The Unnecessary War

[Shapley]

RC,

RE:LOL. I was sort of waiting for someone else to pipe up on that one.

Why are you laughing out loud?

V/R
Shapley

[RC]

Shapley:

Vice President Cheney said at the debates there was a connection to Al-Queda

Dick Cheney(Dec 2001): "it's been pretty well confirmed that he [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."

Atta was at a bank in Florida withdrawing money as recorded on a videotape, on the day he was alleged to have met with the top Iraqi advisor.

ORLANDO, Fla.(June 2004) - Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Saddam Hussein had “long-established ties” with al-Qaida

George Bush: "Zarqawi is the best evidence of (Hussein's) connection to al-Qaeda affiliates and al-Qaeda,"

Cheney : Iraq is the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

John Edwards direct quote: "there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of Sept. 11. Period. The 9/11 Commission has said that's true. Colin Powell has said it's true. But the vice president keeps suggesting that there is."

<small>[ 10-08-2004, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: RC ]</small>

[RC]

Why are you laughing out loud?

Shapley, I was only laughing because you were still being ignored and OT finally picked it up. You had an excellent example I thought (both times)

[Shapley]

Thanks,

I thought you were laughing at me, not with me.

I'm still waiting to here from anyone else.

V/R
Shapley

[RC]

I'm wondering what happened to Larry. He's pretty sharp but he missed my Egypt thing too so I thought it was funny that you got totally skipped.

[Shapley]

I don't think he really wanted an answer to that question. At least not the answer he got!

[OperaTenor]

Now we can toss the Duelfer report on the evidence heap. I can't believe we're not moving to impeach these people.
I'm really getting tired of being lied to. Over and over again.

[shostakovich]

Posted by Shapley"

"It is not clear that there was no connection between Iraq and Al-Queda. The investigation into the Oil-For-Food scandal has revealed that the connection is there."
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Shap. I have not looked deeply into the oil-for-food scandal yet. It certainly is an embarrassment to the UN. I'll be looking for the connection you suggest between IRAQ and AL QAEDA. I'm dubious about any arrangements between SADDAM and AL QAEDA. Osama considered Saddam a faithless infidel, which he was. Co-operation between the two, if it existed at all, was not likely (IMHO) in the last 5 years.

New info could change my picture of events, but Bush looks no better to me (as you might expect).
Shos

[RC]

Shapley'

The spin-meisters attempted to show that Cheney in the past had stated there was a connection between Saddam and Iraq, but all they could come up with was that he had pointed out there was a connection between Saddam and Al-Queda, and between Al-Queda and 9/11. Both of those are true.

I think you meant to say:
"The spin-meisters attempted to show that Cheney in the past had stated there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 " is that right?

<small>[ 10-08-2004, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: RC ]</small>

[Shapley]

OT,

RE: the Duelfer report

Have you read the report, or just read what the press is saying about it? It's here at:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

I haven't read it, but the first page, on the key points, seems pretty damning of the naysayers. You might want to read it yourself before using it to bolster any arguments against the President.

V/R
Shapley

Shos,

Here's a link:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

with some info on the Iraq-Al Queda connection. You may want to look for a source other than the Weekly Standard, if you think they're too biased. Google "Oil for food" and see what comes up.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

RC,

Right you are. My error. (I'll add that to the rather lengthy list of errors I've made)

However, it is fair to note that there is a clear connection between Saddam and Iraq!

V/R
Shapley

[shostakovich]

Hi Shap. Thanks for the links. As for the first one, I read page 1. I had also read something recently (forgot where) that said the verbal messages from Saddam to his lieutenants were bluff to make Iran think Iraq was more potent than they actually were. With so much written, it's hard to know where the truth lies. (Kind of funny looking at those last 2 adjacent words.)

The second link wore me out. It dealt with no information later than 1998. I don't know what to make of it regarding current relevance.
Shos

[shostakovich]

Hi again, Shap. On TV today, at the site of the debate, the crowd seemd pretty pro Bush, in spite of the statment that St Louis and Kansas City are largely democratic. The state, however, is expected to go Republican. Is Cape Girardeau central?
Shos

[RC]

Shap,

"The spin-meisters attempted to show that Cheney in the past had stated there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 "

The spin-meisters AND myself are attempting to show that Cheney and the rest of the administration intentionally alluded to a connection between Saddam and 9/11

John Edwards direct quote: "there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of Sept. 11. Period. The 9/11 Commission has said that's true. Colin Powell has said it's true. But the vice president keeps suggesting that there is."

If they are spin-meisters, then so are you for taking what Edwards said out of context.

