Bush: Best President.. EVER

“We have to buy their oil RF, but we do need to find a way to make sure it is a stable source until they can transistion to new economies. Unfortuneatly at this time oil is the only real resource driving their economy, If we don't buy their oil a lot of people in that part of the world are gonna be outta work, I don't think we want that. Of course with China's economic expansion we may have an opportunity to transition out of the current situation. It would be nice to have new sources of energy developed to replace oil by the time China (and possibly India) can buy enough to keep that region stable.”

“This is what I said earlier this morning Bison. Try very hard to understand it. I know it's tough, but try:

"The statement I made that you attacked was this: "The administration, prior to the invasion, made it sound as though Saddam was involved in facilitating the 9/11 attacks."

Sound as though is the operative phrase, Bison. I did not say that the president said there was that link, but there was that inference and many others picked up on the same inference. Try harder to understand what you read."

One more time, "sound as though" is the operative phrase. I didn't quote the president there. There's a difference.

The original argument you posed was about Bush's allegation that there was a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. You said the 9/11 Commission agreed with that, and I quoted the commission as saying there were contacts (not links).

Bush alleged links, commission said only contacts.

There was, however, more than contacts between the Iranians and Al Qaeda (going way back to my original post before you sidetracked with a fruitless exercise in semantics) that went far beyond anything that happened in Iraq (Tuesday's news).”

“Geo - Try very hard to understand this, Bush said that there was no direct link between Iraq and 9/11. I'm still trying to figure out how the hell you can say that he made it "sound like" there was a link when he was saying exactly the opposite.

BTW

Entry: link
Function: noun
Definition: connection
Synonyms: articulation, association, attachment, bond, channel, component, connective, constituent, CONTACT (emphasis added), copula, coupler, coupling, division, element, fastening, hitch, hookup, in, interconnection, interface, intersection, joining, joint, junction, knot, ligament, ligation, ligature, loop, member, network, nexus, part, piece, relationship, ring, seam, section, splice, tie, tie-up, vinculum, weld, yoke
Concept: joining”

“I used link and contact in the context of the 9/11 Commission's discussions. Of course, you said yesterday that you read the commission's report (which will be released to the public in about 20-some minutes), so I know you understand the context.

I quoted the president from several speeches talking about links (cooperation) between Iraq and Al Qaeda as reasons for invading.

If you want to split hairs rather than address the issue, so be it, but it remains the case that it was Iran that was cooperating with Al Qaeda, not Iraq.

I'm done dredging up quotes off the internet for you. You only seem to read what you want anyway, so why bother?”

“Bison. You're nit-picking at the deatial to try and portray a case the Bush didn't seek to link AQ and Iraq as a single terrorist threat. That's just plain wrong. You can seek to dismiss it as much as you like, but the Administration, played up this link, as listed in the quotes on this thread, just as they played up the WMD threat, to justify pre-emptive war. Only now, it appears the grounds for going to war have been proved to be false. Now the administration is talking about what a bad guy Saddam was, which is true, but that was not what they said was the reason for going to war.”

“I think it's perfectly clear that the Bush administration had all intentions of convincing/confusing the American public about ties between Al Queda and Iraq. For your mainstream American who supported Bush, they became more or less the same thing. It's probably one of the best PR jobs in the nation's history and I'm sure that's why Ari Fleicher stepped down: it became too challenging trying to distinguish the truth from the lies.

Down with the oligarchic plutocracy! Bush out in 2004!”

“"You only seem to read what you want anyway, so why bother?"

You're the one with selective hearing (or reading as the case may be) I find it silly to accuse someone of such a thing when you're the one who is taking quotes out of context.


"Bush didn't seek to link AQ and Iraq as a single terrorist threat."

Horse#&%!$, I've never said he wasn't linking Saddam to the terrorist threat, he was. And Saddam had many links to many terrorists including Al Qaeda as much a Geo and yourself would like to deny it, he was in contact at high levels with them and that is what the staff report found. I've said he wasn't linking Saddam to 9/11 specifically, and he never did. It's the people who are saying that he linked Saddam to 9/11 who are attempting to confuse the American people. The thinking goes that if you can say that he did and then show that Saddam wasn't directly linked then it shows that the President was wrong. But of course the premise for that is absolutely false.”

“So let me ask you this then Bison - Was the President wrong on WMDs? Or did the rest of the world get confused about that also?”

“I'm taking quotes out of context? Those quotes, dear boy, come directly from the White House official website.”

“And many of Geo's quotes come from entire speeches on the Terrorist threat, with a common thread through them, all saying basically the same thing? How is this out of context. Out of context would be taking a single line from a speech that doesn't correlate with what else is being said.”

“So do the quotes of Bush saying over and over that Saddam was not directly linked to 9/11. Why don't you try and look them up instead of continuing with your silly argument.”

