Exhaustive review sponsored by the Pentagon finds NO link between Saddam, al Qaida (2 Viewers)

[champ76]

I'm confused. Can't we have opinions and observations and not be personally blasted for them and our motives maligned?

 

[RebSaint]

Something in the Headline and first Two Paragraphs of the story isn't obscure or non-sequiter.

It's the raison d'etre for the whole piece.

But quibbling over the meaning of "operation" is, which is what you did over and over again in this thread. I think most here agreed on that point. Except you and Champ76.

 

[RebSaint]

I'm confused. Can't we have opinions and observations and not be personally blasted for them and our motives maligned?

Nope. I'm not blasting anyone. I call blind partisanship for what it is. I think blind partisanship should be maligned at every turn.

We wouldn't be at this point I think without Dads focus on such an obscure, non-sequiter, and I think it's only fair and an observation on my what motivates such obsession with an obscure, non-sequiter which really strays from the larger issues.

 

[DadsDream]

Don't take me for a fool, bro. You've defended this administration on almost every policy its implemented, from Iraq, to the Patriot Act, to its post-Katrina response. Back when Bush had only a 29% approval rating you were in that number. I remember the threads and issues.

Has nothing to do with anything I'm saying.

If not done in the name of defending the administration, what pray tell motivated you to take such an odd, intellectually untenous position in this regard?

What, lay my credentials out on the table so somebody can accuse me of being condescending, due to my "superior" knowledge? No way.

Only the most die-hard partisans defend the administration's claims before the war--and long since the administration's claims have been discredited by several U.S. government agencies, including the CIA, 9-11 Commission ad naseum.

I told you a long time ago, you might as well registered on up as a Republican.

You're the one who said I was defending the administration.

Me, I was just pointing out the article in question is questionable and the wording can be taken differently if you take into account that it's a Pentagon document, written in Pentagon-speak.

We should really start addressing the article and original post and stop going off on these crusades based on mis-perceptions and mis-conceptions of our fellow posters.

 

[DadsDream]

Nope. I'm not blasting anyone. I call blind partisanship for what it is. I think blind partisanship should be maligned at every turn.

Look in the mirror, bro.

We wouldn't be at this point I think without Dads focus on such an obscure, non-sequiter, and I think it's only fair and an observation on my what motivates such obsession with an obscure, non-sequiter which really strays from the larger issues.

Read the headline.

Read the first few paragraphs.

Note that the headline says NO LINK.

The direct quote in the paragraph says NO OPERATIONAL LINK.

Question: What is an "operational link"?

Question: Why is the headline a misquote of one of the few direct quotes in the piece?

 

[DadsDream]

But quibbling over the meaning of "operation" is, which is what you did over and over again in this thread. I think most here agreed on that point. Except you and Champ76.

You got it wrong again.

"Operational" not "Operation."

 

[RebSaint]

Has nothing to do with anything I'm saying.

I think it has everything with what you're saying, you just don't want to admit it.

What, lay my credentials out on the table so somebody can accuse me of being condescending, due to my "superior" knowledge? No way.

You're the one who said I was defending the administration.

I can think of no other reason for the positions you took in this thread.

Me, I was just pointing out the article in question is questionable and the wording can be taken differently if you take into account that it's a Pentagon document, written in Pentagon-speak.

We should really start addressing the article and original post and stop going off on these crusades based on mis-perceptions and mis-conceptions of our fellow posters.

And most agreed that it was a nice homily, but not really important vis a vis the bigger picture given what the adminstration told the American people before the war regarding Hussein and AQ. Right? No, you kept on with it, wanting to argue over the definition of "operation," you dug in your heels. Again, I can only conclude to make the administration seem somehow smarter or more honest than it was.

And not once did you agree with ANYBODY about how the administration might have intentionally misled the public--no, we get into a meaningless discussion surrounding the defintion of "operation." Terrible.

 

[DadsDream]

-no, we get into a meaningless discussion surrounding the defintion of "operation." Terrible.

"Operational" not "operation." :1zhelp:

 

[RebSaint]

"Operational" not "operation." :1zhelp:

Okay, yeah I get it. I saw it. I mistyped. It's obvious you want to argue about obscure military nomenclature and not the larger implications for this story. Have at it.

 

[champ76]

Reb, I make a living out of trying to figure out why words, which may or may not turn out to be important, may be in one document and not another. Like Dads, I got curious when the title of the post paints with a broad brush, but in reading the details, may in fact be misleading. As I said maybe three pages ago, let's just wait and read the report to see if the Pentagon makes a distinction between links and operational links. Then we can have more of this fun.

 

[Shockmo]

I'm confused. Can't we have opinions and observations and not be personally blasted for them and our motives maligned?

You're not from around here, is ya?

 

[RebSaint]

Reb, I make a living out of trying to figure out why words, which may or may not turn out to be important, may be in one document and not another. Like Dads, I got curious when the title of the post paints with a broad brush, but in reading the details, may in fact be misleading. As I said maybe three pages ago, let's just wait and read the report to see if the Pentagon makes a distinction between links and operational links. Then we can have more of this fun.

I understand where your coming from. I understand the importance of meanings of words--my biggie on this forum is "liberalism" and "conservatism"

I'm willing to come here and eat lots of crow if the Pentagon found any substantive connection between AQ and Hussein. Numerous government agencies have pretty much concluded that what the administration told the American people was highly misleading, or patently false.

The connection made was not grounded in any real truth or a connection that rationalized an invasion of Iraq--and I think the Pentagon report will simply reiterate, arguably in doublespeak, like BD said that there was no real political, economic, or military links between Hussein and AQ. It galls me because it invoked a very sad moment in history and the fear of the American fear to get into a premeditated war.

To me, arguing about the various ways the Pentagon defines "operational" doesn't distract from the overall big picture: the administration arguably misled the American public regarding Hussein/AQ.

 

[champ76]

You're not from around here, is ya?

Lol, I had a weak moment.

 

[blackadder]

To me, arguing about the various ways the Pentagon defines "operational" doesn't distract from the overall big picture: the administration arguably misled the American public regarding Hussein/AQ.

That's the point here, IMO.

Otherwise playing word games or noting that Abu Musab Zarqawi passed through Iraq and Saddam did not apprehend him just obscures the point that we was lied to.

 

[Mr. Littlejeans]

Dad's Dream-

You keep saying your initial post was a response to BullDawg. Well that's the non-sequitur part. Saying Saddam's "fate was sealed" and saying we "glossed over" his offenses.....I'm sure you're quite capable of scheming up some skewered angle where that is a simple response to BullDawg. Spin Away.
But any reasonable reader sees it as at least a partial denial of the obvious implication of the original post:

Which was: that the report is further evidence that the Administration lied to the American people to justify their little wargame.

. I'm not sure who it is, but another SR poster has a signature quote that says,
"If you can get them asking the wrong questions, then the answers don't matter."

So forgive us if we're not all that interested in your definitions. If there was a more balanced weight of evidence on both sides of the question, MAYBE they might hold some importance. But Bush didn't blur the line between Saddam and Al Qaeda, he erased it. So they durn well better have had operational status by ANY definition you want to use, if it's going to justify a war.

We as a country should insist on taking the high road and showing the utmost restraint when it comes to war. It might hurt some, and it definitely puts us at a tactical disadvantage. But it gives us the moral high ground, which is more important than any hill on any battlefield. If we lose that high ground, the rest of the battle is meaningless.