Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on July 26, 2007, 12:35:38 AM
-
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=24815
The author took a transcript of his speech and replaced anything that wasn't one of the following with dashes:
Al Qaeda
September 11, 2001
Osama bin Laden
Iraq
It's astonishing how much of his speech in Carolina was devoted to the above.
Here's the original:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070724-3.html
-
Amazing. In a speech to soldiers about the Iraq war, terrorism, and the great job they're doing, he repeatedly mentioned Iraq (where the most publicized part of the fight is), Al Queada (the most well known terrorist group), Osama Bin Laden (figurehead of the most well known terrorist group), and 11 September 2001 (the date the most well known terrorist attack so far). Well, Hell, I guess it's just excessive, ain't it? For the life of me, I just can't understand why a person giving a speech would repeatedly mention things pertaining to the subject of the speech. That's just absurd.
-
CB, what did you want him to talk about ... the weather?
-
Well, for one, it seems like he's still linking Al Qaeda and Iraq. I'm not convinced that a link existed before our invasion, but reading his speech, he says explicitly that our invasion didn't bring them there, and that they were there already.
I'm no raving leftist, but I also don't like it when someone pees on me and tells me it's raining. Reading that speech and the implicit message, I think that's what's happening. I don't understand his motivation. The guy has to be pretty damn smart to be elected president, so obviously he Has A Plan, I just wish he'd be explicit about exactly what The Plan is.
Also, it'd make a good drinking game.
1 drink for terrorist
2 drinks for September 11
3 drinks for Osama bin Laden
etc
It's almost getting to a point where OBL is Emmanuel Goldstein, and these speeches are our 'Two Minute Hate' sessions. We get it, OBL is bad and a raging ass, but if he's still alive, how effective could he possibly be now?
I'm starting to suspect the following:
1. Osama bin Laden is dead dead dead.
2. Al Qaeda is currently a loose association, maybe 5-10 actual hard core members left who selectively fund existing insurgents (who, btw, have their own GTFO agendas and think they're using AQ)
3. We may be inadvertently keeping the Al Qaeda balloon inflated through our actions.
Again, I'm no raging "BUSH IS TEH EVUL!" or whatnot, I'm just a citizen who, based on the information available, has some concerns. I hope I don't get shouted down here just because I'm not toeing the line. I'm not a Nash clone, I'm just zis guy, you know.
The speech seems to be, as far as I can tell, more evidence supporting the above, hence my post.
-
I doubt bin Laden is dead. On the run, on his heels, and off balance, but most likely alive, and dangerous in many ways. Probably on the frontier between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and being protected by warlords loyal to him and opposed to Mushariff (sp?).
Al Queada is in fact large and well organized, although it is hurt. Never underestimate your enemy. Especially after what they did on the date you seem to have a problem with the mention of. Not to mention the fact that it is possible for them to get something large and nasty and use it on you.
Al Queada is self inflating. Fighting them doesn't inflate them, it keeps them off balance.
Al Queada, and groups like it, are everywhere in the Middle East. Maybe not everywhere in force and en masse, but everywhere. Hate and fanaticism are an infestation, and the Middle East is a prime breeding ground. There are undoubtedly elements of most all of the terrorist groups of Al Queada's ilk (Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah etc) in most every country in the Middle East.
I don't think Bush denies that the invasion caused Al Queada to grow and become active in Iraq. I think he's just not very eloquent or very clear, and I don't think his speech writers or aides do a good job of helping him get his point across. Bush is only a decent speaker when he speaks from the heart, in very short speeches. Were he a better speaker, and if he went directly to the people on a regular basis, I think he'd be a lot more powerful, more successful, and more popular. It is amazing that he's gotten as far as he has considering he just isn't a great public speaker.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
CB, what did you want him to talk about ... the weather?
Seems to me those actually terrorizing US citizens are the real terrorists... he could talk about that. It might be just another .gov failure, but at least it's relevant to our daily lives.
http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html
But I get it, when his string is pulled he can only say 5 things:
1- "Iraq"
2- "al Qaeda"
3- "9/11"
4- Osama bin Laden, and every now and then he gets real tricky replacing #3 with 5- "September 11th, 2001"
If he tried to say anything else, he'd march in a circle like a robot until an aid could replace the battery in his back.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Well, for one, it seems like he's still linking Al Qaeda and Iraq. I'm not convinced that a link existed before our invasion, .......
Well according to one Presidential hopeful.. al Qaeda was there...
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ...It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
-
Ms. Clinton seems to twist as needed to prosper in whatever the current political winds are. When checking her opinion, you can save time by just looking at what's the popular sentiment right now. Polling is her rudder, you can extrapolate her course just by tracking community consensus.
