1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

[M14 Shooter]

Is this debate merely about whether the Administration attempted to draw a connection between Iraq and 9/11 in the lead-up to the war?

That's MM's position.

Does anyone doubt that there was at least some attempt like this made, even if it was made in good faith?

IF you think there was an attempt to do this, please show where the Administration claimed there was such a connection, THEN reconcile that with the direct statements by the administration to the contrary.

 

[ReillyT]

IF you think there was an attempt to do this, please show where the Administration claimed there was such a connection, THEN reconcile that with the direct statements by the administration to the contrary.

Cheney made the connection on Meet the Press, and MM is right that a connection was implied on numerous occasions. (I am guessing this has already been quoted elsewhere on the thread, but so be it).

On March 24, 2002, Cheney again told NBC, "We discovered . . . the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."

A few weeks later, in April, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told a San Francisco audience, "We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts." The FBI, he said, could find no evidence that Atta left or returned to the United States at the time.

In May, senior FBI and CIA analysts, having scoured thousands of travel records, concluded "there was no evidence Atta left or returned to the U.S.," according to officials at the time.

But on Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney, again on "Meet the Press," said that Atta "did apparently travel to Prague. . . . We have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer a few months before the attacks on the World Trade Center."

Earlier this month, on his most recent "Meet the Press" appearance, Cheney once again used Atta to subtly suggest a connection between Iraq and Sept. 11, 2001.

"With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story . . . the Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/093003C.shtml

It is true that nowhere he does Cheney directly say that Iraq was involved in planning 9/11. However, by recounting a meeting between Iraqi officials and the lead hijacker just months before the hijacking, that pretty well implies a connection.

It is also true that the Administration (on one occasion that I am aware of) said that there was no evidence of a connection. However, I don't think that there is anything to "reconcile." The Administration said one thing and suggested another, and in the lead-up to war, wanted a possible connection to be in the minds of the people. They couldn't definitely state that they had definite evidence of a connection, so they suggested that a connection was possible/probable. They were successful in this.

 

[ReillyT]

This also implies a connection.

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

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/093003C.shtml

If the statement is parsed, it need not be interpreted to mean that the base of the 9/11 terrorists was Iraq. However, I don't think that most people upon hearing this would fail to believe that a connection is being implied here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Cheney made the connection on Meet the Press, and MM is right that a connection was implied on numerous occasions. (I am guessing this has already been quoted elsewhere on the thread, but so be it).

It is true that nowhere he does Cheney directly say that Iraq was involved in planning 9/11. However, by recounting a meeting between Iraqi officials and the lead hijacker just months before the hijacking, that pretty well implies a connection.

This describes a connection between Iraq and AQ, not Iraq qnd 9/11.
In fact, ALL the statements describe a connection between Iraq and AQ, not Iraq and 9/11. Describing the relationship between Iraq and AQ no more necessiates a relationship between Iraq and 9/11 than describing the relationship between Germany and Japan necessitates that Germany was involved 12/7.

Anyone with half a brain can see this and can see thru any such attept at said implication; to argue that the American people heard these statements and inferred a conecction between Iraq and 9/11 is to argue that the American people are just plain stupid.

 

[ReillyT]

This describes a connection between Iraq and AQ, not Iraq qnd 9/11.
In fact, ALL the statements describe a connection between Iraq and AQ, not Iraq and 9/11. Describing the relationship between Iraq and AQ no more necessiates a relationship between Iraq and 9/11 than describing the relationship between Germany and Japan necessitates that Germany was involved 12/7.

Anyone with half a brain can see this and can see thru any such attept at said implication; to argue that the American people heard these statements and inferred a conecction between Iraq and 9/11 is to argue that the American people are just plain stupid.

Now you are just being silly.

1) AQ is responsible for 9/11.

2) Atta is a member of AQ

3) Atta was the lead hijacker

4) Atta met with Iraqi intelligence just prior to carrying out the attack

How is this not implying a connection? I am not at all surprised that people began to connect 9/11 to Iraq. And yes, perhaps we were stupid.

By your logic, Afghanistan shouldn't have been invaded either. After all, we knew that Afghanistan was connected to AQ and harboring them, but we don't know (as far as I know) that the Taliban was directly involved in the planning of 9/11.

 

[maineman]

What's the matter, Skippy -- you can dish it out but can't take it?
Are you really that much of a priss?

Big bad Skippy, can lay out all the insutls HE wants, but can't take it when someone lays one on him.

Or did I strike a little too close to the truth about yo' momma?

are you married? got kids?

 

[M14 Shooter]

are you married? got kids?

Why?

You gonna be a Real Big Man(tm) and attack them, after whining about keeping family members out of it?

If you can't stand getting dirty, you little priss, don't sling mud.

 

[ReillyT]

In fact, ALL the statements describe a connection between Iraq and AQ, not Iraq and 9/11.

Actually, I think this...

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

implies a more direct connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How is this not implying a connection?

How IS this implying a connection?

A is related to B. B is realted to C.
That A is related to B in no way necessitates that A is related to C.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, I think this...
implies a more direct connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

It says that AQ was 'based' (to whatever degree) in Iraq.

This doesnt in any way imply that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

 

[ReillyT]

How IS this implying a connection?

A is related to B. B is realted to C.
That A is related to B in no way necessitates that A is related to C.

To imply is to suggest without explicitly stating.

Stating that AQ is based in Iraq suggests Iraqi support for AQ and its aims.

Stating that the lead hijacker met with Iraqi intelligence prior to the hijacking suggests that the Iraqis were either aware of or supported the hijackers.

If I tell you that Barry Bonds used a reputed trafficker in steroids as his personal trainer, this implies that Barry Bonds is taking steroids. Does it necessarily make it so? No, but it suggests it.

Perhaps we just disagree with what is implied in these actions (to some extent, it is a question of intent). However, what would most people infer? What was the attitude of the public about a connection between 9/11 and Iraq in the lead up to the war? What is the attitude of most of the population about Barry Bonds and possible steroid use?

The proof is in the pudding.

 

[ReillyT]

It says that AQ was 'based' (to whatever degree) in Iraq.

This doesnt in any way imply that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

If it said any more than it does, it wouldn't be an implication at all. It would be a direct statement.

I think the implication in this statement is clear. I don't know how you can't see it.

 

[Alpha1]

Your fuzzy logic fills your head with fuzzy fantasies .....

Each statement stands alone on its own merits....they 'imply' nothing...they mean exactly what was said....

Each statement is either a fact or what was believed to be fact at the time the statement was made.....

 

[ReillyT]

A is related to B. B is realted to C.
That A is related to B in no way necessitates that A is related to C.

It does not necessitate it, but it does suggest it.

 

[ReillyT]

Your fuzzy logic fills your head with fuzzy fantasies .....

Each statement stands alone on its own merits....they 'imply' nothing...they mean exactly what was said....

We will just have to disagree.

Each statement is either a fact or what was believed to be fact at the time the statement was made.....

That may or may not be the case, but is irrelevant to the question at hand.

 

[M14 Shooter]

To imply is to suggest without explicitly stating.

It also necessitates a deliberate action with intent to deceive.
Can you show a deliberate intention to convey the idea that Iraq was involved in 9/11?

Stating that AQ is based in Iraq suggests Iraqi support for AQ and its aims.

Yes.
But again, supporting AQ and its aims doesnt in any way mean there was involvement in 9/11. That's a leap in logic that is impossible to make with any degree of intellectual honesty.

The proof is in the pudding.

Only if you beleive that correlation = causation.

The administration stated for the record that Iraq was not involved with 9/11. Given that, any argument to the contrary is unsupportable.

 

[Shogun]

it's so funny to watch the right distance themselves from the 04 election rhetoric!

more MORE!

 

[M14 Shooter]

It does not necessitate it, but it does suggest it.

You and I have a common cousin.
I tell someone that you and I have a common cousin.
Am I suggesting that you and I are related?

 

[Alpha1]

If it said any more than it does, it wouldn't be an implication at all. It would be a direct statement.

I think the implication in this statement is clear. I don't know how you can't see it.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/19/182128.php

Learning To Read - Fallacies And Misleading Language

Cheney:

[Iraq has]...the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.


Now that was well scripted. Did you miss it? Yeah, I know. Alot of people did, including the news agencies. Lets break it down.

"Iraq had a geographic base of terrorists that have had us under assault for some time now."


This does not imply that the terrorists came from Iraq. Lets split this up another way:

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


Hey! What happened to Iraq? Where did they go from the statement? Yeah, many people still don't get it. *sigh*

Cheney made a tie between the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda and Iraq. He then made a separate tie between Al-Qaeda and 9/11. He did NOT make a direct tie between Iraq and 9/11. If that's what you thought you have been used and abused by the English language.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think the implication in this statement is clear.

No, that;s your rinferrence.
Unless, of course, you can show that there was intent.

The question is, of course:
Why would someone with at least a basic understanding of reason and logic infer such a thing, rather than take it at face value?