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: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.


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. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.

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: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had thoseweapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.

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's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.

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, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.

Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations
richer.

Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government.People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.

Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.

Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.

Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.

Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.

Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.

Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.

Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.

Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.

Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.

Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.

Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.

Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.

Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.

Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.

Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.

Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.

Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.

Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.

Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of Patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.

Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.

Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.

Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets, I mean the Russians, are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an
enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.

Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?

Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.

Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.

Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works.
Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.

Good night, Daddy.

Nice.

Simplistic.

I don't like oversimplification...

Simplistic, I agree, but some of the inconsistancies highlighted should make one think further.


P.S. The answer to all the questions is pragmatism/national interest/realpolitik. Just mix and match as required.

Of course, Mouse - I'm not saying there isn't much food for thought in the inconsistencies, but I like to think I'm informed and intelligent enough to figure those out myself in stead of having to be lead through them by the hand like a baby. ;)

What a bright kid. ;)

C

Damn those pesky english homophones!

Just mentioning it because your english is so good and I'm just jealous!!

;)

Unfortunately, I believe all of us have seen enough of the dogmatic "black and white" type viewpoints to realise that sometimes it's only by breaking down complex concepts into simple statements that you can encourage certain factions to "think outside the box" as it were.

As for you Mel, you can probably think outside the tesseract :D

ROFL. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] Only killing Castro will free Cuba. Period. I'll agree that we should be down there economically raping it for all its worth -- just like the Germans/French did in Iraq, but in this instance my country took the (correct) moral stance. While it fails to do this in every instance, I won't falter in my support when it does. As for damning the US for its policy with Cuba, you try picking up Cuba's castoff trash for a while, and then I'll listen to you. Maybe Elian can visit YOU for a week. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

If you really gave a damn about Cuba, you'd hate Castro every bit as much as US policy does. If I EVER meet a Cuban who feels differently I'll reconsider this, but the hatred for Castro is no greater than among every single Cuban I know.

[ 09-16-2003, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Along about here, I start getting pissed off. $43 Million in foreign aid being thrown in our face? When it's such a small amount that it'd be a damned nuissance to ferret it out of the billions in foreign aid we give. This proves absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Well oh Subtitled One, it's not good enough to find out what you're referring to here - help me out! [img]smile.gif[/img]
Read through my post thrice and I can't find anything - I feel stupid!

Edit: Doh, nevermind! In my defence, it was just a typo, I was thinking of the whole verb, not about the metal type! :D
(if you're talking about lead, that is...)

Editedit: Oh and Dave, absolutely agree with you there. [img]smile.gif[/img] Hadn't considered it that way yet...

[ 09-16-2003, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

Nice story or should I say FAQ. [img]smile.gif[/img]

That was what I was talking about! :D Sorry!!

No offense, but even if there are bits of 'sanity' among the rest, this sort of things usually just annoys me. Simplistic covers it, I guess, but also there's the nagging feeling that in an attempt to prove a point, people who use such methods of delivery are also trying for the 'my side is so very innocent' look and it wears thin after a while as in politics I've rarely seen one side be blameless in anything.

Besides, I could swear I saw something similar on the net a few months ago only it was a 'bedtime story' or somesuch...kinda trite, IMO.

Very funny! Reminds me of the old bible saying about the virtue of seeing the world through the eyes of a child.

That's just it, unless I missed my guess it's all contrived...ie: it's a fake. ;) If a REAL child had said all that, I'd be surprised, but also impressed.

That's just it, unless I missed my guess it's all contrived...ie: it's a fake. ;) If a REAL child had said all that, I'd be surprised, but also impressed. </font>[/QUOTE]I see your point. [img]smile.gif[/img]

For an adult to try to see things in a innocent, child-like manner takes a stretch of the imagination and an openess to to percieve things differently. This becomes more challenging as a person ages and the more entrenched one becomes in opinion and belief.

That's just it, unless I missed my guess it's all contrived...ie: it's a fake. ;) If a REAL child had said all that, I'd be surprised, but also impressed. </font>[/QUOTE]I see your point. [img]smile.gif[/img]

For an adult to try to see things in a innocent, child-like manner takes a stretch of the imagination and an openess to to percieve things differently. This becomes more challenging as a person ages and the more entrenched one becomes in opinion and belief. </font>[/QUOTE][img]smile.gif[/img] Well, as I said, I see this piece as contrived and lacking that 'innocence'. It 'feels' too much like a set up to arrive at the 'necessary' conclusions on the whole, that's all. [img]smile.gif[/img] LOL, I'm critiquing the style and attempted 'effect' it appears to be meant to confer on readers.

