Magic-League.com Forum Index Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online tcg playing; casual or tournament play.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Bush Government lied in trying to link Iraq to 9/11


Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic
Author Message
Koen



Joined: 10 Mar 2004
Posts: 336

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:40 pm    Post subject: Bush Government lied in trying to link Iraq to 9/11 Reply with quote

Quote:
Vice President Cheney, Chef in Chief
By Larry Johnson
BoomanTribune.com

Monday 26 June 2006

The evidence now on the public record is overwhelming and, if we could have a jury, Vice President Dick Cheney would be found guilty of cooking the intelligence and lying us into war. Three remarkable and compelling pieces of evidence have hit the streets within the last two weeks.
...
The Administration ignored the intelligence community warnings to not use the claim that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium yellowcake in West Africa and that there was no operational relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. On both issues Vice President Cheney, President Bush, National Security Advisor Rice, and Secretary of Defense deliberately ignored the intelligence community.
...
First, we have the testimony of Col. Wikerson. According to the Colonel:

Col. Wikerson testimony wrote:
In the rehearsal and discussion sessions at Langley, the give and take was mostly the Secretary of State [Colin Powell] trying to eliminate unubstantiated and/or unhelpful material and others from the White House trying to keep that material in, or add more. One such incident occurred several times and the final time it occurred provided an example of the Secretary's growing frustration.

Repeatedly, the OVP (Office of the Vice President) or NCS staff personnel tried to insert into the presentation the alleged meeting in Prague between al-Qaeda operative and 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi intelligence personnel. Repeatedly, Secretary Powell eliminated it based on the DCI's refusal to corroborate it.

Finally, at one of the last Langley rehearsals, Secretary Powell was stopped in mid-presentation by deputy national security advisor Steve Hadley and asked what had happened to the paragraph describing the meeting in Prague. Secretary Powell fixed Hadley with a firm stare and said with some pique, "We took it out, Steve - and it's staying out."


Second, there is the Frontline piece, The Dark Side, which was first broadcast on June 20, 2006. That documentary, buttressed by the testimony of intelligence and policy officials with first hand knowledge, describe how Cheney actively
tried to subvert the intelligence process and, despite being told no evidence, continued to appear in public and boldly lie that Atta had met the Iraqis in Prague.

Third, there is the new book by Ron Suskind, The One Percent Doctrine. On pages 189-191 Suskind provides an account consistent with Col. Wilkerson's.

Ron Suskind wrote:
Cheney's office claimed to have sources. And Rumsfeld's too. They kept throwing them at [Deputy Director for Intelligence Jami Miscik] and CIA. The same information, five different ways. They'd omit that a key piece that had been discounted, that the source had recanted. Sorry, our mistake. Then it would reappear, again, in a memo the next week. The CIA held firm: the meeting in Prague between Atta and the Iraqi agent didn't occur.

Miscik was no fool. She understood what was going on. It wasn't about what was true, or verifiable. It was about a defensible position, or at least one that would hold up until the troops were marching through Baghdad, welcomed as liberators.

A few days before, when she had sent the final draft [of a report about connections between Saddam and al-qaeda] over to Libby and Hadley, she told them, emphatically, This is it. There would be no more drafts, no more meetings where her analysts sat across from Hadley, or Feith, or the guys in Feith's office, while the opposing team tied to slip something by them. The report was not what they wanted. She knew that. No evidence meant no evidence.

"I'm not going back there, again, George," Miscik said. "If I have to go back to hear their crap and rewrite this [expletive] report … I'm resigning, right now."

She fought back tears of rage.

Tenet picked up the phone to call Hadley.

"She is not coming over," he shouted into the phone. "We are not rewriting this [expletive] report one more time. It is [expletive] over. Do you hear me! And don't you ever [expletive] treat my people this way again. Ever!"

They did not re-write the report.


