Dick Cheney should really stop playing the blame game.

[CMike]

1) Saying that a threat is looming is not actionable. A memo stating where the threat is supposed to be exactly and how it's supposed to be carried out is actionable.

The memo in question was certainly actionable. It mentions known members of Al Qaeda living in the US. It mentioned a planned major attack attack using aircraft.

Several steps could have been taken to act on this intelligence. None were.

Really? Please copy and paste the memo and let's see.

2) Bill Clinton made some gigantic errors

a) The Sudan was ready to arrest and extradite bin Laden to the US, and Bill Clinton declined

If you listen to the audio in the link, Bill Clinton himself admits that he had the opportunity and didn't take it

On Tape, Clinton Admits Passing Up bin Laden Capture; Lewinsky Played Role

b) Bill Clinton made it illegal for intellegience agencies to get information from bad guys. Guess who has critical intellegience information? Bad guess. This hurt our intelligence capabilities

c) In response to the first WTC attack, Clinton sent cruise missiles to empty tents. What this told the terrorists and their state sponsors is that there wasn't going to be any consequences to attacking america.

This is equivalent to blaming Bush for the Christmas Bomber, occuring years before the incident in question. And having nothing to do with Obama, or the discussion at hand.

As a comparison, I would say that Bush failed to eradicate Al Qaeda, and allowed it to grow, after trillions of dollars and thousands of dead American soldiers.

No it's not.

Bill Clinton could have had bin Laden in custody. All he had to do was take the Sudan's offer to take Osama bin Laden into custody, and Clinton declined.

Don't you think the US would have been a bit safer if the Clinton didn't decline taking Osama within custody.

Some general threat about terrorism doesn't help thwart a specific terrorist act. I presume there has been ongoing threats about terrorist acts every day for the last 30 years.

To thwart a terror plot intellegience agencies needs some details.

Iraq had no link to Al Qaeda prior to our invasion, and was not, in any way a "major state sponsor of terrorism".

I am afraid you are wrong on both statements.

Let's handle one at a time.

Al Qaida and Iraq have had ties that went back a decade. Below is testimony of CIA Director Tenet in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I can also post declassified CIA and DOD memos if you like.

Testimony of CIA Director Tenet in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee

Behind Closed Doors

Levin: And relative to Iraq, a couple other questions: Do we--do you have any evidence that Saddam Hussein or his agents played a role in the September 11th terrorist attacks or that he has links to al Qaeda?


Tenet: Well, as I note in my statement, there is no doubt that there have been contacts and linkages to the al Qaeda organization. As to where we are in September 11th, the jury's out. And as I said carefully in my statement, it would be a mistake to dismiss the possibility of state sponsorship, whether Iranian or Iraqi, and we'll see where the evidence takes us. But I want you to think about al Qaeda as a front company that mixes and matches its capabilities. The distinctions between Sunni and Shia that have traditionally divided terrorist groups are not distinctions you should make anymore, because there is a common interest against the United States and its allies in this region, and they will seek capability wherever they can get it.

As far as Hussein not being a threat. This is what the democrats said about Hussein.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

More of CIA Director Tenet's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee

Let me be clear. Saddam remains a threat. He is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War. Today he maintains his vice grip on the levers of power through a pervasive intelligence and security apparatus, and even his reduced military force, which is less than half of its pre-war size, remains capable of defeating more poorly armed internal opposition and threatening Iraq's neighbors.

As I said earlier, we continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorist activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It has also had contacts with al Qaeda. Their ties may be limited by diverging ideologies, but the two sides mutual antipathy towards the United States and the Saudi royal family suggest that tactical cooperation between them is possible, even though Saddam is well aware that such activity would carry serious consequences.
...Iraq continues to build and expand an infrastructure capable of producing weapons of mass destruction. Baghdad is expanding its civilian chemical industries in ways that could be diverted quickly into CW production. We believe Baghdad continues to pursue ballistic missile capabilities that exceed the restrictions imposed by U .N. resolutions. With substantial foreign assistance, it could flight- test a longer-range ballistic missile within the next five years.

We believe that Saddam never abandoned his nuclear weapons program. Iraq maintains a significant number of nuclear scientists, program documentation, and probably some dual-use manufacturing infrastructure that could support a reinvigorated nuclear weapons program. Baghdad's access to foreign expertise could support a rejuvenated program. But our major near-term concern is the possibility that Saddam might gain access to fissile material.

Bush diverted our attention from where Al Qaeda was to Iraq, and then when an offshoot of Al Qaeda (consisting of mainly new members) appeared in Iraq after the invasion, you people started trying to point to that as proof that they were there in the first place.

At the end of the Bush administration, Al Qaeda was larger and more widespread than it had been prior to 9/11, and had a new safe haven in Pakistan.

Pres. Bush did something unprecendented, he took the fight to the terrorists and their safe havens. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were major threats to the US. He took the fight to them, rather than wait for them to take the fight to within the US.

In other words, he made the war against Al Qaida offensive, rather then defensive. Yes, killing Al Qaida member might get them upset. However, they have been severely damaged (certainly not gone). They have been hurt because many of their experienced leaders are dead or captured, they lost two major state sponsors, they have been hurt financially, and logistically.

And in that time there were literally thousands of attacks on US Soldiers and US allies, focused in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The only way to keep up Bush's strategy is TO OCCUPY BOTH COUNTRIES AND CONTINUOUSLY FIGHT A WAR, FOREVER.

Otherwise, the second we stop fighting in those countries, the attacks on civilian targets will resume.

Not quite. The battles have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I would rather have them there than in LA, Florida, and NY.

What do you think would happen if just pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Al Qaida forces would regroup, get stronger, and gradually take over the governments. They would get stronger and stronger. Instead, they are on the run and hiding in caves.

Yes they are like cockaroaches and hard to eliminate.

However, it's like cancer. Yes, radiation and chemo, can be unpleasant, and it can take a long time to fully get all the cancer out. However, the alternative of stopping the treatment, is that the cancer will then get bigger and bigger, and finally kill you.

The enemy isn't going away. However, we can fight it offensively, by going where they are and killing them, or we can wait for them to come to us, and kill us. The proof is in the results. Pres. Bush's policies have kept the US from having another terrorist attack within it for 7 years. Under Obama we have had 3 in one year.

Fighting a defensive war will only lead to more terrorist attacks. Just hoping we get lucky by keeping them from getting on planes, isn't going to cut it. Terror groups need money, organization, communications, state sponsors, training. That's where we need to cut them down.

 

[CMike]

Please prove it.

Now that's too easy.

Most of the bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan have been labeled terrorist attacks. There have been thousands of them.

Are you now saying they weren't terrorist attacks?

By terror attacks, I mean attacks targeted toward civilians. There is a differnce between attacks from terrorists, and terror attacks.

I'll be even more specific, I mean terrorist attacks within the US.

 

[Liability]

But we haven't. The guy was singing about contacts then was treated to criminals USA. Now he's quiet, we're more threatened than necessary and it's by administrative choice.

It took me a second read-through to grasp what you were saying.

You have good point.

Yes, IF IT WERE THE CASE that this Administration HAD finally gotten the point, they WOULD NOT be arresting and indicting the underpants bomber for alleged 'crimes," thereby giving him the full-fledged "right to remain silent."

It is EXACTLY that kind of Clinton/Reno/Gorelick "thinking" that is at the root of the problem. As long as the Administration confuses terrorist activity with mere criminality, we will go on denying ourselves the tools we need.

The underpants bomber should be held as a "guest" at Gitmo and should be getting thoroughly interrogated right this very second. Instead, what does he get? Three hots and a cot and "the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney."

Right to remain silent.

These idiot uber-libs STILL don't see whay that is NOT rational. They STILL think that we are somehow upholding our cherished Constitution in giving terrorists the same "rights" as mere accused criminals.

