Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Iraq became a key military front in the war against terror. We don't know the full extent of Zarqawi's travels. We don't know the full extent of who he talked to or who gave him aid and assistance. All we can rely on is intel, the same kind of Intel that proved wrong regarding WMD in Iraq. You can not prove any points regarding Zarqawi, all we can do is speculate based on published Intel that may be right or wrong.
It seems you want me to say that Bush lied. I can not do it, nothing you have posted shows that he lied.
Why not show me how I am wrong. Isn't that the point of an exchange like this? I hope I am wrong. I don't spend a lot of time listening to Obama speeches, I did watch the debates, and he clearly said he would withdraw the troops unconditionally......
|
ace, I know you "can not do it"....that is why we go over this, again and again.
One more time, you asked what was wrong with "the data" in your IBD editorial I explained it to you...it's in the 2002 line item....you last posted some qualification that has nothing to do with that 2002 propaganda centerpiece:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IBD Editorial
2002
October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government.
|
Again. ace....there is no basis for that "
perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government." ....but the IBD editorialist inserted it in there, anyway. It just happened to be Bush and Cheney's LEAD justification for invading Iraq, and for "staying the course in Iraq".
How do I know it's bullshit, ace? Because the senate select committee on intelligence found that it was not fact based, and the later Pentagon report, both documented in my second to last post here, says the same thing.
How do I know Mr. Bush lied about it? I know ace, because he could not back his four years of false statements, saying al Zarqawi had "realtions" with Saddam and his government....an assertion Bush said was a prime reason to invade Iraq and to remove Saddam his government, and neither could his press secretary back the statement, when he was asked, just 22 days after the last time that Bush said it:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
Press Conference by the President
August 21, 2006.
the President:...... who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html
Press Gaggle Spetember 12, 2006
.....Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?
MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.
Q There was a link --
MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.
Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?
MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it. ....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html
Press Conference by the President September 15, 2006
Watch the video: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/15/bush-zarqawi-iraq/
THE PRESIDENT:....Martha.
Q Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And, yet, a month ago you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?
THE PRESIDENT: The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship. .....
|
So Bush himself could not back his own accusation....he demonstrated that it was empty, misleading bullshit, a twist of the truth for four long years, and....he has never said it again....since that August 21, 2006 quote.
I've shown you, ace, that a key piece of IBD editorial "data" was wrong, key because Bush and Cheney used that very same reference about Zarqaqi to justify taking out Saddam and "fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here, and I've shown you that Bush and his press secretary could not back up Bush's longstanding, al Zarqawi accusation....and I've noted that Bush has never said it again.
But you need more, ace....more than Bush on video, folding his Zarqawi "card", in response to this line from Martha Raddatz:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martha Raddatz 09-15-06
A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by the President 08-21-06
......Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?
THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East. .......
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by the President 09-15-06
The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship. .....
|
But he had said that there was "a relationship", just the way IBD snuck it in your editorial ace...he said it over and over, see my second to last post....and when he didn't clearly say it, he implied it.....
Why ace, haven't you and IBD folded your Zarqawi "card"?
This persuades me that there is nothing that could convince you that Bush lied and that 2002 portion of the IBD editorial is intentionally misleading bullshit.