Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Viti · 07-24-2003, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by themistocles
I don't think Bush ever linked Saddam to 9/11. I'm certain a myth by critics of Bush that this is the case stems from polls in which much of the nation did believe in such a connection along with the fact that Bush claimed 9/11 adjusted his view to foreign policy (giving birth to pre-emptive attack as a more viable option) in which acting now to prevent future disaster was a key ingredient.

Because I've never heard or seen a quote from Bush which linked Saddam to 9/11 (Christ, I recall reading/seeing Bush speak a gazillion times between 9/11 and the Iraq war), clearly this is a straw man fallacy.

No, he never said it directly...but he used "terrorism", "9-11", "Al Quaida", and "Iraq" within the same speech and even same sentence so many times people began making a false connection and he did nothing to dispel it.

Also, Rumsfield supposedly started trying to make the link immediately

Quote:

(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq � even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520830.shtml

The administration did everything to imply it...even if they didn't say it outright

themistocles · 07-24-2003, 07:04 PM

Pshaw, I say tough, I favored war, I never for a second ever believed 9/11 and Saddam were linked, as did most people I know who favored the war. Those who favored war but believed there was a link were mistaken, but it certainly is a pretty weak criticism against the war, IMO.

It is however deceptive to continually harp that the war was sold on a lie that Bush connected 9/11 to Saddam if he never did, something critics of Bush are quite fond to do.

Farren · 07-24-2003, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Thermostocles:
I don't think Bush ever linked Saddam to 9/11. I'm certain a myth by critics of Bush that this is the case stems from polls in which much of the nation did believe in such a connection along with the fact that Bush claimed 9/11 adjusted his view to foreign policy (giving birth to pre-emptive attack as a more viable option) in which acting now to prevent future disaster was a key ingredient.

Here

Bush always suspected Saddam was behind 9/11

Quote:

In his State of Union speech in January, Mr Bush made the case for confronting Iraq, saying: "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qa'eda."

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq

Quote:

WASHINGTON � 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: Iraq, al Qaeda linked

Quote:

GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan (CNN) -- President Bush spent Wednesday trying to draw a link between a possible war in Iraq and the war against terrorism. He repeated accusations that Iraq is linked to the al Qaeda terrorist network.

Curiously enough, on this thread Thermistocles just said

Quote:

I tend to view the majority of Bush's critics as tin-foil hat (ironically) fundamentalists prone to impressive and elaborate conspiracy theories, bizarre circular arguments, hyperbole, and selectiveness of reality to confirm a pre-existing viewpoint.

and immediately demonstrates why I view Bush supporters as being unable to see whats in front of their eyes or smell whats under their noses.

lunachick · 07-24-2003, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by themistocles
Pshaw, I say tough, I favored war, I never for a second ever believed 9/11 and Saddam were linked, as did most people I know who favored the war. Those who favored war but believed there was a link were mistaken, but it certainly is a pretty weak criticism against the war, IMO.

It is however deceptive to continually harp that the war was sold on a lie that Bush connected 9/11 to Saddam if he never did, something critics of Bush are quite fond to do.

So what was it founded on, themistocles?

And do you think it was a well-thought out exercise? Do you think it was successful in it's mission? What was accomplished by it, and for whom?

themistocles · 07-24-2003, 07:25 PM

Farren, linking Saddam to al-Qaeda or terrorism is not a link to 9/11.

Quote:

So what was it founded on, themistocles?

And do you think it was a well-thought out exercise? Do you think it was successful in it's mission? What was accomplished by it, and for whom?

Certainly not on a connection between 9/11 and Saddam. My reasons for favoring war were not entirely similar to Bush's stated reasons, but not in conflict with. Saddam was told that he must cooperate with the United Nations "or else". He didn't. We provide the "or else". Besides, I always had felt that prolonging Saddam's dictatorship meant a risk towards a rather unnescessary but unforeseen problem down the road. North Korea's saber rattling which coincided with war talks as evidence...

lunachick · 07-24-2003, 07:29 PM

Quote:

...prolonging Saddam's dictatorship meant a risk towards a rather unnescessary but unforeseen problem down the road.

Do you think the risk of unforeseen problems down the road has been eliminated? If so; how?

Farren · 07-24-2003, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by themistocles
Farren, linking Saddam to al-Qaeda or terrorism is not a link to 9/11.

Certainly not on a connection between 9/11 and Saddam. My reasons for favoring war were not entirely similar to Bush's stated reasons, but not in conflict with. Saddam was told that he must cooperate with the United Nations "or else". He didn't. We provide the "or else". Besides, I always had felt that prolonging Saddam's dictatorship meant a risk towards a rather unnescessary but unforeseen problem down the road. North Korea's saber rattling which coincided with war talks as evidence...

You evidently missed this

Bush: Iraq, al Qaeda linked

link, which I so kindly provided.

Its called cognitive dissonance, and it can be treated

Oh and, the US, not the UN, said "or else".

Another thing, what risk? Since Blair and Bush have utterly failed to provide any evidence before, during or after

the war that there was any risk at all, what the fuck are you talking about?

themistocles · 07-24-2003, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lunachick
Do you think the risk of unforeseen problems down the road has been eliminated? If so; how?

Well, I should have hedged with "unforeseen". As I said before, North Korea itself is a reason to deal with Iraq now. But I think the very fact a murderous dictator is no longer in power is a far greater accomplishment than the hardships that may have been unleashed because of the war--that's an objective fact. The problems we have in a post-war Iraq are pretty insignificant in comparison to Iraq before or during the war.

eldar1011 · 07-24-2003, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by themistocles
The problems we have in a post-war Iraq are pretty insignificant in comparison to Iraq before or during the war.

Pretty ballsy statement for someone who doesn't currently live in Iraq.

More than a few Iraqis will disagree with you and not all of them are Saddam-supporting thugs.

Here's a problem in post-war Iraq that wasn't there before the war....the Balkanization of Iraq. Look at the mess in the former Yugoslavia to see what that's all about.

I'm not saying that we should have left Saddam alone because he kept Iraq under his control. But, I do question your assertion that post-war Iraq's problems are insignficant in comparison.

themistocles · 07-24-2003, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Farren
You evidently missed this

Bush: Iraq, al Qaeda linked

link, which I so kindly provided.

Its called cognitive dissonance, and it can be treated

I admit to skimming, but I did not notice any connection by Bush with Saddam to 9/11. I addressed my position on the "perception" of the link earlier.

Quote:

Oh and, the US, not the UN, said "or else".

The UN Security Council unanimously passed 1441.

Quote:

Another thing, what risk? Since Blair and Bush have utterly failed to provide any evidence before, during or after the war that there was any risk at all, what the fuck are you talking about?

Would you say Saddam Hussein is more or less of a danger to the United States now? Patently less. Ergo, war justified.

And because Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 doesn't mean that factions with a common enemy like the United States have no reason to get together in the future. I can reasonably believe that will not happen now if one of the members of that potential union is nonexistant.

Boom, justified again. This is fun.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-24-2003, 07:04 PM	#32
themistocles Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: las vegas, nevada Posts: 670	Pshaw, I say tough, I favored war, I never for a second ever believed 9/11 and Saddam were linked, as did most people I know who favored the war. Those who favored war but believed there was a link were mistaken, but it certainly is a pretty weak criticism against the war, IMO. It is however deceptive to continually harp that the war was sold on a lie that Bush connected 9/11 to Saddam if he never did, something critics of Bush are quite fond to do.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.