If we caught a Nazi sabateor engaged in the act here in the USA during WWII, does ANYBODY really think he'd have been given his "right to remain silent?" Or would we all have immediately recognized (and correctly so) that he enjoyed no such "right" under the Constitution in the first place?

We all knew you hate the Constitution so why keep reminding us?

As always, your commentary is not just totally retarded, but completely bass-ackwards.

I'm not a God-damned liberoidal, so I actually very much respect and honor our Constitution. Because of that, unlike you liberoidal idiots, I know when it applies because I understand what it was designed to accomplish.

It takes a special brand of moron (like you) to confuse the recognition that terrorists are not criminals with a belief that the recognition means someone "hates" the Constitution.

You truly are a lowlife lying retard.

 

[CurveLight]

No because Pres. Bush created a system to stop terrorist attacks, that worked for 7 years. Obama was tearing it down. That's the difference.

Most Western Intel agencies fully agree the bush admin's actions created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history. You're too fucking fox news gone to even have a glimmer of hope. You even truly believe in al qaeda in iraq? Wtf?

Please prove it.

"An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America's campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism."
Campaign in Iraq has increased terrorism threat, says American intelligence report | World news | The Guardian

That's what happens when you constantly kill people who have never attacked you. Iraq was not a threat as admitted by Cheney on 9/16/01:

Cheney (answering Russert's question if Iraq is harboring terrorists): Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
NBC News' Meet The Press: Dick Cheney

Since that is the transcript I sure hope you won't try to ignore the facts based on the link. This is verifiable through hundreds of links.

 

[CurveLight]

It took me a second read-through to grasp what you were saying.

You have good point.

Yes, IF IT WERE THE CASE that this Administration HAD finally gotten the point, they WOULD NOT be arresting and indicting the underpants bomber for alleged 'crimes," thereby giving him the full-fledged "right to remain silent."

It is EXACTLY that kind of Clinton/Reno/Gorelick "thinking" that is at the root of the problem. As long as the Administration confuses terrorist activity with mere criminality, we will go on denying ourselves the tools we need.

The underpants bomber should be held as a "guest" at Gitmo and should be getting thoroughly interrogated right this very second. Instead, what does he get? Three hots and a cot and "the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney."

Right to remain silent.

These idiot uber-libs STILL don't see whay that is NOT rational. They STILL think that we are somehow upholding our cherished Constitution in giving terrorists the same "rights" as mere accused criminals.

If we caught a Nazi sabateor engaged in the act here in the USA during WWII, does ANYBODY really think he'd have been given his "right to remain silent?" Or would we all have immediately recognized (and correctly so) that he enjoyed no such "right" under the Constitution in the first place?

We all knew you hate the Constitution so why keep reminding us?

As always, your commentary is not just totally retarded, but completely bass-ackwards.

I'm not a God-damned liberoidal, so I actually very much respect and honor our Constitution. Because of that, unlike you liberoidal idiots, I know when it applies because I understand what it was designed to accomplish.

It takes a special brand of moron (like you) to confuse the recognition that terrorists are not criminals with a belief that the recognition means someone "hates" the Constitution.

You truly are a lowlife lying retard.

You should be thanking me for all the ad homs I slam you with. It helps conceal your stupidity. This is what it would look like if I simply responded to the claims you make:

You say terrorists aren't criminals. Really? When did committing acts of terrorism become legal? I'm pretty sure terrorism is illegal thus I must disagree with your assessment terrorists aren't criminals. I say they are criminals.

 

[Liability]

Most Western Intel agencies fully agree the bush admin's actions created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history. You're too fucking fox news gone to even have a glimmer of hope. You even truly believe in al qaeda in iraq? Wtf?

Please prove it.

"An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America's campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism."
Campaign in Iraq has increased terrorism threat, says American intelligence report | World news | The Guardian

That's what happens when you constantly kill people who have never attacked you. Iraq was not a threat as admitted by Cheney on 9/16/01:

Cheney (answering Russert's question if Iraq is harboring terrorists): Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
NBC News' Meet The Press: Dick Cheney

Since that is the transcript I sure hope you won't try to ignore the facts based on the link. This is verifiable through hundreds of links.

Hm. Let's think that through for a brief moment or two:

YOU claim: "Most Western Intel agencies fully agree the [Bush] admin's actions created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history." I added the emphasis.

You got challenged. "Prove it," said Mike.

YOU offered this as "proof:" "An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America's campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism." Emphasis added.

Thus, YOU are contending that a "conclusion" by 16 governments that our actions increased a RISK of terrorISM is the same as proof that the Administration's Actions created more ACTUAL terrorist ATTACKS.

And, of course, you are flatly wrong. (1) A 16 government concensus is a belief, but it could be erroneous. (2) Furthermore, even if their belief were more or less accurate, they discussed an increased THREAT, not an increased number of actual attacks.

You = Fail, again.

 

[CurveLight]

Please prove it.

Now that's too easy.

Most of the bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan have been labeled terrorist attacks. There have been thousands of them.

Are you now saying they weren't terrorist attacks?

By terror attacks, I mean attacks targeted toward civilians. There is a differnce between attacks from terrorists, and terror attacks.

I'll be even more specific, I mean terrorist attacks within the US.

There is a difference between attacks from terrorists and terror attacks? Really? Can you explain how a terror attack is not committed by a terrorist? It's also not surprising you don't care about terrorist attacks happening in other places as a direct result of the Bush admin's policies. (guess what.....people don't need a social security number to qualify as people.)

What do you call a terrorist attack at a church? Does that not count because it was done by a white guy? If you condemn all terrorism why claim there were "no terrorist attacks?" Are you that pathetic you actually segregate terrorist attacks based on skin color or religion?

 

[CurveLight]

Please prove it.

"An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America's campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism."
Campaign in Iraq has increased terrorism threat, says American intelligence report | World news | The Guardian

That's what happens when you constantly kill people who have never attacked you. Iraq was not a threat as admitted by Cheney on 9/16/01:

Cheney (answering Russert's question if Iraq is harboring terrorists): Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
NBC News' Meet The Press: Dick Cheney

Since that is the transcript I sure hope you won't try to ignore the facts based on the link. This is verifiable through hundreds of links.

Hm. Let's think that through for a brief moment or two:

YOU claim: "Most Western Intel agencies fully agree the [Bush] admin's actions created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history." I added the emphasis.

You got challenged. "Prove it," said Mike.

YOU offered this as "proof:" "An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America's campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism." Emphasis added.

Thus, YOU are contending that a "conclusion" by 16 governments that our actions increased a RISK of terrorISM is the same as proof that the Administration's Actions created more ACTUAL terrorist ATTACKS.

And, of course, you are flatly wrong. (1) A 16 government concensus is a belief, but it could be erroneous. (2) Furthermore, even if their belief were more or less accurate, they discussed an increased THREAT, not an increased number of actual attacks.

You = Fail, again.

So let's say I am wrong to claim the Bush admin created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history. I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

That doesn't change the fact the Bush admin's actions increased terrorism. You dismiss the NIE report because you don't like the conclusion. You give no actual reason to ignore it other than it damages your argument. Then you try to obfuscate by saying it says the BA actions only increased the "threat" of terrorism and not terrorist attacks themselves. Are you serious?


"The rate of terrorist attacks around the

world by jihadist groups and the rate of fa-

talities in those attacks increased dramati-

cally after the invasion of Iraq. Globally

there was a 607 percent rise in the average

yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per

year before and 199.8

after) and a 237 percent

rise in the average fatal-

ity rate (from 501 to

1,689 deaths per year)."
the iraq effect


We all know you will use any bullshit excuse to ignore the information so please understand: I did not post it for your benefit. I did it because I support the claims I make. You dismissed the NIE report out of childishness and it shows you will ignore any source that does not provide the information you want.

 

[Coyote]

Bill Clinton could have had bin Laden in custody. All he had to do was take the Sudan's offer to take Osama bin Laden into custody, and Clinton declined.

Don't you think the US would have been a bit safer if the Clinton didn't decline taking Osama within custody.

Nope. He couldn't.
There was never any real evidence that Sudan could get bin Laden and 9/11 Commission report thoroughly discounted the Sudanese claims.

President Clinton had actually signed a directive authorizing the CIA to capture bin Laden and if they couldn't take him alive, then deadly force was authorized.

In an irony that exposes the somewhat schitzophrenic American attitude towards the level of threat that bin Laden represented in 2000, prior to the September 11 attacks, Paul Bremer characterized the Clinton administration as "correctly focused on bin Laden", while Robert Oakley criticized their "obsession with Osama".

Some general threat about terrorism doesn't help thwart a specific terrorist act. I presume there has been ongoing threats about terrorist acts every day for the last 30 years.

To thwart a terror plot intellegience agencies needs some details.

Agree....

 

[The Rabbi]

Hm. Let's think that through for a brief moment or two:

YOU claim: "Most Western Intel agencies fully agree the [Bush] admin's actions created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history." I added the emphasis.

You got challenged. "Prove it," said Mike.

YOU offered this as "proof:" "An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America's campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism." Emphasis added.

Thus, YOU are contending that a "conclusion" by 16 governments that our actions increased a RISK of terrorISM is the same as proof that the Administration's Actions created more ACTUAL terrorist ATTACKS.

And, of course, you are flatly wrong. (1) A 16 government concensus is a belief, but it could be erroneous. (2) Furthermore, even if their belief were more or less accurate, they discussed an increased THREAT, not an increased number of actual attacks.

You = Fail, again.

Excellent post. Nothing left for Curvelight but to admit he is wrong and you are right and carry on.
Of course he won't. Of course he'll call you every name in the book and point out how it was all Bush's fault.
Too predictable.

 

[Liability]

* * * *
You should be thanking me for all the ad homs I slam you with. It helps conceal your stupidity.

No, no, you asstard. It only reveals how retarded you are.

This is what it would look like if I simply responded to the claims you make:

You say terrorists aren't criminals. Really? When did committing acts of terrorism become legal? I'm pretty sure terrorism is illegal thus I must disagree with your assessment terrorists aren't criminals. I say they are criminals.

It would be MUCH better if you'd manage to TRY to make a coherent argument, actually.

Committing acts of terrorism isn't legal. That's a silly way to try avoid the point.

But the fact is, it's not "legal" to sabotage a munitions plant, either. And if we had captured a Nazi sabateur during WWII in the act of trying to do THAT* do you actually maintain that we would have OR that we "should" have arrested him, charged him, indicted him, tried him and if we convicted him that we should have then imprisioned him (with the rights of appeal, etc)?

Just becaue the conduct, if committed by any of us in a non-war setting, would constitute a criminal act does NOT mean that terrorists are mere criminals.

Like the Nazi sabateur, the action of an al qaeda terrorist is an act of war and should be handled accordingly. [Which raises the next question, which you will likely duck, too: If the President has finally found his voice able to clearly state that we ARE at "war," then why would he choose to seek the merely criminal methodology of dealing with what the underwear bomber tried to do?]

Your confusion, although common and persistent, remains just that. Confusion. And in your abiding confusion, you could not be more dangerously wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

So let's say I am wrong to claim the Bush admin created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history. I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

No, dumbshit. That isn't what you claimed. Do you even understand what you write? Do you understand the difference between what you wrote above and in this post:

"Most Western Intel agencies fully agree the [Bush] admin's actions created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history."

You are inconsistent in what you claim, then equally inconsistent in your proof, then have to recant when your proof doesn't stack up.
Needless to say, whatever it is you want to say, the evidence doesn't support any of it.

 

[Toome]

I agree that Cheney should shut the hell up just as Carter and Clinton should have kept their opinions to themselves during the Bush years. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the Democrats did it with impunity doesn't mean the Republicans should lower themselves to that level.

Too late.

While I don't agree with Obama's politics, I do support my president. Instead of sharpshooting, he needs constructive criticism. I seriously doubt we'll ever see that sort of maturity from any party.

We need a third party.

 

[Liability]

"An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America's campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism."
Campaign in Iraq has increased terrorism threat, says American intelligence report | World news | The Guardian

That's what happens when you constantly kill people who have never attacked you. Iraq was not a threat as admitted by Cheney on 9/16/01:

Cheney (answering Russert's question if Iraq is harboring terrorists): Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
NBC News' Meet The Press: Dick Cheney

Since that is the transcript I sure hope you won't try to ignore the facts based on the link. This is verifiable through hundreds of links.

Hm. Let's think that through for a brief moment or two:

YOU claim: "Most Western Intel agencies fully agree the [Bush] admin's actions created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history." I added the emphasis.

You got challenged. "Prove it," said Mike.

YOU offered this as "proof:" "An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America's campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism." Emphasis added.

Thus, YOU are contending that a "conclusion" by 16 governments that our actions increased a RISK of terrorISM is the same as proof that the Administration's Actions created more ACTUAL terrorist ATTACKS.

And, of course, you are flatly wrong. (1) A 16 government concensus is a belief, but it could be erroneous. (2) Furthermore, even if their belief were more or less accurate, they discussed an increased THREAT, not an increased number of actual attacks.

You = Fail, again.

So let's say I am wrong to claim the Bush admin created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history. I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

That doesn't change the fact the Bush admin's actions increased terrorism. You dismiss the NIE report because you don't like the conclusion. You give no actual reason to ignore it other than it damages your argument. Then you try to obfuscate by saying it says the BA actions only increased the "threat" of terrorism and not terrorist attacks themselves. Are you serious?


"The rate of terrorist attacks around the

world by jihadist groups and the rate of fa-

talities in those attacks increased dramati-

cally after the invasion of Iraq. Globally

there was a 607 percent rise in the average

yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per

year before and 199.8

after) and a 237 percent

rise in the average fatal-

ity rate (from 501 to

1,689 deaths per year)."
the iraq effect


We all know you will use any bullshit excuse to ignore the information so please understand: I did not post it for your benefit. I did it because I support the claims I make. You dismissed the NIE report out of childishness and it shows you will ignore any source that does not provide the information you want.

So let's say ??

Either you DO admit that you were wrong or you decline to admit it. Either way, I don't much care. But it would be refreshing to see you man up enough to admit error.

As to the "stats" you are tossing around, I would suggest you may be experiencing difficulty with the notion of cause and effect. If -- and to the extent that -- terrorist activity increased after the invasion of Iraq, one cannot LOGICALLY, on that basis alone, conclude that the reason for the increased incidence of such attacks is the fact that we invaded Iraq. It requires considerably more proof than just citing those two (arguably) unrelated facts.

 

[CurveLight]

So let's say I am wrong to claim the Bush admin created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history. I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

No, dumbshit. That isn't what you claimed. Do you even understand what you write? Do you understand the difference between what you wrote above and in this post:

"Most Western Intel agencies fully agree the [Bush] admin's actions created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history."

You are inconsistent in what you claim, then equally inconsistent in your proof, then have to recant when your proof doesn't stack up.
Needless to say, whatever it is you want to say, the evidence doesn't support any of it.

You missed the point. I stated the BA actions increased terrorism. I backed that up but you conveniently edited my post so you could avoid that part. Are you guys really so desperate you will try to defend Bush by saying he only increased the threat of terrorism and not attacks themselves? I've already proven the increase in terrorist attacks but even if I didn't, the point is still valid. If Bush increased the threat of terrorism how is it possible to claim he was winning? How the hell are you guys going to try and reconcile that contradiction?

 

[CurveLight]

Hm. Let's think that through for a brief moment or two:

YOU claim: "Most Western Intel agencies fully agree the [Bush] admin's actions created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history." I added the emphasis.

You got challenged. "Prove it," said Mike.

YOU offered this as "proof:" "An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America's campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism." Emphasis added.

Thus, YOU are contending that a "conclusion" by 16 governments that our actions increased a RISK of terrorISM is the same as proof that the Administration's Actions created more ACTUAL terrorist ATTACKS.

And, of course, you are flatly wrong. (1) A 16 government concensus is a belief, but it could be erroneous. (2) Furthermore, even if their belief were more or less accurate, they discussed an increased THREAT, not an increased number of actual attacks.

You = Fail, again.

So let's say I am wrong to claim the Bush admin created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history. I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

That doesn't change the fact the Bush admin's actions increased terrorism. You dismiss the NIE report because you don't like the conclusion. You give no actual reason to ignore it other than it damages your argument. Then you try to obfuscate by saying it says the BA actions only increased the "threat" of terrorism and not terrorist attacks themselves. Are you serious?


"The rate of terrorist attacks around the

world by jihadist groups and the rate of fa-

talities in those attacks increased dramati-

cally after the invasion of Iraq. Globally

there was a 607 percent rise in the average

yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per

year before and 199.8

after) and a 237 percent

rise in the average fatal-

ity rate (from 501 to

1,689 deaths per year)."
the iraq effect


We all know you will use any bullshit excuse to ignore the information so please understand: I did not post it for your benefit. I did it because I support the claims I make. You dismissed the NIE report out of childishness and it shows you will ignore any source that does not provide the information you want.

So let's say ??

Either you DO admit that you were wrong or you decline to admit it. Either way, I don't much care. But it would be refreshing to see you man up enough to admit error.

As to the "stats" you are tossing around, I would suggest you may be experiencing difficulty with the notion of cause and effect. If -- and to the extent that -- terrorist activity increased after the invasion of Iraq, one cannot LOGICALLY, on that basis alone, conclude that the reason for the increased incidence of such attacks is the fact that we invaded Iraq. It requires considerably more proof than just citing those two (arguably) unrelated facts.

Holy shit. Did you miss this statement?

I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.


Even when I fucking retract a claim you still harp on it.

Then you move on to the cause and effect argument? Why don't you say there is no cause and effect between someone seeing a fire in a building and that person pulling the fire alarm? The cause and effect are quite clear as demonstrated by more than one source.

Let's have some fun. Why don't you explain what information is required to show cause and effect? Now you have to figure out how to explain that equation without proving your own claim wrong.

 

[CMike]

Most Western Intel agencies fully agree the bush admin's actions created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history. You're too fucking fox news gone to even have a glimmer of hope. You even truly believe in al qaeda in iraq? Wtf?

Please prove it.

"An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America's campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism."
Campaign in Iraq has increased terrorism threat, says American intelligence report | World news | The Guardian

That's what happens when you constantly kill people who have never attacked you. Iraq was not a threat as admitted by Cheney on 9/16/01:

Cheney (answering Russert's question if Iraq is harboring terrorists): Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
NBC News' Meet The Press: Dick Cheney

Since that is the transcript I sure hope you won't try to ignore the facts based on the link. This is verifiable through hundreds of links.

Yup, Cheney said that there wasn't evidence that Hussein did 911.

However, Cheney also said

Cheney: No link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11 - CNN.com

"I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true," Cheney conceded.

But Hussein was "somebody who provided sanctuary and safe harbor and resources to terrorists. ... [It] is, without question, a fact."

Cheney restated his claim that "there was a relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq that stretched back 10 years. It's not something I made up. ... We know for a fact that Saddam Hussein was a sponsor -- a state sponsor -- of terror. It's not my judgment. That was the judgment of our [intelligence community] and State Department."
The former vice president said in 2004 that the evidence was "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Hussein's regime in Iraq, and that media reports suggesting that the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said at the time.

"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."

On Monday, though, Cheney identified former CIA Director George Tenet as the "prime source of information" on the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Tenet "testified, if you go back and check the record, in the fall of [2002] before the Senate Intelligence Committee -- in open session -- that there was a relationship," Cheney said.

 

[CMike]

So let's say I am wrong to claim the Bush admin created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history. I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

No, dumbshit. That isn't what you claimed. Do you even understand what you write? Do you understand the difference between what you wrote above and in this post:

"Most Western Intel agencies fully agree the [Bush] admin's actions created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history."

You are inconsistent in what you claim, then equally inconsistent in your proof, then have to recant when your proof doesn't stack up.
Needless to say, whatever it is you want to say, the evidence doesn't support any of it.

You missed the point. I stated the BA actions increased terrorism. I backed that up but you conveniently edited my post so you could avoid that part. Are you guys really so desperate you will try to defend Bush by saying he only increased the threat of terrorism and not attacks themselves? I've already proven the increase in terrorist attacks but even if I didn't, the point is still valid. If Bush increased the threat of terrorism how is it possible to claim he was winning? How the hell are you guys going to try and reconcile that contradiction?

A threat of terrorism is not an actual terrorist acts.

Also by terrorist act I mean an act targeted toward civilians.

 

[Annie]

But we haven't. The guy was singing about contacts then was treated to criminals USA. Now he's quiet, we're more threatened than necessary and it's by administrative choice.

LOL. Do you always just make shit up like this? Or did you get this from someone else who makes shit up?

Over and over again you prove your ignorance.

 

[Liability]

So let's say I am wrong to claim the Bush admin created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history. I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

That doesn't change the fact the Bush admin's actions increased terrorism. You dismiss the NIE report because you don't like the conclusion. You give no actual reason to ignore it other than it damages your argument. Then you try to obfuscate by saying it says the BA actions only increased the "threat" of terrorism and not terrorist attacks themselves. Are you serious?


"The rate of terrorist attacks around the

world by jihadist groups and the rate of fa-

talities in those attacks increased dramati-

cally after the invasion of Iraq. Globally

there was a 607 percent rise in the average

yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per

year before and 199.8

after) and a 237 percent

rise in the average fatal-

ity rate (from 501 to

1,689 deaths per year)."
the iraq effect


We all know you will use any bullshit excuse to ignore the information so please understand: I did not post it for your benefit. I did it because I support the claims I make. You dismissed the NIE report out of childishness and it shows you will ignore any source that does not provide the information you want.

So let's say ??

Either you DO admit that you were wrong or you decline to admit it. Either way, I don't much care. But it would be refreshing to see you man up enough to admit error.

As to the "stats" you are tossing around, I would suggest you may be experiencing difficulty with the notion of cause and effect. If -- and to the extent that -- terrorist activity increased after the invasion of Iraq, one cannot LOGICALLY, on that basis alone, conclude that the reason for the increased incidence of such attacks is the fact that we invaded Iraq. It requires considerably more proof than just citing those two (arguably) unrelated facts.

Holy shit. Did you miss this statement?

I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.


Even when I fucking retract a claim you still harp on it.

Lighten up, Francis. What you ACTUALLY wrote was, and I quote,

So let's say I am wrong to claim the Bush admin created more terrorist attacks than anyone in modern history. I fully admit that was a false claim and I retract it.

Do you see the difference? It LOOKED like you were positing a hypothetical. Sorry your writing style isn't exactly a model of clarity.

Then you move on to the cause and effect argument? Why don't you say there is no cause and effect between someone seeing a fire in a building and that person pulling the fire alarm? The cause and effect are quite clear as demonstrated by more than one source.

Terribly flawed analogy. Call it a failure, since it is. One MAY react to stimulus and that might well be cause and effect. But in the stats YOU offered, there is no necessary connection. It might VERY well be that whether or not we had ever gone into Iraq, the terrorists would have been on the move, anyway -- and perhaps elsewhere. It gets dark at night, too. Does oncoming darkness CAUSE the Sun to set?

Let's have some fun. Why don't you explain what information is required to show cause and effect? Now you have to figure out how to explain that equation without proving your own claim wrong.

The information that would be needed to demonstrate WHETHER the increased incidence of terrorist attacks was CAUSED by our incursion into Saddam's Iraq is in the possession of the terrorists. I am not privy to what's on their minds. And, neither are you. So, if you thought you were scoring some big rhetorical point with your last question, you have another think coming.