Can you help me debunk this right-wing comment?

"I'm not aware of a specific statement that there's no link between Sadaam and Al Qaeda. I'll do some looking but, there seems to be some fairly reasonable credible proof that there were links. Beside, Al Qaeda isn't the only group of Muslim extremists out there. If he wasn't cooperating specificially with them, he's been working with others.

Maybe what it really all boils down to though is just simple responsibility. We helped put Sadaam in power, he was "our boy". He has since become a major problem. Maybe he was this bad way back when, I really don't know, either way it's not important. We put him there, he had to go, therefore it's our job to take him out. Maybe that's a macho "guy thing" but it's how I feel. If I had a dog that started biting people, I'm responsible. My dog, my job. If it needs to be destroyed, I'd rather I do it then just turn it over to some faceless agency to "take care of". And I really think that it's that lack of people being willing to take responsibility for things that's lead to where we are currently as a nation, which is one foot in the toilet and starting to step over the rim with the other.

As to supporting Bush, currently I don't see any alternative. Kerry is a hypocrite, I wouldn't vote for him for any reason what so ever. I hated Clinton, and I think that if his "better half" is worse. Oh, and I didn't hate Clinton for having sex. His business and Monika's. I've joked that I think all presidents should have their own private "fluffer" on hand. I'd much rather a nice relaxed pres, then a streessed out one with his finger on that Big Red Button ! Now, where I do have a problem was when, as an officer of the court, he lied. What he lied about wasn't the issue, I've heard many folks say that since he "only lied about sex" that's Ok but, it's not. Yes, his sex life is his own private business but, once someone filed a suit against him for sexual harrassment, his sex life became an open book, just like it would for anyone else. Not only isn't he exempt from the consequences of his actions, as the highest office holder in the land, and an officer of the court, he's held to a HIGHER standard then you or I would be. He knows the law, he swore to uphold it, both as president and before the bar, and then he broke it because he felt that it was Ok to do so. He decided that it wasn't relevant to the case at hand, but the judge ruled differently and that's that. So, I don't care that he's a horn dog. More power to him although, as president, it would be nice if he'd exercised a bit of taste and at least have choosen some attractive women ! And he had every right to keep his indiscretions private, that's between him, hiw wife, and the partner du jour, right up until it was a judge telling him that he had to answer. That's when keeping it private was no longer an option.

Mike S."


That's what this poster said in my lj.

reminding this person that Clinton is not running for president this year.

a couple of nights ago...Rummy was trying to avoid it, of course, but Tweety just kept getting more specific on him...toward the end he finally said that, no, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but with the usual caveats.

And Bush HAS said that there's no link between Iraq and 9/11- Tweety also mentioned that during the interview.

But saying there is no link between Iraq and a specific event is not the same as saying there is no link between Iraq and the group responsible

Bush said: There is no link between 9/11 and Iraq

He did not say: There is no link between al-Qaeda and Iraq

It is like if Bush said: there is no link between peanut butter and Wonderbread and

and if Bush did not say: there is no link between Jiff peanut butter and Wonderbread.


It is all semantics but the distinction needs to clarified. Check out my thread on UNSCAM in the F/A forum... the puzzle is coming together

I admit i tend towards the libertarian interp of some issues


on edit: im also trying to point out weaknesses in ppls arguments to help them revise and strengthen them against attack

...because you have already been tombstoned but Saddam was a secular leader. He turned to Islam only when he felt the need of arab solidarity. Osama hated him as much as he haed us. I would think anyone who truly felt our progresive ideals were correct to already know that.

let me clarify, i do think saddam's regime supported terror -- payment to families of suicide bombers come to mind, he may not have supported al-qaeda but to say he did not support terrorist groups is plain ignorance.


also call me a middle of the roader, im definitely not a subsciber to ideologies to the left of and including socialism and definitely not an advocate of the conservative social agenda either. I like to think of my social and economic ideologies as distinct and divorced, though i recognize the difficulty of this and economics affects the social and vice versa. John Dewey hit the nail on the head

to a democratic board, and your early posts are about the linkage between Hussein and Al Qaeda, your political orientation is suspect at best.

To me the Iraq war is a huge issue, the single biggest of this election.

If you truly believe the Iraq war is right and justified (I do not), and that it never would have happened under a non Bush or Dem administration (I do), then you should credit Bush with great leadership and foresight and consider him a very good or great president. And I mean that sincerely.

