I found this here.
Although this was written in late 2002, pre Iraq invasion, it still applies today.
"It was always clear, and it is becoming even clearer, that this [looking for WMDs in Iraq] is not really about doing away with Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, however threatening. It is about removing Saddam from power. The Americans want to send United Nations inspectors with broad powers into Iraq, but not to track down and destroy arms storage sites and production facilities. Rather, they are looking for an excuse to attack."
Now, Bush is under fire for the reason for the invasion of Iraq (from here):
"[Keith] Olbermann [from MSNBC] played two current quotes to mock President Bush: "First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said, at least I know I didn't say, that there was a direct connection between the September 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was the state sponsor of terror." A second Bush soundbite followed up the first clip: "I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America."
Olberman has no tape to show Bush in fact saying that Hussein knew of or plotted 9/11, because there is none.
"His principal argument was by counting proximity of words in Presidential speeches, with no regard to the context. Bush used the words "Iraq" and "Al Qaeda" or "Saddam" and "9/11" within ten or twenty words of each other X number of times, so how can Bush claim he wasn't saying that?" Although this website claims that "This argument is idiotic on the face of it." I think its actually a pretty good argument.
Al Franken makes a similar argument in his book The Truth. He argues that members of the Bush administration used the words Saddam and Osama and 9/11 and Iraq together frequently. So frequently, that by the time the Republican National Convention rolled around, the whole focus was on Iraq. This is shown in his statistics on Word Frequency in Major Republican National Convention Speeches, (this is on page 56...if you love the book as much as I do) Bush mentions Saddam/Iraq 18 times, terror(ism/ists) 16 times, 9/11 4 times, and Osama 0 times. The total count for all the speakers mentioned it this count (McCain, Giuliani, Laura Bush, Schwarzenegger, Cheney, Zell Miller, George Pataki, and Bush) Saddam/Iraq was mentioned 62 times, terror(ism/ists) 79 times, 9/11 mentioned 37 times, and Osama mentioned ONCE. Now, okay don't get me wrong here, terrorism is bad...and Saddam did kill a lot of people, but we were attacked by OSAMA ON 9/11. Iraq did nothing!!! and Bush, now claiming that he never said they were related, is left without a reason for invading a country that didn't attack us. and many more people are asking: why the hell are we in Iraq??
Although this was written in late 2002, pre Iraq invasion, it still applies today.
"It was always clear, and it is becoming even clearer, that this [looking for WMDs in Iraq] is not really about doing away with Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, however threatening. It is about removing Saddam from power. The Americans want to send United Nations inspectors with broad powers into Iraq, but not to track down and destroy arms storage sites and production facilities. Rather, they are looking for an excuse to attack."
Now, Bush is under fire for the reason for the invasion of Iraq (from here):
"[Keith] Olbermann [from MSNBC] played two current quotes to mock President Bush: "First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said, at least I know I didn't say, that there was a direct connection between the September 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was the state sponsor of terror." A second Bush soundbite followed up the first clip: "I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America."
Olberman has no tape to show Bush in fact saying that Hussein knew of or plotted 9/11, because there is none.
"His principal argument was by counting proximity of words in Presidential speeches, with no regard to the context. Bush used the words "Iraq" and "Al Qaeda" or "Saddam" and "9/11" within ten or twenty words of each other X number of times, so how can Bush claim he wasn't saying that?" Although this website claims that "This argument is idiotic on the face of it." I think its actually a pretty good argument.
Al Franken makes a similar argument in his book The Truth. He argues that members of the Bush administration used the words Saddam and Osama and 9/11 and Iraq together frequently. So frequently, that by the time the Republican National Convention rolled around, the whole focus was on Iraq. This is shown in his statistics on Word Frequency in Major Republican National Convention Speeches, (this is on page 56...if you love the book as much as I do) Bush mentions Saddam/Iraq 18 times, terror(ism/ists) 16 times, 9/11 4 times, and Osama 0 times. The total count for all the speakers mentioned it this count (McCain, Giuliani, Laura Bush, Schwarzenegger, Cheney, Zell Miller, George Pataki, and Bush) Saddam/Iraq was mentioned 62 times, terror(ism/ists) 79 times, 9/11 mentioned 37 times, and Osama mentioned ONCE. Now, okay don't get me wrong here, terrorism is bad...and Saddam did kill a lot of people, but we were attacked by OSAMA ON 9/11. Iraq did nothing!!! and Bush, now claiming that he never said they were related, is left without a reason for invading a country that didn't attack us. and many more people are asking: why the hell are we in Iraq??
posted by Ellie @ 9:11 PM
1 Comments:
At 4/01/2006 02:46:00 PM,
Jeremy said…
What infuriates me is that progressives on our side are accused of distracting or hampering the "war on terror." So - because we're concerned about the lack of attention on nations that actually have terrorist connections, the lack of attention toward bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Afghanistan and Iran, and the fact that we think going into Iraq had nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism, we're considered the ones who are distracting? Could you imagine, for one second, if Clinton proposed the deal with Dubai go through? Holy shit.
Just look at Bush's press conference from the other day when he was asked about invading Iraq. He referred to Sept 11th four times, and the Taliban once...when he was asked about IRAQ!
Then he seems baffled when people persist in asking why he keeps linking 9/11 to Iraq. What a joke.
Post a Comment
<< Home