Powell admits "no direct connection" between Saddam and 9/11 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

sturm und drang · 09-12-2004, 07:00 PM

At least Gen. Powell has the decency to tell the American people the truth...

Sunday, September 12, 2004

(CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry accused the Bush administration Sunday of falsely linking Iraq to the attacks of September 11, 2001, "in its desperate attempts to reinvent a rationale for the Iraq war."

Kerry made his charge in a statement released after Secretary of State Colin Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he has seen nothing to link Saddam Hussein's regime with the 9/11 attacks.

"We know that there had been connections and there had been exchanges between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at," Powell said on the program.

"But I have seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

Kerry said Powell "came clean with the American people about the lack of a connection between Iraq, Saddam Hussein and the September 11 attacks."

Not only that, Kerry said, Powell also contradicted comments Vice President Dick Cheney has made as recently as Friday.

At campaign stops Thursday and Friday, Cheney mentioned al Qaeda in discussing the Iraq war, but he did not link Iraq under Saddam to September 11.

On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and who "provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."

In Wisconsin on Friday, he said the "al Qaeda organization had a relationship with the Iraqis."

"The bottom line is that we're [in Iraq] for the safety and security of the nation, and our friends and allies around the world," Cheney said.

"We didn't do anything to provoke the attack of 9/11. We were attacked by the terrorists, and we've responded forcefully and aggressively."

In June, Cheney said "we don't know" whether Iraq was involved in 9/11.

In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

But at the time President Bush said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]. What the vice president said was that he has been involved with al Qaeda."

The independent, bipartisan panel that investigated the attacks released its final report July 22. The 9/11 commission found there were numerous contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda in the 1990s, but it said those contacts did not result in a "collaborative relationship."

In his statement Sunday, Kerry complained that Cheney "continues to intentionally mislead the American public by drawing a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 in an attempt to make the invasion of Iraq part of the global war on terror.

"The president needs to answer the question: Who do you think is right? Vice President Cheney or Secretary Powell? And if it's Secretary Powell, will you direct your vice president to stop misleading the American people?"

The Kerry statement continued: "On an issue of such importance, where U.S. troops are bearing nearly 90 percent of the burden, and American taxpayers are paying $200 billion and counting, the administration has an especially solemn obligation to conduct itself in an honest and straightforward way.

"Unfortunately, in its desperate attempts to reinvent a rationale for the Iraq war, this White House has repeatedly chosen to mislead the American people."

MavKikiNYC · 09-12-2004, 07:31 PM

We know that THERE HAD BEEN CONNECTIONS and THERE HAD BEEN EXCHANGES between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at," Powell said on the program.

"But I have seen nothing that makes a DIRECT connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

He also said that he believed at the time that they had WMDs, and that even though no WMDs have been found (yet) , they have found evidence of weapons programs that would have allowed the Iraqis to proceed with the construction of WMDs had the Hussein regime not been deposed.

This non-story is just another desperate attempt by what's left of the Kerry campaign to divert some negative attention from Kerry's own sorry record on defense and anti-terrorism intelligence.

It amounts to little more than a death throe.

FishForLunch · 09-12-2004, 08:41 PM

Then why did Kerry vote for the Iraq war?

LRB · 09-12-2004, 09:15 PM

This story is 100% political spin and misdirection. Kerry is desperate because he can't defend his Vietnam record, he can't defend his protests of the Vietnam war, he can't defend his records as a Senator, and he has no solid position on any of the issues. All Kerry can do is spin, blow smoke, and try and misdirect the public's attention.

Chiwas · 09-12-2004, 10:05 PM

Don't forget that Osama had direct conections with many important persons in the past. It wasn't considered a fault in those times.

However, I missed the link between the priorities of these times. Was Iraq more dangerous than Bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Was Bin Laden hidden in Iraq? Were the forces in Afghanistan going to find him presumibly while Iraq was been invaded?

Are we after Osama yet?

FishForLunch · 09-12-2004, 10:26 PM

Yes they are still in Afghanistan huting Taliban and Alqeda in case you missed it.

Chiwas · 09-12-2004, 10:33 PM

What is the highest priority?

FishForLunch · 09-12-2004, 10:35 PM

Finding someone who may be dead I guess. That should stop all terroist acts.

Chiwas · 09-12-2004, 10:41 PM

Yeah, the war on Iraq will stop all terrorist attacks with a higher probability.

FishForLunch · 09-12-2004, 10:44 PM

With Saddam in power atleast Iraq would have had peace and tranquility.

Epitome22 · 09-13-2004, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
We know that THERE HAD BEEN CONNECTIONS and THERE HAD BEEN EXCHANGES between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at," Powell said on the program.

"But I have seen nothing that makes a DIRECT connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

He also said that he believed at the time that they had WMDs, and that even though no WMDs have been found (yet) , they have found evidence of weapons programs that would have allowed the Iraqis to proceed with the construction of WMDs had the Hussein regime not been deposed.

This non-story is just another desperate attempt by what's left of the Kerry campaign to divert some negative attention from Kerry's own sorry record on defense and anti-terrorism intelligence.

It amounts to little more than a death throe.

Let's get off the disasterous Kerry campaign a moment and focus on the war and what Colin Powell said. I'm interested in what you think and want to discuss this intelligently and in a civil manner.

>We know that THERE HAD BEEN CONNECTIONS and THERE HAD BEEN EXCHANGES between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at," Powell said on the program.

"But I have seen nothing that makes a DIRECT connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

From my reading of this statement, it appears that Colin Powell now believes that there may have been a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda in the past, but he doesen't think this was a strong enough connection to directly link Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and the War on Terror. We'll get to the oppressive regime and WMDs later. A reasonable inference from this reading would be; that a reasoning for an invasion of Iraq as being part of a greater war on terror was not justifiable. What is your thought on this?

LRB · 09-13-2004, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Epitome22

Quote:

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
We know that THERE HAD BEEN CONNECTIONS and THERE HAD BEEN EXCHANGES between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at," Powell said on the program.

"But I have seen nothing that makes a DIRECT connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

He also said that he believed at the time that they had WMDs, and that even though no WMDs have been found (yet) , they have found evidence of weapons programs that would have allowed the Iraqis to proceed with the construction of WMDs had the Hussein regime not been deposed.

This non-story is just another desperate attempt by what's left of the Kerry campaign to divert some negative attention from Kerry's own sorry record on defense and anti-terrorism intelligence.

It amounts to little more than a death throe.

Let's get off the disasterous Kerry campaign a moment and focus on the war and what Colin Powell said. I'm interested in what you think and want to discuss this intelligently and in a civil manner.

>We know that THERE HAD BEEN CONNECTIONS and THERE HAD BEEN EXCHANGES between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at," Powell said on the program.

"But I have seen nothing that makes a DIRECT connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

From my reading of this statement, it appears that Colin Powell now believes that there may have been a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda in the past, but he doesen't think this was a strong enough connection to directly link Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and the War on Terror. We'll get to the oppressive regime and WMDs later. A reasonable inference from this reading would be; that a reasoning for an invasion of Iraq as being part of a greater war on terror was not justifiable. What is your thought on this?

Wow talk about totally rewriting what Powell said. Instead of putting all kinds of unsaid meaning into what Powell said, why not just take him at his word: that he didn't see any direct connection. It is not reasonable to put your house of cards personal interpretation into what Powell said to mean that he thought that an invasion of Iraq was not justified. If that's what he intened to say, I'm sure that Powell would have stated it much clearer. You're reaching.

Epitome22 · 09-13-2004, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: LRB

Quote:

Originally posted by: Epitome22

Quote:

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
We know that THERE HAD BEEN CONNECTIONS and THERE HAD BEEN EXCHANGES between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at," Powell said on the program.

"But I have seen nothing that makes a DIRECT connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

He also said that he believed at the time that they had WMDs, and that even though no WMDs have been found (yet) , they have found evidence of weapons programs that would have allowed the Iraqis to proceed with the construction of WMDs had the Hussein regime not been deposed.

This non-story is just another desperate attempt by what's left of the Kerry campaign to divert some negative attention from Kerry's own sorry record on defense and anti-terrorism intelligence.

It amounts to little more than a death throe.

Let's get off the disasterous Kerry campaign a moment and focus on the war and what Colin Powell said. I'm interested in what you think and want to discuss this intelligently and in a civil manner.

>We know that THERE HAD BEEN CONNECTIONS and THERE HAD BEEN EXCHANGES between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at," Powell said on the program.

"But I have seen nothing that makes a DIRECT connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

From my reading of this statement, it appears that Colin Powell now believes that there may have been a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda in the past, but he doesen't think this was a strong enough connection to directly link Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and the War on Terror. We'll get to the oppressive regime and WMDs later. A reasonable inference from this reading would be; that a reasoning for an invasion of Iraq as being part of a greater war on terror was not justifiable. What is your thought on this?

Wow talk about totally rewriting what Powell said. Instead of putting all kinds of unsaid meaning into what Powell said, why not just take him at his word: that he didn't see any direct connection. It is not reasonable to put your house of cards personal interpretation into what Powell said to mean that he thought that an invasion of Iraq was not justified. If that's what he intened to say, I'm sure that Powell would have stated it much clearer. You're reaching.

With due respect,I think it is you who are misreading what I say. I wasn't saying that Colin Powell thought an invasion of Iraq was not justified. For there is a trinity of supposed reasons for an invasion of Iraq, the initial one being the implication of Saddam in the tragedy of 9-11 and subsequently the war on terror. The other two being the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' and an argument for toppling an evil ruler.

Now Colin Powell has stated that he believed Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction (pre-war) and whether or not Powell preferred a 'containment' policy for Iraq he certainly wouldn't deny that it was a murderous regime. But based on his comments, about there being no direct connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, would you or MavKikiNYC or anyone for that matter agree with an inference that if Colin Powell supported an invasion of Iraq, it wouldn't be or shouldn't have been based on Saddam's perceived implication in 9-11?

LRB · 09-13-2004, 02:06 AM

Quote:

With due respect,I think it is you who are misreading what I say. I wasn't saying that Colin Powell thought an invasion of Iraq was not justified. For there is a trinity of supposed reasons for an invasion of Iraq, the initial one being the implication of Saddam in the tragedy of 9-11 and subsequently the war on terror. The other two being the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' and an argument for toppling an evil ruler.

Now Colin Powell has stated that he believed Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction (pre-war) and whether or not Powell preferred a 'containment' policy for Iraq he certainly wouldn't deny that it was a murderous regime. But based on his comments, about there being no direct connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, would you or MavKikiNYC or anyone for that matter agree with an inference that if Colin Powell supported an invasion of Iraq, it wouldn't be or shouldn't have been based on Saddam's perceived implication in 9-11?

The only justifiable links between 9/11 and the Iraq invasion are indirect links IMO. I feel that what Powell says is compatible with that opinion. Just because he says he knows of no direct links, does not rule out the possiblity that he knows of indirect links. But to say that there is a direct link between Iraq and 9/11 is not supported by the publicly available evidence IMO.

Don_Didi · 09-13-2004, 05:24 AM

Hmmm. And then the WMDs... still none found, except for that artillery amunition, if I am not mistaken (and that was only one shell, if I remember correctly), while Iran and NOrth Korea are clearly far closer to a full-blown nuclear weapon that could destabilize their respective regions than IRaq has ever been in its entire history under Saddam Hussein. Can we not, like, uh, put things in perspective here?

If I may go slightly off-topic (oh, only slightly), has it occurred to anyone here that the word "terrorist" is flyign around far too frequently nowadays? I think this is especially true of the Russians, who apparently are now standing "shoulder to shoulder" with the United States. I findi ti funny that they try to try to convince armed Chechen groups to give information on the location of two of their compatriots. Their methods might be different, but in the end they are all similar in on erespect: they are seperatists. They want an independant Chechnya more than anything else. If they believe that striking within Russia can help thiir cause, that is what they will do, and that is what they have done. Not that it'll help them in any way, but hey, stupidity is rampant these days. Yet, I think labeling them as terrorists sort of clouds the underlying issues, it generalizes. Generalisation gets people killed.

FreshJive · 09-13-2004, 06:44 AM

They took school children hostage. Thier terrorists, Dude.

sturm und drang · 09-13-2004, 06:51 AM

Oh, do remove your Bush-colored glasses!

A "non-story"? I beg to differ.

Our very own Bush-appointed Secretary of State came out and admitted that he has "seen nothing" that leads him to believe there's a direct connection between 9/11 and Saddam. If you'll recall, that is a large part, ahem, of why we went to war. According to the esteemed Mr. Bush, that is.

A "non-story"? If Bush had admitted the same and stopped conflating 9/11 and Saddam – a smoke-and-mirrors tactic he has relied heavily on, as recently as the RNC – then perhaps a "non-story." If Cheney had admitted the same and stopped conflating 9/11 and Saddam – something he was trumping rather adamantly as recently as Thursday of this week – then perhaps a "non-story."

You know, even if Bush and Cheney weren't still blustering dishonestly about the link between Iraq and 9/11, this would still be a story. The simple fact that our own Secretary of State has admitted there's no connection is something that should be discussed, don't you think?

The fact that one of the major reasons Bush used to pull this country into war simply doesn't exist is, in my opinion, a story indeed.

Usually Lurkin · 09-13-2004, 07:00 AM

Quote:

But at the time President Bush said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]. What the vice president said was that he has been involved with al Qaeda."

This is just some goofball at CNN trying to portray some sort of split in the administration. Quotes in the article reveal that the big "admission" has been a position for some time.

Don Didi,
Those different methods of the Chechen "separatists" are exactly what makes them terrorists. We rightly call Timothy McVeigh a terrorist, and if a bunch of religious nuts in Florida started blowing up innocent people in the rest of the US because they wanted to secede, we'd call them terrorists, too.

LRB · 09-13-2004, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

Quote:

But at the time President Bush said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]. What the vice president said was that he has been involved with al Qaeda."

This is just some goofball at CNN trying to portray some sort of split in the administration. Quotes in the article reveal that the big "admission" has been a position for some time.

Don Didi,
Those different methods of the Chechen "separatists" are exactly what makes them terrorists. We rightly call Timothy McVeigh a terrorist, and if a bunch of religious nuts in Florida started blowing up innocent people in the rest of the US because they wanted to secede, we'd call them terrorists, too.

Yeah and I think that the terrorist label could aptly apply to the KKK as well.

Epitome22 · 09-13-2004, 08:19 AM

[quote]
Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

Quote:

But at the time President Bush said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]. What the vice president said was that he has been involved with al Qaeda."

I wouldn't characterize this as a split. Merely a contradiction. Which on is the big admission?, That there is no demonstratable link between Saddam and 9/11 or that there is a demonstratable link between Saddam and Al Qaeda?

Drbio · 09-13-2004, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: FreshJive
They took school children hostage. Thier terrorists, Dude.

Good Lord...no kidding! They not only took children hostage they murdered them by the hundreds. Do not sugar coat terroristic acts as those of separatists.

WTF?

knowitall · 09-13-2004, 10:30 AM

I think it shows Powell may be the only one in that administration with dignity and honor. He's not afraid to tell the "real story".

So Russian soldiers who torture, rape and murder are not committing terror?

Please, go put yourself in Chechen shoes........Today!

Usually Lurkin · 09-13-2004, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: knowitall
I think it shows Powell may be the only one in that administration with dignity and honor. He's not afraid to tell the "real story".

?only one? what are you talking about?

Quote:

"We know that there had been connections and there had been exchanges between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at," Powell said on the program.
"But I have seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

In June, Cheney said "we don't know" whether Iraq was involved in 9/11.
In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
But at the time President Bush said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]. What the vice president said was that he has been involved with al Qaeda."

Quote:

So Russian soldiers who torture, rape and murder are not committing terror?

Please reference the person who said they weren't.
Please also reference a source that claims this to be policy of the russians.

LRB · 09-13-2004, 10:42 AM

Forget it UL. Knowitall is nothing but a troll. She posts only to get attention. She has not the ability to back up her irresponsible claims.

knowitall · 09-13-2004, 10:57 AM

He said "no direct connection". All of your excuses are not valid explainations. What are you people(LRB, doc, mavsman) still doing here? Go stand next to our soldiers, don't tell me you just stand behind them. Go risk your life for Bush.

Usually Lurkin · 09-13-2004, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: knowitall
He said "no direct connection".

which is not different than what Bush or Cheney said.

Dooby · 09-13-2004, 11:04 AM

I am purposely ignoring this thread, but hasn't Condi Rice said the same thing? So the Sec. State and Nat'l Sec. Advisor say the same thing. Whooptie doo.

Can anyone find a quote by Powell that something to the contrary? Rice? Bush?

kg_veteran · 09-13-2004, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Dooby
I am purposely ignoring this thread, but hasn't Condi Rice said the same thing? So the Sec. State and Nat'l Sec. Advisor say the same thing. Whooptie doo.

Can anyone find a quote by Powell that something to the contrary? Rice? Bush?

You're right. It's old news.

sturm und drang · 09-13-2004, 01:07 PM

I guess you should tell Dick Cheney it's "old news." Evidently, he has gotten that memo yet.

kg_veteran · 09-13-2004, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
I guess you should tell Dick Cheney it's "old news." Evidently, he has gotten that memo yet.

There's a big difference between Iraq being directly connected to 9/11 and the war in Iraq being part of the war on terror. Cheney is saying the latter, and he's right.

Epitome22 · 09-13-2004, 02:07 PM

Ok then. Barring implication in 9/11, what reasons were there for invading Iraq as part of the greater war on terror?

kg_veteran · 09-13-2004, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Epitome22
Ok then. Barring implication in 9/11, what reasons were there for invading Iraq as part of the greater war on terror?

