uber, yes....I remember that thread well....and our exchange began <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=97941&page=2">here</a>, in post #61:
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=61
In the Steve Colbert video thread, <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2055690&postcount=42">ubertuber wrote</a>:
Quote:
Glad you're here abaya - it's always nice to have different faces.
Well, to be fair he didn't JUST say "I also saw a threat in Iraq." There was some other stuff about weapons and resistance to international inspections that characterized the threat he thought he saw. And that's actually how I remember the run-up to the Iraq war. Lots of talk about 9/11, Afghanistan, and terrorism. Next to that, lots of talk about Iraq and the somewhat valid issue of non-compliance with security council resolutions. I heard lots of people arguing that the administration claimed Iraq was linked to 9/11, <b>but I never actually heard that claim from the administration outside of speculative contexts.</b> [I'm now preparing myself for an onslaught of transcripts from host. Host, if that's going to happen, let me know and let's have it in a thread devoted to that topic.]......
|
so....we'll "fight" here....so we don't have to "fight" over there......
In addition to the lie that Cheney told Gloria Borger, documented in my preceding post, above.....concerning his earlier attempt to link 9/11 "mastermind", Mohammed Atta, with Iraq, there are the following:.....
|
....and your example(s), from an exchange that was a result of what seemed like a request from you, when it took place ten months ago, influenced you to post these comments, yesterday, on this thread?:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
......but so many of your articles were not relevant to the topic or were selectively quoted (so as to be inaccurate in the context of the discussion here). There was more emphasis on volume of material than there was on relevance or quality........
|
....again, uber....your a mod, and you have "cred" here, independent of that status. I posted frequently before our May, 2006 exchange, and certainly since....
.....at least 40 percent of the linked excerpts I posted, from post #61 on, in the example that you linked, are no longer available to be viewed where they were linked to, last May.....
......In our May 2006 exchange, smooth posted last, with questions for you that you never replied to. Had I known that you would later use that exchange as an example of my deficiencies, I would not have waited for you to reply there, to respond to your criticism....
.....I regarded your skepticism about Bush and Cheney intentionally linking Saddam's Iraq to directly supporting the 9/11 attacks, as a state of mind that, coming on the heels, as it did, of Cheney vehemently lying in a broadcast video, to Gloria Borger....denying his earlier "well confirmed" statement in reference to the Atta meeting in Prague........even though that statement, was, and still is....contained in a whitehouse.gov web page, similarly to the way that I regard any political point that would reasonably be stipulated to, as fact, by parties in a political discussion where the point is relevant to the possibility of a discussion.
I anticipated that, either you were "toying" with me, or you really did require, as you later stated....quotes from Mr. Bush or Cheney that included words similar to.."the 9/11 attacks? Yeah....we know for a fact that Saddam was bin Laden's partner...." to be persuaded that the two "leaders" set out to, and had succeeded in convincing a majority (including 2/3 or more of our military, serving in Iraq...) that the US invaded Iraq, because of it's involvement in 9/11.
I responded to your skepticism by displaying, along side of your posts, my "presentation" of why I was (am) convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the effect of the Cheney/Bush Iraq propaganda, combined with the perception it implanted into the minds of the majority, at the time of the Iraq invasion, was as they intended.
I set out to create an impression that it was reasonable to conclude that Bush and Cheney knew exactly what they were doing in painting Saddam/Iraq with 9/11. I think that I did that. I think that the context of my presentation, the sheer numbers of reports and their details, was as important as the links and "one sentence" snippets that you claimed would have sufficed.
You may not think so, but I try to confine my "content rich" posts to breaking stories, and to countering opinions that "fly in the face" of the overwhelming majority of existing news reporting, if a political "incident" or situation has developed to a level, as the Cheney/Bush "iraq/9-11" linkage, certainly had...
That leaves us disagreeing about how to present, on this forum, our opinions and what influences them. We could leave it at that, but you chose to use that as an example to justify your criticism...
I stand by what I do here...what I post. I still think that your criticism of me
here, "matters", hence the detailed response. Unfortunately, I think that you have painted my "contribution" to the politics forum in a somewhat less favorable light than is warranted. I already faced challenges in making credible arguments, despite my best effort. I put my best effort into our exchange last May....and I think that you took a little bit away from my reputation, then, and a little bit more, away, here.
It was interesting to read the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=97941">first page</a> of that thread (exempting the OP, of course). After I did, it gave me the confidence to write this post, and to assert that, when it comes to writing sincere, relevant, accurate, and informative posts in this forum, I'm right up there with the best of them....