To call someone a liar, particularly the President and Vice President, is considered stepping over the line of public decorum. However, given the facts on the record, there is no other logical conclusion. Bush and Cheney are liars and because of their lies, Americans are dead and grievously wounded.
Back to top
Gerrardfo



Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 361

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think this could be old news- most Americans themselves believe the link to Iraq from September 11th is bogus. Of course the government lies, we're Americans!
Back to top
Kaesh



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 376

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gerrardfo wrote:
I think this could be old news- most Americans themselves believe the link to Iraq from September 11th is bogus. Of course the government lies, we're Americans!

Sorry, you can't be the martyr here. Your government still lies less than any other Sad
Back to top
GarbageDay



Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andromedea wrote:
Where are you from Koen.


It doesn't matter, what he spews is bullshit -_- As someone who leans right, even I know that Iraq had basically no link to 9/11. Does it matter, however? He never really said that there was a connection, he just said that there was WMDs in Iraq and that we're gonna take down Sadaam. BTW, if you had been keeping up with the news, we found the WMDs, the U.N. was just doing a shitty job, as always.
Back to top
GarbageDay



Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Superdood wrote:
sephiroth667 wrote:
Andromedea wrote:
Where are you from Koen.


It doesn't matter, what he spews is bullshit -_- As someone who leans right, even I know that Iraq had basically no link to 9/11. Does it matter, however? He never really said that there was a connection, he just said that there was WMDs in Iraq and that we're gonna take down Sadaam. BTW, if you had been keeping up with the news, we found the WMDs, the U.N. was just doing a shitty job, as always.


Amazing how you forgot "OSAMA BIN LADIN R IN LEEG WITH SADDAM THEY HAVE TEE PARTIEZ."

ralmfao, stupid americans.


If I was an administrator, I would have you warned several times for that. Worry about your own country's affairs or shut the fuck up. You obviously know nothing of our country outside of the lies your government tells you. If I may touche, stupid foreigners.
Back to top
iKe



Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 530
Location: New York

PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tesseract wrote:
Everyone knows, or should know...if they don't, they're simply ignorant - that our own government set up and executed 9-11. Those buildings were rigged with explosives and brought straight down, exactly like buildings that're being demolished. There were several explosions on every floor, reported by firefighters, cops and the news media, right before the buildings came down.

There's a zillion other points of evidence proving this was planned by our own country, not the al Qaeda, but I really don't feel like typing it all out.

Just go here if you're interested: It's a great site

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html



That whole site is crap. A while ago I saw this video some guy made that similar bullshit to what your saying. The pentagon thing made a little sense but go a google search and you'll find good explanation to how a plane hit it. The world trade center explanations he had were so stupid. He basically said that it was to get several billion dollars that were under the world trade center. I'm not in the mood to explain why this can't be true but you could see it for yourself if you watch the video closely... Basically it would be impossible to get whatever money it was under the circumstances of the building being hit and about second explosions it's possible though I doubt it cause you would be able to clearly see it in videos if it was true plus why crash a plane into it as well??? And if they are trying to cover it up I guess it's because they dont want people to panic more............................................

Everyone Has To Stop Hating America!!! Get Lives!!! Just Because America Is Better Than Wherever You Haters Live It doesn't Mean You Have To Complain Every Minute. I Need To Find An American Who Really Knows Politics To Post Crap About The Netherlands and Wherever You All Live.
Back to top
iKe



Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 530
Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Superdood wrote:
I think we merely intercepted how they were going to do it, and helped them along.

It's odd how Osama was 'shocked' he did so much damage. Pleased, yet shocked.

The funniest part is how he publicly declared he did not attack the USA, then a week later on TV he says he did, and he's wearing gold and writing with his right hand?

He's left handed, and it's against Islam to wear gold.

Weird stuff eh?




