PDA

View Full Version : Anti-War Claims (part I)



Apokalupsis
August 10th, 2005, 03:02 PM
I wanted to clarify these claims and make sure that I was not misinterpreting the claims of the anti-war crowd.

Are the following correct?

1) Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq.

2) The Bush Administration claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

3) The war in Iraq was actually planned by people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz back in 1998 at a think tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

4) The war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq.

5) Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorism

6) Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al-Qaeda.

7) The Downing Street Memo proves Bush lied to the American people about the war.

Are these claims accurate positions by the anti-Bush and anti-war crowd? If not, what would be a better way to phrase them to be more accurate?

Snoop
August 10th, 2005, 03:12 PM
I wanted to clarify these claims and make sure that I was not misinterpreting the claims of the anti-war crowd.

Are the following correct?

1) Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq.

2) The Bush Administration claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

3) The war in Iraq was actually planned by people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz back in 1998 at a think tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

4) The war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq.

5) Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorism

6) Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al-Qaeda.

7) The Downing Street Memo proves Bush lied to the American people about the war.

Are these claims accurate positions by the anti-Bush and anti-war crowd? If not, what would be a better way to phrase them to be more accurate? These are all misleading or unknowns. What is known is that we went into Iraq with insufficient troop strength, enlistments are down and we are in the middle of a quagmire/civil war.

P.S. PNAC was real - it was a blueprint. That is a belief I have based on nothing but intuition.

Booger
August 10th, 2005, 03:48 PM
1) Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq.

Bush misrepresented the threat posed by Iraqi WMDs to our national security.


2) The Bush Administration claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

The Bush administration claimed there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda with the intent of misleading the American people into believing that Iraq was involved with 9/11. Bush never did, however, claim that Iraq "was responsbile for 9/11."


3) The war in Iraq was actually planned by people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz back in 1998 at a think tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

PNAC is evidence that those in power and responsbile for planning the Iraq war believed that invading Iraq and toppling the regime was beneficial to the United States for strategic and economic reasons. In other words, the top officials in the White House had been waiting for a reason to invade Iraq for years. The decision to invade Iraq (as evidenced by the Downing Street Memo) was made, for all practical purposes, when the neocons received the spark they needed--9/11.


4) The war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq.

Correct. The war on terror is with respect to Islamic fundamentalism; not a regional secular bully. Iraq had nothing to do with any terrorist attack against the United States.


5) Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorism

Suddam had no ties to terrorism that threatened the national security of the United States.


6) Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al-Qaeda.

Saddam had no colloborative relationship with Al Qaeda.


7) The Downing Street Memo proves Bush lied to the American people about the war.

The Downing Street Memo is evidence for the fact that Bush & Co. misrepresented the nature of the threat posed by Iraqi WMD to the national security of the United States.


Are these claims accurate positions by the anti-Bush and anti-war crowd? If not, what would be a better way to phrase them to be more accurate?

No; see above.

Apokalupsis
August 10th, 2005, 04:21 PM
Bush misrepresented the threat posed by Iraqi WMDs to our national security.
What's the difference between the 2 statements? If I misrepresent myself to you, aren't I lying to you?



The Bush administration claimed there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda with the intent of misleading the American people into believing that Iraq was involved with 9/11. Bush never did, however, claim that Iraq "was responsbile for 9/11."
So then:

2) The Bush Administration claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Is that accurate? I'd prefer to keep these as concise as possible as they will each be different threat titles.



PNAC is evidence that those in power and responsbile for planning the Iraq war believed that invading Iraq and toppling the regime was beneficial to the United States for strategic and economic reasons. In other words, the top officials in the White House had been waiting for a reason to invade Iraq for years. The decision to invade Iraq (as evidenced by the Downing Street Memo) was made, for all practical purposes, when the neocons received the spark they needed--9/11.
Keep in mind that I'm not debating any of these points in this thread. I just want to clarify the statement of the claim. I don't see how your verbose (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=verbose) statement is different in meaning that the shortened one I provided.



Correct. The war on terror is with respect to Islamic fundamentalism; not a regional secular bully. Iraq had nothing to do with any terrorist attack against the United States.
Well wait a sec. Your last statement there doesn't speak to the claim that is needing to be clarified.

It's quite possible for instance that Iraq does have something to do with the war on terror but had nothing to do with any terrorist attack against the U.S.



Suddam had no ties to terrorism that threatened the national security of the United States.
OK, but he did have ties to terrorism that perhaps did not threaten our national security?



Saddam had no colloborative relationship with Al Qaeda.
Can you define colloborative relationship here? Are you referring to just that of attacks on Americans or none whatsoever? Do you allow for the existence of ties such as medical treatment, financing, training, protection, etc...? If these exist, are they not "ties"? Or is it the case that they are ties, it just does not mean that there was a "colloborative relationship"?



The Downing Street Memo is evidence for the fact that Bush & Co. misrepresented the nature of the threat posed by Iraqi WMD to the national security of the United States.
What is the difference here?


No; see above.
Some of your rewordings don't seem to be much different than the originals.

Booger
August 10th, 2005, 04:42 PM
What's the difference between the 2 statements? If I misrepresent myself to you, aren't I lying to you?

The original statement has two distinct parts. The first, that Bush lied, the second that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD. With respect to the first part, a misrepresentation is not the same as a lie since a misrepresentation can come in the form omissions that are necessary to make the statement not misleading. On the second part, clarification is warranted. To state that Bush lied "about WMD" is too broad. What was misrepresented was the threat that Iraqi WMD posed to the national security of the United States. In short, the two statements have entirely different meanings.


So then: 2) The Bush Administration claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Re-read. Bush never outright claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11. I believe (as to many others) that Bush & Co. made statements about Iraq and Al Qaeda with the intended effect of causing the American people to believe that our war in Iraq was tied to retribution for 9/11, when nothing could be further from the truth.


I don't see how your verbose statement is different in meaning that the shortened one I provided.

Easy. Your statement says that war in Iraq (the actual war in Iraq) was planned in 1998. It wasn't. PNAC is evidence for the proposition that the invasion in Iraq was not solely for WMD reasons or even democracy/getting rid of tyrant reasons.


It's quite possible for instance that Iraq does have something to do with the war on terror but had nothing to do with any terrorist attack against the U.S.

You're losing me. What war on terror are we fighting other than a war on terror that threatens our national security? Are we fighting a war on Sudanese terrorism?


OK, but he did have ties to terrorism that perhaps did not threaten our national security?

Yes.


Can you define colloborative relationship here?

See 9/11 Commission Report.


What is the difference here?

See above.


Some of your rewordings don't seem to be much different than the originals.

I disagree.

Zhavric
August 11th, 2005, 03:55 AM
Let's start with the easiest one first.


3) The war in Iraq was actually planned by people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz back in 1998 at a think tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

From newamericancentury.org's website:

The following is taken from an open letter to president Clinton dated January 26th 1998. The letter is signed by (amongst others) Donald Rumsfeld & Paul Wolfowitz.


The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Source. (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm)

It's right there in black & white and it's not coming from some "liberal whack-job" conspiracy site. In 1998, the neo-cons had already decided that Saddam was a threat. In 1998, the neo-cons had already decided that Saddam was making WMD's. In 1998, the neo-cons had already decided that Saddam could jeapordize world oil supplies.

This letter clearly illustrates the intentions of PNAC: to go after Saddam Hussein. Funny though... you won't find the word "terror" or "terrorist" anywhere in the letter... but you do find the word "oil".

TheSparrow
August 11th, 2005, 04:19 AM
Keep going Booger. You da man! I myself lack the rhetorical skills to go against Apok, but you clearly do not, and in my opinion are doing a great job of stopping Apok from getting away with anything.

For the record, I am Canadian and appreciated our governments reluctance to enter this particular conflict.

Harrison383
August 11th, 2005, 07:16 AM
Yeah, Apok, it may seem that Booger is splitting hairs, but if you're looking to make debates out of these, it's best if we get down to the exact wording and reasoning for each. Keeps people from debating the word "is" later on.


For the record, I am Canadian and appreciated our governments reluctance to enter this particular conflict.

I refuse to say anything bad about Canada, and inform my countrymen to do the same. Canadians burned down the White House. I'm not saying a single thing derogatory about our brothers up north when they're up 1-0.

Zhavric
August 11th, 2005, 08:47 AM
Whenever I hear discussions like this, I'm always reminded of an argument I once saw a friend have with a used car salesemen that sold him a lemon. Ultimately, if you want to get really technical, the salesmen stated nothing but truth... but nor were his actions anywhere near ethical / praise worthy.

That's sort of how I see Bush: the used car salesman. He's smart enough not to say an outright lie, but he's done his best to bend the truth to "sell" his war to the American people / congress / etc.

I also find it disapointing that Bush-supporters have boiled down morality into "lying and not-lying" and anything that Bush has stated that wasn't an outright lie is acceptable / ethical / moral / right / etc. So much for the moral higher ground...

... that being said...


1) Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq.

From the evidence provided in the Downing Street memo, it looked like Bush was looking for evidence that supported his claims and ignoring evidence that disagreed with his claims. While not an outright lie, I equate this to the used car salesman saying "The car runs great!" when he knows that there's a good chance the thing will break down. Not an outright lie: just ignoring the facts that don't line up with his sales pitch.


2) The Bush Administration claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

Source. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/) From September 2003


WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.

Again, this is the same used car double-talk that I've come to expect from the administration.


3) The war in Iraq was actually planned by people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz back in 1998 at a think tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Already addressed above with evidence provided from PNAC's official website.


4) The war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq.

Terrorists who attacked America: Islamic fundamentalists who consider Saddam Hussein an enemy because he is a secular arab.

Saddam Hussein: Secular arab who considers Islamic Fundamentalism his enemy as evidenced by his war against Iran in the 80's.

Any questions?


5) Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorism

According to the 9/11 report, Saddam Hussein had no "collaborative relationship" with al-Quida and the 9/11 attack. Members of his cabinet were in contact with al-quida, but no evidence has surfaced that any fruits have come from these exchanges.


6) Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al-Qaeda.

See above. Saddam's biggest and most obvious tie to Al-Quida was and still is The United States who funded both groups. Again, I stand by the 9/11 report which stated that Saddam and Al-quida had no collaborative relationship with regards to the 9/11 attacks. Also, the notion of Saddam allying with an enemy that has sworn to topple his regime is equally outrageous.

What most liberals object most strongly to is the absurd notion that Saddam was a fundamentalist islamic like Osama Bin Laden. No claim could be more ridiculous... and it is an ignorance that all too many Americans are guilty of.


7) The Downing Street Memo proves Bush lied to the American people about the war.

The Downing Street memo proves that Bush was willing to fabricate evidence to make war on Saddam Hussein.

Apokalupsis
August 11th, 2005, 10:07 AM
Somehow, I think I will be repeating the following many times to our slower liberal friends here...

This thread does NOT address the validity of any claim. It is not to debate any issue. It is merely to provide an accurate view of the anti-Bush/anti-war crowd through the use of clarifying specific claims. Once done, new threads will be created.

The purpose of this is so that libbies can't come back and say "We never claimed that". The claims need to be as concise and accurate as possible. You can truly believe that Bush is Hitler reincarnate for all I care, as long as the claim stated is clearly made so you can't back track (like so many libs do).

Zhav, I've not read a single post of yours in this thread as they do not pertain to the thread's purpose. If you would like to validate the accuracy of the claims, that's fine. But this thread is not to debate or discuss any of the claims themselves.

Furthermore, while input from those who hold views similar to the above, but not quite, your feedback on the accuracy only represents YOUR personal claim or beliefs, not liberals as a whole. If it is shown that liberals, anti-Bushies, anti-war people instead believe differently than YOUR claim, then you simply oppose them and you are the exception.

My interest is not in addressing each and every possible exception that each and every person who holds a specific view has. That's absurd. The intent will be to address the claims held by the majority or at least the louder and more popular advocates of the position (those in the public light, not necessarily ODN'rs).

snackboy
August 11th, 2005, 11:13 AM
It is merely to provide an accurate view of the anti-Bush/anti-war crowd through the use of clarifying specific claims. Once done, new threads will be created.



I would be interested to see the "For War" list of claims.

Zhavric
August 11th, 2005, 11:22 AM
*sigh*

Rioght:

1) Bush had an agenda to go to war with Iraq and over-emphasized "evidence" of WMD's in Iraq while ignoring claims that contradicted his agenda. While never outright lying, his statements were similar to those made by a used car dealer who is eager to point out the "qualities" of a lousy car and obfuscate the many faults.

2) The Bush Administration only clarified that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 AFTER the case for war had already been made and several members of the administration have over-emphasized the "non-collaberative" relationship between Saddam & Al-quida as detailed in the 9/11 report.

3) The war in Iraq was actually planned by people like Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz back in 1998 at a think tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) as evidenced by the letter signed by said individuals that was sent to then-president Clinton.

4) The hunt to bring Osama & crew to justice for 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq until Bush invaded Iraq and facilitated creating a hotbed of anti-American insurgency.

5) Saddam Hussein had no collaberative ties to the terrorists responsible for 9/11 as evidenced in the 9/11 commission report.

6) Saddam Hussein had minimal ties to al-quida and had no colaberative relationship with them with regards to 9/11 as evidenced by the 9/11 commission report.

7) The Downing Street Memo proves Bush had intentions to doctor intelligence to make a case for going to war.



Happy?

Apokalupsis
August 11th, 2005, 11:53 AM
Getting there. Still need to clarify a couple of yours and Boog's rewordings though. Post forthcoming...