Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Rumsfeld Says He Was Misunderstood on Iraq-Al Qaeda
Oct. 5, 2004 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday he was misunderstood when he stated hours earlier that he knew of no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda.
"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between al Qaeda and Iraq," Rumsfeld said in a Web site statement issued following remarks he made to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York Monday.
"Today at the Council, I even noted that 'when I'm in Washington, I pull out a piece of paper and say "I don't know, because I'm not in that business, but I'll tell you what the CIA thinks" and I read it'."
In the new statement, issued on the Pentagon Web site, Rumsfeld listed what he said were arguments for suggesting links between al Qaeda and Iraq under Saddam, including what the CIA regarded as "credible evidence" that al Qaeda leaders had sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Rumsfeld, during a question-and-answer session before the Council on Foreign Relations, had been asked to explain the connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network -- one of the U.S. arguments for launching a war on Iraq.
He replied: "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."
_____________________
My head is spinning! Can he at least get his story straight, he's the freakin Secretary of Defense! Most of us know by know that there was no connection. Somebody better get this guy a better script to read!
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Id like to see Kerry win so when Iraq even gets worse I can hear jon and sutcliff and all them give the same excuses that the Bush apologists gave.
Especially when Kerry invites all these foreign nations in and all they do is steal our money while our troops still take the casualties.
I guess that is teh "6 of one, half a dozen of the other" argument. That's fine and all, but the reason many are voting for Kerry is the HOPE for change. What will happen in the future with Kerry will not be known until it happens, but there is a 4 year basis for what to expect under Bush. Could it happen that Kerry goes back on all his campaign promises and Iraq becomes even more of a mess than it is now? Sure, it COULD happen, but we don't know. There is only HOPE that Kerry will bring something different to the table. There is only HOPE that Kerry can restore credibility to the office of the president. We know what a mess W can make, so why would anyone want more of the same? You can't ignore that....
Believe me, if Kerry screws it up, I will hold him accountable, too. The thing is that I look at policy, not people. Voting for a president should not be conducted like a popularity contest, which is what you are making it....
It is going to be a very tough four years for whoever is elected. The situation in Iraq will tie the President's hands in many respect. Remember though that Kerry didn't make the decision to invade Iraq, that is on the Bush adminsration. If Kerry is elected he should not be held accountable for Bush's screw ups, but there will be an expectation that he finish the job in Iaq and if he doesn't accomplish that he could be a 1 term president just like W.
It is going to be a very tough four years for whoever is elected. The situation in Iraq will tie the President's hands in many respect. Remember though that Kerry didn't make the decision to invade Iraq, that is on the Bush adminsration. If Kerry is elected he should not be held accountable for Bush's screw ups, but there will be an expectation that he finish the job in Iaq and if he doesn't accomplish that he could be a 1 term president just like W.
ah SUTTILL you bring the absolute worst arguments to the table. Ok so if kerry wins and lets us all down its because Bush went into Iraq. Ok well Iraq, Afghanistan, 9/11 might not have happened in clinton put more emphasis on bin laden and al queda.
Or Clinton maybe wouldnt have had to do that if bush 1 would have or finished the job in Iraq? Or maybe Reagan for creating the ever widening fissure between "rich" countries and "poor" countries. and so on and so on and back and back.
Learn your own thoughts and how history dictates before you just chant the party view.
BTW I cant see what Kerry will do about IT jobs being outsourced. This will determine my vote......
__________________
Goal for 2008: Half as many penalties.
ah SUTTILL you bring the absolute worst arguments to the table. Ok so if kerry wins and lets us all down its because Bush went into Iraq. Ok well Iraq, Afghanistan, 9/11 might not have happened in clinton put more emphasis on bin laden and al queda.
Or Clinton maybe wouldnt have had to do that if bush 1 would have or finished the job in Iraq? Or maybe Reagan for creating the ever widening fissure between "rich" countries and "poor" countries. and so on and so on and back and back.
Learn your own thoughts and how history dictates before you just chant the party view.
BTW I cant see what Kerry will do about IT jobs being outsourced. This will determine my vote......
