn t current enough for you?”
No Frank, the article itself is asserting that incidents which occurred ten years ago justified our invasion of Iraq. According to you, quotes from Bush in 2002 are no longer operable but shady accounts of terrorist contacts in Iraqi intelligence documents that are ten years old are golden nuggets of eternal truth and reason enough for our invasion. Get it straight man.
Quote the rest of it Frank:
In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was “personally involved” in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
“And I thought you were gonna go fish for a quote from a long time ago.”
Frank, the article you linked to on the “explosive” revelations about Iraq’s connection to al-Qaeda/terrorists doesn’t cite any evidence of a contact after 1997. Can we have a little consistency from you on what you consider a valid historical timeframe from which to draw support for one’s argument?
And I thought you were gonna tel me the American people think the press is Liberal…
The article was published March 27, 2006. That isn’t current enough for you?
It takes frameone posting one of his three parters to find the link I asked Duros for, and factcheck to ask where I was… I’m honored.
So it seems lots of people believe Saddam had a hand in 9/11.
But can we attribute that to the administration?
Article # 1: “Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president.”
Article # 2: “The president frequently has called the Iraq war an important centerpiece in the United States’ war on terror. But some members of the administration have said recently they don’t believe there is a direct link.”
Article # 3: No mention of the administration
factcheck: Contrary to public opinion (mainly yours, and other liberal posters) I do other things besides waiting around breathlessly for your comments. And facts don’t bother me in the slightest — I’m not a liberal.
From the blog {which is why I don’t rely on them for factual data} “Both, Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda and Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded are technically true.”
One thing from the blog has been true since I remember: A substantial percentage of the American public is misinformed about major foreign policy issues.
Who’da thunk it?
And, frameone, I’ve been using furl for years… I’m not in the habit of posting two year old articles.
And, what about the “thousands of soldiers”?
Quote the rest of it Frank.
From USA Today:
“The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.
President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.”
“.. facts don t bother me in the slightest …”
Sure they don’t.
Frank is stretching for some common ground:
“Oliver, how long are you going to count the days and the dead? It s getting old . . . ”
True, it is only the tabulation of the days and deaths that is getting old for Frank, not the actual deaths, but hey — that’s a beginning.
Can we go now?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18631622-38201,00.html
US asked to cede Iraq control
“IRAQ’S ruling parties have demanded US forces cede control of security as the government investigated a raid on a Shiite mosque complex that ministers said involved “cold blooded” killings by US-led troops …
“The Alliance calls for a rapid restoration of (control of) security matters to the Iraqi government,” Jawad al-Maliki, a senior spokesman of the Shiite Islamist Alliance and ally of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, told a news conference.
The US handed over formal sovereignty in 2004 but 133,000 troops in the country give it the main say in security.
Baghdad provincial governor Hussein al-Tahan said he would halt all co-operation with US forces.”
All of this points to the fact that Frank is a Lib - his schtick is to make stupid ask statements as a con - making all con’s look stupid.
Good Job Frank!
lol zappa, on that count, Mission Accomplished! Unfortunately, he is probably a true believer.
btw,buma: noone is saying the deaths don’t matter, but then again, I’m not trying to “score points” on a political agenda, so, I guess in that sense they matter for liberals…
Yes, I’m real funny…
frameone: that story you posted was published today… Do the US forces have to leave tomorrow? Or can they at least get time to pack?
frameone: Your “triple header” is ludicrous… Since when is “cherry picking” a crime on these threads? You’re joking, right?
“Quote the whole thing” — did you?