|
David_vs_Goliath
Informer


Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 208
Loc: Chicago
Last seen: 14 years, 18 days
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
#5563947 - 04/27/06 06:08 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
rumsfeld wanted to attack iraq on Sept 11th: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
Quote: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
Earlier in the thread.
-------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
|
I repeat my question.
What you provide doesn't show Rumsfeld on September 11 planning to attack Iraq, it shows Rumsfeld asking whether the available information is of high enough quality to support attacking Hussein and bin Laden at the same time. Not the same thing.
Reading comprehension is key.
As it turns out, the decision was not made to attack bin Laden and Hussein simultaneously. However -- and this seems a difficult point for some in this thread to grasp -- the fact that Hussein was eventually deposed by force by the coalition forces does not mean the motive for deposing him was a belief by the Bush adminstration that he was involved with 9/11.
Phred
--------------------
|
David_vs_Goliath
Informer


Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 208
Loc: Chicago
Last seen: 14 years, 18 days
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
#5564022 - 04/27/06 06:37 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
AHHH SO STUBRON...This is what I'm pointing out, please respond on this. Why would the government immediatly talk about striking Iraq? Just makes no sense.
(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.
That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 ? notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.
-------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
|
David_vs_Goliath
Informer


Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 208
Loc: Chicago
Last seen: 14 years, 18 days
|
|
and even better
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.
"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
*****Sweep it all up. Things related and NOT.**********
-------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
|
To repeat the obvious, your little bit of ungrammatical moronity does not quite rise to the level of exhibiting an administration assertion that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack. Do better. Thanks. You can call a pig a diamond all you want, it still can't cut glass.
--------------------
|
David_vs_Goliath
Informer


Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 208
Loc: Chicago
Last seen: 14 years, 18 days
|
|
I'm not calling a pig anything, What I am saying is that it is clear that the government used 9/11 to attack Iraq. Most people agree with this, you probley do too if i had to guess. This is just obvious proof of that after many other people speculating on the idea. good day.
-------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
|
Slooch
Lead Apprentice


Registered: 03/07/06
Posts: 246
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
|
|
I'm not gonna get into an argument with anyone here because I don't feel that its necessary.
*However I do want to speak my mind because the "flight 93" movie
There are plenty of people who are waking up to the "truth" *and what I mean is what REALLY happened that day.
The 911 commission report was severely edited and plenty of information was removed.
*Its now known that the "WMD's" that we went to war with Iraq were a COMPLETE LIE. Knowing that our government lied to us over that, what gives us any faith in what they tell us? How can we trust ANYTHING they say?
*going back to flight 93, how is it that the debris was found over 8 miles?
*There are just to many questions that need to be answered. That includes a real investigation to what happened, not done by our government, but by average people that have no connections with our government.
But obviously my position is that I don't believe my government (not after they lied to me) and I dint trust them (not after they let 4 planes hit there targets, NORAD standing down)
*I'm glad there are discussions like this, it allows people to make their points, and it brings out the truth.
-------------------- Hey Just take some time and look at this pic here, below... Its a Smile Face ON THE CAP! WHAT ARE THE CHANCES? AND THE OTHER AN 8???!!!! IS this a SIGN?
|
TheDude
is waiting forthe peak

Registered: 04/15/03
Posts: 2,876
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: DoctorJ]
#5565512 - 04/28/06 12:52 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DoctorJ said: well that explains flight 93's crash
But I still don't understand how NORAD let 4 planes go off course and off IFF for 45 minutes without scrambling.
seems to me like those terrorists were given a window of opportunity by someone VERY high up in the US military...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_11%2C_2001
I highly suggest reading Michael Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon. He covers the war games in detail, among other things.
-------------------- "this lebowski he called himself 'the dude'. now, 'dude', that's a name no one would self-apply where i come from but there was a lot about the dude that didn't make sense to me...."--the Stranger
|
DoctorJ


Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: TheDude]
#5565852 - 04/28/06 02:58 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks for the link. I found this line quite amusing:
Quote:
"During the course of the morning, there were multiple erroneous reports of hijacked aircraft in the system."
|
Roker
Stranger



Registered: 11/02/05
Posts: 343
Loc: outer spiral arm
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: DoctorJ]
#5565940 - 04/28/06 03:35 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Just wait for it. Phred's going to show us Iraq's weapons of mass distruction!
And as for let's roll... the only thing missing is the heroes safely landing the plane. But who knows, in another 5 years the FBI might just convince us that they did?
--------------------
|
shymanta
Mad Scientist


Registered: 01/27/05
Posts: 907
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Roker]
#5565958 - 04/28/06 03:44 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Everyone who posted on this thread should watch Loose Change. Find it here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
A compelling video.
Edited by shymanta (04/28/06 05:45 AM)
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: shymanta]
#5566000 - 04/28/06 04:16 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|

Look down the page. There's a thread all about it.
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Redstorm]
#5566035 - 04/28/06 05:13 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
You're one who said that the adminstration stated that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Unless you can read minds or find us a good quote, you're the one who has no argument.
The use of armed forces against Iraq 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 person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
- [Bush?s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
#5566039 - 04/28/06 05:22 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
No, it is ignorance.
It's ignorance, but purely on your part.
The use of armed forces against Iraq 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 person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
- [Bush?s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]
As for the multiple and well documented connections between Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda
None of them are true.
those are a matter of public record
That doesn't make them true.
were a matter of public record even before the 9/11 attacks.
They weren't true then either. Just like the bullshit about WMD wasn't true either.
With the recent release of thousands of captured documents, more and more of those connections are coming to light .
Source? Or did you just pull this out of your ass?
Don't just think that because that's what you'd like the documents to show that's what they will show. It doesn't work like that.
But then again you still believe the myth of WMD regardless of the truth so I guess you will believe whatever you want to believe.
Of course, the fact (and yes, it is a fact) that Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda had a working relationship pre- 9/11
Bullshit. You have absolutely no evidence for this claim whatsoever. Even Bush's handpicked man David Kay could find nothing.
does not prove Hussein's Iraq was involved in the planning or carrying out of the 9/11 attacks. But I have never claimed they were.
It's a pretty good smear tactic tho. When you have no evidence whatsoever all you do is make up the bullshit about Iraq working with al-qaeda and then hope people make a connection between Iraq and 9-11.
Nor has anyone in the Bush administration
The use of armed forces against Iraq 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 person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
- [Bush?s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
#5566258 - 04/28/06 08:34 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Alex213 writes:
Quote:
The use of armed forces against Iraq 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 person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
What's your point? Are you providing that sentence as an example of someone in the Bush administration claiming Iraq bore responsibility for the September 11 attacks? Because it isn't an example of such.
Reading comprehension is key, Alex213, as is context. So let's look at the context, shall we? Why did Bush decide it was even necessary to deliver such a notification to Congress?
First of all, in actual fact, there were two such notifications. The first one was delivered the day before the coalition troops crossed the border into Iraq. The full text can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html --
Quote:
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) 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.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
The second notification was delivered two days after the coalition troops had crossed the border into Iraq. The full text can be found here http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html --
Quote:
March 21, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.
These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully.
As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
Bush's statements in the two notifications did nothing more than address one of the legal certifications required for war by Congress.
What Bush actually said (in the first notification) is that "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." The phrase "consistent with" indicates the resumption of hostilities in Iraq is part of the broader war on terrorists, not that it is central to the war against Al Qaeda. The word "including" means the perpetrators of 9/11 are among the "international terrorists and terrorist organizations" who are the subject of the relevant legislation, not that the action was exclusively targeted at them. And of course this was just one of many rationales for war listed in the authorizing legislation, law 107-243 (Congressional AUMF). http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Finally, the dates of the documents make it plain this was no attempt to convince anyone to support the resumption of hostilities with Iraq. The convincing had been done long ago and the authorization to proceed had been given. The notifications are nothing more than standard pro forma governmental legalistic filings -- one filed immediately before the action was to be implemented, notifying Congress of the action about to be taken and pointing out the requirements set by Congress had been met; then one filed immediately after the action had been taken, notifying them of what had been done and again pointing out the required certifications had been met.
Phred
--------------------
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
#5567068 - 04/28/06 01:48 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The phrase "consistent with" indicates the resumption of hostilities in Iraq is part of the broader war on terrorists, not that it is central to the war against Al Qaeda. The word "including" means the perpetrators of 9/11 are among the "international terrorists and terrorist organizations" who are the subject of the relevant legislation, not that the action was exclusively targeted at them.
We're dealing with standard Bush white house propaganda techniques here. The white house lawyers draft a statement designed to give everyone the inference that Iraq was involved with 9/11 but phrase it with such legalese that Bush would have plausible deniablity in a courtroom.
The context here is vital. Bush is trying to justify an illegal invasion of Iraq, if Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 why even mention 9/11 other than to make the inference?
The convincing had been done long ago
Of course all the "convincing" you refer to was nothing more than cynical lies. No doubt the white house lawyers made sure every phrase Bush uttered made the inference they wished to make but phrased it with such intentionally confusing syntax to give him plausible deniability when the statement proved to have no truth.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
#5567115 - 04/28/06 02:07 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
He mentions terrorism because they felt that since Iraq harbored them, it was a legitimate reason to invade them. I don't know if this reason is good enough, but it is what they were getting at.
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Redstorm]
#5567127 - 04/28/06 02:14 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
But why would the invasion of Iraq be consistent with action taken against 9/11 if Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?
Why mention the two things in the same sentence if they have nothing to do with each other? Just look at how long-winded and convoluted the statement is. The last time I saw a sentence constructed like that it was in the small print on my insurance documents. It's a standard legalese technique of creating an impression whilst also giving yourself plausible deniability.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Alex213]
#5567137 - 04/28/06 02:19 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The context here is vital. Bush is trying to justify an illegal invasion of Iraq, if Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 why even mention 9/11 other than to make the inference?
The context here is indeed vital. The context is the tying in of the two notifications to the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (Public law 107-243). That is why I thoughtfully provided a link to that Public law -- so you could see with your own eyes that the notifications sent to Congress by Bush lift entire sections of phrasing, word for word, directly from the Public law, specifically:
"Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President 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 or harbored such persons or organizations;
"Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;"
It's not as if Bush spent any time thinking up some sort of devious and subtle subliminal message here, he simply cut and pasted the boilerplate phrasing from the very legislation he was referencing in his notifications.
Have you never dealt with lawyers? Specifically with legal notifications referencing existing contracts? Because I have, and I assure you this is standard practice. If you're trying to show your action complies with a contract, you quote verbatim in your notification the section of the contract in question.
The whole point of my response was to show you that the words in Bush's letter aren't even his own. They're Congress's. I provided the link to the Public law so you could check out the relevant legislation and overcome your ignorance in private.
Now, if you want to criticize Bush for being too lazy to think up his own lines, instead preferring to crib them from Congressional legislation, that's a whole different conversation. But to present Congress's words as some kind of Bush "brainwash" won't cut it.
Phred
--------------------
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: "Let's Roll" [Re: Phred]
#5567145 - 04/28/06 02:21 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
It's not as if Bush spent any time thinking up some sort of devious and subtle subliminal message here, he simply cut and pasted the boilerplate phrasing from the very legislation he was referencing in his notifications.
You're missing the context. Bush is trying to LINK IRAQ with this. Congress wasn't doing that. Congress was talking about nations responsible for 9/11. Can you understand the difference?
|
|