Letters to the Editor
orbitboy
Published Letters: 1215 Editor's Choice: 100
-
Blurry lines, indeed
[Read the article: They know what they want to know]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September."
US Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime, February 2003.
"We don't know."
Vice-President Dick Cheney when pressed on whether there was a link between Iraq and 11 September during a TV interview, September 2003.
"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Mr Cheney in the same interview, commenting on the war against Iraq.
"We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it."
Mr Cheney in the same interview, while recounting the controversial claim that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, met an Iraqi official in Prague before the attacks.
"[Saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged."
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice defending the reasons why the US went to war against Iraq, September, 2003.
Cheney, interviewed on Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," left open the possibility of a Saddam link to the attacks. Cheney said on Sunday "It's not surprising" the public would believe Saddam was involved in the attacks, blamed on the al Qaeda network of Osama bin Laden, who has repeatedly praised the attacks.
-
A question for "joe"
[Read the article: They know what they want to know]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How do you explain that 65 percent of Republicans still believe there was a connection between Saddam and 9-11? You keep saying there was no connection, and that Bush et al., never said so. But that notion had to come from somewhere, right? It can't be from Democrats, because, if the last 5 years has taught us anything, it's that Republicans don't listen to a word Democrats say. Plus, it certainly doesn't make political sense for Democrats to draw that connection (whereas it makes A LOT of political sense for Republicans to draw that connection.). So I'm curious how you explain the 65 percent.
ps--It would be much appreciated if you refrain from red herrings and straw man explanations and use verifiable quotes in your answer.
-
The answer
[Read the article: They know what they want to know]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]to the question "Why do 65% of Republicans still believe Saddam was involved with 9-11?" is because they were mislead by the Bush Administration. There isn't any other possible explanation. "joe" can't explain it because he is unwilling to admit the truth. We can hem and haw forever over whether they actually mouthed the exact words, or not. But there is no other possible answer. I posted several examples quoting Bush administration officials blurring the lines and obfuscating the truth. The fact is, the Bush administration KNEW that it wasn't only politically advantageous for people to believe the connection, but that their very political lives depended on it. And it's one of the hundreds of reasons why I don't trust Republicans.
-
Bush and 9-11
[Read the article: They know what they want to know]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh, and to answer your question regarding the Time article about folks who believe Bush was behind 9-11: Those people are what we call nut-jobs. They are not great in number. Nor do they have any political clout whatsoever.
-
And you know this how?
[Read the article: Couric to Bush: "I'm really grateful. Thank you. Thank you"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Couric asked the questions liberals would have asked, point blank."
That is the most ridiculous thing you have ever said here, which is really saying something. If you're going to put words in our mouths, why not try to pick accurate ones? Please spare us your straw man assumptions. You're not fooling anyone here.
------------
authoritarian
–adjective
1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2. of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.
–noun
4. a person who favors or acts according to authoritarian principles.
[Origin: 1875–80; authorit(y) + -arian]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
-
To CRL
[Read the article: Couric to Bush: "I'm really grateful. Thank you. Thank you"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm in the same boat as you. I maybe watch TV news once a month, and even then, not for long. I have even come to the point that I don't even watch the local weather on tv anymore. I just go to their web site and click on the radar or the forecast.
-
Mehlman
[Read the article: A warning from the RNC: Democrats might be just like us]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]says that likes it's a bad thing!
-
To "not gullible"
[Read the article: Couric to Bush: "I'm really grateful. Thank you. Thank you"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Over the last few days I have to say I'm coming to the same conclusion. At this point, I don't really care if he's for real, or if there's more than one of him, as "he" has asserted. I have written numerous letters in Salon.com arguing why it's important to NOT ignore Ann Coulter and her ilk, simply because her popularity demands that we pay attention and fight back. But this "joe" guy, I think it's best to ignore his narrow-minded tripe, regardless of the authenticity of his posts.