“But since EVERYONE knew that 9/11 was perpetrated why Al Queda and our president is saying the Al Queda and Iraq and good buds, wouldn't it stand to reason that Bush was trying to allude that Iraq had some responsibility for 9/11?”

“Bison, I've supplied quotes from the president that support my silly argument. You support your own silly argument.”

“Maybe YOU could point those out for us Bison since you seem so familiar with them...”

“No! why the hell do you think he kept on saying that there was no direct link!

His argument was that there was a possibility of FUTURE collaboration based on past contacts. The argument had nothing to do with complicity on 9/11 and he made that clear to thinking people.”

“Rosey - I've posted many, look back through the thread, he said it on an almost daily basis for several months.”

“Joseph Goebbels main propogandist strategy was to confuse the masses about the facts, then steer them toward the Nazi Party line on the issue. This is exactly what the Bush admin does, and Bison's posts on this thread is clear evidence of that. Kudos to Geobeet for exposing the "ties" v. "contact" arguement. The Bush admin certainly tried to mislead and confuse the public by making a "contact" between the two parties seem like a "tie", which is more of an alliance.

If I "contact" Geobeet about a trail in Wva., it could be for a variety of reasons, none of which imply that I am certainly going to hike the trail with Geobeet. However, if I sign up for a trip the Geobeet has in Wva., then there is a "tie" created between the both of us. We will most probably be hiking together and will meet and discuss our common interests, and actually put them in action.

Mutt hit this head on as well. All Middleeastern countries have had contact with Al-Queda, but only some have had "ties" with Al-Queda.

Eventually, with all the confusion these terms and thier weight carry, the speculation adds up to a scenario where people are misinformed, confused, and looking for direction.... in steps the republican media machine, and thier "message" to steer people to thier POV. Textbook Geobbels.

The confusion generated by the propogandists can also be conveniently covered up when a massive failure happens by; a.) blaming others, and b.) revising history through manipulation of the language and nomanclature of the issue's previous debate.

Karl Rove, and modern day Goebbels? I think that there is a strong arguement to be made here.”

“Maybe I'm blind. I don't seem 'em, bud.”

“As to Bush's statements and Bison's lesson on grammer for all of us, you have to consider this. Linguists theorize that 80% of the way we communicate comes from the tone of our voice and body language, while 20% come from the actual words spoken.”

“BB - you're attitude is downright dangerous, try reading the staff report and see what it really says instead of getting some BS through the media. If you and Geobeet have both plotted, separately, to attack someone in the past, and then meet up for a discussion on the trail, do you expect that person that knows you are both there sworn enemy to sit around and wait for you to join up?

I'd like to live thank you.”

“Bison, if you're going to go around handing out lessons in semantics, at least learn the difference between youryou're and their and there.”

“Shoot everybody in the room and take no prisoners, Bison. Jeez, I have been reading this and can't believe the degree of tunnel vision you exhibit. For instance:


His argument was that there was a possibility of FUTURE collaboration based on past contacts.
Bison


There have been shown to be lots of cases of "suspicious" talks between two or more nefarious parties round the globe in the past. Do you attack each of them based on suppositions? Where the hell does that end? Dang, boy! I used to think you were brighter than that, but this administration can't do any wrong by you, can they?”

“Japan and Germany have met at several meetings since WW2, yet we didn't preemptively go to war with them.”

“rosey-

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th,"

Bush

Just one of many from a common theme that's been coming from the President since 2001.”

“should be your and you're”

“"Japan and Germany have met at several meetings since WW2, yet we didn't preemptively go to war with them."

What are you thick? They'd been dealt with already, they were no longer our enemies. Are you just trying to sound stupid?”

“I truely believe that people like Bison and Bush are dangerous, does this now give me the right to take people like that out? Of course not, yet this logic isn't applied on a mass scale? Makes no sense.

And if you think that my attitude is dangerous, I disagree. I'm simply making observations about people who are doing dangerous things.”

“I didn't know we were havin' an essay contest Geo, maybe your harping on my spelling goes to the heart of the argument that you can't see beyond a very narrow focus. Try reading in context, you'll know what I meant.”

“No dude, I'm trying to give you a lesson in a subject called logic, which is a subject that you don't seem to either practice or grasp.”

“Let's see if I can rephrase the argument.

Bush went to war in Iraq because of WMD and links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There were no WMD, and the alleged links did not exist.

Who presented the greatest threat? Saddam or Bush?

Meanwhile, while all of that was going on, Osama bin Laden, who does represent a very credible threat, is sitting in some mud hut along the Pakistani-Afghanistan border laughing his ass off.

But that's okay, because the president said there is no link between Iraq and 9/11.”

“We were told that there was proof that those "contacts" between Iraq and Al-Queda posed an immediate threat to the country because of all these WMD's floating around out there by the Bush Administration. This evidence is and was false, therefore, if two past enemies meet, and there is no evidence that they are plotting, or have the weapons to harm us, than the arguement to go to war is false.

We were lied to and misled. This, is called logic.”

“People who don't understand the threats that are directed at them are dangerous Buddha. When it's only an individual that's no big deal to me. But when we're talking about a large portion of society not understanding that threat, well if it's the society I live in and a threat that is directed at all of us... I've got a problem with that. Don't worry Buddha, I don't advocate takin' you out though, we'll both go to the voting booth to make our points.”

“Damn! Geobeet beat me to it!”

“What threat did Iraq represent to us?”

“It threatened our oil consumption.”

“You mean Halliburton's oil consumption, don't you?”

“I really like President Bush. I think I will vote for him come November. Yep, I'm sure of it.”

“I'm going to vote for him too, Buck, ... to outsource him.”

“Bio Diesel”

“Like I said, fantasy world.

"There were no WMD"

Hmm... why don't you go tell the Kurds that one... do you think they'd string you up or just laugh at you? There were WMD that is not in question. The question is what happened to them? Do you have an answer for that? Did you have an answer for that before the war? What evidence would you have had without the war that there was no WMD? Some analyst felt he didn't have the weapons, but even they could not account for them. And many more analysts felt that there was no doubt, why? because no one could account for the weapons that we absolutely know he had.

If I bury something in the woods and tell you to go find it and you don't, does that mean it's not there? The only evidence I've seen that there was no WMD is that we haven't found any? Does that mean there weren't any? No, it just means exactly what it says... we haven't found any.

Saddam may very well have destroyed the WMD, if so why didn't he account for this when given the opportunity? When you can show me that you had absolute proof of this prior to the war, or can convince me that you could have found proof despite ten years + of on and off inspections which were deliberatly interferred with (hmmmm.... why thwart the inspectors if there's nothing to hide?), I might think you have a point.”

“Holy $hit, Batman, Bison found the WMD. Call Bush! Call Cheney! Schedule a press conference!

The Army couldn't find the WMD, the inspectors couldn't find the WMD, the spy satellites couldn't find the WMD, but Bison found them.

Way to go, Man. I take back everything I said!”

“Maybe Saddam can find that stuff.”

“MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.

MR. RUSSERT: We could establish a direct link between the hijackers of September 11 and Saudi Arabia.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We know that many of the attackers were Saudi. There was also an Egyptian in the bunch. It doesn’t mean those governments had anything to do with that attack. That’s a different proposition than saying the Iraqi government and the Iraqi intelligent service has a relationship with al-Qaeda that developed throughout the decade of the ’90s. That was clearly official policy.

Meet the Press, September 14, 2003”

“Bison, you say the threat was there, but even if it was, then there were far batter ways to handle it than an invasion by the "coalition of the willing." By rushing to war in the spring it ensured a lack of support for the post war effort, which would be far more important and difficult task than winning the war itself. Had things not been driven by a political agenda, and a desire to have things cleared up by this election, better work could have been done with the securuty council to apply pressure in a united way. By waiting until the fall, America and the UK would probably now have much greater support in the Iraqi effort, and the situation could be looked at far more optimistically.”

“Cheney is a lyin' sack...”

“Still, invading Iraq accomplished one thing that is problematic: it left Osama bin Hidin off the hook.”

“Thank you for making my point Violin.

"WE DON'T KNOW (emphasis added). You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization."


"With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. WE JUST DON'T KNOW (emphasis added)."

That's a far cry from saying Iraq was involved in 9/11. I can see how you might think that's what he was saying if you had an IQ on par with a can of planters.”

“Yes Geo, if you can't solve one problem(Osama), then create another one(Iraq) and "solve" it.


Iraq is far from solved.


What Buddha said about "Textbook Goebbels" is right on!”

“That's a far cry from saying Iraq was involved in 9/11. I can see how you might think that's what he was saying if you had an IQ on par with a can of planters."
Bison

Bison, for the umptytwelth time, that's not what I said. Get over it. You keep trying to throw that out there, as though if you say it often enough somebody will own up to it. Nobody said that. Why do you keep arguing as though somebody did?”

“"What Buddha said about "Textbook Goebbels" is right on!"

MarkO
11:44:38 AM
07/22/04

Keep demonizing when all else fails.

While I have enjoyed our flame session (I must say it is fun, but I do enjoy backpacking with MarkO and Y2 much more than jawing about the war, the rest of you I haven't met)I'm afraid it is time for me to depart for the land of Ahhnold. I shall return to the flame threads Monday night. Feel free to demonize at your liesure while I'm gone.

Sincerely,

Bison.”