It does seem wierd but the Goverment/Cia or whatever is alot smarter than you are. Don't you think they're a little smarter than too mess up somthing like that??? And also who says Bin-Ladin is left handed? Who Says It's against Islamic Religion to wear gold? And even he it is how can you tell he's wearing gold in such a blurry video???
Back to top
Koen



Joined: 10 Mar 2004
Posts: 336

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sephiroth667 wrote:
It doesn't matter, what he spews is bullshit -_- As someone who leans right, even I know that Iraq had basically no link to 9/11. Does it matter, however? He never really said that there was a connection, he just said that there was WMDs in Iraq and that we're gonna take down Sadaam. BTW, if you had been keeping up with the news, we found the WMDs, the U.N. was just doing a shitty job, as always.


These quotes below prove the Bush government said there was a connection, and implied it indirectly multiple times. I also added a quote, explaining why the linking of Iraq and Al Qaeda is an important issue.

Quote:
Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 18, 2004; Page A09


President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week's finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.
...
While not explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, administration officials did, at various times, imply a link. In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
...
Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."
...
Beyond the Sept. 11 attacks, administration officials have also suggested that there had been cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda that went beyond contacts. Bush last year called Hussein "an ally of al Qaeda." Just this Monday, Cheney said Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."
...
Bush, in a February 2003 radio address, said: "Iraq has sent bombmaking and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad."


Quote:
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.

By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
...
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

According to Mr. Kull of PIPA, there is a strong correlation between those who see the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who support going to war.
Back to top
GarbageDay



Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda


Enough said. Nothing about links to 9/11, just Al Qaeda, which it has been proven there were connections.

nico, you are as ignorant as Koen is. You are obviously a kiss ass who knows nothing of politics. Stay out of a discussion you know nothing about.

If I may add this, those articles are most likely off of a liberal website. Nice try.
Back to top
ChuckNorris



Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sephiroth667 wrote:
Andromedea wrote:
Where are you from Koen.


It doesn't matter, what he spews is bullshit -_- As someone who leans right, even I know that Iraq had basically no link to 9/11. Does it matter, however? He never really said that there was a connection, he just said that there was WMDs in Iraq and that we're gonna take down Sadaam. BTW, if you had been keeping up with the news, we found the WMDs, the U.N. was just doing a shitty job, as always.


Not too sure what news you've been reading. There have been zero WMDs found in Iraq, either by UN inspectors or Coalition occupation forces. Thats a combined 4 years of searching for WMDs, and none have been found.

Aside from that the Bush administration has been changing his justification routinely whenever public opinion changes. Before the war it was to keep Saddam Hussein from acquiring WMDs and giving them to Al Qaeda. Once it became apparent that there were no WMDs in Iraq, he changed his mind suddenly, saying that we invaded just to get rid of Hussein because he was a brutal tyrant. Once the insurgency heated up and people started to realize what a stupid move this whole thing was, ol georgy boy changed his tune again and claimed we were there to protect their fledgling democracy (which soon enough will be replaced by an Islamic theocracy, regardless of our presence there.)

Superdood, there is a right and wrong in this world. Conservatives in America have proven time and time and time again that they are wrong about basically everything. The only reason they continue to win elections is because the people who are inclined to vote for them care about basically meaningless, yet highly divisive issues like abortion and gay marriage. The GOP continuously spouts this hysterical nonsense about protecting 'traditional marriage' and saving babies to keep its religious right base happy enough to keep them in power. Once they're in office, there is little they can actually do as elected officials (other than nominate/confirm court justices) about such issues, and then they proceed to mislead us into unnecessary wars, spend America into a historically massive national debt, destroy our environment, degrade our image and goodwill around the world, and ruin our public education system with utterly ineffective programs like 'No Child Left Behind.' Meanwhile, as they're creating more problems for my generation and my children's generation and my grandchildren's generation to solve, we have problems that existed previously that they're doing nothing about like the fact that 17 million Americans have no health insurance, and we have a gigantic trade deficit with China that effectively makes us a Chinese colony (we ship them our resources and money, they make the goods, we buy them, they profit, we lose manufacturing jobs.) Point to one thing that Conservatives have done that is beneficial for this country. One. Please. I can think of zero, but maybe I'm just biased. But no really. Give me one thing.
Back to top
ChuckNorris



Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Superdood wrote:
Truman dropped the A-bomb.