So do you feel that Iraq war is a good and just war? And are you voting for Bush in November?

i think the iraq war was premature and ill-conceived. i guess i'd have to vote for kerry but i admit i thought edwards to be a better candidate


edit: what's a freeplurker?

What do you mean by that? We should have invaded but used more troops? You don't say "wrong" but you do say "premature".

if we found docs in a cave somewhere with iraqi seals on it then we could have said there was a need to invade iraq, but in this case that did not happen, bush went into iraq with not enough compelling evidence and too much circumstantial evidence, that is why he lost IMO and in the court of public opinion. i don't know if the war on terror would have led to iraq but based on the circumstantial evidence it seems we might of ended up there sometime, maybe not even under this admin.


in sum: right place (maybe), wrong time (definitely)

you lose many lives and expend billions?

You are saying that, 20 years from now, if there were no WMD found, that it would still be legitimate to label the war "premature" as opposed to "wrong." One can never prove a negative or the absence of something. I could just as easily say that if I as president ordered an invasion of France tomorrow because they had sold some arms to Hussein that could possibly have given him some WMD capability, and that I "might be" proven right in the future?

In the link below, James Webb (Reagan's former Secretary of the Navy, an Annapolis grad and Vietnam Vet) takes the position that America should only go to war when the reasons for the war are completely self evident.

http://www.jameswebb.com/speeches/ethicsinpostwariraq.htm

many who are members of the site freerepublic.com. These people do not have the interests of the Democratic Party or its candidates or members at heart, and are usually opposed to the same, but come here with deceptive handles like "classicliberal" to foment trouble, promote flamewars, get people agitated, and generally waste everyone's time.

I really hope you do vote for Kerry in November, or stay home if you don't vote for him.

that would have been the Bush administration's link between Iraq and 9/11- and we'd all know about it, for sure. Simple guilt by association.

But I've seen absolutely no evidence of either of those things.

"I'm not aware of a specific statement that there's no link between Sadaam and Al Qaeda. I'll do some looking but, there seems to be some fairly reasonable credible proof that there were links. Beside, Al Qaeda isn't the only group of Muslim extremists out there. If he wasn't cooperating specificially with them, he's been working with others.

To wit, even Bush said that there was no link. Only Cheney is pushing this line now.

Maybe what it really all boils down to though is just simple responsibility. We helped put Sadaam in power, he was "our boy". He has since become a major problem. Maybe he was this bad way back when, I really don't know, either way it's not important. We put him there, he had to go, therefore it's our job to take him out. Maybe that's a macho "guy thing" but it's how I feel. If I had a dog that started biting people, I'm responsible. My dog, my job. If it needs to be destroyed, I'd rather I do it then just turn it over to some faceless agency to "take care of". And I really think that it's that lack of people being willing to take responsibility for things that's lead to where we are currently as a nation, which is one foot in the toilet and starting to step over the rim with the other.

That's an argument for humanitarian intervention, and not necessarily a bad one. But if we really were concerned about a humanitarian crisis, there were much better ways of "taking him out" than going to war.

As to supporting Bush, currently I don't see any alternative. Kerry is a hypocrite, I wouldn't vote for him for any reason what so ever.

Unsubstantiated claim.

I hated Clinton, and I think that if his "better half" is worse. Oh, and I didn't hate Clinton for having sex. His business and Monika's. I've joked that I think all presidents should have their own private "fluffer" on hand. I'd much rather a nice relaxed pres, then a streessed out one with his finger on that Big Red Button ! Now, where I do have a problem was when, as an officer of the court, he lied. What he lied about wasn't the issue, I've heard many folks say that since he "only lied about sex" that's Ok but, it's not. Yes, his sex life is his own private business but, once someone filed a suit against him for sexual harrassment, his sex life became an open book, just like it would for anyone else.

The investigation was over Whitewater, not sexual harrassment. You'll have to talk to someone far more knowledgeable about Starr to explain how the hell it jumped to sexual harrassment.

Additionally... is it OK that Bush periodically decieves the American people, so long as he's not under oath? Is it acceptable to decieve the American people, so long as your statements are factually true?

And I don't think it would be prudent to kill over 10,000 people to get rid of a dog, no matter whose it is. Doesn't seem like this person has any rational arguments.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.

This one has him standing by the claim that they work with al Qaeda, though.

http://www.iht.com/articles/103441.html
This one is flash, and therefore not copy-pastable, but seems to have what you are looking for.

There is no proof that there is a link. It doesn't make sense anyway. Why would Saddam, a secularist, throw in with radical right wing Muslims? He was fighting right-wing fundies...the same group that we are against now. The guy is right..Saddam was supporting anti-Isreal groups. That doesn't make our actions justified, however. Israel can take care of itself if history is to be believed.

lying about sex, but he isn't upset about Bush lying about WMDs?

What a joke. He's a partisan, pure and simple.

that if it his reason why we needed to take out IRaq was to clean up our mess, then one wonders why our response was as it was.

In other words, we literally rushed in there without taking time to gain an alliance as we did in Gulf War I (which I assumed had the same theme, he's is our monster and we need to stop him), and why?

Because we decided he was a threat.

Furthermore, IF that really were the theme, one would think the MOST complete part of our plan would be the AFTERMATH, which clearly was quite literally an afterthought.

No, nothing in the planning or execution of this operation suggests that his theme was the one that was present in the minds of this administration.

Osama Bin Laden has vilified Saddam Hussein by name in many communiques. Saddam Hussein also lost no love for OBL.

This is a matter of public record. Their remarks have made it to the press, and are presumably still available.

In addition, Saddam was using the UN blockade as a way of enhancing his power within Iraq and cultivating sympathy with as much of the world as possible. For him to invite other weasels to share the spotlight would have offended Saddam's deep and abiding need for stardom.

Your correspondant is also badly fixated on Clinton; his opinion of Clinton has no bearing on Osama, Saddam, George Bush, John Kerry, Amelia Erhardt, or the Tooth Fairy. "Maybe it's a macho thing" for me to say, but results count for more than opinions. And the results that Team Bush have gotten are testimony to the incompetance of Team Bush and no one else.

Have fun!

--bkl

As if that was anybody's business. But Lucianne, Drudge, Rush, and all their pervert followers were just totally obsessed with Clinton's penis. No more - no less.

Bush: Saddam not involved in 9-11 attacks

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dallas/politics/national/stori...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25571-2003Sep17?language=pri...

"President Bush said there has been no evidence that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, disavowing a link that had been hinted at previously by his administration.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," the president said yesterday after a meeting at the White House with lawmakers. "


Also,
September 16, 2003
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/09/mil-030916...

Q: There have been a number of public opinion polls that show a fairly sizable percentage of the public believes that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11 attacks. Do you believe that?

Rumsfeld: I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that. We know he was giving $25,000 a family for anyone who would go out and kill innocent men, women and children. And we know of various other activities. But on that specific one, no.

http://www.buzzflash.com/BushLied

If Mike can hate Clinton for "lying", but excuse whoosh* for lying ..

Apparently she's one of the sources of many arguments that Saddam did have significant links to Al-Qaeda.

More about her here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html

Also beware of claims that that Saddam had significant links to Al-Qaeda through the Islamist group Ansar al-Islam which operated (still operates I guess..)in the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq.

More info on this group and those claims here:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/ansar030205_krekar.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4487255-103681,00.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/World/20030216ansar0216p4.asp

Technically it would be incorrect to say that Saddam had absolutely no links to Al-Qaeda. His regime had no significant links to Al-Qaeda, none that were significant enough to support the claim of an imminent threat of collaboration against the US between his regime and Al-Qaeda.

These are from my site:

George W. Bush has repeatedly stated that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda and the events of 9/11, even though our own intelligence agencies have been unable to prove such a link exists.

Washington Post, June 22, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19822-2003Jun21

The Independent courtesy of Global Policy, July 13, 2003
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0713twentylies.htm


Secretary of State Colin Powell has been forced to withdraw claims he made prior to the invasion of Iraq that there was evidence that Saddam Hussein had connections to Al Qaeda.

The Independent, January 11, 2004
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=480031



US officials now admit that intelligence agencies "could find no provable connection between Saddam and al Qaeda" prior to the invasion of Iraq, even though the Bush administration continued to claim such a connection existed.

The Miami Herald, March 3, 2004
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/8091287.htm




My site:
http://www.doyouknow.org/topics/foreignpolicy/index.html