Topic awaiting preservation: New York Times Calls on Bush to Apologize for Iraq (Page 1 of 1)

New York Times Calls on Bush to Apologize for Iraq

Wow.

quote:

---

The New York Times today called on President Bush to apologize for what it calls his "plainly dishonest" effort to link the war in Iraq with the war on terror.

---

It was about time.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Ahh, I read something on that as well. See, I'm liking how more and more people are shifting away from blind support, and seeing things for what they are and calling upon the prez to fess up to it.

I won't be surprised if he completely ignores it, however. He's a bit too wrapped up in his crusades to take a second to apologize for lying to his public. And really, it's not like this is the only lie he's used within the years of his term. Or before his term, for that matter.

I'd rather have Bush in office than Kerry. I don't trust that ass. As for the New York Times - they can go to hell too. Bush doesn't need to appoligize. Saddam was a terrorist, not only to the world, but to his own people. Personally I think Saddam should be executed on public television. He had weapons of mass destruction, hidden. ANd even if he didn't he still was a terrorist to his own people. The NYT is looking for publicity. Nothing more.


Save America - Vote Bush in 2004.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Please visit my site. It is a site for GAMERS and OTAKU's. A great forum it is! Please visit me!



_____________________________________________________________________________

No, the New York Times is aiming to have Bush banished from the white house. They already have enough subscribers and publicity. So would you care to back up any of your statements with recorded facts or are you of the mindset that your banter is irrefutable? It is interesting that you feel someone you have most likely never met, nor have had any kind of dialog with deserves to die while a large number of individuals with as little attachment as yourself watch on. Do you believe everything you see on television and read in other people blog's to be true? Do you believe you would preform better?

I see Bremer in Iraq backed by 4 billion dollars per month and an army of 250,000 highly trained well equiped soldiers unable to control the Iraqi populous, while injustices, such as torture and depravation of basic human rights, are being performed by the United States' government.

As a citizen of the United States I believe that I deserve an apology for the time that family members have been forced to spend in Iraq, and for the lives that have been lost in Iraq. I further feel that it is in the best interest of our country to remove the leaders who have placed us into a situation that warents our government leaders issuing an appology for their actions. The lack of an honest appology and realistic assements of the current situation by our government causes me further disillusion with our current government every day.

And as for my final note, you sir are and ass.

quote:

---

See, I'm liking how more and more people are shifting away from blind support, and seeing things for what they are and calling upon the prez to fess up to it.

---

I don't know if this is actually happening though. While perhaps a select few individuals who sat the fence on whether or not to go to war might have seen the light, the vast number of core supporters still insist that Pres. Bush was open, honest, and correct in his decisions.

Of course what I think is most interesting is it seems as though the Bush Administration and the committee he had appointed is saying very different things. I wonder if its the opinion of the Administration that the committee is lying.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

First, remember that this is the New York Times.

Second, Bush claims that

quote:

---

Saddam's ties to terrorists were well known, and there were many "contacts" between al-Qaida and the former Iraqi leader.

---

This is well documented, and it has been what the administration has maintained.

These articles document the links: Case Closed, from the Weekly Standard
The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
Osama-Saddam links 9-11 commission missed

And if you would like to dig deeper into the evidence, a new book has just come out cataloging it. The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America

quote:

---

...the independent commission investigating the attacks concluded no evidence exists that al-Qaida had strong ties to Saddam.

---

No strong ties does not mean no ties existed and does not contradict Bush's position above.

And now we see that the 9/11 comission itself does not accept the NYTimes statement of "there was no credible evidence of such a link"

quote:

---

The latest from the Political Grapevine: ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123065,00.html )
Friday, June 18, 2004
By Brit Hume

No Disagreement, Says Lee

As you heard earlier, 9/11 commission co-chairman Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, said today there is no disagreement between the commission and the administration over links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. But most news organizations last night said the commission's conclusion that there was no -- "collaborative relationship" between the two ... was evidence the administration deliberately misled the public.

CBS Evening News said the commission -- "directly contradicted one of President Bush's justifications for going to war against Iraq." ABC said the report -- "unequivocally" disputed the Bush administration's claims of an Al-Qaeda-Iraq link. And NBC reported that -- "the Commission is sharply at odds with what leading members of the administration continue to claim."

A front-page headline in today's New York Times reads -- "Panel finds no Qaeda-Iraq Tie," and the Washington Post says -- "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link is Dismissed." But commission members said today there were links, just not a working relationship and no evidence of any Iraqi involvement in September 11.

---

If you take one step back from the obvious politics involved with this NYTimes demand for an apology you will see the links existed, but Iraq was not actively involved in the 9/11 attacks. Let's at least stay good with the facts as we argue for our respective political agendas.

If there is any dishonesty involved with this particular issue, it has to be the mantra from media sources like the NYTimes of "Saddam Hussein had no connections with the al-Qaida terrorist network". Perhaps calling it dishonesty is not as accurate as calling it a case of cognitive dissonance.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Call if a liberal newspaper if you want (and, depending upon one's definition of liberal, I may not disagree), but for the NYT to make such a call for apology, is, one must agree, indicative of a significant shift in public perception.

Even if it is true that this is all about 'publicity' (it may be...I don't know), it says something that the largest paper in the states is using such a method (demanding an apology from a president DURING A TIME OF WAR) to get publicity. Why would they choose such a method if they didn't think some significant # of Americans would be supportive of such a demand?

I believe there are many Americans who are supportive of such a demand. But according to the latest polls, I would have to believe it isn't a majority view. With the economic prospects picking up as much as they are, it would seem to me Bush will be getting a bump in favorability in the coming months.

The NYTimes is a liberal newspaper. There is no question about that, none whatsoever. The Wall Street Journal is a conservative newspaper. But that is utterly fine by me as long as people don't try to deny those biases. Jjust because these newpapers have political agendas should not invalidate everything they say, it just informs the public of what the agendas are to help in discerning the truth of what is being reported. It should be clear the the agenda of the NYTimes is to see Kerry elected in November. I suspect it is fair to say that the WSJ would favor a Bush victory.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Well I suppose we get into semantics here - "contacts" is so general it can mean anything (which in this case seems to have consisted of a couple of meetings with them deciding to go their separate ways - some of which we already knew about). The important thing is if they collaborated and I don't think there is any evidence of that:

quote:

---

According to the Sept. 11 commission?s staff report, bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 and had explored the possibility of cooperation, but the plans apparently never came to fruition.

?We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States,? the report said. It was based on interviews with government intelligence and law enforcement officials.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said, adding that two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq.

---

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233810/

If you look hard enough and make your defintions broad enough it would probably be able to prove "contacts" between Al Qaeda and an awful lot of countries.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

George W Bush: The man who put the mock in Democracy

Who wants to live forever?

It appears one of the main planks in the Al Qaeda/Iraq arguement has collapsed:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5305085/site/newsweek

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

quote:

---

I'd rather have Bush in office than Kerry. I don't trust that ass. - The Black Hat

---

quote:

---

I further feel that it is in the best interest of our country to remove the leaders who have placed us into a situation that warents our government leaders issuing an apology for their actions - WarMage

---

John Kerry is not the best person for the job, but in my mind, he's a darn sight better than Dubya. I don't trust any politicians, nor do I believe their promises. I do read their position on issues, and tend to vote for those whose positions are sympathetic to mine. No one knows exactly what they will have to do once they get into a position of power, but Mr. Bush has had 4 years to screw things up, which he's doing a fine job of. It's time to give someone else a chance and see if they can't at the very least turn us in another direction.

Change needs to happen. It won't if the Administration doesn't change first. I sincerely doubt that, if Mr. Bush is elected to office again (god forbid), that he will change anything about his current plans.

(Edited by bodhi23 on 06-28-2004 21:38)