Join 3,380 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


President confirms link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism!
September 23, 2003 2:51 PM   Subscribe

President confirms denies confirms link between Iraq and terrorism! " The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction."

In other news, we're at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia... Food rations have jumped by 10%! Doubleplusgood!
posted by insomnia_lj (39 comments total)

 
For the love of God stop with the hackneyed Orwellian clichés! please!
posted by Celery at 3:00 PM on September 23, 2003


Mind you, this speech was just more of the same platitudinous rubbish.
posted by Celery at 3:05 PM on September 23, 2003


For the love of God stop with the hackneyed Orwellian clichés! please!

Seriously. Please. You're killing us from the inside.
posted by Darke at 3:09 PM on September 23, 2003


I could have used a more obscure Eddie Izzard reference...

"It's 10 percent what you say and ninety percent what you look like. Be sure to look angry, have the big eyes and big mouth... and no matter what you do, keep confirming and denying."
posted by insomnia_lj at 3:10 PM on September 23, 2003


For the love of God stop with the hackneyed Orwellian clichés! please

God Bless You. And remember,

You are a true believer. Blessings of the state, blessings of the masses. Thou art a subject of the divine. Created in the image of man, by the masses, for the masses. Let us be thankful we have an occupation to fill. Work hard; increase production; prevent accidents, and be happy.
posted by bradth27 at 3:10 PM on September 23, 2003


We've always been at war with Iraq.

Even when we were supporting Iraq in its war with Iran, we were also supporting Iran (Remember Ollie North?). Our policy during the years of sanctions (and Clinton was the same as Bush Sr. - don't ever accuse me of defending Clinton) was always to force Saddam out, not to get him to comply with anything - and if the Iraqi people suffered, then they shoulda got rid of Saddam. And if they got killed trying (and some did), then they just weren't worthy of out support. Bush Jr. finally lost patience (he's got the patience of a mosquito, and several of its other qualities too) and here we are, occupying Iraq until it accepts its future as an American colony. That's your history lesson for today.
posted by wendellseviltwin at 3:12 PM on September 23, 2003


...worthy of OUR support.
When I typo, I'm using wendell's keyboard.
posted by wendellseviltwin at 3:15 PM on September 23, 2003


Wait. So the Bush administration lied to us? Now I'm pissed!
posted by keswick at 3:44 PM on September 23, 2003


"Events during the past two years have set before us the clearest of divides: ... between those who work for peaceful change, and those who adopt the methods of gangsters; between those who honor the rights of man, and those who deliberately take the lives of men and women and children without mercy or shame."

Astonishing the man can say this with a straight face, or a nervous twitch of conscience. Astounding.

"...because a coalition of nations acted to defend the peace, and the credibility of the United Nations, Iraq is free..."

The Bush Administration at no time attempted to undermine the UN. Reality is rewritten.

And then there's the insidious comments designed to associate Iraq with terrorism (and strenghten the illusion that Iraq was im,plicated in Sept 11):

First, what insomnia_lj quoted; then:

"Across the world, nations are more secure because an ally of terror has fallen.
"

"Our international coalition in Iraq is meeting it responsibilities. We are conducting precision raids against terrorists and holdouts of the former regime.
"

Many of the reports coming out of Iraq speak of American forces operating in a manner not remotely similar to the definition of "precision." Resistance and guerilla warfare against an occupying force is now re-defined as terrorism.

"We are dedicated to the defense of our collective security, and to the advance of human rights."

Guantanamo Bay is an advancement of Human Rights, as are the Patriot acts, etc.

"The primary goal of our coalition in Iraq is self-government for the people of Iraq, reached by orderly and democratic process. This process must unfold according to the needs of Iraqis, neither hurried, nor delayed by the wishes of other parties.
"

Which is why in the absence of a democratically elected representative body in Iraq, it has already been determined by America that all services and bodies in Iraq, except natural resources, will be privatised, be open to total purchase by non-Iraqi corporations, and there will be freedom to remove all profits made, from Iraq. Mass privatisation, unilaterally and undemocratically imposed, the will of the Iraqi people musn't include nationalised industry.

"Iraq now has a Governing Council, the first truly representative institution in that country. Iraq's new leaders are showing the openness and tolerance that democracy requires...
"

"Truly representative." Please savour the inaccuracy of this statement. The rest of the sentence insinuates that democracy has been implemented. I must have missed the elections, along with every Iraqi.

"A second challenge we must confront together is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Outlaw regimes that possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons -- and the means to deliver them -- would be able to use blackmail and create chaos in entire regions."

There are "outlaw regimes." Only "lawful" regimes are allowed to posess WMD. Lawful regimes will act in the best interests of everyone when using their WMD. Outlaw regimes would not.

Only the gullible could accept this speech as truthful, accurate, or anything other than dishonest.
posted by Blue Stone at 3:48 PM on September 23, 2003


Well, give the man credit. He only referenced September 11th in the speech once, although it was in the first paragraph.

Aren't the ties to terror that Hussein gave money to Palestinian suicide bombers? That's confirmed and widely accepted as true. Of course, there are money ties in Syria and Saudi Arabia as well to the Palestinian suicide bombers. And trying to link the Israel/Palestine situation and using those funds as a justification to invade Iraq is a tenuous argument at best. Other than that one link, any connection between Hussein and Al Qaida, which everyone DOES think about when he speaks of terrorism, is nonexistent. However, technically Bush IS correct by saying Hussein supported terrorism.

Of course, so do we, School of Americas, etc. etc. Iran/Contra etc. etc. sorry, couldn't let that go.
posted by graventy at 3:48 PM on September 23, 2003


keswick, you bastard, that's my line.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:57 PM on September 23, 2003


graventy - And an associate of the Bush family (who is being protected by the US government) blew up an airliner. I guess the War On Terrorism is a selective war? ("good" terrorists vs. "bad" terrorists ?!)
posted by troutfishing at 3:59 PM on September 23, 2003


And now for the most novel contribution ever to an IraqFilter thread:

You people are all fucking idiots. Everyone. On all sides. Just shut the fuck up already.

Thank you, the end.
posted by jammer at 4:13 PM on September 23, 2003


mr_crash_davis: look at it this way. you started a meme.
posted by keswick at 4:17 PM on September 23, 2003


Bush to World: Drop Dead!
posted by homunculus at 4:30 PM on September 23, 2003


"...because a coalition of nations acted to defend the peace, and the credibility of the United Nations, Iraq is free..."


I love Big Brother.

(And I'll lay off the Orwell cliches when they stop being so damn apropos)
posted by jokeefe at 4:43 PM on September 23, 2003


The problem with complaining about the persistent references to Orwell is that it's really the only language we can use to describe this sorry state of affairs. If there was a way to convey Orwellianess without actually using the lanugage, I'd be all for it.

But there isn't.
posted by influx at 4:55 PM on September 23, 2003


Has anyone written anything approaching Orwell's take on the subject?
posted by Blue Stone at 5:04 PM on September 23, 2003


orwell's take on our modern world is quaint.
posted by muppetboy at 5:45 PM on September 23, 2003


orwell's take on our modern world is quaint.

I don't think he was expecting it to actually happen.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:27 PM on September 23, 2003


I don't think he was expecting it to actually happen.

well, we certainly showed him then, didn't we? :)

Seriously, if the droning lies weren't bad enough, he's disrespects the American people and the U.N. by not even trying to lie well. Granted, he doesn't have to on the homefront because we swallow it up by the fifty-five gallon drum like so much just-right porridge. At least Clinton had the decency to back up his "I did not have sex with that woman" line with a semantic argument.
posted by Vetinari at 6:57 PM on September 23, 2003


I'm amazed at the inability of people who otherwise seem intelligent to grasp simple concepts.

You know, like the one by which it's possible to support terrorism and not have taken part in or assisted the Sept 11th attacks. Iraq played some role in the 1993 WTC bombing. Iraq gave lots of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Iraq sheltered Abu Nidal, who was a global terrorist if ever there was one. Right now, it seems unlikely that Iraq played any role in the Sept 11th attacks. So if Cheney goes and says something dumb about Iraq and Sept 11th, Bush is right to say "Hey - that's not right." And when he's talking to the UN, it's reasonable for him to say "Iraq used to be a big sponsor of global terror. Now they're not." There's no contradiction, and you don't need to be a particularly strong student of the English language to figure that out.

Unless, of course, you're only trying to score points by showing how anti-Bush you are. In which case we're all very proud of you.
posted by jaek at 7:04 PM on September 23, 2003


By your logic, jaek, the US government has supported terrorism, if only for the support it gave to Afghanis in the 80s.
posted by jpoulos at 7:15 PM on September 23, 2003


It's a fine line, jpoulos. The US Government supported terrorists in South America, for certain. The Afghanis? Well... that's a somewhat different kettle of fish, after all, it was a war. Not peacetime.

It was called the "Cold War" and it was fought between the now forgotten Soviet Union (seems to be forgotten or people might realize that a lot of the groups causing the west trouble were trained by the Soviets... like Arafat... or the elder Assad... or the Mullahs of Iran...) and it was cold because it never came to nuclear holocaust. But it was sure as hell hot all over the rest of the world.

The KGB pioneered terrorism. The US used it. We're trying to put the genie back in the bottle, somewhat.

Bad us, Jpoulos. How dare we be such hypocrites as to say "we made a mistake with that terrorism thing, we'd like to stop its spread as it's a terrible thing."
posted by swerdloff at 7:21 PM on September 23, 2003


You people are all fucking idiots. Everyone. On all sides. Just shut the fuck up already.

No.

Bad us, Jpoulos.

Yes, bad you. Very very bad you, indeed. Bad leaders, and bad people for letting those leaders do the evil, bad, shortsighted, self-serving shit they have, for decades, while you let your faux-democratic society crumble all around you. Bad, bad Americans. Perhaps you need to be smacked on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper, so you'll stop peeing all over the planet.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:34 PM on September 23, 2003


David Kay is in charge of our effort now, with some 1,500 inspectors and analysts and experts. He will provide an interim report later this month, and I am confident when people see what David Kay puts forward they will see that there was no question that such weapons exist, existed, and so did the programs to develop one.

Colin Powell
Meet The Press
September 7th, 2003

David Kay is not going to be done with this for quite some time. And I would not count on reports. I suppose there may be interim reports. I don't know when those will be, and I don't know what the public nature of them will be.

Condi Rice
Press Briefing
September 22nd, 2003

posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:37 PM on September 23, 2003


How dare we be such hypocrites as to say "we made a mistake with that terrorism thing, we'd like to stop its spread as it's a terrible thing."

I'm sorry, when did we admit a "mistake"?
posted by jpoulos at 7:49 PM on September 23, 2003


"Across the world, nations are more secure because an ally of terror has fallen."
Doonesbury got it right:
Terrorist: It's much more jihad-friendly now! Before the invasion we were too afraid to operate in Iraq!
Reporter: Afraid? of what?
Terrorist: Weapons of mass destruction. We bought it too.

You people are all fucking idiots. Everyone. On all sides.
It's a steep learning curve. That's why we need "IraqFilter".

I love Big Brother.
Me too... Especially when Alison's in the diary room complaining how everybody else is stupid, then says something like "I never heard of Bry cheese". A heroine for the Bush Jr. generation.

(And I'll lay off the Orwell cliches when they stop being so damn apropos)
Orwell wrote the book to keep "1984" from happening, but he just postponed it 20 years.

I'm sorry, when did we admit a "mistake"?
I think the last one we admitted was that Japanese internment thing in '42... Just wait 40-50 years...
posted by wendellseviltwin at 8:28 PM on September 23, 2003


Orwell wrote the book to keep "1984" from happening, but he just postponed it 20 years.

All things considered, not a bad feat.
posted by Ufez Jones at 8:41 PM on September 23, 2003


Yes, too many people have read 1984--I suggest more remote literature if you're going to reference anything. Unfortunately, I can give you no examples for fear that my examples will themselves be rendered incapable of use. It's a Catch-22, only not, because a lot of people have read that book...
posted by The God Complex at 10:31 PM on September 23, 2003


jpoulous: Afghanistan was invaded by the USSR in the 80s. The heck with the Cold War - this was a hot war. Even so, I'm not aware of any mass attacks on civilians in Afghanistan or in the USSR by the mujahadeen during the 80s (and this while fighting the Soviets, who were quite into such behavior), and I don't consider attacks on soldiers of a country you are currently at war with to be terrorism. I'd certainly welcome any evidence about said terrorist activities.

And while the US has supported terrorism, we don't any more. There are several other countries in the same situation - see Libya - and we're treating them reasonably well, so I don't see a contradiction there either. I'd like to see a bit more contrition on our part, but if I had to choose I'd take the better behavior.
posted by jaek at 11:23 PM on September 23, 2003


And while the US has supported terrorism, we don't any more.

jaek, no offense, but the amount of time it takes to verfiy that as complete bullshit is almost as short as the amount of time you likely took to even remotely consider the idea of making sure you could back up that claim.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:28 AM on September 24, 2003


I don't consider attacks on soldiers of a country you are currently at war with to be terrorism

I agree, and this is why it bugs me when the frequent explosions of improvised explosive devices (and why can't we just say "bombs"?) in Iraq are referred to as "terrorist attacks."

On a semi-related point, I was watching Alan Dershowitz on CNN tonight saying that there could never be a Palestinian state until the Palestinians renounced terrorism because a state cannot be founded as a reward for terrorism, and I thought, you mean, like Isreal?

I'm not anti-Israel (or anti-Palestine); I'm pro-admission that history is messy
posted by kirkaracha at 1:00 AM on September 24, 2003


kirkaracha: sure. Blowing up GIs - not terrorism. Blowing up that mosque a while back - terrorism. Hell, even blowing up Israeli soldiers doesn't strike me as terrorism, although Hamas seems to have backed off of that when they realize that it leads to Israeli helicopters missiling their cars.

XQUZYPHYR: And is what used to be the School of the Americas still teaching nasty counter-intelligence and torture methods, or didn't they drop those a few years back? After all, surely you recognize the difference between training people who become terrorists and training people *to* be terrorists.
posted by jaek at 2:33 AM on September 24, 2003


Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction

As the largest owner of WMD this statement implies that the US must also have the most "cultivated" ties to terror for the longest period of time.

And while the US has supported terrorism, we don't any more.

Where to start? Probably not worth my time to refute so how about a smartass retort? We don't any LESS either.

You people are all fucking idiots. Everyone. On all sides. Just shut the fuck up already.

So Bill O'Really has time to spend on MetaFilter? I recognize the style. Hey, O'Reilly, that's a very fitting alias, as in WIND jammer I take it?
posted by nofundy at 5:18 AM on September 24, 2003


US doesn't support terrorists any more?

Remember the Contras?
Does El Salvador ring a bell?
Noriega? Remember him?
What about Pinochet?
Musharraf?
And yes, even the Taliban.
What about Argentina?
Brazil?
Ecuador?
Bolivia?
Uruguay?
Paraguay?
Columbia, anyone?
Turkmenistan?
Uzbekistan?
Turkey? (Ask a Kurd.)
*any*istan?

These are only off the top of my head.
posted by Cerebus at 6:27 AM on September 24, 2003


Admittedly, Afghanistan was a poor example.

And while the US has supported terrorism, we don't any more.

Not since we severed all ties with the Saudis...oh, wait.
posted by jpoulos at 6:58 AM on September 24, 2003


Senior general says many more reservists may be called for Iraq duty

The Pentagon may be forced within several weeks to alert a large number of additional National Guard and Reserve troops for duty in Iraq, a senior general said Wednesday.

Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said more reservists could be called upon if other countries do not soon pledge thousands more troops to form a third multinational division in Iraq.

''We need to be making decisions about alerting reservists over the next four to six weeks,'' he said. ''I would think that by around the end of October or the beginning of November we should be alerting those forces that may need to be called up to relieve or be prepared to relieve (troops there now) if we don't have specificity by then on a third'' multinational division.

posted by y2karl at 10:04 AM on September 24, 2003


Tonight's Wide Angle is on human trafficking.
posted by homunculus at 7:08 PM on September 25, 2003


« Older Jim Munroe, author of Flyboy Action Figure Comes W...  |  The requirement to carry passp... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments