Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Iraq/Al Quaeda connection -- THIS is what galls me!

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Iraq/Al Quaeda connection -- THIS is what galls me!
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Iraq/Al Quaeda connection -- THIS is what galls me!
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
You are not supposed to remember. How can people get

In reply to: Iraq/Al Quaeda connection -- THIS is what galls me!

their principled message out if they are hobbled by what they've said in the past? It's not fair to hold the past against them. It kind of reminds you of the Mad Hatter doesn't it?

Collapse -
I wouldn't say Mad Hatter, Kiddpeat...

In reply to: You are not supposed to remember. How can people get

Kiddpeat, I wouldn't say Mad Hatter, I'd say Humpty Dumpty---"When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more or less.".
You have seen it with the word "torture". Now, with the coming Supreme Court nomination, watch the Democrats "Humpty Dumpty" words like "extreme", "radical", "fundamentalist".
Of course, we're all familiar with the Canadian Caterpillars, "What do you mean by that?" said the Caterpillar, sternly. "Explain yourself!".

Collapse -
and the infinitely elastic...

In reply to: I wouldn't say Mad Hatter, Kiddpeat...

extraordinary circumstances.

Wink

Collapse -
Is it possible that

In reply to: Iraq/Al Quaeda connection -- THIS is what galls me!

someone might think that something was going to happen ''soon''(as in not tomorrow, but maybe next month)

There has been some debate over how ''imminent'' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated.

By my count, that's four references to September 11 in just three paragraphs, as rendered by Rockefeller's own Senate website. And there, in the final paragraph of that passage, Rockefeller says something the Bush administration managed to avoid saying: that Iraq posed an imminent threat.


im

Collapse -
What's your point?

In reply to: Is it possible that

The left has been whining and calling Bush a liar for things he DIDN'T say. He NEVER tied Saddam directly to 9-11, although there is ancillary evidence. Yet he is accused of lying for doing so by the very same Democrats (Rockefeller being the subject of this piece, but Kerry also as the Democrat candidate pops to front of mind) that DID make a connection. Bush has never used "iminent threat" -- rather that we should do something BEFORE -- yet has been called a liar by the same ones that DID use that EXACT terminology.

Seems you are defending Bush from the unfounded attacks from the hypocritical left. Say it ain't so!

Collapse -
Response

In reply to: What's your point?

Is it possible that someone might think that something was going to happen ''soon''(as in not tomorrow, but maybe next month).

Many of the words I underlined (sudden, urgent, clear evidence of peril, waiting is the riskiest of options) in my first post all indicate a sense of urgency.

And NO Bush didn't say iminent.

Almost every other syllable for iminent but, he didn't say iminent.
Collapse -
Still, what's your point?

In reply to: Response

Did you read my article in its entirety? It was the DEMOCRATS (Rockefeller specifically) that DID say IMMINENT and make the direct connection to 9-11 they now attack Bush for. Do try to follow along OK?

Collapse -
Response

In reply to: Still, what's your point?

Some could some away with the believe that something was iminent.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Like the Democrats said directly?

In reply to: Response

Collapse -
I think Bush wanted to convey that a time could be comming

In reply to: Response

That things could be imminent. By 'tommorrow', for example, he wasnt being literal but figurative. He wanted to act before things were imminent.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) (maybe cuz his writer knew he CAN'T say ''imminent'')

In reply to: Response

Collapse -
So now Bush ...

In reply to: (NT) (maybe cuz his writer knew he CAN'T say ''imminent'')

... "lied" because he DIDN'T say imminent? Now this is special! ... NOT Sad

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Only commenting on his famous speech impedidement.

In reply to: So now Bush ...

Collapse -
Being petty then ...

In reply to: (NT) Only commenting on his famous speech impedidement.

... I thought it was the pronunciation of nuclear you guys liked to pick on most. You can't have it both ways. If he didn't use the term then to accuse him of lying FOR using it is dishonest at best. I notice neither you nor JP addressed the fact that Democrats (chief among the Bush bashers over this issue at that) DID use the term and make the connection.

Ah but don't let me get in the way of any good opportunity to bash the President.

Sad

Collapse -
well with jp being ashamed of his queen

In reply to: Being petty then ...

and bob being a naysayer they need to pick on there betters.
but let them have there fun.

remember they said kerry was smarter:D

is it 08 yet ?
they work for us

Collapse -
Interesting...

In reply to: (NT) Only commenting on his famous speech impedidement.

Interesting, in Jimmy Carter it's an accent, but in Bush it's a "speech impedidement".
If that's the case, is it now acceptable to make comments on a person's speech disability? Or just Republicans, or just politicials? Just curious as to what the rules are for comment on disabilities.

Collapse -
The rule when it comes to Bush...

In reply to: Interesting...

is "Don't think; just bash".

Collapse -
C'mon. Can you picture him saying the word "imminent"?

In reply to: The rule when it comes to Bush...

The odds have got to be at least 50% that he'd screw it up.

Collapse -
That's just childish Bob

In reply to: C'mon. Can you picture him saying the word "imminent"?

And he DID say the word in the SOTU address he was so widely misquoted from by the likes of Rockefeller.

Collapse -
Well, Duh!

In reply to: That's just childish Bob

Of course it is. Ain't I a stinker? Y'all wearing out whether or not he used the word is very much researchable. Yust a little fun.

Collapse -
The deliberate misrepresentation ...

In reply to: Well, Duh!

... of what the President did and didn't say has LONG since gone past the point of funnin'. Sorry Bob.

Got anything to say about the initial topic of this post? As in what Rockefeller SAID and is saying now?

Didn't think so ...

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Consider the source

In reply to: That's just childish Bob

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) just your sour grapes again

In reply to: C'mon. Can you picture him saying the word "imminent"?

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) You do have a point? Bush's actions are called prudent.

In reply to: Is it possible that

Collapse -
I think Saddam knew Zarqawi was in

In reply to: Iraq/Al Quaeda connection -- THIS is what galls me!

the country and that Saddam adopted a hands off policy. This was from a think tank (Manhatten, I think) which had a huge amount of material marking Zarqawis movements.

Collapse -
Zarqaqi didn't announce his support for and allegiance

In reply to: I think Saddam knew Zarqawi was in

or whatever to Al Qaeda until nearly a year after the invasion. Nobody thought Zarqawi was connected to Al Quaeda at that time. All the indications from American and British sources before the war were that S. Hussein was totally hostile to Al Quaeda and tried to root it out in Iraq as a potential rival. That's what I remember from the post 9/11 period.

Rob

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Do you remember Rockefeller's remarks?

In reply to: Zarqaqi didn't announce his support for and allegiance

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) You remember wrong.

In reply to: Zarqaqi didn't announce his support for and allegiance

Collapse -
I thought the 9/11 Commision

In reply to: Iraq/Al Quaeda connection -- THIS is what galls me!

Proved the Iraq/Al Quaeda connection

Collapse -
Evie, Al-Qaeda and bn Laden despised Saddam

because he made Iraq into a secular society where women had equal rights with men (such as those rights were...) Not the sort of "glorious society" Al Qaeda wanted to build, as in Afghanistan, where women couldn't receive education or even medical care (minor catch 22 -- it was immoral for male doctors to treat women not their wives, and it was immoral for there to be women doctors. They fact that this meant no health care for women was just a tragic byproduct of following Allah's will -- yeah, right).

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

GIVEAWAY

Enter to win* a free holiday tech gift!

CNET's giving five lucky winners the gift of their choice valued up to $250!