Re: OT: Bush Makes Surprise Visit to Baghdad

SkippyPB wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:54:21 GMT, Robert Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The link there is that both are elements in the "war on terror" that he 
> > mentions in that first sentence there.  In other words, we're attacking 
> > terror - we're attacking Iraq, and we're attacking the guys who did 
> > 9/11, and we'll attack terrorists who aren't in Iraq, and we'll attack 
> > terrorists who didn't do 9/11.  We'll attack anyone who is involved with 
> > terror attacks on America.  It doesn't even come close to saying that 
> > all of these parties are the same.  Only politics allows you to skew it 
> > any other way.

> Exactly.  That is what it means.  But, here and in other places, Bush
> used Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence, same paragraph thus
> creating the impression that they were linked without actually stating
> that they were. 


Fine - if YOU want to believe that it created that impression, that's 
fair enough.  But that you believe that it created that impression says 
more about your comprehension and critical thinking than it does about 
the text, because, as you admit, it does NOT actually say what you think 
it means.

> It is statements like these that made many Americans
> believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11.  


See above.  I wish I could be more complimentary to the American public, 
but I can't.

> > Linking Iraq to al-Qaeda does not blame Iraq for 9/11, even if al-Qaeda 
> > was to blame for Iraq, any more than linking me to you makes me 
> > responsible for anything you do.  That's the fundamental mistake you're 
> > making.
> It doesn't?  Who was responsible for 9/11?  Al Qaeda and everyone
> knows that.  The impression is given by linking Iraq to Al Qaeda that
> Iraq had something to do with 9/11.


Again, if that's the impression you get, that says more about you than 
it does about the text.


> Yes he was describing a hypothetical situation, but again the
> impression given by most Americans was that Saddam had something to do
> with 9/11.  


Again, if that's the impression you get, that says more about you than 
it does about the text.

> I'm trying  to make the point that people believed that Saddam was
> responsible for 9/11 because of the way Bush and his administration
> always used the two together in speeches.  


Could that be because 9/11 kickstarted the overall drive that a war on 
Iraq was just a part of?  You're wanting to believe that you've been 
told that there's only one dangerous party, all of whom are 
co-conspirators and equally responsible for everything bad that happens 
or could happen.  But you haven't been told that.  You've been told that 
al-Qaeda are dangerous and must be dealt with.  You've been told that 
the folks who did 9/11 are dangerous and must be dealt with.  You've 
been told that the Taliban are dangerous and must be dealt with.  You've 
been told that Hussein was dangerous and must be dealt with.
But you haven't been told that al-Qaeda and the folks who did 9/11 and 
the Taliban and Hussein are all equally responsible for any one thing 
(such as 9/11), and you haven't been told that because they are all 
aligned against the US, they are all co-mingling and conspiring with 
each other.  You're trying to claim that Bush has deftly implied that 
they're all co-conspirators, when the very quotations you're using show 
no such thing; and when that's pointed out to you, all you can do is 
huff and puff that it's implied, and that you know what they really 
MEANT, and that it creates an "impression."  Incredible.


I've given you quotes by
> Bush and Cheney.  You've pointed out what those statements actually
> said and I don't disagree with your interpretation.  But, the average
> Joe and Jane on the street hearing those statements did not interpret
> them the same way.  And that's what Bush and his administration were
> counting on.


Horseshit.  You have no idea what they were counting on.  They said what 
they said, meant what they said, said it correctly, and left it up to 
the American people to comprehend it.  And it really wasn't that 
difficult to comprehend; they were pretty precise, as they must be under 
the circumstances.  And you're demonstrating that many still couldn't 
comprehend it.  Charles and I are demonstrating that many could.  That 
there are more idiots who can't comprehend than thinking Americans who 
can, does not say anything about what's been said, and says a lot about 
the people who are hearing it.

> Obviously Bush's September 17th statement had some effect on what
> people believe.

Or, you could assume that because Saddam is no longer in the daily news 
(as he was in March), a slow-witted, short-attention-span American 
populace is already forgetting exactly what he did and didn't do.  Or, 
you could assume that the populace is slowly realizing that they were 
wrong about what the President has been saying, and that the President 
had been right all along.


Pie