NationStates Jolt Archive

Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq, pre-occupation. It seems like a no brainer, eh? But for the longest time the administration tried proving ties between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, or Iraq and 9/11. Yet, now even Mr. Bush admits that Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq pre-war...Oh and he even says so what, about the whole situation


BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take–

RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that’s right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they’re going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Maybe one day he will finally admit that Hussein posed no threat, and then this war would officially be a complete lie.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/15/bush-so-what/

Too little too late. Sure we can say "we told you so", but would good would it do?

Bush is a very nasty man.

Too little too late. Sure we can say "we told you so", but would good would it do?

Exactly. The evidence that we know what we're talking about and Mr. Bush and Co dont is so monumental, one more little bit doesnt really matter.

Too little too late. Sure we can say "we told you so", but would good would it do?

Amen, brother Kry, amen.

What??!?!?!?!

Bush LIED to us?!

I am shocked.
No, really, this is my shocked face.

...
...

And the irony is we only started with the "Al-Qaeda is in Iraq" bullshit because we found no WMDs in Iraq.

What??!?!?!?!

Bush LIED to us?!

I am shocked.
No, really, this is my shocked face.

...
...

I don't think it was the fact that he lied that surprised me. It was how he admitted otherwise, and saying "so what". I'd like to think he was an ignorant man, but that face and so what make me think he is more evil than I ever thought.

Amen, brother Kry, amen.

That's "sister" Kry! :cool: To you, pal!

I don't think it was the fact that he lied that surprised me. It was how he admitted otherwise, and saying "so what". I'd like to think he was an ignorant man, but that face and so what make me think he is more evil than I ever thought.

Fun fact: when he was first running in Texas, it was feared he would be "too intellectual" to win in the state.

Those fears were proved accurate and he lost, so he invented his "idiot cowboy" persona. The rest, as they say, is history.

That's "sister" Kry! :cool: To you, pal!

OMG! I did a Mod-sex change without meaning to!
I am so so sorry, sister Kry. Don't spank me with LG's mud covered paddle!!!:eek:

That's "sister" Kry! :cool: To you, pal!

I was going to comment on that, pointing out that I was pretty sure it should have been "sister," but I didn't want to turn out to be wrong. :tongue:

Next thing you know, Bush might admit that the FBI hasn't listed 9-11 among Bin Laden's crimes...


CAUTION

Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

That's "sister" Kry! :cool: To you, pal!

Lies, there's no women on the internet! They're all in the kitchen!

/toungeincheek

Seriously though, umm.....duh? This is pretty much on the same line as "The Pope is Catholic".

I think now that Bush's administration is coming to a close, he and Cheney are cutting loose and relaxing more on what they're saying, because heh, he just6 spent the last 8 years screwing us over and we didn't really do anything. I mean Hell, we re-elected him in 2004, so what can we do to him now?

So essentially the war on terror is achieving the exact opposite of what it was intended to do.

So essentially the war on terror is achieving the exact opposite of what it was intended to do.


Well, this way it sets up a cycle which allows this war to go on indefinitely.

So essentially the war on terror is achieving the exact opposite of what it was intended to do.

Again, bear, crap, woods.

Lies, there's no women on the internet! They're all in the kitchen!

/toungeincheek

I want a divorce!

I want a divorce!

and after I cooked that three course meal for us last night. :(

Beside, you should know that my humor borders on racism and sexism. :tongue:

Beside, you should know that my humor borders on racism and sexism. :tongue:

Borders on?

and after I cooked that three course meal for us last night. :(

The rice was uncooked!

Beside, you should know that my humor borders on racism and sexism. :tongue:

No problem, Wil. I know you secretly do not have sexist or racist ideas.

The rice was uncooked!

That rice was for the birds, I wanted to see if they really explode when they eat the rice and drink water.

Clearly the only way to eradicate al Quaida is for the US to actually start funding them

That rice was for the birds, I wanted to see if they really explode when they eat the rice and drink water.

You wanted to murder me? :eek2:

Clearly the only way to eradicate al Quaida is for the US to actually start funding them

al Qaida needs a bailout!

So essentially the war on terror is achieving the exact opposite of what it was intended to do.

Yep.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/16/glasgowairporttrial-uksecurity

...what saddens me is that these people aren't offered a leftist secular alternative to acheive redress.

So essentially the war on terror is achieving the exact opposite of what it was intended to do.
No, because the war on terror was intended to achieve the exact opposite of what it was intended to do (that is, achieve the opposite of what it was intended to do). It's actually been a rousing success.

Wil and Nanatsu, can you please stop spamming this thread?

What do you mean, al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq? They're in every other country on the planet.

And saying that Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat is ridiculous. He may not have been an immediate threat to the US, but he was a threat to US interests nonetheless.

Sure we can say "we told you so", but what good would it do?

I intend to find out soon, now that I have a new IP.

What do you mean, al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq? They're in every other country on the planet.

It is well documented that Saddam kept terrorists out of his country.

