• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Saddam: 'I Lied About WMD In Fear Of Iran'

2. If you want to know more about your butt buddy...
And as evidence goes, I made the claim, you provide the contradiction
:roll:
Welcome to intellectual irrelevance.
Enjoy your stay, as it is likely to be long.
 
:roll:
Welcome to intellectual irrelevance.
Enjoy your stay, as it is likely to be long.

Oh, no, I'm on the way, to a convention. But I see you are employed there ;)

You want to disprove a point, you must bring the direct contradiction. In this case, you need to show direct proof that says Bush never failed a class.
 
They never said x as FACT. They said it was PLAUSIBLE. The administration played maybe's as yes...
In context, how is that wrong?
Do you know if they had other evidence that put that 'plausible' higher up on the credibility scale?

See, what you fail to undertsand is that all of the information the Administration had creates a context -- a framework for understanding that information. Any single piece of information, alone, means nothing, but taken as a whole, it then has meaning.

Take, for instace, the supposed lauch site.
If there's no other evidence - like, say, a known project for the components necessary for such a missle to be built -- then the site itself means nothing. But, with that other evidence, it means more - if ther is such a missle, then it much launch from somewhere; a new missle needs a new launch site; a new launch site combined with a new missile leands to the strong possibility that the new site is for that new missile.

You ASSUME there was no other information that supported the idea that the site was for a new missile; that assumption is unsupportable.

So now there are not 19, there are 19 maybes and 1 no for sho!
An unsupportable assertion.
 
You want to disprove a point, you must bring the direct contradiction.
Sweetie... its your claim.
Its up to you to back it up, not for others to disprove.
 
In context, how is that wrong?
Do you know if they had other evidence that put that 'plausible' higher up on the credibility scale?

See, what you fail to undertsand is that all of the information the Administration had creates a context -- a framework for understanding that information. Any single piece of information, alone, means nothing, but taken as a whole, it then has meaning.

Take, for instace, the supposed lauch site.
If there's no other evidence - like, say, a known project for the components necessary for such a missle to be built -- then the site itself means nothing. But, with that other evidence, it means more - if ther is such a missle, then it much launch from somewhere; a new missle needs a new launch site; a new launch site combined with a new missile leands to the strong possibility that the new site is for that new missile.

You ASSUME there was no other information that supported the idea that the site was for a new missile; that assumption is unsupportable.


An unsupportable assertion.

I can do that too:__________________. You get it? :lamo
 
Aside from the fact that this doesnt in any way show how this is relevant to the discussion...

False. The Bush administration did not argue that Iraq had a hand in 9-11
.

Are you sure about that?

Panel's findings suggest flawed justifications for Iraq war
Flash back to March 2003. The attack on al-Qaeda's Afghanistan bases is over, and the start of the Iraq war is less than a week away. If polls are to be believed, the two invasions are fused in the public mind — a seamless response to the still-vivid 9/11 terrorist attacks. A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found that an overwhelming 88% of the public believed Saddam Hussein supported terrorist groups that had plans to attack the USA.
Now that appears to be untrue.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney did repeatedly claim that Saddam was tied to al-Qaeda. Before, during and after the war — in fact, as recently as this week — they used that link to justify the Iraq war.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the main architects for the war in Iraq, admitted for the first time that Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 terrorist attacks, contradicting public statements made by senior White House and Pentagon officials whose attempt to link Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization al-Qaeda was cited by the Bush administration as one of the main reasons for launching a preemptive strike in March against Iraq.

In an interview with conservative radio personality Laura Ingraham, Wolfowitz was asked when he first came to believe that Iraq was behind the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

“I’m not sure even now that I would say Iraq had something to do with it,” Wolfowitz said in the interview, aired Friday, a transcript of which can be found at DefenseLink News Transcript: Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with The Laura Ingraham Show

Even my quote from Meet the Press showed that Cheney had alluded to Iraq involvement with Al Qaeda and 9/11, and he admitted that no such links had been found.
 
Sweetie... its your claim.
Its up to you to back it up, not for others to disprove.

First, I'm not gay, so back off please.

Second, as a matter of fact, when a precedent is set, and there is a counter-claim made, the counter claim must be proven rather then the original precedent.
 
.
Are you sure about that?
Please provide a -direct quote- from Bush or Cheney that makes the claim that Iraq/Saddam was involved in 9-11.
 
You ASSUME there was no other information that supported the idea that the site was for a new missile; that assumption is unsupportable.

You are assuming that there was other evidence. Unsupportable! Show me the other evidence. Without it, preponderance of evidence.
 
First, I'm not gay, so back off please.
The 'sweetie' comment has nothing to do with your orientation or gender but your level of intellectual achievement.

Second, as a matter of fact, when a precedent is set, and there is a counter-claim made, the counter claim must be proven rather then the original precedent.
You made a claim. I asked you to back it up -- to provide proof.
You have not done so; until you do, I am under no obligation to privide evidence to the contrary.

So, prove your claim that GWB "failed his way" thru Harvard/Yale.
When you cannot, please be sure to admit that you're the beforementined partisan bigot.
 
You are assuming that there was other evidence.
I made no such assumption. Please read more carefully, and understand that I was using this as an example to illustrate how the context of the whole goes a long ways to supply credibility to something thought to be 'plausible'.
 
I made no such assumption. Please read more carefully, and understand that I was using this as an example to illustrate how the context of the whole goes a long ways to supply credibility to something thought to be 'plausible'.

Fair enough, I misubderstood your intent then.;)
 
Um....
"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq are the ones who attacked us on Sept. 11," Bush said.
No.
He was referring to the AQ and other Islamofascist insurgents, not the pre-invasion government of Iraq/saddam.

Not sure how this supports your claim:
BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

Dont see anything from Bush making the claim.

When you get something, let me know.
 
The 'sweetie' comment has nothing to do with your orientation or gender but your level of intellectual achievement.


You made a claim. I asked you to back it up -- to provide proof.
You have not done so; until you do, I am under no obligation to privide evidence to the contrary.

So, prove your claim that GWB "failed his way" thru Harvard/Yale.
When you cannot, please be sure to admit that you're the beforementined partisan bigot.

Hehe, it's "aforementioned" sweetie ;) There you go.

Presidential Legacy | The American Prospect

"But Bush's Yale transcript shows that he was a C student. He got particularly poor grades in political science and economics. In his freshman year -- the only year for which The New Yorker obtained rankings -- Bush was in the 21st percentile of his class. In other words, 79 percent of the students had better grades than he did. Indeed, when he gave a speech at Yale's 2001 commencement ceremony, he joked, "To the C students I say, you, too, can be president of the United States." "


"At the time Bush's application landed at Harvard Business School, Bush Senior -- who had recovered from his defeated bids for U.S. Senate in 1964 and 1970 and was by then a former congressman from Texas, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and former U.S. diplomatic liaison to China -- was chairman of the Republican National Committee. Might Senior's fame have played a role?"

I particularly like those parts.
 
Um....

No.
He was referring to the AQ and other Islamofascist insurgents, not the pre-invasion government of Iraq/saddam.


Not sure how this supports your claim:



Dont see anything from Bush making the claim.

When you get something, let me know.

Of course there is no direct quote, but there is much supporting the attempts to link the two in the minds of the American people, without directly saying it. It is called plausible deniability.
 
Hehe, it's "aforementioned" sweetie ;) There you go.
Apparently, you don't know that the two words mean the same thing.

"But Bush's Yale transcript shows that he was a C student. He got particularly poor grades in political science and economics. In his freshman year -- the only year for which The New Yorker obtained rankings -- Bush was in the 21st percentile of his class. In other words, 79 percent of the students had better grades than he did. Indeed, when he gave a speech at Yale's 2001 commencement ceremony, he joked, "To the C students I say, you, too, can be president of the United States.""
Show how this supports the claim that we "failed his way" through Harvard/Yale. Nothing here makes mention of him failing anything.

"At the time Bush's application landed at Harvard Business School, Bush Senior -- who had recovered from his defeated bids for U.S. Senate in 1964 and 1970 and was by then a former congressman from Texas, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and former U.S. diplomatic liaison to China -- was chairman of the Republican National Committee. Might Senior's fame have played a role?"
Again:
Show how this supports the claim that we "failed his way" through Harvard/Yale. Nothing here makes mention of him failing anything.

I particularly like those parts.
I particularly like how your abject and wanton failure to support your claim so very clearly illustrates your partisan bigotry.
 
Last edited:
Of course there is no direct quote...
So, you admit that Bush/Cheney never made the claim that Iraq/Saddam was involved in 9-11.
Thank you.

It is called plausible deniability.
No... its called a willful inference, where you hear what you want to hear, or suggestive interpretation, where you hear what other people tell you should hear.
 
So, you admit that Bush/Cheney never made the claim that Iraq/Saddam was involved in 9-11.
Thank you.


No... its called a willful inference, where you hear what you want to hear, or suggestive interpretation, where you hear what other people tell you should hear.

Are you actually arguing that they did not try to make that connection between the two in the minds of the public? You know that they did indeed.
 
Ok... and what here, to you, is a direct statement of a direct link?

..but neither did Russert, who could have asked Bush to explain a letter he sent to Congress shortly after the start of the Iraq war, in which he explicitly linked Iraq to 9-11.

There you go.
 
Are you actually arguing that they did not try to make that connection between the two in the minds of the public? You know that they did indeed.
Again: Suggestive interpretation.

Nothing that I read heard or saw from anyone in the administration led me to anythig close to the conclusion that Iraq was involved in 9-11.

Given the statements that were made, I cannot imagine how anyone with any mastery of the English language could reach such a conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Again: Suggestive interpretation.

Nothing that I read heard or saw from anyone in the administration led me to anythig close to the conclusion that Iraq was involved in 9-11.

Given the statements that were made, I cannot imagine how anyone with any mastery of the English language could reach such a conclusion.

I did not say I fell for it, but perhaps you are giving the voting public more props than they deserve. I still say, though, that intentially try to make the connection to gain support. Iraq, in of itself really had nothing to do with the War on Terror, unless it was to create a base of operations in th Middle East. I think, this was the actual reason for invasion and the rest smoke-screen and mirrors. Sadly, if posed as the actual reason, it would more than likely garnered zero support.
 
Back
Top Bottom