Presidential Debate thread

[SirBruce]

Bush looked like what he is, a trained monkey who's out of his depth in any situation where he isn't reciting a stump speech or reading from an autocue.

Yeah, he really looked out of his depth here:

"I can hear you, the world hears you, and the people who knocked down these towers will hear from all of us soon."

Bruce

[Gromski]

It's a shame he wasn't struck dumb after that moment. He would have won the November election in a landslide.

[Abagadro]

He can obviously memorize a maximum of around 25 words, so that sentence was well within his wheelhouse.

[Fabricated]

I couldn't get over how uncomfortable Bush looked the whole time.

That man couldn't find his ass with both hands and a stick equipped with ass-finding radar.

[ahoythematey]

How comfortable do you think you'd feel, being in the hands of a media that, almost unanimously, hates you and your previous four years of life?  As has been said many times, give him a more relaxed environment and he comes off more presidential.

[Margalis]

It's funny, in high school they ask you to write stupid essays about famous leaders. Did they do something special, or did they just benefit from circumstances?

Bruce is officially too stupid to take seriously. What does a picture of the president with a megaphone prove? That he can turn on a megaphone?

I wonder how many Presidents would NOT have gone to Ground Zero? It's just a convenient fantasy, that only Bush is man enough to go to a disaster site. Presidents routinely visit natural disaster sites. Any person we could have elected in 2000, Bush, Gore, Nader, McCain, etc, ANY of them would have been at Ground Zero.

Is that what it takes to be a good president? o simply do the EXACT SAME THING that any other president would do in the same situation?

YAY FOR BUSH, HE CAN SPEAK INTO THE RIGHT END OF A MEGAPHONE! FOUR MORE YEARS!

Lets play a game. Name someone who we could have elected in 2000 who would not have stood at ground zero with a megaphone. That's hard, so let's not limit it to people running. Maybe your kid sister?

VOTE BUSH, HE CAN STAND ON A PILE OF TRASH WITH A MEGAPHONE AND NOT FALL OFF OF IT FOR THE DURATION OF A PHOTOGRAPH IF HE CONCENTRATES HARD ENOUGH.

VOTE BUSH, HE CAN VISIT DISASTER SITES WITH THE BEST OF 'EM!

VOTE BUSH, HE HAS FOUR LIMBS.

VOTE BUSH, MASTER OF MINOR ELECTRONIC DEVICES.

Guys, give up. Bush is the best. This photograph proves it! He may have looked like a retard in the debates, but look at the photo. HES STANDING WITH A MEGAPHONE OMG OMG OMG!

VOTE BUSH, HE SOUNDS LIKE A RETARD MOST OF THE TIME, BUT NOT IN THIS MAJESTIC LOADED PICTURE WITH ACCOMPANYING CAPTION!

Ha, this is fun.

I like the logic:

People: Bush looked out of his depth in the debates.
Bruce: Oh yeah, look at this picture!

Touche!

[Margalis]

How comfortable do you think you'd feel, being in the hands of a media that, almost unanimously, hates you and your previous four years of life?  As has been said many times, give him a more relaxed environment and he comes off more presidential.

GUYS, BEING THE PRESIDENT IS HARD WORK! ITS HARD WORK. HARD...WORK! ITS HARD!

Waaaaahhh....

That must be why he takes so much vacation...

[ahoythematey]

I must admit, I'd probably take an obscene amount of vacations myself, if I were President of the U.S.A and dealt with an unending swarm of people, perhaps such as yourself, that seem to assume the work within the Presidency comes as natural as a bowel movement.  Or that being a war-veteran automatically makes you a natural leader.

Hmm, I suppose it did work for lil' ole Adolf.  Oops, there I go with a Hitler comparison, nevermind that the lesser side of political thinkers has alluded to the same thing concerning mister G dubbyah.  Naturally, though, I'm automatically in the wrong because siding with a good ole boy from Texas is somehow inherantly wrong and all rational thinkers come from New England, or California.

Cough.

[SirBruce]

It's funny, in high school they ask you to write stupid essays about famous leaders. Did they do something special, or did they just benefit from circumstances?

Obviously you should have spent more time in Introduction to Logic than in your PolSci class.

Bruce is officially too stupid to take seriously. What does a picture of the president with a megaphone prove? That he can turn on a megaphone?

No, it proves that Gromski's statement was FALSE:

Bush looked like what he is, a trained monkey who's out of his depth in any situation where he isn't reciting a stump speech or reading from an autocue.

Since Bush appeared to be IN his depth in that picture, and where he wasn't reciting a stump speech nor reading from an autocue, Gromski's statement is incorrect.  If Gromski had simply left it at "Wow, Bush didn't look so hot at the debates", I wouldn't have said anything.  But his personal zeal for exagerration led him to make a false claim.

But I guess I should not be surprised that you can't even understand that.  It has become clear that when some folk decide to dislike something, they refuse to believe anything good about it and gladly believe anything bad about it, no matter how extreme.

Bruce

[Margalis]

Since Bush appeared to be IN his depth in that picture, and where he wasn't reciting a stump speech nor reading from an autocue, Gromski's statement is incorrect.  If Gromski had simply left it at "Wow, Bush didn't look so hot at the debates", I wouldn't have said anything.  But his personal zeal for exagerration led him to make a false claim.

I think everyone in the thread other than you understands that the English language is based on connotations and got the connotation.

I suppose you could post a picture of Bush taking a piss and also "prove" your point.

That's assuming a random picture shows anything about being in or out of one's depth, which it doesn't. At least not this one. For all we know in that very photo Bush was saying "is this thing on?"

If you want to be an extreme literalist, I would point out the error in your above quote. You wouldn't have said anything? Ever? Damn, guess we missed a golden opportunity. You have have been mute the entire rest of your natural life? Strange.

A false claim right there. Luckily, not all of us are retarded literalists when it's convenient.

[Gromski]

Since Bush appeared to be IN his depth in that picture, and where he wasn't reciting a stump speech nor reading from an autocue, Gromski's statement is incorrect. If Gromski had simply left it at "Wow, Bush didn't look so hot at the debates", I wouldn't have said anything. But his personal zeal for exagerration led him to make a false claim.

The thread's reached the level of pathos, so I'll take my leave.

[SirBruce]

Since Bush appeared to be IN his depth in that picture, and where he wasn't reciting a stump speech nor reading from an autocue, Gromski's statement is incorrect.  If Gromski had simply left it at "Wow, Bush didn't look so hot at the debates", I wouldn't have said anything.  But his personal zeal for exagerration led him to make a false claim.

I think everyone in the thread other than you understands that the English language is based on connotations and got the connotation.

Except you never claimed "Oh, no, I meant something else in that connontation."

In fact, you still haven't.

Bruce

[Margalis]

Except you never claimed "Oh, no, I meant something else in that connontation."

In fact, you still haven't.

Without any context what you wrote above makes zero sense.

You attacked someone by resorting to extreme literalism, I am pointing out that your statement fails the same application of that literalism, and that we aren't interested in extreme literalism.

Again, you said you wouldn't have said anything if he hadn't done X and Y. So, you wouldn't have spoken another word in your entire life? Methinks thou art a liar. See, literalism is fun. (And stupid)

You are that guy who doesn't get what everyone else is talking about. There is always one.

[Ironwood]

  For all we know in that very photo Bush was saying "is this thing on?"

And here Margalis reached what we scientists refer to as 'The Bruce Ownage Plateau'.

[Calantus]

Wow, vintage Bruce happening right before my very eyes. I don't know about anyone else but I'd thought he'd changed. Oh well. Best ban him for a week so this thread can die the death it now deserves.

[personman]

If indeed your theory is correct, and Bush is simply doing these things motivated by other means in order to accomplish other ends, it does not matter to me.  Because I believe they are still accomplishing the things that are also part of my ideal.

His motivation wasn't some abstract mental process.  It guided the execution.  And the execution was so intentionally risky and destructive that it alone is reason enough to fire the man for poor judgement in his strategic deliberations and his choice of advisors.

Motivation led to pressure to immediate action.  Your other comparisons in this thread to the Cold War are backwards.  The Cold War was a perfect example of why Bush's motivation to immediate action was flawed and destructive to the goal we all feel is important - reducing terrorisms' impact on global stability.

Reagan didn't use pre-emptive military force.  He wore down the opponent and we had a transition that was amazingly smooth considering the expectations were most dire.  Had Reagan and Bush 41 never been elected the fall would most likely be happening about now.

Bush 43 didn't wear down the opponent.  He tried to force the situation.  He cherry-picked inflated arguments, conflated tenuous issues that even individually didn't bear up to scrutiny.  His administration destroyed seasoned proven patriots in the ranks who disagreed (Shinseki comes to mind).  While I too have contempt for the UN we are still a Superpower that has to respect our allies.

We have to *be* right.  Not *want* to be right.

BTW... Rumsfeld also admitted this week the war was poorly executed.  Paul Bremer announced the same thing last night and went on to observe the destructive fallout I just outlined.  David Kay and the CIA spoke at greater length last week on such evidence as the aluminum tubes were solidly discounted a good year before Ms. Rice publically announced otherwise.

It's not enough to have done the right thing.  It has to be done the right way as well.  "Good intentions" are something I take into account when my child breaks a vase.  With the leader of a Superpower the stakes are too high to be that wishy-washy.

History shows repeatedly that a single World Power begins to fail when it flexes it military in the face of world opinion and in the absence of genuine global threat.  The idea, stated for example by Sun Tzu and Machiavelli, is that the implicit undercurrent of possible force leads allies to respect or at least constructively cooperate with rather than fear the world power.

The lesson repeatedly is this sort of use of such power shows the limitations of the world power and leads to its eventual downfall as the self-revealed weaknesses are exploited.

Edited for the usual fingerchecks... :-P

[Roac]

Obviously it's a big enough deal to people like HaemishM and the loony left-wing, who deny that there were any connections between Iraq and AQ.

The US "had connections" with AQ.  That itself doesn't mean anything at all.  What's important is what the nature of the connections were, and in the case of Iraq and AQ, they were irrelevant.

And then left them high and dry when the USSR ran home. Stupid, yes, but hardly evil.

I suppose the guy who trains pit bulls to attack, then releases them to run lose in the neighborhood isn't evil either.  I mean hey, they didn't have to attack people, did they?

Yes, there was something very evil about what we did, it's just that we refuse to face the facts because it was us that did it.  It's classic that evil can't easily see its own evil.  In our case, the US constantly refuses to face the consequences for short-term decisions it makes.  We did the same thing to the Iraqi rebellion after the first Gulf War - and every one of their deaths is on our hands.  No, we didn't pull the trigger, but that doesn't void liability.

[UD_Delt]

Can someone explain to me the whole stem cell research issue? I haven't found an article that pieces the whole thing together yet but the best i have is:

They both support stem cell research in general and will provide federal funding to it. Where they differ is only in embryonic stem cell research with Kerry in favor and Bush opposed.


Does that sum it up or am I missing something? As a cancer survivor this is an important issue to my wife but I really don't think she understands the full issue. The problem is I don't understand it that well myself so can't quite explain it to her.

[Margalis]

The US "had connections" with AQ.  That itself doesn't mean anything at all.  What's important is what the nature of the connections were, and in the case of Iraq and AQ, they were irrelevant.

That's why we are attacking Buffalo, NY next week.

The thing about Bush was supposed to be that he is not detail-oriented, but he can surround himself with the right people. But it turns out, those people are also not detail-oriented and just not on the ball at all. How many times have we heard that the rank and file knew something, but the higher ups did not?

At some point you have to reach the conclusion that the higher-ups were not asking the questions, and were making it clear that they were interested in only certain types of information. It's hard to not draw that conclusion when we created special task forces to bypass the normal processes and produce only positive results.

Bush himself, and his subordinates, do not seem to have a good grasp of the facts or interest in the facts. "Gee, I must not have read that memo!" is only good for so long. At some point, somebody has to learn the information, and that requires being interested in factual information to begin with.

If Bush himself cannot do that, I suppose he at least made that clear up front. But his people can't do it either. It's jsut "the buck stops over there" over and over again.

[HaemishM]

More liberal rewriting of history.  The President did not hammer home repeatedly that Iraq and AQ were working together to do anything.  

Yes he did. State of the Union. EVERY SINGLE ADMINISTRATION PRESS CONFERENCE AFTER THAT. He even mentioned it in the fucking debates. He's still trying to claim they are connected.

Nice way to change the debate again.  HE SAID THEY ARE CONNECTED.  I SAID THEY ARE CONNECTED.  THE 9/11 COMISSION SAID THEY WERE CONNECTED.  You're the only one claiming there was no connection.  Furthermore you're implying that Bush OVERSTATED the connection, saying all the time that they were working together, which he did not.

The 9/11 report you quoted, the very pieces you are using as evidence to say that AQ and Iraq were connected says that they had NO COLLABORATIVE OPERATIONAL RELATIONSHIP.

But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship

I.e. they were not connected. I'm not sure what part of the shit you quoted you are reading, but that statement is all you need. Oh dear, they might have talked. Oh dear. Maybe they talked. I see a lot about the administration FEARING they might talk and develop a relationship, but no one actually saying that they decided to work together.

Bruce, that would be like people seeing me and you talking on this message board and then saying somewhere else that we were dating and were planning to get married in a gay ceremony in San Francisco.

Because that's about as likely as Iraq and Al-Qaeda ever having worked together.

EDIT: Because spelling is hard and stuph.

[Dark Vengeance]

Wow...that was really impressive. Did you go to the Bush Administration "Vomit Forth the Talking Points Without Saying Anything" symposium, or was it a correspondence course?

No offense man, but I get fucking sick of hearing this bullshit response. Does anyone rip on Bush's detractors for taking Kerry's talking points? Or Michael Moore's? No, they don't.....but as soon as you put up any type of valid defense against those positions, you're 'stealing Rove's material' or 'parrotting the campaign talking points'. It's a bullshit double standard, and it pisses me off, because all it is intended to do is dismiss the argument without addressing the points that were brought up.

Not that Bruce is making a terribly effective argument in any of this, just saying that this is a tactic that has become quite tiresome in the last few months.

For that matter, the folks gently wavering between "OMG Bush R teh stupidist Persdiant EAVR" and "OMFG BUSH = EVIL INCARNATE" aren't making such a compelling case either. The ABB people still don't grasp that it's going to take more than "Bush is too stupid to tie his own shoes" and other similar hyperbole to get people to elect Kerry.

But that's the problem....most of Kerry's supporters aren't backing him because they want him to win, they're backing him because they want Bush to lose.

We can try and relive the past 4 years all you folks want.....it doesn't change the present. This is the 2004 election, not the 2000 election.....so Kerry talking about what he would have done and what Bush should have done is nothing but rhetoric. He needs to give us a better picture of what he's going to do now and in the future....and he needs to flesh out more details of his plans.

That's what the "hard work" comments were about......it's a lot easier to believe Kerry when he says "I'll do XYZ" than it is to actually do it. Even Kerry takes the position that Bush did the right thing, he just disagrees with *HOW* Bush went about it. It's only natural, sensible, and correct for Bush to point out that "it's not that easy in practice" when Kerry suggests a solution that seems ridiculously simple, obvious, and achievable in the span of a 15 second sound byte. The solution for Iraq is the perfect example of this, as their plans are virtually identical.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[HaemishM]

In 2000, Bush said he would not use troops for nation-building.

In 2004, our troops are being used as shields in nation-building 2 separate nations.

On that statement alone, Bush has shown that he does not stand by his word. Granted, that shouldn't be news to anyone about any politician.

Personally, I'd love to feel like I had a choice in this election. I'd love to feel that I'm voting for Kerry because he is the clear-cut better candidate. But that is not the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. The reality is that I believe our current president has had ample opportunity to succeed, with a slight majority in Congress and an event that turned world opinion on our side in an almost overwhelming fashion, moreso than even the sympathetic foreign policy doctrine that was adopted by Clinton.

And in the 3 years since that time, he has screwed the pooch, failing at almost every opportunity to enact policies that solve the problem they are attempting to without creating more problems. His failure means that,  whether Kerry is the absolute best man for the job, Kerry is nontheless a different candidate who may or may not do the same bad things. Bush has failed at his job and needs to be fired. "Better the evil I don't know the evil I do know."

My opinion of Bush's record as president (as well as his administration):

1) Lowered world opinion of the US to all-time low
2) Pissed off numerous allies with stubborn, self-righteous arrogance
3) Expressed his support for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage
4) Cut taxes in such a manner that the most wealthy reap a lion's share of the benefits, in order to stimulate the economy's growth... said growth is still stunted, weakly growing at best
5) Provided no clear plan for stabilizing either Iraq or Afghanistan in any sort of timely fashion
6) Refused to admit mistakes
7) Raised, yes RAISED government spending while also cutting taxes, to the point that our government's budget will be running on a larger deficit than ever for many, many years; some of those new government programs went without funding, such as "No Child Left Behind Act"

That's just what I can remember off the top of my head.

[WayAbvPar]

I call 'em like I see 'em. If Bruce had brought anything more substantial than spin and rhetoric, I wouldn't have used the line.

[Alkiera]

That's what the "hard work" comments were about......it's a lot easier to believe Kerry when he says "I'll do XYZ" than it is to actually do it. Even Kerry takes the position that Bush did the right thing, he just disagrees with *HOW* Bush went about it. It's only natural, sensible, and correct for Bush to point out that "it's not that easy in practice" when Kerry suggests a solution that seems ridiculously simple, obvious, and achievable in the span of a 15 second sound byte. The solution for Iraq is the perfect example of this, as their plans are virtually identical.

Kerry's plan seems to be 'forge a new alliance'...  who, aside from those already allied with us, does he think he can get to join?  France and Germany have both stated they will not join in, no matter who the president is next year.  Kerry claims that Bush has shattered alliances, while his sister is in Austrailia, who's allied with us more than even Britain, campaigning for a candidate who wants Austrailia to break away from the US, like Spain did.

I don't need to vote for Kerry to get his plan on Iraq... I got it when I voted for G.W. Bush 4 years ago.

--
Alkiera

[shiznitz]

My opinion of Bush's record as president (as well as his administration):

1) Lowered world opinion of the US to all-time low
2) Pissed off numerous allies with stubborn, self-righteous arrogance
3) Expressed his support for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage
4) Cut taxes in such a manner that the most wealthy reap a lion's share of the benefits, in order to stimulate the economy's growth... said growth is still stunted, weakly growing at best
5) Provided no clear plan for stabilizing either Iraq or Afghanistan in any sort of timely fashion
6) Refused to admit mistakes
7) Raised, yes RAISED government spending while also cutting taxes, to the point that our government's budget will be running on a larger deficit than ever for many, many years; some of those new government programs went without funding, such as "No Child Left Behind Act"

That's just what I can remember off the top of my head.

1. So what if true? The old eastern bloc countries still like us. China relations are good. India relations are ok. These are the areas that are growing. The Old World can go to hell.

2. That is a qualitative interpretation without any defined repercussions.

3. I agree. The GOP is supposed to protect The Constitution from shit like this.

4. I like the money, thank you, and my industry (finance) is booming again.

5. I agree. Follow through has been horrendous, I just don't think Kerry would do anything different from here on out.

6. Isn't his reversal of no nation-building an admission of a mistake? It is pre-9/11 vs post-9/11. Things change.

7. I agree and it does piss me off.

Bush delivered unto me tax cuts. I forgive much in light of that.

[SirBruce]

Except you never claimed "Oh, no, I meant something else in that connontation."

In fact, you still haven't.

Without any context what you wrote above makes zero sense.

You attacked someone by resorting to extreme literalism, I am pointing out that your statement fails the same application of that literalism, and that we aren't interested in extreme literalism.

But when my quotes are not meant to be taken literally, I'm quite happy to admit that.  I recognize sometimes people can't always tell the difference, so miscommunication happens.  You shouldn't get your panties all in a bunch over it.

Again, I'm still waiting for YOU to admit that your statement was literally false, and you were simply exagerrating to increase the emotional impact of your statement in order to illustrate a point.

Bruce

[Dark Vengeance]

Can someone explain to me the whole stem cell research issue? I haven't found an article that pieces the whole thing together yet but the best i have is:

They both support stem cell research in general and will provide federal funding to it. Where they differ is only in embryonic stem cell research with Kerry in favor and Bush opposed.


Does that sum it up or am I missing something? As a cancer survivor this is an important issue to my wife but I really don't think she understands the full issue. The problem is I don't understand it that well myself so can't quite explain it to her.

There was a pretty good thread on this at Corpnews....the discussion actually motivated me to do my research on that subject specifically, because it was an area where I only had a vague understanding.

The nutshell with stem cells is that they can be manipulated to develop into various types of human cells. Embryonic stem cells are believed to be more malleable than adult stem cells or somatic stem cells (i.e. stem cells derived from the blood from an umbilical cord)....the rest are just not as versatile.

The issue quickly boils down to how stem cells can ethically be acquired and used for medical purposes. I'd expect a majority of folks disagree with the idea of simply mass producing embryos in labs, or via cloning embryos (which goes down the whole path about human cloning, and "creating people for spare parts").

The obvious source, leftover zygotes at fertility clinics, raises a few moral/ethical issues. First is whether the clinics can SELL the zygotes, or whether they are simply DONATED. Secondly is whether the prospective parents have the choice to have the embryos disposed of or donated (naturally, if the zygotes are sold to labs, this has it's own line of issues). Additionally, to what extent can we monitor the clinics, to ensure that it doesn't become a de facto means of production (i.e. someone being paid under the table to go under the fertility clinic treatments in order to produce embryos for research)?

And finally, if we find a use for stem cells as a treatment, and that demand exceeds the supply needed for experimentation AND this treatment, what then? Do we start production, or do some people simply go without treatment?

Here's where I stand....and it's slightly different from where Bush stands. It is undeniable that embryos are made up of living cells....and it's undeniable that these cells are human cells. I'm not saying they are a human being, or any of the slippery slope pro-life stuff that would imply. Just that they are living human cells....they are, in fact, human embryos after all.

I don't believe it is ethical to CREATE a human embryo for the sole purpose of destroying it. Harvesting the stem cells destroys the embryo.

If someone could assure me that we would only fund labs that use discarded fertility clinic embryos, which could be DONATED at the choice of the parents, and that the fertility clinics would be sufficiently monitored to prevent any de facto production from taking place......AND that once a scientific benefit could be found that we would make every effort to achieve the same result through the use of adult and/or somatic stem cells.....well, I guess I'd be okay with it. The embryos would be destroyed anyway, let mankind benefit from it if we can, I say. Or heck, if you could clone the stem cells themselves, without cloning the full embryo, I'd be all for it.

Bush made his decision by also taking into account the argument of the staunch pro-life crowd. The argument they present is compelling, but I ultimately disagree with it. They suggest that if these embryos are to die, shouldn't they be afforded the dignity of doing so without being experimented upon?

Bush didn't ban federal funding on embryonic research....what he did was to only grant funding to research on adult stem cells, somatic stem cells, and research on existing stem cell lines (i.e. where the embryos had already been destroyed). Furthermore, he set up a panel on bioethics to regularly revisit this and other issues. Their website is here....all of the reports are available on that site for free. The council was set up in November 2001, the most recent report on stem cell research was published in January 2004.

So, what did he do? Gave federal funding to some forms of stem cell research, did not fund a portion that he felt could be considered ethically and morally objectionable, created a bioethics council to allow continued discussion of the matter as it pertains to embryonic stem cell research. The fact that he left the door open for further discussion shows a lot more wisdom on the issue than I think most give him credit for.....to read most of his opponents on the issue, you'd think he made a decree that it should never be allowed.

It's a fascinating issue, even for a guy that generally doesn't care much for science like myself. I'll say that I don't agree with Bush's stance....but to go the other route and simply open the floodgates is something i would object to even more.

Anyway, I don't want to derail too far...hope that gives you a bit more insight about a rather complex issue. If you want to discuss more, the link to the bioethics council should be good, or I'll gladly discuss via PM.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[SirBruce]

His motivation wasn't some abstract mental process.  It guided the execution.  And the execution was so intentionally risky and destructive that it alone is reason enough to fire the man for poor judgement in his strategic deliberations and his choice of advisors.

And if you don't support his actions, don't vote for him.

Me, I supported his actions, so his motivation doesn't really matter much when I compare him to the alternative.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

Obviously it's a big enough deal to people like HaemishM and the loony left-wing, who deny that there were any connections between Iraq and AQ.

The US "had connections" with AQ.

Glad we can agree on that.  Next time someone claims they didn't, I hope you're right out in front calling them on it and questioning everything else they say after that.

That itself doesn't mean anything at all.  What's important is what the nature of the connections were, and in the case of Iraq and AQ, they were irrelevant.

I think it depends on what one believes is relevant.  If you only care about, for example, operational links to 9/11, there's virtually no evidence for that save for a few rumors.  If you're looking at a much broader context of Iraq being willing to work with AQ and attempting to work with them and other terrorists groups, the connections become quite relevant.

Bruce

[Roac]

no one actually saying that they decided to work together.

To be precise, the 9/11 report specifically states they decided to not work together.

It's important to remember - and I don't think Bruce does - that there are many different and opposing types of Arabs.  Not all of them are even Muslem.  Those who are have factions within the religion itself, with Suni and Shia being the most obvious, but even these groups are far from homogenous.  In the case of Bin Ladin and Saddam, they are about as far apart from one another as you can get.  Saddam banned a lot of religious books during his reign, and fought Iran and its religious government.  He was born poor, and murdered his way to the top.  He rules by fear, and his goal is personal power.

Bin Ladin on the other hand, was born into wealth.  He gave up his bithright for ideals, both religious and communal.  He got his start fighting the communists in Afghanistan, defending what he considered to be Muslem lands against infidels.  He came out ontop because he was highly charismatic and a natural leader.  After the fights with Russia, he went on to pull together people from both Shia and Suni groups to work towards common goals (think athiests and southern baptists, and you won't be far off from how different these two groups are).  Public office or other vestiments of "real" power have not had much apparent interest to him; instead he puts his efforts into leading the masses through his personality.  He is irrevokably bound to fundamentalist Islam, and is at near-prophet status to some Muslems in the region.

The only two things these men share in common are the fact that they were born in the same area of the world, and they hate the US.  Fundamentally, they are opposites.  They did not like one another, and were fairly plain about it.  There is not a single documented instance of them cooperating, and anyone who pays one whit of attention to who they are would know that odds are far in favor of them never doing so in the future.  Despite that, our President stated point blank that Iraq was directly supporting Al Qaida, that Iraq had and was making more weapons of mass destruction, and that as a result we should go to war.  Because of that decision more than a thousand US servicemen are dead, and many times that in US and Iraqi citizens.

These people are dead.  They had friends and families.  This isn't some squabble about whether taxes should be cut a few percent, or the nuances of reworking our stressing health care system.  This is about people who were shot, cut, bombed, decapitated, tortured, or otherwise met extremely unpleasant and final ends, but wait that's ok, because two guys sent representatives to talk with each other and determine it was best not to work together on two (?) occations and that makes it all worthwhile and mean something.

[SirBruce]

More liberal rewriting of history.  The President did not hammer home repeatedly that Iraq and AQ were working together to do anything.  

Yes he did. State of the Union. EVERY SINGLE ADMINISTRATION PRESS CONFERENCE AFTER THAT. He even mentioned it in the fucking debates. He's still trying to claim they are connected.

Nice way to change the debate again.  HE SAID THEY ARE CONNECTED.  I SAID THEY ARE CONNECTED.  THE 9/11 COMISSION SAID THEY WERE CONNECTED.  You're the only one claiming there was no connection.  Furthermore you're implying that Bush OVERSTATED the connection, saying all the time that they were working together, which he did not.

The 9/11 report you quoted, the very pieces you are using as evidence to say that AQ and Iraq were connected says that they had NO COLLABORATIVE OPERATIONAL RELATIONSHIP.

Yes, and the 9/11 report I quoted documents that THEY WERE CONNECTED.  Collaborative operational relationship is an evaluation of the strength of the relatiionship.  How many times do we have to go over this?  Are you to stupid to see there's a distinction here?

I knew this guy once.  We talked from time to time.  We have mutual friends.  A few times we even made plans to work on some things together, but circumstances changed so they never really materialized.  Might we work together in the future if something comes up?  Yes.  Is there a "collaborative operational relationship" between us?  No.  Are we connected?  Yes.  Might we work together in the future?  Yes.  If someone claimed there was no connection between us, would that someone be a moron?  Yes.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

Kerry's plan seems to be 'forge a new alliance'...  who, aside from those already allied with us, does he think he can get to join?  France and Germany have both stated they will not join in, no matter who the president is next year.  Kerry claims that Bush has shattered alliances, while his sister is in Austrailia, who's allied with us more than even Britain, campaigning for a candidate who wants Austrailia to break away from the US, like Spain did.

Indeed, Kerry has gone on the badmouth the very allies we DO have, calling them the "coalition of the coerced and the bribed".  Nice, John; have you been taking diplomacy lessons from me???  And then he goes on to call the new leader of Iraq a puppet... yeah, that'll really get the allies to rally around Iraq!

Bruce

[Shannow]

In reference to that picture of Bush with the megaphone:

Im of the opinion that in face of a great tragedy, conflict or threat to one's nation it is much easier for a president/PM etc to look 'strong'. Al Gore wouldve looked presidential. Frick, Gary Coleman wouldve looked presidential saying something like that in face of the tragedy the nation had just expierenced. People are looking for reassurance, leadership, a strong voice in troubled times.

Its not an absolute premise I know, certain leaders may very well do better than others in times of trouble. But I look for what a leader does after the initial emotional response has past, or how does a leader look when he is trying to convince a fat and happy nation that they need to look forward 10 years instead of 2 ...etc.

Of course he looks like he's in his element there because that moment is MADE for leaders to show strength. Its what a President does when he has to make real decisions not great soundbites that matter.

[Roac]

I don't believe it is ethical to CREATE a human embryo for the sole purpose of destroying it.

That's where the argument breaks down; where do you think these disposable embryos came from in the first place?  That is, fertility clinics purposefully create multiple zygotes for each patient.  Part of that is a limitation of the techniques they use, and the difficulty in making just one viable zygote, so to compensate they make a batch of them.  

However, if you hold that it is unethical to create embryos knowing that you will dispose of them, then you must also argue that the techniques that these fertility clinics use to create "spares" is also unethical.  Therefore, there should not be any spares lying around for scientific use.  Further, allowing spares to be donated/sold to embryotic research puts pressure on the clinics to maintain a high number of zygotes per fertility attempt, since they are the only supplier.  This creates a motive for them to not only "accidentally" create additional zygotes as a byproduct of the process, but to be proactive in the effort.

[WayAbvPar]

Yes, and the 9/11 report I quoted documents that THEY WERE CONNECTED. Collaborative operational relationship is an evaluation of the strength of the relatiionship. How many times do we have to go over this? Are you to stupid to see there's a distinction here?

I knew this guy once. We talked from time to time. We have mutual friends. A few times we even made plans to work on some things together, but circumstances changed so they never really materialized. Might we work together in the future if something comes up? Yes. Is there a "collaborative operational relationship" between us? No. Are we connected? Yes. Might we work together in the future? Yes. If someone claimed there was no connection between us, would that someone be a moron? Yes.

I think the distinction is not so much the semantics of the word 'connected', but the fact that the tenuous connections were acted upon in the form of an invasion of a sovereign country. If we were so keen to try to go after all the bin Laden connections, I think the Sudan was a much better place to start. After all, he operated there for years with the tacit compliance of the government. Why not invade there?

Oil and personal grudges.