And as I think I made pretty evident, the administration has made that allusion multiple times - intentionally or not, the public made the connection from the constant barrage of allusions. Tell me that wasn't intentional!

It is unfathomable that you can look at the totality of evidence and still think there wasn't any manipulating going on.

[Shapley]

Shos,

RE:The second link wore me out. It dealt with no information later than 1998. I don't know what to make of it regarding current relevance.

The decision to invade Iraq was made in 2002 or 2001 (depending on who you believe), so it was very relavent at that time, which is the time we are talking about. Also, The point would be that the connection existed between Iraq and Al-Queda. The argument has been that it did not.

RC:

Regarding manipulation. I don't think you can talk about Al-Queda without reference to 9/11, since that is their most serious attack on this nation. If you read the into the oil-for-food scandal information, you will find that there is some belief that the funding for Al-Queda at the time of the 9/11 attacks was coming, in whole or in part, from the funneling of cash through that program. The cash network was intricate, and even Saddam may not have been aware of the final destination of the money (keep in mind he had to keep his illicit gains hidden, as well). The U.N. has records of much of these transfers, and they will be used if the oil-for-food scandal is prosecuted. How much of them will be made public, and what that will reveal, is yet to be seen.

V/R
Shapley

I'll try to find more current links to the oil-for-food connection when I have the time. I'll post them as I find them.

<small>[ 10-08-2004, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[Shapley]

Shos,

Re: Cape Girardeau.

Cape is strong Republican country. We are located about 90 miles south of St. Louis. South of us, the Bootheel was once a stronghold of Democrats, yet nearly all the elected representatives from that are are now Republican. Since the election of Ronald Reagan, Missouri has grown steadily more Republican, with the exception of St. Louis itself.

If Bush does not win Missouri, it will be because St. Louis outvoted the rest of the state!

V/R
Shapley

[RC]

Shapley - One topic at a time.
watch and learn:

You said, (in reference to John Edwards):

The spin-meisters attempted to show that Cheney in the past had stated there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11

I accused you of being a spin-meister because that is NOT what Edwards said. He said, in fact:

there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of Sept. 11. Period. The 9/11 Commission has said that's true. Colin Powell has said it's true. But the vice president keeps suggesting that there is

Your point in accusing Edwards of being a spin-meister was to discredit his statement. His statement was that Cheney was implying that there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq .

Now you say:

I don't think you can talk about Al-Queda without reference to 9/11,

???

Even YOU are confusing yourself. Which is exactly what Bush is counting on. The accusation by Edwards is that Cheney is intentionally implying a connection between IRAQ AND 9/11 , not 9/11 and Al Qaieda.

You continue to talk about the Oil for Food information which I have read. Guess what, that information was not presented until AFTER THE WAR WAS WELL UNDER WAY.
You can not beat the crap out of someone because they look funny, and coincidentally find someone elses wallet in their pocket.

[NudewigVonB]

RC,

I'm still waiting to see how Haggis responds to your query. Maybe my distillation was a bit inflammatory, eh?

VTMO

[OperaTenor]

Hi Shap,

I read the report in full.
Saddam's apparent primary concern was getting out from under the UN sanctions(oh yeah, the ineffective UN). WMD development, with the possible exception of delivery systems, was secondary at best to the UN sanctions. In the case of biological weapons, he had essentially abandoned R&D by the mid '90's.
The OFF program did give him the opportunity to sidestep the sanctions and get his economy out of the toilet(as well as line his pockets further - let's face it, he was a crook as well as a thug), so yes, that program was probably a well-intentioned mistake. Nevertheless, WMD development was fairly well stalled, if not wrecked after the '91 Gulf War.
Read the whole report. To me there's no mistaking we went after the wrong guy, while apparently completely failing to catch the right one.

RC's right again. 1,000 lives and 180 billion dollars, with more lives to lose in the future. Those futures needlessly extinguished, and so much better use that money could have been put.

I apologize for becoming so vitriolic in my recent posts. I was raised to be honest, and I've spent the best part of my life trying to be in integrity with myself and those around me. I have no respect for those who are conciously out of integrity, especially for their personal gain while at the expense of others. It seems these days it is worse than ever in our leaders, and I wish it would stop.

<small>[ 10-09-2004, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[piqaboo]

why is "oil for food" abuse suddenly a scandal? Its been no secretthat saddam abused it. his has been reported for years. Economic sanctions against restrictive regimes only hurt the folk, not the go'mnt which can use them to get richer.

who benefits from spinning this old news into the scandal of the moment?