And saying that Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat is ridiculous. He may not have been an immediate threat to the US, but he was a threat to US interests nonetheless.

Not really. An arguement can be made that Saddam was very helpful to US interests, because he kept Iran in check.

Why do you think we gave him so many guns and so much money in the first place?

What do you mean, al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq? They're in every other country on the planet.


Considering the fact that Saddam Husseing was a secular pan-arab dictator, there is substantial proof to show that he was at ideological odds with the group al-qaeda. They were only allowed into the nation after the war began. And with each year of the war that passes by, they are further energized and brought into the war on terror.

And saying that Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat is ridiculous. He may not have been an immediate threat to the US, but he was a threat to US interests nonetheless.

So the interests of a nation have precedence over the lives of millions in another country?

It is well documented that Saddam kept terrorists out of his country.

Sure he did, every last one of them. :rolleyes:

Not really. An arguement can be made that Saddam was very helpful to US interests, because he kept Iran in check.

Why do you think we gave him so many guns and so much money in the first place?

Once upon a time, al-Qaeda was helpful to US interests too.

Sure he did, every last one of them. :rolleyes:


Tell me, how often was Iraq attacked by terrorists under Saddam?

Once upon a time, al-Qaed was helpful to US interests too.

Youre point is?

Look what happened once Iraq was occupied. Iran became the dominent power. Now theyre the new boogeymen.

Sure he did, every last one of them. :rolleyes:



Once upon a time, al-Qaed was helpful to US interests too.

zOMG! There's some terrorists in Australia too! Therefore, the US must invade it!

Maybe you'll get shot.

Sure he did, every last one of them. :rolleyes:

It's true, there were probably some al-Qaeda agents in Iraq. But there were no reports of terrorist attacks during his rule, or of any attacks being planned there. Iraq was an al-Qaeda stronghold in the same way the US is. There are some, maybe, but nothing to worry about.


Once upon a time, al-Qaed was helpful to US interests too.
When?

So the interests of a nation have precedence over the lives of millions in another country?

... Yes.

When?

Cold War?

... Yes.

Well then, since you have admitted that monetary gain is more important that human life, I see no reason to converse with you.

Well then, since you have admitted that monetary gain is more important that human life, I see no reason to converse with you.

Interests isn't just about money.

When?

Afghanistan, 70s and 80s. The CIA helped found Al-Qaeda, and directly supported Bin Laden.

Afghanistan, 70s and 80s. The CIA helped found Al-Qaeda, and directly supported Bin Laden.

Yes, it is alleged that the US (CIA) trained bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in order to kick the Russians out of Afghanistan.

Cold War?

Many of the people who started al-Qaeda came from that background, but the organization itself didn't begin until 1988. Money was funneled to Afghan soldiers fighting the Soviets, thought, that's true.

Interests isn't just about money.

For the most part, it is though, especially for the US. Why else would it stick its nose in other people's business?

Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq, pre-occupation. It seems like a no brainer, eh? But for the longest time the administration tried proving ties between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, or Iraq and 9/11. Yet, now even Mr. Bush admits that Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq pre-war...Oh and he even says so what, about the whole situation

Actually, that's not what he says. Not according to the transcript, nor the clip.

He says Al Qaeda decided to make a stand in Iraq, and he acknowledges that they came to this decision after the invasion. He says naught about whether or not they were in the country pre-invasion.

What do you mean, al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq? They're in every other country on the planet.

Yes, they're in America and Australia. Bombing starts in five minutes.

Yes, they're in America and Australia. Bombing starts in five minutes.
Don't give away our timetable!

Remind me never to bring you into my 'poorly made movies that fare poorly with the public' schemes again. :p

actually it IS what he said.

BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take–

RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that’s right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they’re going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

"but not until after the us invaded" "ya thats right, so what?"

he is acknowledging that they werent there until we invaded.

The argument now is that "bringing democracy to the region will have a positive influence".

The thing is, so would magical pixies sprinkling happiness dust all over the region.

I intend to find out soon, now that I have a new IP.

You talk to Bush directly?

Tell me, how often was Iraq attacked by terrorists under Saddam?

Iraq or Iraqi citizens such as the Kurds?

You talk to Bush directly?

I sorta assumed he meant those in favor of the war...

I sorta assumed he meant those in favor of the war...

Oh ok, well enjoy yourself then H2.

actually it IS what he said.



"but not until after the us invaded" "ya thats right, so what?"

he is acknowledging that they werent there until we invaded.

No, he's saying that they said they would take a stand in Iraq, the reporter says "But they only said that [referencing the previous statement "This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand"] after the U.S. invaded." and he says "So what?"

He does not say that they weren't in Iraq before the invasion, nor does he say otherwise. He's talking about their declaration to "take a stand".

"So what?" Bush's answer to everything. The sad thing is he's going out, but everyone who thinks like him - denizens of the world of Mike Judge's Idiocracy - will live on. And they'll spend the next years helpfully blaming Obama for things he couldn't possibly have done, and when eventually reason triumphs over their idiotic statements: "So what?"

America.