Has the Bush Doctrine failed?

[Hippikos]

Only liars say that the Administration blames Saddam for 9/11

This is what Richard Clarke told what happen moments after 9/11:

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Bush has mentioned 9/11 and Saddam many, many times in such way that the majority of the US public believed Saddam was involved. Suggestion can do a lot.

Furthermore Woodward wrote in his book "Bush on War": already on September 17, six days later, Mr. Bush affirmed, "I believe Iraq was involved, but I'm not going to strike them now."

Whoz pantz are on fire now?

[Undertoad]

The military is as strong as it has ever been. We have the draft discussion every six months for the last few years and everyone who has brought it up is still wrong.

Jackie's kid was not accepted into the Navy this year, to do machinist type work, because he's weak on advanced algebra. That's the level of selectivity they have.

Also, only liars say that the Administration blames Saddam for 9/11. Nothing I've seen in the thread so far disputes that, especially without cites.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Also, only liars say that the Administration blames Saddam for 9/11. Nothing I've seen in the thread so far disputes that, especially without cites.

They're very deliberate in their parsing, saying that Saddam didn't "order" 9-11. They'll say something conflating Iraq and 9-11, a reporter will call them on it, and they'll say they never claimed that Saddam "ordered" 9-11.

Technically accurate, perhaps.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Also, only liars say that the Administration blames Saddam for 9/11. Nothing I've seen in the thread so far disputes that, especially without cites.

The president made that association in his State of the Union address. Then why did we attack Iraq? Oh. President did not take back that Saddam / bin Laden alliance accusation until long after Baghdad fell. Meanwhile Cheney kept insisting Saddam was complicit in 11 September. It was a rare time the President and Vice President publicly said different.

UT, you deny what Richard Clarke wrote in his book?

US military was not meeting recruiting quotas. So they increased number of recruiters and lowered standards. That change has been widely reported. If the army's basic (not advanced) algebra is too difficult, then the kid will need remedial math in a junior college. How did he even get out of high school? It is a growing problem cited recently in the New York Times on 2 September 2006:

At 2-Year Colleges, Students Eager but Unready
Because he had no trouble balancing his checkbook, he took himself for a math wiz. But he could barely remember the Pythagorean theorem and had trouble applying sine, cosine and tangent to figure out angles on the geometry questions.

Sines, cosines, and Pythagorean theorem are not advanced math. It is basic (eigth grade) math. The army was not asking him to solve multiple equations of multiple variables. If rejected for math, then he does not have what should be miminally necessary to graduate high school. He could have chosen infantry - no problem getting into today's army with lower standards. One need not even graduate high school. A machinist stays in green zones. That skill can remain selective. But the army's standards were lowered. The alternative was selective service.

[Undertoad]

The Navy requires advanced algebra. The lad has a learning disability partly due to the fact that he was born very prematurely and has advanced and chronic ADHD. He graduated from one of the very best public high schools in the area. He does not want to be an Army infantryman. He wants to be a Navy machinist.

There are four major branches of the US military. Perhaps the information you've been reading is only about one branch so that it can maintain the spin you like.

I dispute what Richard Clarke wrote in his book.

Only liars say that the Administration blames Saddam for 9/11. Nothing I've seen in the thread so far disputes that, especially without cites.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I dispute what Richard Clarke wrote in his book.

So did the White House spokesman when interviewed live on ABC Nightly News. I believe it was Jennings himself who did the interview. That spokesman denied the Richard Clarke conversation. Then Jennings (?) said ABC News had direct confirmation from a US Military officer who was right there and confirmed that same Richard Clark account. Suddenly the White House stopped denying that Richard Clarke conversation.

You can deny it all you want. It goes to your bias. That Richard Clarke testimony is fact AND was confirmed by ABC News from a military officer who was right there when that conversation occurred.

Why would one deny that Richard Clarke conversation? It exposes this president for the liar he really is. Others have trouble with reality when their political agenda is more important than reality. So they deny.

Deny that Richard Clark account all you want. Facts even from ABC News caused the White House to stop denying that conversation. As I recall, it was a live interview. The ABC News reporter was blunt when he stated the conversation was confirmed; causing the White House spokesman then stop talking completely. You could see it in his face - like a deer caught in the headlights.

You cannot be true to yourself and deny that Richard Clarke / George Jr conversation. It represents the George Jr agenda – as defined previously for so many reasons. Extremists liars – also called gun slingers - wanted anything to connect Saddam to 11 September. Any claim to the contrary is nothing more than classic Rush Limbaugh brainwashing. Or do you also believe Armstrong never walked on the moon?

UT, you cannot be honest to yourself and deny that Richard Clarke account. It is a fact that basic and irrefutible. Even the White House reaction - the silence - after that ABC News interview confirms that conversation was correct. But then who do you believe? Clarke who has a good record of honesty - or the White House that lies repeatedly for a political extremist agenda. It says much about your own biases; what you will do to deny George Jr is a liar.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I don't know why tw can't acknowledge this -- probably because it's me telling him, and he'll sell himself to avoid agreeing with me -- but it's still true that there is no real international terrorism without nations as sponsors, and what do the unfriendly regimes do? Sanctuaries, funding, training -- support for terrorists as a means of war by proxy. Exactly what Iraq did, as history shows, and tw won't read. That Iraq mostly did this to attack our friends of late, and not us directly, is really just a quibble.

[Undertoad]

Only liars say that the Administration blames Saddam for 9/11. Nothing I've seen in the thread so far disputes that, especially without cites.

And when I say cites, interpretations of facial expressions don't count.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Only liars say that the Administration blames Saddam for 9/11. Nothing I've seen in the thread so far disputes that, especially without cites.

And when I say cites, interpretations of facial expressions don't count.

While it is true that they never said 'Saddam ordered 9-11', until recently Cheney was still pushing an Iraq-AlQaeda link.

So we have to work on a definition of 'blames Saddam for 9-11'. Since the administrations remarks resulted in a large number of Americans making a connection, I'd say "yes".

Here is an article from 2004 Washington Post.

from caption on photo

Vice President Cheney said in a speech on Monday that Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." The Sept. 11 panel said in a report that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda

[Hippikos]

I dispute what Richard Clarke wrote in his book.

Why? Where you also in that room? Do you also dispute what Woodward wrote?

On the March 18, 2003, a day before GW2 started, President Bush made the following statement in a letter to Congress:

"Acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

This was a clear attempt to implicate Saddam's Iraq with the attack on 9/11 and to successfully convince 70% of the American public that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 "attacks".

[Hippikos]

The military is as strong as it has ever been. We have the draft discussion every six months for the last few years and everyone who has brought it up is still wrong.

US would never be able to start a new war without draft. 70% of troops in Iraq are already deployed for their third time.

[Undertoad]

Clarke is a highly partisan player and has been on both sides of the Al Qaeda/Iraq link. He has a side in this game: to show that his work as leader of the US's main counterterrorism group under Clinton was not poor and did not lead to bin Laden finding more resolve to attack the US.

Iraq's link to terror in general is not disputed. They were a terroristic state which harbored terrorists and paid terrorists. The War on Iraq, rightly or wrongly, was undertaken because of 9/11, and is linked to 9/11, but not because Hussein had anything to do with 9/11.

Despite the semantic confusion, Americans understand that. The entire "two-thirds of Americans" poll hysteria is simply that: hysteria over a little semantic confusion.

And wow, it's now turned magically into 70%. In another year it'll be 75%. Meanwhile you guys are cherry-picking items which seem to prove your point but actually don't, ignoring the bulk of what the administration said.

The bulk of what the administration said is because of 9/11, linked to 9/11, but not because Hussein had anything to do with 9/11.

Of course to hear the bulk, you have to listen carefully sometimes, because the administration is incompetent, and unable to get its message across to the public. This is partly because it is hostile to the media and partly because it only cares enough to convince 51% of the public.

[Flint]

I must not have the right kind of glasses to focus on fuzzy terms like "terroristic" . . .

[Undertoad]

A step further on that. The anti-Bush league is bent on self-destruction again.

It's not enough for Bush to have been wrong about Iraq as a way to advance the GWOT and to improve the nature of the middle east. It's not enough for the adminstration to be incompetent, they have to be evil too. The anti-Bush league is bent on determining that he lied and misled using the words that they stated out in the open and everyone in the world heard and read.

This is self-indulgent, quickly becomes very petty, is mostly about nonsense, and the voters realize that too. Last time the anti-Bush league brought out their own film full of self-indulgent criticism, and the long-term result was Bush was reelected.

It does appear to be identical to the anti-Clinton league's reprehensible behavior -- and probably is brought on by it, a sort of "our guy was a big fat liar so we need to prove your guy is an even bigger fatter liar" thing going on.

One understands why that would come about but one wishes one of the sides would suddenly decide to be an adult.

After all, now that al Qaeda has started to use some of the same talking points, I spot a really massive possible problem if the electorate happens to notice.

[Hippikos]

Clarke is a highly partisan player and has been on both sides of the Al Qaeda/Iraq link. He has a side in this game: to show that his work as leader of the US's main counterterrorism group under Clinton was not poor and did not lead to bin Laden finding more resolve to attack the US.

There are several witnesses that Bush had uttered these sentences. You are using the same tactics the White House and GOP are always using; in case someone brings the bad news, kill the messenger without asking questions. Next ask, what bad news?

Despite the semantic confusion, Americans understand that. The entire "two-thirds of Americans" poll hysteria is simply that: hysteria over a little semantic confusion.

This semantic confusion was willfully and deliberately created by the White House in order to sell the Iraq war. All these stories about contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda all proved bogus.

And wow, it's now turned magically into 70%. In another year it'll be 75%. Meanwhile you guys are cherry-picking items which seem to prove your point but actually don't, ignoring the bulk of what the administration said.

Facts are facts, Watson.

Of course to hear the bulk, you have to listen carefully sometimes, because the administration is incompetent, and unable to get its message across to the public. This is partly because it is hostile to the media and partly because it only cares enough to convince 51% of the public.

Aux contraire, the government is very good in innuendo and telling half truths in order to get the American people into a disastrous war. Before the war the Bushites never, ever denied the link 9-11/Saddam although it was all over the news. Only after a congressional investigation Bush and, reluctantly, Cheney had to admit Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

This is self-indulgent, quickly becomes very petty, is mostly about nonsense, and the voters realize that too. Last time the anti-Bush league brought out their own film full of self-indulgent criticism, and the long-term result was Bush was reelected.

That's because he played the Iraq and war on terror again. Today people finally realise that the Bush guvmint has nothing achieved to their own goals. There has never been any more terror in the world as it is now.

Bush (and you) might read this book how to really fight the war on terror:
What Terrorist Want".

"The rhetoric of declaring war on terrorism, she argues, is a mistake. Terrorism is a tactic, and thus cannot be defeated; what can be defeated, or at least contained, are individual groups of terrorists.

Thus her "Six Rules":

• Have a defensible and achievable goal, such as stopping the spread of Islamist militancy.

• Live by your principles. No more Abu Ghraibs.

• Know your enemy.

• Separate the terrorists from their communities.

• Engage others in countering terrorists with you.

• Have patience and keep your perspective.

I always said the Bush guvmint is incompetent, lied and mislead the American people. I'm not religious, so I won't say they're evil.