I'm still leaning heavily towards R. Paul, myself.
-
Well, for one, it seems like he's still linking Al Qaeda and Iraq. I'm not convinced that a link existed before our invasion, but reading his speech, he says explicitly that our invasion didn't bring them there, and that they were there already.
I'm not sure which speech you read. I read this one:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070724-3.html
In it he says:
A good place to start is with some basic facts: Al Qaeda in Iraq was founded by a Jordanian terrorist, not an Iraqi. His name was Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Before 9/11, he ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. He was not yet a member of al Qaida, but our intelligence community reports that he had longstanding relations with senior al Qaida leaders, that he had met with Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Zawahiri.
In 2001, coalition forces destroyed Zarqawi's Afghan training camp, and he fled the country and he went to Iraq, where he set up operations with terrorist associates long before the arrival of coalition forces. In the violence and instability following Saddam's fall, Zarqawi was able to expand dramatically the size, scope, and lethality of his operation. In 2004, Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined al Qaida, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and he promised to "follow his orders in jihad."
Soon after, bin Laden publicly declared that Zarqawi was the "Prince of Al Qaida in Iraq" -- and instructed terrorists in Iraq to "listen to him and obey him." It's hard to argue that al Qaida in Iraq is separate from bin Laden's al Qaida, when the leader of al Qaida in Iraq took an oath of allegiance to Osama bin Laden.
According to our intelligence community, the Zarqawi-bin Laden merger gave al Qaida in Iraq -- quote -- "prestige among potential recruits and financiers." The merger also gave al Qaida's senior leadership -- quote -- "a foothold in Iraq to extend its geographic presence ... to plot external operations ... and to tout the centrality of the jihad in Iraq to solicit direct monetary support elsewhere." The merger between al Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate is an alliance of killers -- and that is why the finest military in the world is on their trail.
Note the dates in this part of his speech. Zarqawi didn't merge with Al-Qaida until 2004 when his organization became known as Al-Qaida in Iraq. I don't see anywhere in Bush's speech where he is trying to link Al-Qaida to Iraq before the invasion. He did say Zarqawi was operating in Iraq already.
We have been told about two terrorist training camps that were in Iraq before the war started, one in the north and one just south of Baghdad. The one south of Baghdad even had an airliner for terrorists to practice hijacking.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=24815
The author took a transcript of his speech and replaced anything that wasn't one of the following with dashes:
Al Qaeda
September 11, 2001
Osama bin Laden
Iraq
It's astonishing how much of his speech in Carolina was devoted to the above.
Here's the original:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070724-3.html
This person has taken Boosh Bashing to an entire new level.
I suppose life has nothing better to offer him then to sit around and edit out 90 % of a speach?
Pretty sad really
-
Elfie
Don't confuse them with the facts ...
Guess it doesn't matter that 99% of the dems were for the war before they were against it
has anyone seen the aluminum foil? I think xmarines hat has a tear in it ...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Elfie
Don't confuse them with the facts ...
Guess it doesn't matter that 99% of the dems were for the war before they learned of the misinformation, greed and outright lies told by this administration and decided that their decision to support the war was wrong and it was their moral obligation to be against it
Fixed
-
Originally posted by rpm
Fixed
Which lies would those be that the administration before didnt also tell?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Which lies would those be that the administration before didnt also tell?
The ones that they didn't tell? That would be a short list.
-
Please provide the information that show a deliberate misinformation campaign. The term "lie" indicates a deliberate falsehood so if you have the information that a deliberate falsehood was used it would be nice.
-
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ...It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
your right, the "administration" is full of liars.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Please provide the information that show a deliberate misinformation campaign. The term "lie" indicates a deliberate falsehood so if you have the information that a deliberate falsehood was used it would be nice.
Okie dokie.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html
http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/
http://liesofbush.com/iraq-Lies.shtml
http://www.bushlies.net/
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/57889/
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/iraq_lies.html
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/30/bush-lies-about-iraq-spending-deadline/
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/052105.html
http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html
Google is your friend.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Amazing. In a speech to soldiers about the Iraq war, terrorism, and the great job they're doing, he repeatedly mentioned Iraq (where the most publicized part of the fight is), Al Queada (the most well known terrorist group), Osama Bin Laden (figurehead of the most well known terrorist group), and 11 September 2001 (the date the most well known terrorist attack so far). Well, Hell, I guess it's just excessive, ain't it? For the life of me, I just can't understand why a person giving a speech would repeatedly mention things pertaining to the subject of the speech. That's just absurd.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
so RPM, when it comes time to convert to islam are you going to be sunni or she-ite?
-
They've got a really good point that many people in the government throw these terms around and incite fear with them. The administration wrongly implied before the war that there was an Al-qaeda link with Iraq, which was just pathetic to anyone who really knew something about Saddam Hussein. That they keep bringing 9/11 up so often is truly reason for concern, even if their discussion of it in the context of international terrorism is warranted.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2465701035380716367&q=republican+national+convention+terror&total=18&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
The US and the world in general would be a hell of a lot better off if someone was making foreign policy that didn't have their head up their ass. No, I don't mean the Democrats either!
This doesn't mean that the war on terrorism is a joke, but it's certainly not what's been painted in the Media, mostly at the urging or direct planting of the administration. I truly believe that sanity will only come to American foreign policy after a general no-confidence vote in all three branches of government, if that were even possible.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Okie dokie.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html
http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/
http://liesofbush.com/iraq-Lies.shtml
http://www.bushlies.net/
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/57889/
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/iraq_lies.html
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/30/bush-lies-about-iraq-spending-deadline/
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/052105.html
http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html
Google is your friend.
All excellent, non biased, well verified news sources. Hysteria and paranoia are your friends.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
All excellent, non biased, well verified news sources. Hysteria and paranoia are your friends.
I learned it from the Bush Administration.
John, I'll convert to Islam as soon as I start practicing a religion in the first place. This "my God's better than your God" nonsense is just that.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Okie dokie.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html
http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/
http://liesofbush.com/iraq-Lies.shtml
http://www.bushlies.net/
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/57889/
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/iraq_lies.html
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/30/bush-lies-about-iraq-spending-deadline/
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/052105.html
http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html
Google is your friend.
All points that have be hashed and rehashed repeatedly on this board. The fact that some things the administration said turned out to be untrue, does not make them lies. If US intel showed they were true and thats what the administration was going by, then they didn't lie.
When they became aware that the intel on various things became known to be false or exagerated is open for debate and we likely won't know the truth of it for many, many years when documents are declassified.
You can choose to believe they are lies if you wish, I'll wait till I see evidence before I try, convict and sentence. :)
-
The administration wrongly implied before the war that there was an Al-qaeda link with Iraq,
I think that is an implication that folks choose to see. I certainly didn't see it although I can see how some folks could, I just don't read there statements as having that implication.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Ms. Clinton seems to twist as needed to prosper in whatever the current political winds are. When checking her opinion, you can save time by just looking at what's the popular sentiment right now. Polling is her rudder, you can extrapolate her course just by tracking community consensus.
I'm still leaning heavily towards R. Paul, myself.
*clap*
He seems like one of the few politicians who hasn't been completely corrupted by popular opinion and...politics.
-
Their was never a Link between Bin Laden and Saddam, on the contrary,Laden coudn't stand Saddam who he considered an Athieist who saw islamic fundamentalists like Laden a threat to power.
Once Bush invaded and removed Saddam,he went on to remove the whole regime and dismantle the army the very thing that had kept Laden in check once removed,allowed the mad mullahs to come crawling out of the woodwork...The result is what we have today...Bin Laden must be Laughing his head off,Bush did him a favour,creating the perfect situation for Terrorist fudamentalists to thrive.Bush is the best recruiting sargent for Terrorists that Iraq Has.
Bush has continually tried to form a Link with 9 11 Bin Laden and Iraq,to justify his invasion,and make it palatable to the American ppl,and the poor soldiers fighting there.
Even Bushes own neo cons are finding him and his shabby jolly in the middle East an embarrasment.
He's lying to those soldiers and to the American ppl,History is not going to be kind to G. W Bush. ;)
-
Originally posted by rpm
I learned it from the Bush Administration.
John, I'll convert to Islam as soon as I start practicing a religion in the first place. This "my God's better than your God" nonsense is just that.
you will convert when you feel the sword on the back of your neck.
-
RPM, thanks for those links, some good reading there!
It just gets deeper and deeper!!
-
Originally posted by john9001
you will convert when you feel the sword on the back of your neck.
When I see a bunch of guys wearing black bedsheets and carrying swords I'm proud to be a Texan. I may be praying, but it will be to Smith & Wesson.
Play the fear card all you can while you can John. Your boi is a lame duck. It will take decades to undo the harm he has done to this country, but America will heal just like it did after the last wave of fear mongering, flag waving zealots lead by Senator McCarthy.
-
You're right, RPM. America will heal. Let's just hope one knee-jerk doesn't invite another.
-
Originally posted by VOR
America will heal. Let's just hope one knee-jerk doesn't invite another.
I agree 100%.
-
RPM,
Interesting links there. Do you have anything credible, something from a non biased source that might even stand the test of a court? Since you make the allegation it is encumbant to show proof of actual intent to deceive, not more allegations. At this time, while there are lots of claims like yours, so far no one has been able to put together anything worth a filing. In other words do you have anything that is leading towards any legal action?
I'm not trying to be a "faboi" of bush but you simply haven't provided anything that is going to stand up to anything but a dem party gathering.
-
Originally posted by rpm
The ones that they didn't tell? That would be a short list.
so in other words you are saying they both lied?
Ok I'll buy into that one
-
Originally posted by rpm
Okie dokie.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html
http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/
http://liesofbush.com/iraq-Lies.shtml
http://www.bushlies.net/
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/57889/
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/iraq_lies.html
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/30/bush-lies-about-iraq-spending-deadline/
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/052105.html
http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html
Google is your friend.
Havent gone through each and every one of them but for the most part they are saying Bush lied about essentially the same things Clinton lied about
-
Originally posted by Maverick
RPM,
Interesting links there. Do you have anything credible, something from a non biased source that might even stand the test of a court? Since you make the allegation it is encumbant to show proof of actual intent to deceive, not more allegations. At this time, while there are lots of claims like yours, so far no one has been able to put together anything worth a filing. In other words do you have anything that is leading towards any legal action?
I'm not trying to be a "faboi" of bush but you simply haven't provided anything that is going to stand up to anything but a dem party gathering.
That pretty much says it all.
Folks tend to believe what they want to believe. I'm not a fanboi of Bush either but until I see some concrete evidence of lying, I find it hard to accuse him.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
RPM,
Interesting links there. Do you have anything credible, something from a non biased source that might even stand the test of a court? Since you make the allegation it is encumbant to show proof of actual intent to deceive, not more allegations. At this time, while there are lots of claims like yours, so far no one has been able to put together anything worth a filing. In other words do you have anything that is leading towards any legal action?
I'm not trying to be a "faboi" of bush but you simply haven't provided anything that is going to stand up to anything but a dem party gathering.
Mav, That was just the first page that popped up when I googled "Bush lied war". There are lots of sources across the net with the same storys. Find one that suits your criteria. I'm not a procecutor and won't attempt to put a court case together. Perhaps you can present me a court case on the WMD, nuclear weapons and Iraq ties to 9/11.
I have no problem with a war on terror. The problem is Iraq is not it. Bring me the head of OBL on a stick & I'll vote for Cheney.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
But I get it, when his string is pulled he can only say 5 things:
1- "Iraq"
2- "al Qaeda"
3- "9/11"
4- Osama bin Laden, and every now and then he gets real tricky replacing #3 with 5- "September 11th, 2001"[/B]
Well said.
-
It'll be a shame if Paul doesn't get even vice-president.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Mav, That was just the first page that popped up when I googled "Bush lied war". There are lots of sources across the net with the same storys. Find one that suits your criteria. I'm not a procecutor and won't attempt to put a court case together. Perhaps you can present me a court case on the WMD, nuclear weapons and Iraq ties to 9/11.
I have no problem with a war on terror. The problem is Iraq is not it. Bring me the head of OBL on a stick & I'll vote for Cheney.
OK short answer is that you don't have anything but political sound bites. I can accept that but please until you do have something that leads to at least an impeachment or an indictment for a deliberate falsehood you don't have anything to stand on. It took an FBI lab to show clinton was lying but at least there was an actual investigation and not just allegations. Allegations are not proof and not even a basis for charges, there has to be something else other than political posturing.
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
Their was never a Link between Bin Laden and Saddam, on the contrary,Laden coudn't stand Saddam who he considered an Athieist who saw islamic fundamentalists like Laden a threat to power.
Once Bush invaded and removed Saddam,he went on to remove the whole regime and dismantle the army the very thing that had kept Laden in check once removed,allowed the mad mullahs to come crawling out of the woodwork...The result is what we have today...Bin Laden must be Laughing his head off,Bush did him a favour,creating the perfect situation for Terrorist fudamentalists to thrive.Bush is the best recruiting sargent for Terrorists that Iraq Has.
Bush has continually tried to form a Link with 9 11 Bin Laden and Iraq,to justify his invasion,and make it palatable to the American ppl,and the poor soldiers fighting there.
Even Bushes own neo cons are finding him and his shabby jolly in the middle East an embarrasment.
He's lying to those soldiers and to the American ppl,History is not going to be kind to G. W Bush. ;)
pretty much nailed it... some people are just stupid.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Havent gone through each and every one of them but for the most part they are saying Bush lied about essentially the same things Clinton lied about
Wow even the liberal Speaker of the House isn't for impeachment of Bush.
If you are using Clinton's lies as an excuse for Bush it sounds as if you are in favor of Clinton's punishment for Bush as well.
shamus