Real cool right? Liberals aren't always good either you know. Vaporizing 70,000 innocent women and children in an instant is not a very nice thing. At least conservatives didn't do that.


...

So your alternative is an invasion where upwards of a million Allied soldiers are killed, and countless millions more Japanese civilians die in defense of their emperor?

And Truman wasn't especially liberal. He had several strikes by steel workers' unions broken up as the war was comming to a close. Why would we need much more steel when we're on the virge of victory. Unless, of course you need replacement parts for the needless and ultimately devastating invasion of Japan.
Back to top
Koen



Joined: 10 Mar 2004
Posts: 336

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The WMD-discussion can continue here:
http://www.magic-league.com/phpBB/about3353.html

If you want to discuss the Bush government linking Iraq to Al Qaeda and 9/11 to gain support for the war on Iraq, you can reply here.
Back to top
ChuckNorris



Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Superdood wrote:
That's just what they told you isn't it? The Japanese were seeking surrender a long time ago.

Unfortunately translating Japanese to Swedish to American ended up making the negotiations an utter failure, and ended up vaporizing the innocent lives of men, women, and children.

In their customs, when people 'surrender' they allow the conquerors to rape their women and completely destroy their existence. They were fighting for their existence, have you ever had to do that? Have you ever thought you had to fight for the sheer existence of your people, that's what the Japanese thought was happening.

So please know the facts:

The Japanese did not understand what our version of surrender meant.

We dropped the bomb ALSO to show the Russians (who were already starting to get whacky after they lost over twenty million soldiers). We wanted to show the entire world "DO NOT FUCK WITH US, WE WILL VAPORIZE YOU."

Truman was still a democrat, do you think Bush is really a conservative? He's not, he's not even a christian, haha.


First of all, this is the first time in my life I have ever heard of this, so please provide some credible sources.

Second of all, would their surrender have been unconditional as the allies demanded?

Third of all, if not, then that would necessatate an allied invasion where millions on both sides would have died regardless.

The fact is that the Soviets had already overrun Japanese Manchuria and had actually began landing in Hokaido before we dropped the bomb. Had we not dropped it we very well could have had another Berlin, only this time it would be Tokyo. Twice the flashpoints, twice the danger.

The bomb, as untidy and tragic its necessity was, saved millions of lives. Were the Japanese civilians who died in the attacks innocent? Yes. But war is hell. Truman made a tough decision and the world has to live with it. Because Japan surrendered outright to the allies after the bombings we were able to rebuild their infrastructure and society to the point where it is now the world's second largest economy and is one of the most pacifist nations in the world. That never would have occured if we invaded and killed millions or if we had to split the country with the Soviets, as almost certainly would have had to happen sans the bomb.

Don't get me wrong, I think nuclear weapons are terrible and hope they're never used again. In fact the United States should be taking the lead in reducing the world's nuclear stockpile (we have 4500 warheads, which is overkill in any event). But Truman had to choose the lesser of two or three evils in this instance, and in my opinion it was the correct decision. I invite your disagreement and think this is a good discussion.
Back to top
ChuckNorris



Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay so an apparently leftist newspaper from the sixties reports on something that no other news outlet in the entire world caught wind of. Hardly seems impartial. Something more credible would be prefered.
Back to top
ChuckNorris



Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Superdood wrote:
Why would Truman a LEFTIST, be bad mouthed by LEFTISTS as you put it?

That doesn't make much sense.


As I pointed out earlier, Truman wasn't much as a leftist. If he was a leftist, why would he be interested in breaking union strikes or dropping the a-bomb in the first place?

Also there's a pretty massive difference between a 1960s leftist and a 1940s leftist.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

All content on this page may not be reproduced without consent of Magic-League Directors.
Magic the Gathering is TM and copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All rights reserved.


About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy