Your link does have some GWB quotes about the possible ties but...
In January 2003, Bush suggested cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaeda in his landmark 2003 State of the Union address, just two months before the invasion.
State of the Union Address January 28, 2003: "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 Qaeda."
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.
Technically, Bush is not saying that there is a link, he is saying that others (who are in the know) believe there to be links.
The majority of the speech dealt with WMDs. Remember them? You know, the things that even the Clinton administration, John Kerry and others thought were there?
We went into Iraq over UN Resolutions.
I think he could have (and should have) left out that line from the State of the Union speech. Even with that line in the speech, the vast majority of the speech (in regards to Iraq) is based on Saddam's lack of compliance with the UN Resolutions.
Does everything have to be directly quoted from GWB now? One of the reasons for the war was the alleged ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
I'm no NEOCon!
Methinks Steve doth protest too much.
I'm gonna try to ask this in as un-offensive way as possible: Are you one of those people in the movie "Jesus Camp" that prayed to the cardboard standie thing of GWB? If so, I'll cut back on the criticism in respect to your god.
Joe, you tend to fly off the handle just a teensy little bit whenever GWB comes into the picture. A great deal of talk during the 2004 election centered on the fact that GWB declined to give examples of things he had done wrong or regretted during his first term.
In the interest of fairness, and frankly for my amusement, could you give me three examples of anything (serious) that GWB has done right over the course of his tenure in the White House?
1)
2)
3)
No jokes, no snide remarks; I just want to see if you can find a spark of good in your sworn blood enemy.
Joe, you tend to fly off the handle just a teensy little bit whenever GWB comes into the picture. A great deal of talk during the 2004 election centered on the fact that GWB declined to give examples of things he had done wrong or regretted during his first term.
In the interest of fairness, and frankly for my amusement, could you give me three examples of anything (serious) that GWB has done right over the course of his tenure in the White House?
1)
2)
3)
No jokes, no snide remarks; I just want to see if you can find a spark of good in your sworn blood enemy.
I seriously can't think of three, but: 1) A Mars program would've been nice. I was really hopeful about this. 2) Immigration amnesty was the closest he ever got to agreeing with me.
I'll start by naming three things I think GWB is doing wrong:
1) Executive Order 13233 limits access to the records of former United States Presidents. It was drafted by then White House counsel (now US Attorney General) Alberto R. Gonzales and issued by President George W. Bush on November 1, 2001. Section 13 of Executive Order 13233 revoked Executive Order 12667, of January 18, 1989.
2) Secure Fence Act of 2006 - Illegal immigration? Let's build a fence rather than enforce existing laws!!!
3) Executive Order 13397, signed by President George W. Bush on March 7, 2006, concerns the "Responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives". The executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security to "coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet America's social and community needs."
The simple fact (as I see it) is that he has not done much other than the "War on Terror".
1) He kept Al Gore from becoming President. 2) He kept John Kerry from becoming President. 3) His continued life keeps Dick Cheney from becoming President.
Of course. Even Hitler did three things right. Any leader on the world stage has, no matter how much of a bastard they are.
This exercise is about seeing strengths as well as weaknesses. Seeing only the other general's weakness will get you defeated in every battle. Like I said, I respect people who think three-dimensionally enough to admit when the opposition has done something right. And the prize is +5 respect, here, folks. THAT'S +5 RESPECT. Damn, what more do you want?
Of course. Even Hitler did three things right. Any leader on the world stage has, no matter how much of a bastard they are.
This exercise is about seeing strengths as well as weaknesses. Seeing only the other general's weakness will get you defeated in every battle. Like I said, I respect people who think three-dimensionally enough to admit when the opposition has done something right. And the prize is +5 respect, here, folks. THAT'S +5 RESPECT. Damn, what more do you want?
Hey, I'm commenting over here! You know, from the other computer down the hall
I'll start by naming three things I think GWB is doing wrong:
1) Executive Order 13233 limits access to the records of former United States Presidents. It was drafted by then White House counsel (now US Attorney General) Alberto R. Gonzales and issued by President George W. Bush on November 1, 2001. Section 13 of Executive Order 13233 revoked Executive Order 12667, of January 18, 1989.
2) Secure Fence Act of 2006 - Illegal immigration? Let's build a fence rather than enforce existing laws!!!
3) Executive Order 13397, signed by President George W. Bush on March 7, 2006, concerns the "Responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives". The executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security to "coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet America's social and community needs."
The simple fact (as I see it) is that he has not done much other than the "War on Terror".
Using your logic, I submit that in each of these three items out dear leader had information that was better than the information available to you and sio you should not criticize any of these actions.
Also, I notice you had to go pretty far afield to find anything with which you disagree.
Okay Jason, I found another one. GWB signed the Teacher Protection Act, which protects teachers from lawsuits related to student discipline. That, along with the Mars proposal and the amnesty proposal are my three things.
I'm posting for two people. What do you want? I'm not a machine, joe.
But see what I did there? It's not so much the politics, but the reliance on double secret information argument that I have a problem with. If you apologize for an authority based on the supposed existence of double secred information unavailable to the public, then you can always answer an objection or criticism of the authority by saying "HA HA! The authority was relying on his double secret information unavailable to us, and so even if we think he's wrong based on our information, he's right because he was using the super information."
The "Double Secret Information" argument only works in areas of national security.
The instant you assume that secret information exists in one area, you have to believe that secret information can exist in any area. If it makes you feel better, we'll call it information unavailable to the public. If GWB has information unavailable to the public regarding national security, then he has information unavailable to the public regarding economics. How could you prove otherwise? The information, by it's very nature, is unavailable.
Because information, in the area of National Security, is the only area where you can hold up an envelope and say, "I'd show you the Intel, but then I'd have to kill you."
So the only information unavailable to the public is the information "where you can hold up an envelope and say, "I'd show you the Intel, but then I'd have to kill you.""?
What about the National Security concerns surrounding immigration policy? Immigration impacts upon National Security, so by your post, GWB would have information unavailable to the public, that is, information "where you can hold up an envelope and say, "I'd show you the Intel, but then I'd have to kill you."" So, he relied on that information in making his decisions about the Secure Fence Act, and so you can't criticize those decisions. Similarly, Homeland Security and the records of ex-presidents impacts on National Security, so he has the information unavailable to the public and so you can't criticize those decisions.
I criticize the Secure Fence Act because it does nothing to solve the existing problem of illegal immigration. It is just political pandering. Besides, the fence will likely never be built because someone will complain that it violates the rights of the warbling red lizard who migrates through some area of the desert...
The problem of illegal immigration across the southern border needs to be solved by a joint effort from BOTH sides of the border.
There may be some "secret" information about the fence issue. Maybe there is something going on behind closed doors, all the more reason for the people to cry out for freedom of information on this subject.
National Security in regards to a military action is far different than that of immigration.
Once again, even restricting myself to your context, the instant you say that there is information unavailable to the public in one area of National Security, you must admit that there is information unavailable to the public in any other area of National Security. You cannot prove otherwise.
In fact, you admit that there may be some secret information about the fence. If there is, you should withdraw your criticism because GWB is utilizing information you can't access and so he knows better than you do what decisions to make. You just have to have faith in His Wisdom.
See how your doctrine of secret information only available to authority kills debate and criticism?
I really hate to plug my local newspaper twice in 5 minutes, but I can't find this article on the non-subscription part of the Washington Post. Anyways, joe's gonna love this.
See, that's what I was talking about. Does anyone else have a foreboding sense of deja vu? Bromley, are your classmates at all concerned that they'll eventually need a draft for this?
In military matters it is known as "operational security". You can not compromise operational security without serious repercussions.
The National Security I am referring to is that sort of National Security.
In regards to enforcing existing immigration laws there is no "National Security" aspect to it. We do not need new laws, we just need to enforce the existing ones. A fence does not need to be built.
Intel from before the Iraq invasion was of the "operational security" sort and can not be disclosed.
Is that more clear?
PS: The only reason you see me as a neocon is because you also see Marx as a moderate.
Intel from before the Iraq invasion was of the "operational security" sort and can not be disclosed.
So there's a reason that makes sense and is not a lie but we can't be told because it's secret? That's not suspicious at all.
Why did they bother telling us anything then? Why didn't they just pick up and go one day?
And please just read this and try to understand: If you're satisfied to let authority act without satisfactorally explainig itself because you believe there exists some operational security that can't be compromised without serious repercussions, then the authority can use operational security as a means to explain away anything you disagree with. You don't like the fence? The authority's response is that there's some operational security reason for the fence. What is it? We don't know. We can't know because it's a secret. You say it's not a military or a national security matter? Who are you to say? The authority is acting on the basis of operational security you cannot be allowed to know.
As for your P.S., I'm beginning to no longer see you as a neocon so much as an authoritarian since you seem to have no trouble with authority making whatever decisions it wants based on information it won't let you know.
Comments
this one only gives broken quotes. I see no direct quote from GWB in this article about an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.
this also lacks any quote from GWB stating there was a link.
Still no quote from GWB.
To be fair, Secretary Powell's presentation at the UN never explicitly asserted that there was a cooperative relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. But the presentation was clearly meant to create the impression that one existed another article that does not have a GWB quote.
Your link does have some GWB quotes about the possible ties but... Looking at the transcript Technically, Bush is not saying that there is a link, he is saying that others (who are in the know) believe there to be links.
The majority of the speech dealt with WMDs. Remember them? You know, the things that even the Clinton administration, John Kerry and others thought were there?
We went into Iraq over UN Resolutions.
I think he could have (and should have) left out that line from the State of the Union speech. Even with that line in the speech, the vast majority of the speech (in regards to Iraq) is based on Saddam's lack of compliance with the UN Resolutions.
I'm gonna try to ask this in as un-offensive way as possible: Are you one of those people in the movie "Jesus Camp" that prayed to the cardboard standie thing of GWB? If so, I'll cut back on the criticism in respect to your god.
I am not familiar with the movie "Jesus Camp". If you are trying to imply that I am some sort of blind follower of GWB than the answer is no.
Joe, you tend to fly off the handle just a teensy little bit whenever GWB comes into the picture. A great deal of talk during the 2004 election centered on the fact that GWB declined to give examples of things he had done wrong or regretted during his first term.
In the interest of fairness, and frankly for my amusement, could you give me three examples of anything (serious) that GWB has done right over the course of his tenure in the White House?
1)
2)
3)
No jokes, no snide remarks; I just want to see if you can find a spark of good in your sworn blood enemy.
I can't see where I brought up anything about anything needing to be a direct quote from anyone.
Put your objection where your mouth is. What issue exists with which are you not in complete and total agreement with GWB?
1) A Mars program would've been nice. I was really hopeful about this.
2) Immigration amnesty was the closest he ever got to agreeing with me.
1) Executive Order 13233 limits access to the records of former United States Presidents. It was drafted by then White House counsel (now US Attorney General) Alberto R. Gonzales and issued by President George W. Bush on November 1, 2001. Section 13 of Executive Order 13233 revoked Executive Order 12667, of January 18, 1989.
2) Secure Fence Act of 2006 - Illegal immigration? Let's build a fence rather than enforce existing laws!!!
3) Executive Order 13397, signed by President George W. Bush on March 7, 2006, concerns the "Responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives". The executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security to "coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet America's social and community needs."
The simple fact (as I see it) is that he has not done much other than the "War on Terror".
1) He kept Al Gore from becoming President.
2) He kept John Kerry from becoming President.
3) His continued life keeps Dick Cheney from becoming President.
This exercise is about seeing strengths as well as weaknesses. Seeing only the other general's weakness will get you defeated in every battle. Like I said, I respect people who think three-dimensionally enough to admit when the opposition has done something right. And the prize is +5 respect, here, folks. THAT'S +5 RESPECT. Damn, what more do you want?
Also, I notice you had to go pretty far afield to find anything with which you disagree.
What about the National Security concerns surrounding immigration policy? Immigration impacts upon National Security, so by your post, GWB would have information unavailable to the public, that is, information "where you can hold up an envelope and say, "I'd show you the Intel, but then I'd have to kill you."" So, he relied on that information in making his decisions about the Secure Fence Act, and so you can't criticize those decisions. Similarly, Homeland Security and the records of ex-presidents impacts on National Security, so he has the information unavailable to the public and so you can't criticize those decisions.
The problem of illegal immigration across the southern border needs to be solved by a joint effort from BOTH sides of the border.
There may be some "secret" information about the fence issue. Maybe there is something going on behind closed doors, all the more reason for the people to cry out for freedom of information on this subject.
National Security in regards to a military action is far different than that of immigration.
In fact, you admit that there may be some secret information about the fence. If there is, you should withdraw your criticism because GWB is utilizing information you can't access and so he knows better than you do what decisions to make. You just have to have faith in His Wisdom.
See how your doctrine of secret information only available to authority kills debate and criticism?
In military matters it is known as "operational security". You can not compromise operational security without serious repercussions.
The National Security I am referring to is that sort of National Security.
In regards to enforcing existing immigration laws there is no "National Security" aspect to it. We do not need new laws, we just need to enforce the existing ones. A fence does not need to be built.
Intel from before the Iraq invasion was of the "operational security" sort and can not be disclosed.
Is that more clear?
PS: The only reason you see me as a neocon is because you also see Marx as a moderate.
Why did they bother telling us anything then? Why didn't they just pick up and go one day?
And please just read this and try to understand: If you're satisfied to let authority act without satisfactorally explainig itself because you believe there exists some operational security that can't be compromised without serious repercussions, then the authority can use operational security as a means to explain away anything you disagree with. You don't like the fence? The authority's response is that there's some operational security reason for the fence. What is it? We don't know. We can't know because it's a secret. You say it's not a military or a national security matter? Who are you to say? The authority is acting on the basis of operational security you cannot be allowed to know.
As for your P.S., I'm beginning to no longer see you as a neocon so much as an authoritarian since you seem to have no trouble with authority making whatever decisions it wants based on information it won't let you know.