Here, here. What a great post.

<font color=cadetblue>Great post. I found it quite interesting. Makes you think...</font>

True but is not all humor contrived? This *is* a humor piece after all, at the expense of U.S. foreign policy. It has the same political impact as perhaps the Daily Show or a funny political cartoon. Not much, but enough to make a point(s).

I wonder though... if the conversation were between an alien visitor to the planet and an earthling, rather than a father/child if the humor and political impact would be any different. Hmmmm.

I find this FAQ funny just because the answers are completly ridiculous. What the main point the FAQ states is that the countries are bad if they aren't friends with the U.S. Doesn't anyone else find this FAQ just really stupid instead of funny.

[ 09-16-2003, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

<font color=cadetblue>No.</font>

"You're either with U.S. or against U.S."

Does that sound familiar?

"You're either with U.S. or against U.S."

Does that sound familiar? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes it does. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Oh and i don`t find this FAQ stupid.

"You're either with U.S. or against U.S."

Does that sound familiar? </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly, Skunk and that's the point the FAQ makes. Not every country against the U.S. is evil. I'm aware that guys find this FAQ amusing but I don't.

[ 09-17-2003, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Gab ]

I have seen this one before and I was impressed rather than amused. T

The author has taken a great deal of care to try to lead Joe Average - rather than Mr Intellectual, through foreign policy to point out its illogical justifications - and he/she utilises a logical approach to do so.

It's an interesting exercise if nothing else.

Truly did the Indian say that White Man speaks with forked tongue. Its not that these people have no memory; the sad truth is that they have no conscience, no sense of moral or ethical responsibility, and no respect for the people they were elected to lead. There is a famine of leadership in this land. May God have mercy on our grand-children.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec,
5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he
is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???

I agree with you on the first part, especially since our grandkids will be paying off the, so far, 140+ billion dollars we have spent on Bush's Iraq adventure.

Now here are some interesting quotes on the administration's changing views on Iraq & 9/11:
Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4, 2002

(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now in truth the neocons have been ready to roll into Iraq since the mid 90's. When 9/11 happened it was only by a bare margin that we attacked Afganistan before Iraq. A good read about how close we came to taking Iraq first is Bob Woodward's "Bush at War".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now the administration is changing it's tune:

Rumsfeld sees no link between 9/11 and Iraq
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Robert Burns

Sept. 16, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld was asked about a poll that indicated nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved.

"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that," Rumsfeld said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rice: U.S. Never Said Saddam Was Behind 9/11
Tue September 16, 2003 09:34 PM ET
By Randall Mikkelsen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on Tuesday the Bush administration had never accused Saddam Hussein of directing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

Her statement, in an interview recorded for broadcast on ABC's "Nightline," came despite long-standing administration charges the ousted Iraqi leader was linked to the al Qaeda network accused of the Sept. 11 attacks.

This quote here is my favorite:
"We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11," Rice said when asked about the public perception of a link.

I guess since they took the one teneous link and stretched it to the breaking point they have decided to disavow all knowledge of their own actions.

[ 09-17-2003, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

Just found this editorial thought it would be an even better rebuttal to John's post:
Editorial: Truth / Too little of it on Iraq

Published September 17, 2003 ED17

Dick Cheney is not a public relations man for the Bush administration, not a spinmeister nor a political operative. He's the vice president of the United States, and when he speaks in public, which he rarely does, he owes the American public the truth.

In his appearance on "Meet the Press" Sunday, Cheney fell woefully short of truth. On the subject of Iraq, the same can be said for President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. But Cheney is the latest example of administration mendacity, and therefore a good place to start in holding the administration accountable. The list:

• Cheney repeated the mantra that the nation ignored the terrorism threat before Sept. 11. In fact, President Bill Clinton and his counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke, took the threat very seriously, especially after the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000. By December, Clarke had prepared plans for a military operation to attack Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, go after terrorist financing and work with police officials around the world to take down the terrorist network.

Because Clinton was to leave office in a few weeks, he decided against handing Bush a war in progress as he worked to put a new administration together.

Instead, Clarke briefed national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Cheney and others. He emphasized that time was short and action was urgent. The Bush administration sat on the report for months and months. The first high-level discussion took place on Sept. 4, 2001, just a week before the attacks. The actions taken by the Bush administration following Sept. 11 closely parallel actions recommended in Clarke's nine-month-old plan. Who ignored the threat?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: