Posted on 11/14/2003 5:15:05 PM PST by RobFromGa
To Bush critics, no evidence of "links" will be enough. We have an unresolvable dispute because no theory we present about Hussein-Al Qaeda can possibly be Proven Beyond A Shadow Of A Doubt (because, no theory whatsoever about the world can be PBASOAD.) Conversely, the "I doubt it" stance of the critics can never be completely refuted, because the theory that "Saddam he no conncetion even if it looks like he did; whatever evidence we find, there are alternative explanations for" is unfalsifiable. (Of course, this is because it is based on FAITH: namely, the faith the Bush is a "liar".)
There are two main things you will hear if you try to push this info to a lefty.
One primary response tactic will be "move the goalposts". For example: suppose that (best-case) this information pans out and after one or two years, it becomes universally accepted that Iraq and "Al Qaeda" had the "operational relationship" described here. The problem is, even if that happens, lefties will change the criteria for "links". For example they'll say "okay fine, we acknowledge that Saddam funded Al Qaeda, but that doesn't mean he (a) knew about 9/11 (b) was going to *continue* to fund Al Qaeda (c) so did Saudi Arabia (d) etc." They will forget that they ever said "no links" and pretend that the whole time the controversy was about "behind 9/11". Move. those. goalposts.
Maybe solid info comes out later that he *did* know about 9/11 coming. "Well, so did our CIA [or whoever, according to whatever conspiracy theory], and they didn't do anything to stop it, should we bomb them?" Move. those. goalposts.
Maybe solid info comes out that (say) the Salman Pak training facility was namely where the 9/11 hijackers practiced. "Yeah but big deal, they could have learned to hijack a plane with box-cutters *anywhere*." Move. those. goalposts.
Maybe solid info comes out that Saddam had a secret alliance with "Al Qaeda" ongoing, all the way through the March invasion. "Yeah but we forced him to stay in bed with Al Qaeda by threatening Saddam so much." Move. those. goalposts.
No amount of proof will suffice if your opponent is prepared to move the goalposts in response to everything you say. Leftists are. This is because Bush is evil and a liar and must be defeated. (The one and only Tenet of their faith.)
The second response tactic will be "but even if all this is true we didn't go to war BASED ON this information", why didn't Bush tell us this stuff from the beginning? The criticism will shift to the question of what Bush "used" to go to war and what he "didn't use" to go to war. Personally I find such arguments extremely irritating, because they seem to imply that there's some kind of Official List Of Reason We Are "Using" To Go To War.
One gets the idea that people who use such arguments would say that to call Al Capone a murderer and gangster is "unfair" because we only "used" his tax evasion as a reason to imprison him. In other words, it's a cheap legalistic game of "gotcha"; there's no real substance to the argument, but a lot of people sure seem to think that there is. We could get to the point that an iron-clad Saddam-"Al Qaeda" secret alliance is basically accepted by everyone, but lefties would still criticize by saying: "Bush should have told us that instead of 'Lying', then I would have supported him, but since he didn't, he's Evil and the war shouldn't have taken place."
In other words they'll still question the justification of the war on technical-rhetorical-legalistic grounds; even if it *looks* justified vis-a-vis straightforward national security by the discovery of the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection, lefties will say it wasn't justified because Bush said the wrong sentences in speeches; if only he'd said the magic words in speeches, lefties would have remained silent (or so they will claim)! I hope it's becoming clear just how silly I find such arguments, but I fully expect to hear them.
The point is that there is no convincing people who are True Believers, acting out of Faith.
What "rules of evidence" are you referring to?
Are you under the mistaken impression that this is a legal trial in a court of law?
I knew I recognized that name. Just from today:
Feith Defends U.S. Decision to Take Down Saddam DoD - American Forces Press Service ^ | Nov. 14, 2003 | Gerry J. Gilmore
Feith Defends U.S. Decision to Take Down Saddam By Gerry J. Gilmore American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Nov. 14, 2003 – Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime presented a clear and present danger to the United States and to the world and had to be removed, DoD's top policy official told members of a think tank here Nov. 13.
Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith defended the actions taken to remove Saddam, which occurred with the fall of Baghdad in early April.
Saddam's Iraq, Feith maintained, was a genuine world threat because of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, its refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to do their jobs, Iraq's use of WMDs in the past and Saddam's ties with terrorist organizations.
"The nexus of terrorist groups, state sponsors of terrorism, and WMD is the security nightmare of the 21st century," he pointed out. "It remains our focus."
The Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Feith noted, proved that America was vulnerable. Consequently, he continued, the United States went on the offensive against global terrorists, first in Afghanistan and then Iraq.
The possibility that terrorists, or states that sponsor terrorists, such as Iraq under Hussein, could acquire WMDs, Feith asserted, "is a compelling danger in the near term."
Therefore, he said, the United States and its allies cannot wait for complete, flawless intelligence before such threats become imminent. "We cannot expect to receive unambiguous warnings of, for example, a terrorist group's acquisition of biological weapons agents," Feith pointed out.
Feith said Saddam's defeat has reduced the list of terrorist-sponsoring states with WMD programs by one. That list still includes Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea. "Iraq used to be in that category; it no longer is," he noted.
Saddam's regime, Feith pointed out, "was a sadistic tyranny" that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, warred against its neighbors, and assisted terrorists "by providing them with safe harbor, funds, training and other help."
Under Saddam, Iraq refused to abide by several U.N. Security Council resolutions, Feith pointed out, and "undid the U.N. (WMD) inspection regime of the 1990s."
Saddam also bypassed economic sanctions imposed by the world community, Feith noted, and his military routinely shot at U.S. and coalition aircraft patrolling the northern and southern "no-fly" zones instituted at the end of the Gulf War.
"In sum, containment of Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a hollow hope," Feith pointed out, noting the best intelligence confirmed that Hussein "had chemical and biological weapons and was pursuing nuclear weapons."
According to intelligence reports, Hussein could have had a nuclear weapon within a year, Feith maintained, if the dictator had pursued available technology that could be acquired outside of Iraq.
Available intelligence illuminating Saddam's quest for WMDs was consistent, had been corroborated with other, foreign intelligence-gathering sources, and had been known for years, he pointed out.
It's true that stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons haven't yet turned up in Iraq, Feith acknowledged. However, David Kay's Iraq Survey Group, he noted, "has obtained corroborative evidence of Saddam's nuclear, chemical and biological programs; covert laboratories; advanced missile programs; and Iraq's program – active right up until the start of the war – to conceal WMD-related developments from the U.N. inspectors."
In light of all of this, "it would have been risky in the extreme," Feith said, to have allowed Hussein to remain in power "for the indefinite future."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1021892/posts
Prairie
ROFLMAO. That, my friend, is the funniest thing I've seen all day.
Dan Rather won't tell the truth ? Why ?
Check this out.......
The good stuff will come out in perfect timing.
Probably Democrat Rules of Evidence:
1) Any evidence harming the Bush Administration is allowed.
2) Any evidence supporting the Bush Administration is banned.
I'm often skeptical of "leaks" of classified information, but this seems to be the real deal. The Bush administration knew exactly what was going on. It all makes a lot of sense now.
It turns out that Saddam may not have had any WMD close at hand. However, his ties with al Qaeda were very tight. Any WMD he produced in the future would have very quickly ended up in al Qaeda's hands and used against the United States.
Despite how much this leak could help Bush, they need to find out who leaked this and lock them up. Leaking this sort of information compromising all sorts of intelligence methods. Bush is willing to take heaps of criticism to keep this information classified.
Does anyone else have a problem with this part??
I sure do..........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.