Yet another Iraqi lie refuted

[Robert]

Originally posted by Tingkai


If it was just about getting rid of Saddam, why didn't Bush and his buddies say so in the first place.

No-one can deny that 'regime change' has always been a publicly outspoken reason.

But you are right, at some point in history "WMD weapons" became their most outspoken reason.
I think that that was done to get other countries to join the coalition.

For some regimes "Terror will hit you" is a better reason to go to war then "Children are dying"

I blame Bush and Blair for going the WMD-way.
They should kept their "regime-change" policy alife.
But I wonder if Blair ever shared that policy.....

[Berzerker]

The only justification I ever needed was to make "right" what George Bush 41 did wrong - telling Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam during the first gulf war only to turn his back when they did and got slaughtered.

But one more lie exposed by the report, that we were attacked because we are free. Hell, co-chair Lee Hamilton said on Hardball we were attacked because we are free and Chris Mathews cited Hamilton's own report to refute him seconds later. According to bin Laden, we were attacked for 2 reasons - US support for Israel and stationing troops in Saudi Arabia. Both Hamilton and McKean acknowledged these were the reasons and proceeded to state the obvious lost on so many Americans - that foreign policy, i.e., screwing around over there, has consequences.

Damn right I'm an isolationist... I just wish we could divide the country up so the next time the Democrats and Republicans piss someone off my family isn't targeted.

[DRoseDARs]

Well, the country is already divided up: Liberal Leftistan, Conservative Republic, and Canada.

[Spiffor]

BTW, 8/10 to DD's troll.

Short, to the point, and excellent bait (4 reactions in a row!)
The only thing that prevents a perfect 10 is that it could have been more witty and original. Nonetheless, it's a troll definitely worth imitating

[Spiffor]

BTW, does anybody here remembers the damning evidence found by the Telegraph right after the war. I wonder why these so-called "experts" couldn't look in the newspapers. I mean, the Telegraph would only publish absolutely rock-solid evidence, and not something doubtful, won't it?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Saddam only became bad when he was no longer an US lackey.

Exactly the reason they should apologize and put him back in power. It's the only way we can expunge the wrong done in the name of justice.

[Asher]

Not to pick sides, but lack of evidence doesn't necessarily refute something, it just means it can't be proven.

[Drake Tungsten]

And Bush, Cheney and Blair have all reiterated their claims of a Iraq-Al Qaeda connection in the past few days. Seems like there's still more to this story than we know.

[ghen]

when you have a few people with direct access to all the knowledge we have telling a huge mass of people what the truth is, you're going to inevariably have one group who makes up what best suits them and says everyone else is interpreting the facts wrong.

[GePap]

While lack of evidence is not proof against, the burden of proof falls upon the ones making the claim, so lack of evidence makes their claim an unsubstantiated one.

As for Drake's assertion, one would think that the WH would have made all evidence available to this panel if it had anything to show such links-why on earth would they stiff a bipartisan commission of such evidence?

Utter incompetence? Misplaced secrecy? Political cynicism? Becuase there is none?

Which reason seems best?

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
While lack of evidence is not proof against, the burden of proof falls upon the ones making the claim, so lack of evidence makes their claim an unsubstantiated one.

I would say "refuting" the claim would be providing evidence to the contrary, not citing a lack of evidence.

[Impaler[WrG]]

They made a Claim of CERTAINTY, lack of evidence refutes the CERTANTY of the claim, at best they may have speculated correctly but they definatly LIED about their being CERTAIN that their Claim was correct. A hanging offence in my books.

Oh and I belive Bush when to war primarily to avenge his Fathers falure then to obtain Oil (though that may have been a nice side benifit along with being a "war president" a status Conservatives thing makes them imune to critisism (like more so then they normaly consider themselves))

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

He shoots and ............

I believe the administration has said that Saddam's Iraq had ties and/or associations with AQ.

I do not beleive they ever said that Saddaam collaborated with AQ wrt 9/11.

Good try UR.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

I would say "refuting" the claim would be providing evidence to the contrary, not citing a lack of evidence.

Given the original claim is unsubstantiated,m no need to refute.

Though Ogie is correct, the admin. has never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 itself-the prez. has said that multiple times. But the report does not only say Saddam had 0 to do with 9/11, as the admin. said. It cast doubts on the admin. contention that there were any active links.

The admin. better put up something fast- besides articles in the National Review by people not in the WH commonly used by people without arguements, specailly a certain cut and paste artist we all know.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The commission study was regarding 9/11 links firstly and if otherwise is outside the scope fo the 9/11 comittee. The contention of whether there were links is not contended either by this study.

The extent of collaborative links is in question and by this study says none existed at the point prior to or of 9/11. This is not to say that new relationships were formed subsequently or that the likelihood of collaboration in the future was not a possibility.