It's simple bandwagon politics guys. First everyone jumps on, then everyone jumps off. Some, like Cheney, get confused as to how far on or off they are at the moment. That's all.

But, good links and articles. Thanks. Looks like these days, for every opinion, there is a newspaper assuring its truth. ;)

Ain't that the truth! I had been unaware before that Clinton had drawn up plans for attacking Afganistan, but held off due to Bush being elected. Makes me wonder how things might have been different if Gore had won. As I have the feeling he would have pressed forward with Clinton's plan and might have actually prevented 9/11 from happening.

*shrugs*
Of course it's simplistic and at certain points incomplete and "unfair", but not outrageously so. The idea behind it is not to state a "truth", it's to use satire and tongue-in-cheek humour to show the somewhat absurd and inconsistent nature of the logic regarding the pro-Iraqi war position from a certain (albeit limited) perspective; its purpose is to stimulate people to think about it, discuss its contents, and not necessarily to ridicule - in fact, I think that if anyone letting such an "F.A.Q." get to him/her in the first place to a point beyond plain annoyance, perhaps a little self-exploration about his/her exact point of view to strengthen one's confidence about the subject isn't completely unwelcome - as some people nonetheless still seem to cling to rather simplistic reasoning and keep falling back on the rather cliched and downtrodden paths of (counter-)arguments* that were already generally considered to be weak from way back before the war. Just look upon satire as a simplistic mirror to the truth, but still a mirror inspiring you to reflect upon your opinions nonetheless. ;)


<font size=0>* This goes for both sides of the matter, naturally. I can't say I'm very eager to respect a "leftie" who can't name any anti-war motives other than "Dubya iz dumb and evil huhuh" and "they only do it for the oil", either. http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...ons/icon37.gif </font>

Riiight. About that bridge I'm selling....

Of course, but which opinion peddler is using the facts , or should I say twisting the facts the least to assert "it's" truth.

Anyone can come up with an opinion, but actually backing that opinion up with substance made of facts is an entirely different matter. ;)

As this thread demonstrates, I think you can take true facts, mix and mold and bend them, and present them as evidence of whatever you please. ;)

Maybe I'm just cynical since this is exactly what I do for a living. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

I'll give you cynical, because frankly the alternative is unworthy of your sheepskin ;)
Shall we examine the rebuttal offered by Rokenn, I know let's play court you be the judge TL:

My estemed opposition would like you to believe the 140+ billion is a hardship an unworthy of being spent Vs the 750+ billion spent on education in this years budget THE highest amount per student in the world to only be in the middle of academic testing.


First off objection your honor hearsay! My estemed opposition offers up at best sighting an unnamed aide in a news story, a source of dubious origin given his well documented objections to other news sources as proof. Unless my estemed opposition is prepared to give well documented reason as to why the news service he sighted should be given any more weight then say FOX news. Please note words from artical
"Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld. the artical plays CYA with it's self.

(I await your decision your honor) ;)

Second objection highly prejududicial! Donald Rumsfeld is the Sec. of Defense of the USA it is he's job to call for plans any and all plans, taking into account many different possiblities. I offer up a quote inclued in my estemed opposition's news source, provided your honor overrules my first objection.

"With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

Notice the words "Not only UBL" words convenatly left out of my estemed opposition's remarks. So Rumsfled was looking at several posibilties, part of his job as Sec. of Defense of the USA not just the one my estemed opposition puts forth. For further back up I again quote from the artical
"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Third objection Calls for a conculsion based on facts not in evidence! and I quote again from the artical:
"Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld." On what basis is the writer qualified to assertain wether or not "that didn't matter to Rumsfeld." was the writer there or is he relying soley on the unnamed aide's notes?

Objection Your Honor! Highly prejudcial Mr Woodward has made his name, and fortune based on attacking government officals predomintly Republican Presidents Mr Woodward can not be considered unbiased by any strech of the imagination.

Objection Your Honor! Calls for an conculsion based on facts not in evidence, my estemed opposition has not even offered one piece of evidence as to where the President Bush administration has stated that SH was involved in the attacks of 9/11.

Objection your Honor! Highly prejudicial, Calls for a conclusion based on facts not in evidence. My estemed opposition has not provided any evidence as to where the administration of President Bush or any ranking member of said administration has stated anything other then SH had ties with the Al Qaeda terrorist network. No quotes of anyone or dates they made the statements that could easly be searched for. His only source that stretched very thinly might come close is an unnamed aide taken at a very chaotic and emotional time. And I quote
"At 9:53 a.m., just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the Pentagon, and while Rumsfeld was still outside helping with the injured, the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden's operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.

The caller said he had "heard good news" and that another target was still to come; an indication he knew another airliner, the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania, was at that very moment zeroing in on Washington.

It was 12:05 p.m. when the director of Central Intelligence told Rumsfeld about the intercepted conversation.

Rumsfeld felt it was "vague," that it "might not mean something," and that there was "no good basis for hanging hat." In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden.

But later that afternoon, the CIA reported the passenger manifests for the hijacked airliners showed three of the hijackers were suspected al Qaeda operatives.

"One guy is associate of Cole bomber," the notes say, a reference to the October 2000 suicide boat attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, which had also been the work of bin Laden.

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden."

Nowhere does my estemed opposition state the administration of President Bush claimed that Sodam Hussein was responsible for 9/11! Not one single quote.
I move for an immediate dismisal of my estemed opposition's case, having failed to prove his case. A case based on hearsay and highly prejudcial opinion. Vs my quotes of the actual words of the speaker and the date spoken, facts that can easily be checked through any nexxus search provided anyone bothers to take the time. And move for an immediate verdict in my favor. ;)

[ 09-18-2003, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

A differant version:
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction, honey.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: That's one of the reasons stated by President Bush, along with ties to Al Qaeda, and Sodam Hussein was a brutal dictator that trutured and killed his own people.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. And since none of us are members of the intellegence community or are in on any briefings given by the intellegence community, we don't really know yet what they have found or not found.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, they had been used several times before against the Iranians and the Kurds in wars, and the Shite in the souh claim to have been gased also.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A:Lord only knows

Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?
A: It doesn't make sense to gas your own people either honey, but Sodam Hussein ordered it anyway in the late 1980's.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well honey, that doesn't matter They claimed they had them for years, and had a history of using them. And in the last round of inspections they were found to have several other types of weapons that they were not supossed to have, missles with a range greater then the allowed range, artilery shell capitable of carring chemical and biological weapons. So they showed that they were not honest and had tried to hide things they weren't supossed to have.

Q: But why would it matter if they only said they had the weapons.
A: Well honey, let's say when your are grown up you work at a bank, you're a teller. There has been several bank robbers by a man wearing a bozo the clown mask, in two of the robbers the robber shot a teller. A man walks into your bank wearing a bozo the clown mask and hands you a note saying it's a robbery and he has a gun, but you don't see the gun. Now remember a man wearing a bozo the clown mask has robbed several banks before. acording to the law if a robber states he has a gun then it is considered armed robbery even if he doesn't have a gun.

Q: Why is that Daddy?
A: Well, if the teller had to wait until the gun was shown to them they could be killed, but remember saying you have gun even if you don't is considered to be the same. It is the same with the weapons that Sodam Hussein claimed to have.

Q: But daddy didn't we sell him weapons?
A: We sold him some wepons yes, along with other countries, infact several other counties sold him many more weapons then we did, two largest weapons sellers sold him nearly 70% of his weapons.

Q: What counties are those Daddy?
A: Well I could tell you but the rules of this board might consider it country bashing, so I'll leave it up to you to find out for yourself, how much and what kinds of weapons they sold him. (*HINT* what kind of tanks and airplanes did the Iraqis have? Which countries sold them mobile labs)

Q: But daddy I'm just a child why should I have to look it up for myself?
A: Because you should find out for yourself what the real facts are and not just take somebody's word for it.

Q:Why should I find out for myself and not take somebodies word for it, when you said that saying you have a gun durring a roberry is the same as having one, and waiting to be shown the gun could be very bad?
A: Good question, there is a differance between words to find out the truth and words of threat, but you will have to decide for yourself if you are going to find out or not.

Good night, Daddy. [/QB][/QUOTE]

"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed almost all of what they had in the summer of 1991,"
Hans Blix, Interview 16Sep03

"They were convinced that Saddam was going in this direction and I think it is understandable against the background of the man. <u>But in the Middle Ages people were convinced there were witches. They looked for them and they certainly found them.</u>

This is a bit risky. I think we were more judicious, saying we want to have real evidence."
Hans Blix

Objection Your Honor! Highly prejudcial Mr Woodward has made his name, and fortune based on attacking government officals predomintly Republican Presidents Mr Woodward can not be considered unbiased by any strech of the imagination.
[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]How typical of a conservative to dismiss an investigative work they disagree with just becuase they do not like the arthor. If you had bothered to do even the most cursory look at the book in question you would have found that MR Woodward was given direct access to Bush and his advisor when writing this book and also given free access to meeting notes from the White House as well.

From Amazon.com: