Originally posted by KharmaDog
You ever thought about being a lawyer Ush? You know full well that Bush and his administration wrapped up Saddam with AlQueda in order to make the war more palatable.
That's what I was referring to with the Clinton comment.
It's a clever way of using implication without implicating yourself.
Originally posted by KharmaDogI don't even want to talk about it...schmoll
You ever thought about being a lawyer Ush? You know full well that Bush and his administration wrapped up Saddam with AlQueda in order to make the war more palatable.
Do I have anything more to add?............ahhh, not really.
In as much that by semantics you mean what words mean, I think this is a very valid issue, yes.
If you are going to say that Bush linked Hussein with Al Qaeda and that Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11, then fine.
But at this point you have to bear in mind the meaning of 'direct connection'. The situation above is the very essence of indirectness.
It's a simple use of words and a bit harsh to criticise him for it.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
In as much that by semantics you mean what words mean, I think this is a very valid issue, yes.If you are going to say that Bush linked Hussein with Al Qaeda and that Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11, then fine.
But at this point you have to bear in mind the meaning of 'direct connection'. The situation above is the very essence of indirectness.
It's a simple use of words and a bit harsh to criticise him for it.
rubbish. you are being completely obtuse.
either that or you clearly did not pay attention to any of his speeches since 9/11. whenever making the case for war, he would open up with 9/11 and go on to declair hussein as the cause of the next 9/11...UNLESS WE STOP HIM!!! so it was war. the O-N-L-Y thing that drove the u.s. to war by his bidding was his constant tying together of 9/11 and hussein. to deny that is to be ridiculously deliberate.
he got everyone on a technicallity, fine whatever. but dont sit there and pretend ignorance to the fact that it was structured to be that way, and people were MEANT to see a direct connection between hussein and 9/11
But it would indeed be unfair to make out that he ever implied Hussein was directly responsible. He never did that, and if wants to deny it, that's fine.
If you want to reply to that denial by saying "Yeah, but you said he was harbouring the people who DID plan it and that appears to have been bullshit," then that is also fine.
But his statement is fair. He never did make a direct connection and it should be fine for him to say that.
Originally posted by PVS
rubbish. you are being completely obtuse.
either that or you clearly did not pay attention to any of his speeches since 9/11. whenever making the case for war, he would open up with 9/11 and go on to declair hussein as the cause of the next 9/11...UNLESS WE STOP HIM!!! so it was war. the O-N-L-Y thing that drove the u.s. to war by his bidding was his constant tying together of 9/11 and hussein. to deny that is to be ridiculously deliberate.
Obtuse? You are the people so hopelessly biased that you are twisting what he has said.
Bush NEVER made a direct connection between Hussein and the planning of 9/11. Prove he did or it is you who is being obtuse.
It's still crap. If you are just going to ignore the meaning of direct just to suit your own purposes, you have left the realm of reasonable comment.
Direct means what it means. Don't make out that it doesn't just because you are determined to hang Bush. I have absolutely no patience for people that do that sort of thing.