Dude, grow up and go back and read my post. When I said Kerry could end up being a one term president if he doesn't improve the situation in Iraq, how is that not holding him responsible. You should be able to catch the distinction I was trying to make between the decision for the invasion and "finishing the job".
Who cares what Clinton did, he's not running for President. Blame him all you want, that's fine with me. But that doesn't get W. off the hook for his screw ups over the last 4 years.
And by the way, I am not a Democrat. I used to be registered as a Republican but am now an Independent. So pull your head out.
If Kerry is elected he should not be held accountable for Bush's screw ups
Sounds to me like you say right here is where all the blame lies. And all I am saying is you spew tha banter and no nothing of history or how it affects the world. You even more so clearly prove this point by saying that I said it was all clintons fault.
Is that where you stopped reading my post or is that the last president you recognized in my post?
__________________
Goal for 2008: Half as many penalties.
Sounds to me like you say right here is where all the blame lies. And all I am saying is you spew tha banter and no nothing of history or how it affects the world. You even more so clearly prove this point by saying that I said it was all clintons fault.
Is that where you stopped reading my post or is that the last president you recognized in my post?
Does this mean you think Kerry hasn't changed his positon on the Iraqi war numerous times?
Well, Kerry, based on the same intel the pres had, voted for the authorization of force as a last resort. Fine. At that time, the intel justified that vote. When the intel was proven wrong and fallacious, Kerry owned up and admitted this war was a mistake. If we went to war based on false intel, the war truly is a mistake. Now, he says we need to clean up over there, not cut and run. We need more active military personnel to have a better rotation. I see nothing wrong with that change of course.
Let's look at Bush's justification of the war:
1) Link to al-Queda
2) WMD's all over the place; imminent threat
3) WMD program; imminent threat; trying to buy nukes
4) Intent to create WMD program
5) Ruthless dictator; liberation
So, before you go saying that Kerry has changed positions, look at the facts and see who really has changed positions. Just because W is stubborn and arrogant about this war, doesn't make him right....
Well, Kerry, based on the same intel the pres had, voted for the authorization of force as a last resort. Fine. At that time, the intel justified that vote. When the intel was proven wrong and fallacious, Kerry owned up and admitted this war was a mistake. If we went to war based on false intel, the war truly is a mistake. Now, he says we need to clean up over there, not cut and run. We need more active military personnel to have a better rotation. I see nothing wrong with that change of course.
Let's look at Bush's justification of the war:
1) Link to al-Queda
2) WMD's all over the place; imminent threat
3) WMD program; imminent threat; trying to buy nukes
4) Intent to create WMD program
5) Ruthless dictator; liberation
So, before you go saying that Kerry has changed positions, look at the facts and see who really has changed positions. Just because W is stubborn and arrogant about this war, doesn't make him right....
Quote:
Kerry owned up and admitted this war was a mistake
I think this is one area where Kerry disagrees with himself. He says the war is a mistake but when asked if the soldiers have died for a mistake he says no. Please explain.
Quote:
We need more active military personnel to have a better rotation.
How will we get more active military personnel? Is Kerry planning on using the draft?
Kerry has been walking a tightrope on Iraq. He can not justify his statements in 2001 and the fact he needed to become the "anti-war" candidate in order to beat Dean and try to align with his base.
It is Kerry's philosophy on how he would treat terrorism that bothers me. He would submit to a "Global Test". His so called "New Era of Alliances". If he was President today, Saddam would still be in power. The French and the Germans would be getting kickbacks from the Oil for Food in exchange for protecting Saddam in the UN (French using their veto power on the Sec Coun).
After 9-11 we just could not take that chance. Kerry would keep playing the game and our enemies would only be more emboldened to attack us.
__________________
The greatest lies are told before a marriage, after a hunt and during an election - Count Bismark
Maybe we could actually address the issue at hand instead of the usual political gambits? Kerry's voting as an issue here is a deflection, not a counter-argument. The Secretary of Defense is doubting the very intelligence that was his administration's case for war. This is something that is antecedent to any congressional voting on the matter.
Linear Mode
