Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on September 13, 2004, 11:09:15 PM
-
... are morons.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html
Must be that leftist media spin at work. :rolleyes:
-
You can do better than that sandman... surely you can. This one was pretty damn weak.
Actually, you probably can't.
-
I don't believe Saddam even knew about the attacks until it was kind of late to get involved in those.
He surely knew what such an attack would've meant and he wasn't even prepared....
Besides the fact al-qaeda disliked Saddam, because he was far from being a zealous muslim.
-
... and this BBS doesn't escape the statistics.:D
-
Just wondering what these guys will cry about after Nov?
-
My good deed for the day
"Thursday, September 18, 2003"
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Rino
Just wondering what these guys will cry about after Nov?
Been to General Discussion lately? :D
-
Welcome to last year Sandy!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Welcome to last year Sandy!
hehe... I was wondering who would catch that. ;)
-
I think the numbers have dropped into the mid 40 now.
You could hear it happening with every speech or press briefing. Bit of a surprise (at least for me) was the level of success. Case study stuff there. Common “workingperson's" PR trade. Never lie, just imply. Mention 9/11, terrorists and Saddam Hussein within 1-3 sentences of each other as often as you can when given the opportunity, and the listener's mind fills in the rest. Staying on message, with an appropriate message.
"The terror of 9/11 can never be allowed to happen again. If the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein is allowed to develop WMD..."
Charon
-
One flip-flop for Bush...
-
President Putin warned Bush that Iraq would attack the U.S. on at least three occassions.
-
How did you manage to link an article dated almost 1 year ago?
-
President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks
An outright lie. I never recal Bush saying Saddam was linked to "the terrorist organization" behind the 911 attacks.
In fact he repeatadly said there was no link. Amazing how the media just flat out lies and people gobble it up.
-
7 out of 10 seems too high. I figure only about 45% - 47% of Americans are morons.
:p
http://www.pollingreport.com/
-
In fact he repeatadly said there was no link. Amazing how the media just flat out lies and people gobble it up.
Bush made those statements fairly recently (September 18, 2003). By this time the war had been "over" for about 6 months. A few days earlier Cheney had restated the claim: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
It was that claim, and the fact that he was called on it finally by the "liberal" press that seems to have ignored it up until then, that prompted the President's response. Nuke, if you can find a citation from the administration at any point before the invasion I would like to see it. Gobble gobble
Charon
-
Originally posted by NUKE
An outright lie. I never recal Bush saying Saddam was linked to "the terrorist organization" behind the 911 attacks.
In fact he repeatadly said there was no link. Amazing how the media just flat out lies and people gobble it up.
LOL, it's a lie because you don't recall him saying it?
-
Show me were Bush linked 911 to Saddam or Iraq? I'm at work now, but I recall Bush always made it clear that he believed no link existed.... from before the war.
-
Originally posted by SOB
LOL, it's a lie because you don't recall him saying it?
Show me I'm wrong. List some quotes of Bush linking 911 to Iraq. I remeber Bush refusing to link the two.
-
Why would I do that...I'm not claiming that he did. I just find it amusing that you called the writer of this article a liar based soley on your best recollection.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Why would I do that...I'm not claiming that he did. I just find it amusing that you called the writer of this article a liar based soley on your best recollection.
Do you think it's truthful to state that Bush repeatedly linked 911 to Saddam, without giving examples, when they know it didn't happen?
when I get home I'll get some sources...I know my memory is not the best , but I do recall Bush refusing to link 911 and Saddam, even when people were saying he should play that angle.
-
If they stated something untruthful while knowing what they were stating was untruthful? Then no, they wouldn't be truthful. But you've posted no evidence that they did any such thing. I just found that amusing.
-
SOB welcome to the Republican Syndrome. Anything they tell you is the "truth". Even if they can't back it up.
-
Here's how it works.
It is known (in fact you study this directly in marketing, PR advertising, etc.) how people listen to spoken words and accept visual images. People have good careers manipulating this knowledge to sell everything from feminine deodorant to a new car to a politician.
In PR you never lie, but, like a lawyer bringing up the rape victim's sexual history, you can create implications. I doubt Bush ever said directly: “Saddam Hussein is responsible for 9/11.” I equally doubt that he went out of his way to convince anyone before the invasion that this was not the case. And, at the time, you could see the creation of Iraq as the No.1 terrorist state in the region, a direct and active supporter of al Queda (which did attack the US on 9/11 - but look at who its major supporters in the region actually are). Did Iraq have connections to terrorist organizations? Probably at some levels but in a more limited fashion than perhaps a dozen countries we decided to put further down the list. So why Iraq? Was it lying to imply a stronger link? That’s where you can have some debate. Was there a stronger link? Evidence suggests not. Was this known at the time? A better question would be did the administration really want to know. Would his WMD have been an issue had they been found? Certainly to Kuwait, Israel, Saudi Arabia but not to downtown NY, IMO. Here are a few functional examples of how you imply linkage and connect SH to al Queda and 9/11.
And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/
See, here he doesn’t state specifically that Saddam was behind 9/11. But, most people don’t listen that carefully. This is well known and commonly used in PR.
"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."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/kerry.powell.iraq/
Some more of the same.
Reiterating the distinction between contacts and actual collaboration on the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney said some news media had blurred that distinction and reported the administration was directly tying the attacks to Saddam.
"The press is, with all due respect there are exceptions, often times lazy, often simply reports what someone else in the press says without doing their homework," Cheney said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233810/
Cheney is absolutely accurate here. Of course, this isn’t something that is new -- it is something that has been easy to manipulate for decades. It leaves out similar comments that could be directed at the general population.
This is how the game is played. Both sides play it. Getting their policy directives supported is more important than a scholarly level of accuracy or an accurate understanding of the issue by the public. It’s a lot closer to the legal concepts behind our judicial system than Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Win at any cost, but don’t technically cross the line.
They know how you and I think, what our hot buttons are, what messages are needed to push those buttons, how susceptible we are to certain messages and how resistant we are to alternative messages. I had some ethical qualms about PR when I worked in the field, but I’m starting to think that people deserve what they get and It’s better to go where the money is than be a starving trade journalist.
Charon