Senators Clash With Nominee About Torture

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The Muslim Brotherhood is an old age organization of Egypt. It was the spark for many radical movements in the Middle East including Hamas.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is similar to what the IRA was in Northern Ireland. Both have political wings. The IRA morphed into its political arm. Muslim brotherhood in Egypt is (for all practical purposes) an illegal political party and a sometimes violent revolutionary movement.

Although related, other movements also called Muslim Brotherhood threatened Saddam, Assad of Syria, and Hussein of Jordan. Assad has a simple way of (probably) saving his secular government from that Muslim Brotherhood. Assad is alleged to have surrounded Muslim Brotherhood towns and massacred 10,000 people - everyone including women and children.

Hamas (not to be confused with Hezbollah), bin Laden's Al Qaeda and another complete different entity called “Al Qaeda in Iraq” are more versions of a larger fundamentalist movement by the same name - called Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas, for example is completely different. Hamas has a fundamental rule to not harm Americans.

Welcome to "Making of a Quagmire - 2003" where our own leaders will even intentionally confuse all into a common enemy for propaganda purposes. Two greatest enemies - Saddam and bin Laden - are accused by Goerge Jr of conspiring to create 11 September. Obviously not true. Poltical lies are more important than honestly identifying 'real' and 'mythical' enemies.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by tw

Welcome to "Making of a Quagmire - 2003" where our own leaders will even intentionally confuse all into a common enemy for propaganda purposes. Two greatest enemies - Saddam and bin Laden - are accused by Goerge Jr of conspiring to create 11 September. Obviously not true. Poltical lies are more important than honestly identifying 'real' and 'mythical' enemies.

Tw, there is only one Cellarite who believes George Bush made any such accusation. You. You know, the kooky peddler of half truths at most? Indeed, you're righter than you know in your next sentence -- but we know this kind of lie is what's important to you, that you may exercise your penchant for tilting at straw-men of your own constructing. You alone. By yourself. Utterly isolated in your inanition and generally laughed at. Were you a scholar of social matters you would know you couldn't even say George Jr., for that requires a name be reproduced in toto. Bush the younger -- that would have been something you could have used to far better effect, but oh, no. You don't. I suspect you simply can't. That's why I'm so much better a man than you'll ever be -- I don't suffer from the neurosis that plagues you, quite aside from your rigidly antipatriot mindset.

Saddam and Osama were hardly enemies at all, despite this being a leftist shibboleth to which you fanatically adhere in the face of the evidence -- both parties were quite willing to explore a relationship and documentation exists on this point. That it did not come to any great fruition except for a nice hospital stay for al-Zarqawi seems chiefly because we intervened in 2003 and not, say, 2005.

As long as you remain as you are, tw, you are doomed not merely to dwell on the wrong side of history -- you shall personify it.

Wanna have a stab at "honestly identifying" real enemies? Of the foreign variety only, please. (Watch him ignore an opportunity to be constructive.)

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Tw, there is only one Cellarite who believes George Bush made any such accusation. You. You know, the kooky peddler of half truths at most? Indeed, you're righter than you know in your next sentence -- but we know this kind of lie is what's important to you, that you may exercise your penchant for tilting at straw-men of your own constructing. You alone. By yourself. Utterly isolated in your inanition and generally laughed at. Were you a scholar of social matters you would know you couldn't even say George Jr., for that requires a name be reproduced in toto. Bush the younger -- that would have been something you could have used to far better effect, but oh, no. You don't. I suspect you simply can't. That's why I'm so much better a man than you'll ever be -- I don't suffer from the neurosis that plagues you, quite aside from your rigidly antipatriot mindset.

Saddam and Osama were hardly enemies at all, despite this being a leftist shibboleth to which you fanatically adhere in the face of the evidence -- both parties were quite willing to explore a relationship and documentation exists on this point. That it did not come to any great fruition except for a nice hospital stay for al-Zarqawi seems chiefly because we intervened in 2003 and not, say, 2005.

As long as you remain as you are, tw, you are doomed not merely to dwell on the wrong side of history -- you shall personify it.

Wanna have a stab at "honestly identifying" real enemies? Of the foreign variety only, please. (Watch him ignore an opportunity to be constructive.)

You're right, bush never said the words 'Iraq is working with al-Qa'ida.' But he and his friends DID say the following:

A) The war on terror is a threat to our existence.
B) Al-Qa'ida is the terrorist group that is leading the pack.
C) We have to go into Iraq to make it safe from terrorism.

Anyone would connect the dots to think Saddam was working with al-Qa'ida. Then when GW said in a tisy of contempt that he never implied the two were working together. That's funny, an entire country THOUGHT that's what you meant. How stupid of us ALL to get it wrong. I have no doubt that this was engineered to give credence to the whole idea. They do this sort of thing all the time.

And no, al-Qa'ida was not working with the Iraqi government. Saddam hated terrorists, he saw them as a threat that is to volatile to control (funny, he seems to be right about that. If only WE'D figure that out). In fact all this crap about Zarqawi being so beloved by His Lunacy is absurd. They talked with one another, but there was no working relationship whatsoever. Saddam tried on many occasions to blow his ass up, in fact.

Think about it like this: why the hell would Saddam Hussein want to inflame tensions with the US? He didn't give a damn, the only annoyance he had was the no fly zones. It was in no way in his interest to piss the US off into invading. That's probably why he got rid of all his chemical weapons between the late nineties and 2003. He balked us to show strength, not to get us to attack.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by queequeger

You're right, bush never said the words 'Iraq is working with al-Qa'ida.' But he and his friends DID say the following:

A) The war on terror is a threat to our existence.

Well, I know what you meant, though it isn't what you said.

B) Al-Qa'ida is the terrorist group that is leading the pack.
C) We have to go into Iraq to make it safe from terrorism.

What we're really engaged in, whether we say it or not, is an effort to draw a country out of the Non-Integrating Gap, and conduct it into an era of developing global connectivity. Dictatorships and undemocratic social orders tend to put nations under isolating bell jars.

Anyone would connect the dots to think Saddam was working with al-Qa'ida. Then when GW said in a tisy [sic] of contempt that he never implied the two were working together. That's funny, an entire country THOUGHT that's what you meant. How stupid of us ALL to get it wrong. I have no doubt that this was engineered to give credence to the whole idea. They do this sort of thing all the time.

I doubt you could read any measure of contempt into his remarks -- he's too much the experienced politician. It doesn't require the example of the President I like so much I voted for him twice to bring up contempt for those opposed to this war in any case: they are so wrongheaded they champion undemocratic fascism over any description of democracy, which is simply perverted and perverse, and only engaged in by people who should be ashamed of themselves, ashamed enough to undergo a drastic revision of their entire philosophy of life in order to escape a quite legitimate charge of fascist sympathies.

And no, al-Qa'ida was not working with the Iraqi government. Saddam hated terrorists, he saw them as a threat that is to volatile to control (funny, he seems to be right about that. If only WE'D figure that out). In fact all this crap about Zarqawi being so beloved by His Lunacy is absurd. They talked with one another, but there was no working relationship whatsoever. Saddam tried on many occasions to blow his ass up, in fact.

And then made it up to him with major leg surgery?

Think about it like this: why the hell would Saddam Hussein want to inflame tensions with the US? He didn't give a damn, the only annoyance he had was the no fly zones. It was in no way in his interest to piss the US off into invading. That's probably why he got rid of all his chemical weapons between the late nineties and 2003. He balked us to show strength, not to get us to attack.

Why? Basically because dictators are, sooner or later, stupid. Occupational hazard. Saddam was no strategist, nor general, nor chessplayer. He didn't figure his interests rightly.

Get rid? Mmmmaybe. Saddam's Bomb Maker details how WMD projects were not suspended but put into abeyance in a biding of time. Not too dissimilar to the likeliest action of a certain neighboring country with four letters in its name. And there's still that mystery convoy of heavy truckloads of something from Baghdad to Syria in April '03. Any of our people who know what that was aren't talking. And don't forget the large amount of twinned-agent Sarin the Jordanians intercepted being trucked from Syria (not a known producer of such weaponry, but I understand Iraq was) to Amman, in aid of Allah knows what.

Heh heh. And that tactic bit him right in the ass, didn't it? Couldn't happen to a lovelier nor more deserving fellow. Again, getting stupid is an occupational hazard of dictators -- and their dictatorships. That's why I'm such a determined partisan of democracy, and of course why I'm annoyed so few of my opposition here can claim the same.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Tw, there is only one Cellarite who believes George Bush made any such accusation.

You are correct. George Jr did not *specifically* say Saddam conspired for 11 September. He insisted to Richard Clark on 12 September that Saddam must have been complicit. The people that George Jr praises as closest allies - ie Ahmad Chalabi - said Saddam was complicit even in the 1993 WTC attack. Wolfovich would routinely declare both before and after 11 September, "I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden." The threat was always redirected at Saddam. Some White House theories even proclaimed two Ramzi Yousefs; the second created and trained by Iraqis just to attack Americans. Even the Abu Nidal death in Iraq was really part of Saddam's world wide terrorism campaign - that only existed in White House fantasies.

George Jr gave a 2003 State of the Union address where 11 September, Saddam, and bin Laden were all interlaced in the same paragraph. It was no accident as Urbane Guerrilla always forgets. George Jr never said specifically that Saddam was complicit. He just said enough so that wacko extremists would believe it. George Jr was echoing opinions of his major policy makers - especially Wolfovich, Feith, and Cheney - that Saddam must have been complicit; therefore he was. Also stated was that 11 September could not happen without support at a national level - another specific reference to blame Saddam.

George Jr said enough so that wacko extremists would believe Saddam was involved in the 11 September attacks. It is only silly semantics that he did not specifically say it. George Jr did everything necessary to create that myth. As his own Sec of the Treasury stated in his book, George Jr stated up front that he wanted excuses to attack Saddam.

I am rather surprised Urban Guerrilla admits, "Saddam and Osama were hardly enemies at all". Of course. Saddam was doing everything possible to restore his American ally status. But that is not in the confused and partisan rhetoric from George Jr. Bottom line conclusion is therefore correct: Saddam and bin Laden - are accused by George Jr of conspiring to create 11 September. He just did not say so directly. It’s called propaganda - how to manipulate weaker minds - how even Hitler justified threats and occupation of Czechoslovakia.

Meanwhile Urban Guerrilla confuses the issue. Fact remains that the 2003 NIE summary was rewritten to make claims that did not exist even in the classified NIE document. UT is citing another NIE summary as proof that Al Qaeda is the major enemy in what is really only a civil war. This world wide Al Qaeda conspiracy does not exist. But it does exist where myths were also promoted of Saddam and bin Laden as co-conspirators. None of those myths would exist without George Jr and his administration pushing them.

Anything from the George Jr administration is a lie until first proven otherwise. His credibility (and those who support the mental midget) are that poor.

A war cannot be won if the enemy is not first defined. That is called "Making of a Quagmire" or "A Bright and Shining Lie". Since a political agenda is more important, then this administration will not even admit that it created “Mission Accomplished” – an Iraqi civil war. Instead we have this all but mythical monster enemy called Al Qaeda. Since the political agenda is more important, then this administration will do everything possible so that the war is not lost under his watch. How strange. Nixon wanted and did the same thing including myths that Nam was actually war with Russia and China. At what point do we first move to the truth so that a war can be won? That NIE comes from the same people who even (lied) rewrote a previous NIE summary to promote a political agenda.