There were a number of reasons, but the principal reason (which keeps getting thrown back in Bush's face) was the belief of the entire civilized world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction available to him (something which has never been disproven).

mavsman55 · 09-13-2004, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: knowitall
He said "no direct connection". All of your excuses are not valid explainations. What are you people(LRB, doc, mavsman) still doing here? Go stand next to our soldiers, don't tell me you just stand behind them. Go risk your life for Bush.

First of all, what does this have to do with the discussion?

Secondly, I'd gladly risk my life for my country without thinking twice, and without complaining about it like you probably would.

knowitall · 09-13-2004, 04:59 PM

Have a nice trip!

u2sarajevo · 09-13-2004, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: knowitall
Have a nice trip!

You have not lived up to your screen name yet again. mavsman is not legal age to serve in the Military.

And before you pull your little nonsense on me... I already tried. They wouldn't take me.

Don_Didi · 09-14-2004, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

Quote:

But at the time President Bush said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]. What the vice president said was that he has been involved with al Qaeda."

This is just some goofball at CNN trying to portray some sort of split in the administration. Quotes in the article reveal that the big "admission" has been a position for some time.

Don Didi,
Those different methods of the Chechen "separatists" are exactly what makes them terrorists. We rightly call Timothy McVeigh a terrorist, and if a bunch of religious nuts in Florida started blowing up innocent people in the rest of the US because they wanted to secede, we'd call them terrorists, too.

So what you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is that quite a few Russian soldiers who have served in Chechnya, are terrorists? Nice one.

Don_Didi · 09-14-2004, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin

Quote:

Originally posted by: knowitall
I think it shows Powell may be the only one in that administration with dignity and honor. He's not afraid to tell the "real story".

?only one? what are you talking about?

Quote:

"We know that there had been connections and there had been exchanges between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. And those have been pursued and looked at," Powell said on the program.
"But I have seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime, and what happened on 9/11."

In June, Cheney said "we don't know" whether Iraq was involved in 9/11.
In September 2003, Cheney said Iraq under Saddam had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
But at the time President Bush said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]. What the vice president said was that he has been involved with al Qaeda."

Quote:

So Russian soldiers who torture, rape and murder are not committing terror?

Please reference the person who said they weren't.
Please also reference a source that claims this to be policy of the russians.

Oh, but I think here you have the purest form of a vicious circle. This is a mess of a conflict to begin with, including everything from a puppet Chechen leader to a disgruntled occupation army that is a shadow of its former self. I am not going to claim that Putin plots terror in Chechnya, rather I would put it as a logical effect of what that "war" was like. Though there isn't a whole lot of decent reading about this conflict available, it is more than worth reading about it either way, and it's not for te faint-hearted. People talk about the ISraeli-Palestinian issue being a hard one to solve, and that is certainly true. This, in my opinion, is worse. The methods employed by Chechen seperatists inside Russian territory is heart-rending, but again, a logical evolution.

sturm und drang · 09-14-2004, 06:27 AM

KG, this is what Cheney said last week:

"The bottom line is that we're [in Iraq] for the safety and security of the nation, and our friends and allies around the world," Cheney said.
We didn't do anything to provoke the attack of 9/11. We were attacked by the terrorists, and we've responded forcefully and aggressively."

Though he didn't say it explicitly, he continues to imply that there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq. He feels the need to continue to link the two in the minds of Americans, and that is exactly what he does implicitly.

Bush himself has shied away from these ongoing but dishonest implications, but Cheney motors on...

Usually Lurkin · 09-14-2004, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Oh, do remove your Bush-colored glasses!
A "non-story"? I beg to differ.
. . .
A "non-story"? If Bush had admitted the same and stopped conflating 9/11 and Saddam – a smoke-and-mirrors tactic he has relied heavily on, as recently as the RNC – then perhaps a "non-story."

You posted the article at the beginning of the thread in which:

Quote:

But at the time President Bush said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]. What the vice president said was that he has been involved with al Qaeda."

You are wearing colored glasses.

Usually Lurkin · 09-14-2004, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Don_Didi
I am not going to claim that Putin plots terror in Chechnya, rather I would put it as a logical effect of what that "war" was like. . .
The methods employed by Chechen seperatists inside Russian territory is heart-rending, but again, a logical evolution.

If the Russians are purposefully targeting civilians in order to drive home their political point by way of terror, then they are terrorists.
If you are equating terrorism, in which innocent civilians are deliberately targeted and killed, and traditional warfare, in which civilians are not targeted, but accidentally killed, you are missing the point.
If you are claiming that targeting of civilians is a legitimate form of politics because it is a logical extension of warfare, then you need a lesson in both logic and ethics.