Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (480338)	5/13/2009 11:39:16 AM
From: i-node	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572537

He did do that a couple of times. But he constantly conflated 9/11 and Saddam in his speeches. Often he would mention both in the same sentence. He worked very hard to give the impression that the two were closely linked. And it worked, Fox viewers in particular were convinced that there was a linkage. This is a big liberal lie. At no time did Bush state that 9/11 was in any way caused by Iraq. Never, not once. Innumerable times, Bush specifically made clear statements that there was no known connection between between the 9/11 attacks and Saddam. There was no conflating on the administration's end of the conversation -- although there may well have been on the liberal end. There were frequent explanations of why Saddam needed to be removed including WMD as well as other reasons. But there was never any suggestion that he played the slightest role in 9/11. For example, after his Jan'03 State of the Union, the following paragraphs appeared in the media accounts: In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11. Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. Now, who is at fault here? Bush -- who never drew any relationship between 9/11 and Saddam? Or the media, for reporting that there is such an "impression"? There were known, factual relationships between AQ and Saddam. But the focus of the Administration during this period was the fact Saddam had the ability to develop WMD (which he did) and could become a supplier for AQ and OTHER TERRORISTS (which he could well have done). Never once did Bush or anyone in his administration say that the 9/11 attacks involved Saddam in any way. They did say, correctly, that Saddam had been supportive of AQ in the past, which was a fact. In Sept '03 from BBC: "Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two. " Conflated? How so? There were absolute connections between the two, we know about that. But nobody ever said 9/11 was the same as or caused by Saddam. THAT would be "conflating". Here are some remarks BBC refers to as "conflating" during the runup to the war: - "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. " - "We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On 11 September, 2001, America felt its vulnerability - even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America. " - "Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and 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 just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. " How is this "conflating"? We're dealing with liberal lies exacerbated by the liberal media. A left wing nutjob propaganda campaign. Show me the quotes you claim "conflated" the two.

To: combjelly who wrote (480338)	5/13/2009 12:39:11 PM
From: bentway	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1572537

"But he constantly conflated 9/11 and Saddam in his speeches. Often he would mention both in the same sentence. He worked very hard to give the impression that the two were closely linked. And it worked, Fox viewers in particular were convinced that there was a linkage." Of course! Doesn't the PRESIDENT have intelligence that none of us get? He wouldn't have INVADED A COUNTRY with being ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that weapons that directly threatened America were THERE....would he? Dick Cheney told us they were THERE, and he knew EXACTLY where they WERE! If that isn't the very definition of a "high crime", conning America into an unnecessary war, I don't know that is.