Bush Speech Tuesday night

[segovius]

The White House has called a press conference for Tuesday night and Bush will be giving a 'highly important' live speech fro Fort Hood.

No-one knows what it's about but the best guesses (http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/11992687.htm) seem to bet on the fact it wil be a new twist on Iraq and go something like this:

1. "Progress is being made politically and economically" in Iraq.

2. But the casualties could get worse over the next six months, and fighting could go on for "five, six, eight, 12 years."

3. And we have never miscalculated, erred, or misled you.

Number 3 :lol:

Anyways, anyone care to hazard a guess (other than 'we are going into Iran') ?

If it is the above 3 pointer, what do people think of it and what is the likely public reaction ?

[Anders]

"Good evening fellow americans. The world is flat and so is North Korea in five minutes. That means we have delayed all shuttle launches since they are not designed to circle a non round earth and maps of the south east will have to be redesigned."

[groverat]

Osama.

[Anders]

Or aliens.

Pretty good guess Grov...

[shetline]

From best guesses (http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/11992687.htm)
As evidenced Sunday by Rumsfeld's televised remarks, however, it's clear that the administration, while seeking people's trust, does not want to entertain any suggestion that it made any mistakes in the past, whether intentional or not.

Rumsfeld told "Fox News Sunday," for example, that he had not made optimistic predictions during the prelude to war. Such a claim, he said, is "false. ... I have been balanced and measured."

Yet, on Feb. 7, 2003, more than a month before the war began, he predicted that "it could last six days, six weeks, I doubt six months." On Feb. 20, 2003, he told PBS that the Americans "would be welcomed," as happened in Afghanistan, where people in the streets were "playing music, cheering, flying kites." (Seven months later, when a broadcast journalist asked Rumsfeld about his PBS remarks, he replied: "Never said that. Never did. ... You're thinking of somebody else.")
He who controls the past... :rolleyes:

Fox News can hardly be expected to call Rumsfeld on this crap. In fact, as far as mass media is concerned, about the only place TV viewers are likely to see a pointed, direct replay of Rumsfeld's past remarks vs. his current remarks is the Daily Show.

Karl Rove is counting on being able to change the past, and most of our mass media "journalists" will probably let him.

[e1618978]

He is coming out of the closet.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

A guess as good as any.
Mr. President: “I hereby announce my conversion to Islam.
انسالله
”

[segovius]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
A guess as good as any.
Mr. President: “I hereby announce my conversion to Islam.
انسالله
”

Hehe - and I will henceforth be known as an honorary member of the Saudi Royal family...err....wait......

[Northgate]

Originally posted by shetline
He who controls the past... :rolleyes:

Fox News can hardly be expected to call Rumsfeld on this crap. In fact, as far as mass media is concerned, about the only place TV viewers are likely to see a pointed, direct replay of Rumsfeld's past remarks vs. his current remarks is the Daily Show.

Karl Rove is counting on being able to change the past, and most of our mass media "journalists" will probably let him.

That pretty much sums it up.

The press cannot be expected to hold the president's feet to the fire in the same manner they held Clinton's. The free pass they've given this administration is utterly astonishing.

[BRussell]

I'll be looking to see whether he continues with the "everything's great, they're in their last throes" rhetoric, or puts out a more difficult message. They've been up for some criticism from fellow Republicans like Hagel recently for trying to paint too rosy a picture.

My feeling is that it's just too much of an instinct for this administration to stay on a positive message that he won't be able to lay out the hard truth.

[Aurora]

Will he lay out any Truth is what every American should be asking. My guess is it will be more of the same, we are taking away more of your liberty and freedoms to protect you. Drug dealers are helping terrorist so we are now going to give life sentences to your kids if caught with a joint,life sentences for burning the flag,life sentences for being gay and other frog fodder. meanwhile the border is still open. Iraq has cost us over 300 billion though we still dont know why we are there and other royals screw ups from the spinmaster.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by groverat
Osama.

Why would they play their ace card right now? The bearded wonder is how the WOT has been sold to date, and its perceived 'justification'. Sure, they got Saddam....but the confabulations between him and the global WOT have been severely discredited; even CNN the mainstream weasel media steer clear of that one now.

The mid-term elections are not for another 16 months or so. Who will become the evil figurehead to replace Superstar Osama as regards the so-called "war on terrorism"? It's not impossible that OBL is in custody, but it would be a desperate move by the admin. to publicize the fact.

[groverat]

They're prepping Zarqawi for the new Supreme Terror Master status.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by sammi jo
it would be a desperate move by the admin. to publicize the fact.

Not if your approval ratings are in the toilet.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by groverat
They're prepping Zarqawi for the new Supreme Terror Master status.

You seem to be implying that he isn't a bad guy.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You seem to be implying that he isn't a bad guy.

In a way he isn't - seeing as he's dead.

[groverat]

In your mind, perhaps, as you're involved in some quest to associate those who do not bow to Bush's lies with advocating/supporting/apologizing for terrorism.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
In a way he isn't - seeing as he's dead.

Yes, that's the rumor anyway.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by groverat
In your mind, perhaps

So then what is your statement implying?

Originally posted by groverat
as you're involved in some quest to associate those who do not bow to Bush's lies with advocating/supporting/apologizing for terrorism.

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

[groverat]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So then what is your statement implying?

Exactly what it says; that the administration is prepping him to be the next Supreme Terror Master. I really don't see what's unclear about my statement.

As far as your "bad guy" stuff, he could still be a "bad guy" but not necessarily "Supreme Terror Master". Nothing but your desire to see someone you disagree with embrace terror made you see "he's not a bad guy" in my 100% clear statement.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by groverat
Exactly what it says; that the administration is prepping him to be the next Supreme Terror Master. I really don't see what's unclear about my statement.

As far as your "bad guy" stuff, he could still be a "bad guy" but not necessarily "Supreme Terror Master". Nothing but your desire to see someone you disagree with embrace terror made you see "he's not a bad guy" in my 100% clear statement.

Hmmm...maybe it is the word "prepping" which suggests...no...says that the administration is actually doing something to him to make him be "the next Supreme Terror Master"...suggesting that he, in fact, is not (of his own accord) and/or that the administration is in some way fabricating/propagandizing to make him appear to be "the next Supreme Terror Master".

Of course this administration is not above propagandizing. However...

Let's assume, for the moment, that there is one single guy that is the "biggest" or "most threatening" terrorist or terrorist leader (two characteristics that would appear to qualify such a person as "Supreme Terror Master"), then who is it if not Zarqawi? Is there someone else? Who is it? Just say it.

If there is none, then just say..."The administration is trying to portray Zarqawi as the single most dangerous terrorist or terrorist leader when, in reality, there is no single person like that."

[iPoster]

He's taking Tom Friedman's (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10961) advice and getting serious about Iraq, by greatly increasing/doubling the number of troops on the ground. :wow:

Of course, he won't admit Rummy Co. was doomed from the start, by trying to do it 'on the cheap' in the first place....:rolleyes:

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Hmmm...maybe it is the word "prepping" which suggests...no...says that the administration is actually doing something to him to make him be "the next Supreme Terror Master"...suggesting that he, in fact, is not (of his own accord) and/or that the administration is in some way fabricating/propagandizing to make him appear to be "the next Supreme Terror Master".

Of course this administration is not above propagandizing. However...

Let's assume, for the moment, that there is one single guy that is the "biggest" or "most threatening" terrorist or terrorist leader (two characteristics that would appear to qualify such a person as "Supreme Terror Master"), then who is it if not Zarqawi? Is there someone else? Who is it? Just say it.

If there is none, then just say..."The administration is trying to portray Zarqawi as the single most dangerous terrorist or terrorist leader when, in reality, there is no single person like that."

I think the point is that, as you postulate, there is no real-life James Bond 'Mr Big' directing operations from behind the scenes with a chilling omnipotence and evil genius that requires all our marshaled focus to defeat.

Grover probably used 'prepping' in the sense that the MO of portraying an 'evil genius' is a hackneyed Bush tactic and one that they have used previously on Osama and now need to project onto someone else.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. I really don't see the problem.

[Anders]

The wait is over:

Iraq: Its hard work (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/28/politics/main704654.shtml)

[mrtwistor]

Just for the record it is 7:20 pm here. A speech that is scheduled to be delivered at 8:00 pm is being written about in the past tense. Unbelievable.

[Gene Clean]

"Its hard work".

:lol:

[shetline]

September the 11th... Iraq... September the 11th... Iraq... September the 11th... Iraq... September the 11th... Iraq... September the 11th... Iraq... September the 11th...

Yes, George, keep milking 9/11 and trying to pretend there's a connection.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by shetline
September the 11th... Iraq... September the 11th... Iraq... September the 11th... Iraq... September the 11th... Iraq... September the 11th... Iraq... September the 11th...

Yes, George, keep milking 9/11 and trying to pretend there's a connection.

The connection is written all over Bush's lying face. Why so many references to Sept. 11th? Because he is getting very worried, as the horrible truth gradually starts slipping out, out of his control. The latest shock was Morgan Reynolds, the former chief economist in Bush's own Labor Department told the world a far more plausible story about the World Trade Center collapse than the absurd, groundless, faithbased gibberish we've been subjected to over the last three and a half years.

The sharks on the other side are starting to smell blood. The ball is rolling and within another 3 years, Bush and his junta could well be facing charges of mass murder and treason. I look forward to that wonderful day with much relish.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by sammi jo
The connection is written all over Bush's lying face. Why so many references to Sept. 11th? Because he is getting very worried, as the horrible truth gradually starts slipping out, out of his control. The latest shock was Morgan Reynolds, the former chief economist in Bush's own Labor Department told the world a far more plausible story about the World Trade Center collapse than the absurd, groundless, faithbased gibberish we've been subjected to over the last three and a half years.

The sharks on the other side are starting to smell blood. The ball is rolling and within another 3 years, Bush and his junta could well be facing charges of mass murder and treason. I look forward to that wonderful day with much relish. You're a (removed ad-hom) confused person... and I say that in the nicest possible way.

To most level-headed Americans, left and right, 9/11 proved something; it proved that terrorists were not merely a nuisance, as most viewed them, and that their efforts will only increase since there were governments out there that are willing to help them in their efforts.

That is the connection between Iraq and 9/11, or Iran and 9/11 or any other terrorist supporting government.

[Towel]

You know what got me the most, and which I think is the clearest indication of what's so wrong about this administration? It's a little thing. In his opening line, Bush misstated both his job and the jobs of the guys listening to him:My greatest responsibility as president is to protect the American people. And that's your calling as well.No, it's not. Both he and they took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America", or to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Nowhere is keeping the people safe mentioned in those oaths. Because a perfectly safe people can never be free. The price of liberty, the blood of patriots, and all that. I wonder if any of the officers in the audience recoiled at those words.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Towel
You know what got me the most, and which I think is the clearest indication of what's so wrong about this administration? It's a little thing. In his opening line, Bush misstated both his job and the jobs of the guys listening to him:No, it's not. Both he and they took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America", or to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Nowhere is keeping the people safe mentioned in those oaths. Because a perfectly safe people can never be free. The price of liberty, the blood of patriots, and all that. I wonder if any of the officers in the audience recoiled at those words. But it IS his job to make terrorists safe and cumfy?

Just so we are clear here, the constitution applies to whom?

Ah yes that would be the American people.

Please explain how his statement makes him evil?

That was your implication, or am I reading your post wrong?

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You're a (removed ad-hom) confused person... and I say that in the nicest possible way.

About what?

You have to be one of the most naive people posting on the net. Really.

To most level-headed Americans, left and right, 9/11 proved something; it proved that terrorists were not merely a nuisance, as most viewed them, and that their efforts will only increase since there were governments out there that are willing to help them in their efforts.

I think New Yorkers are pretty level headed. The opinion poll a year back that discovered that up to 64% of New York State residents felt that the Bush administration knew about the 9-11 attacks beforehand and did nothing to prevent them illustrates that. That proportion is probably even higher now.

What material you have absorbed about 9-11 that convinces you of the veracity of the official account? What proof have you got, and what proof has the government presented you to convince you that what has been presented to you in truthful and complete? How about reading up about the topic from unbiased sources, and then come back with a sensible and reasoned rebuttal, for a change.

That is the connection between Iraq and 9/11, or Iran and 9/11 or any other terrorist supporting government. [/B]

If ever there was a case of grafting a wolf's head onto a crocodile's body, here we have it. First, OBL and Saddam Hussein were enemies, and had not only a mutual hatred for each others' methods, but Saddam the ego-crazed dictator was at pains to exclude OBL and whatever extremist group he led from getting a foothold in Iraq.

If you want to complain about governments out there willing to help terrorists in their efforts look no closer than the Bush Administration itself. Ask lead Clinton Impeachment attorney David Schippers, who was approached by those 3 FBI agents who knew the 9-11 attack details down to the locations, nature, times, date and even the airlines involved...and about how he was rebuffed and ignored by senior FBI and Justice Dept. officials, even John Ashcroft himself, and how these intimate details of the attacks were 'widely known throughout the (FBI)', up to 6 weeks before September11. How about the case of airplane bomber and terrorist Posada Cariles, shielded by the Bush Administration and Cuban/Miami organized crime? School of the Americas? Noraid? Abortion Clinic bombers? Street gangs? Hardline rightwing paramilitaries sympathetic to Colombian honcho Alvaro Uribe? I could name a bunch more cases of how this administration cherrypicks its terrorists (in a similar way it cherrypicks intelligence to 'justify illegal actions)... attacking some, supporting some, and ignoring others. The WOT is bogus, for that very reason, amongst others.

What was it that Bush said in the aftermath of 9-11? Governments that harbor and support terrorism are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Talk about the pot calling the kettle.. gawd.

[Towel]

Originally posted by NaplesX But it IS his job to make terrorists safe and cumfy?

Just so we are clear here, the constitution applies to whom?Well, it certainly doesn't apply to terrorists, those evil-born people who come with big "T"'s conveniently tatooed on their foreheads. The Constitution will (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/169182_terrortrial15.html) always (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45796-2004Sep23.html) protect (http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/11990000.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp) Americans (http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2003-07-17/rant.html). [/snark]
Please explain how his statement makes him evil?

That was your implication, or am I reading your post wrong? No, not evil. Just misguided. A sincere person could honestly believe that the safety of the American people is above all else; and that anything that stands in the way of that goal, Constitution, laws, whatever, can be - must be - held aside in the name of the greater good. A person can hold that conviction with perfect sincerity, and you could hardly call him evil for it. But I would certainly call him wrong.

If you attach the sincerest motives to the administration, you're still left with a group of people who feel justified bulldozing any obstacle, skirting any law, redefining any definition, to acheive their ends. In the process putting at risk all that they purport to hold so dear.

[FormerLurker]

Well, it certainly doesn't apply to terrorists, those evil-born people who come with big "T"'s conveniently tatooed on their foreheads.
And then there are the liberals who need to be tatooed as Traitors.

Also with a "T".

But, um, how are we then to tell the liberals from the terrorists if they all have the "T" on their foreheads?

Ahh, bother.
Same difference.
Nevermind the details.
"Bygones!"
God Bless America

[segovius]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
But, um, how are we then to tell the liberals from the terrorists if they all have the "T" on their foreheads?


'Thinkers' - get them under the programme too.

Never trusted those guys....

[Aurora]

Originally posted by shetline
September the 11th... Iraq... September the 11th... Iraq... September the 11th... Iraq... September the 11th... Iraq... September the 11th... Iraq... September the 11th...

Yes, George, keep milking 9/11 and trying to pretend there's a connection. This cuts right to the chase. What happened to all those Saudi's who attacked us I wonder? They must have moved to Iraq. Iraq had Nothing to do with 911 but Spin he must and so we get more 911 = Iraq and other odd Math.

[Moe_in_Texas]

There's a big difference between attacking Iraq to get those responsible for 911 and attacking Iraq to prevent it from becoming a place like pre-911 Afganistan. I don't think the President is implying that we are in Iraq to avenge 911. His view, I believe, is that after 911 a hazardous place like Iraq could no longer be allowed to operate as it was. Attacking Iraq was not intended to be a cure for an existing condition as much as it was intended to be a vaccination. If the Administration was sincere, I accept their decision. I have serious questions and growing concern about their sincerity, unfortunately.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Aurora
This cuts right to the chase. What happened to all those Saudi's who attacked us I wonder?

Yeah - it's not like they could be err....dead....or anything......

[segovius]

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
There's a big difference between attacking Iraq to get those responsible for 911 and attacking Iraq to prevent it from becoming a place like pre-911 Afganistan. I don't think the President is implying that we are in Iraq to avenge 911. His view, I believe, is that after 911 a hazardous place like Iraq could no longer be allowed to operate as it was. Attacking Iraq was not intended to be a cure for an existing condition as much as it was intended to be a vaccination. If the Administration was sincere, I accept their decision. I have serious questions and growing concern about their sincerity, unfortunately.

If this was the case (which it wasn't) then this view was even more screwed up than the alternative.

Now Iraq is the ultimate example of a nation which represents a threat to the US (from a terrorism perspective).

There is no way in a million years it would ever have got like this under Saddam. No way it would have got like this without US interference.

If you think that Iraq was on the road to this chaos under Saddam then you need to address the following points:

1) Any threat from Saddam's Iraq was not terrorist but on the level of the Nation-State.

If this was the case then why did Bush frame the war as a 'War on terror?', why does he keep reiterating the war is with 'terrorists' ?

2) Again, if it was on the level of national States then Iraq represented far less of a threat than other states who still exist and who still pose that threat: NK, China, Russia possibly (certainly if and when Bush attacks Iran).

3) There were no terrorists in Iraq under Saddam. Who do you think Saddam was torturing and killing ? People that were a threat. Who were they ?Islamists.

The same thing is happening now in Syria and Egypt - which is why the US deports people there to be tortured.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
If this was the case (which it wasn't) then this view was even more screwed up than the alternative.

Now Iraq is the ultimate example of a nation which represents a threat to the US (from a terrorism perspective).

There is no way in a million years it would ever have got like this under Saddam. No way it would have got like this without US interference.

If you think that Iraq was on the road to this chaos under Saddam then you need to address the following points:

1) Any threat from Saddam's Iraq was not terrorist but on the level of the Nation-State.

If this was the case then why did Bush frame the war as a 'War on terror?', why does he keep reiterating the war is with 'terrorists' ?

2) Again, if it was on the level of national States then Iraq represented far less of a threat than other states who still exist and who still pose that threat: NK, China, Russia possibly (certainly if and when Bush attacks Iran).

3) There were no terrorists in Iraq under Saddam. Who do you think Saddam was torturing and killing ? People that were a threat. Who were they ?Islamists.

The same thing is happening now in Syria and Egypt - which is why the US deports people there to be tortured. Man you are a SH apologist if I ever saw one, a revisionist to boot.

1. Perhaps. However, Saddam provided training to Islamists.SH also financed terrorist attacks on the US. SH held "terrorist conventions" and recruited operatives from the attendees, that included members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. This has been documented. "In early February 1998, Zawahiri was in Iraq, negotiating training arrangements and collecting $300,000 from the IIS. Saddam" - The Connection. Saddam provided safe haven to avowed terrorists. The only evidence you have to the contrary is that "saddam was a secularist... bla... bla... bla..." It is easily seen that his rhetoric turned more religious over the last decade.

2. Iraq posed a threat, because of the mentioned ties to world terrorism. Just as Iran does.

3. Lies and revision of history. There were more terrorists there than you could count being trained and harbored. Refer to #1.

I recommend you read "the Connection" by Steven Hayes, it will help you be informed before you make such crap statements. It's not that long and sums the whole Iraq/Terror connection, that even the revered Clinton believed was there.

[Aurora]

Lets post the Facts. Osama and his Saudi associates funded and did the 911. Bush took us to Iraq over WMDs that they didnt have. Are we so ignorant that we cant except the truth? Oh i forgot this one and Dick Cheneys Haliburton gets paid for it even though they are charging double. The truth will set the spinmasters free.:no:

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Man you are a SH apologist if I ever saw one, a revisionist to boot.

1. Perhaps. However, Saddam provided training to Islamists.SH also financed terrorist attacks on the US. SH held "terrorist conventions" and recruited operatives from the attendees, that included members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. This has been documented. "In early February 1998, Zawahiri was in Iraq, negotiating training arrangements and collecting $300,000 from the IIS. Saddam" - The Connection. Saddam provided safe haven to avowed terrorists. The only evidence you have to the contrary is that "saddam was a secularist... bla... bla... bla..." It is easily seen that his rhetoric turned more religious over the last decade.

2. Iraq posed a threat, because of the mentioned ties to world terrorism. Just as Iran does.

3. Lies and revision of history. There were more terrorists there than you could count being trained and harbored. Refer to #1.

I recommend you read "the Connection" by Steven Hayes, it will help you be informed before you make such crap statements. It's not that long and sums the whole Iraq/Terror connection, that even the revered Clinton believed was there.

I'm afraid we cannot process your submission further without supporting data. Please supply in the following form:

1) A simple statement (ie Saddam trained Islamists) for each contention.
2) A link to the source of your statement for each and every one.

We will assess and let you know as soon as you have fulfilled these requirements.

Thank you.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
I'm afraid we cannot process your submission further without supporting data. Please supply in the following form:

1) A simple statement (ie Saddam trained Islamists) for each contention.
2) A link to the source of your statement for each and every one.

We will assess and let you know as soon as you have fulfilled these requirements.

Thank you. I made a whole thread based on the book "The Connection"

here - http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46351&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

I hate doing your brainwork for you. It doesn't encourage healthy growth.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I made a whole thread based on the book "The Connection"

here - http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46351&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

I hate doing your brainwork for you. It doesn't encourage healthy growth.

I'm not about to plough through a whole thread of your nonsense - it's bad enough listening to it in this one.

Let's just assume you can't back up your assertions (which we knew already) and carry on a measured discussion with others who may actually have something tangible to contribute.

Bygones.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
I'm not about to plough through a whole thread of your nonsense - it's bad enough listening to it in this one.

Let's just assume you can't back up your assertions (which we knew already) and carry on a measured discussion with others who may actually have something tangible to contribute.

Bygones. Fine. In addition, let's just assume that you are too lazy to find the truth (which we knew already) and carry on a measured conversation based on truth rather than conspiracy theories and lies.

[Harald]

Trouble is, there is no connection between THE STATE of Iraq and 9-11.

Thing is, Saddam and Osama are what you may call 'enemies.'

You do know that you are at odds with the US government on this issue, don't you?

[Moe_in_Texas]

Links Between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/pdf/limlet1.pdf

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/pdf/limlet2.pdf

[shetline]

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
Links Between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/pdf/limlet1.pdf
This is pretty weak stuff, even with the partisan slant trying to squeeze it for all it's worth.

The "talks" (talk? singular perhaps?) between Iraq and Al Qaeda were low level and went nowhere. I'm sure there were a few Al Qaeda sympathizers in Iraq… just like you could probably find a few sympathizers in Kuwait, a huge number in Saudi Arabia, and a scattered few in Quebec or Tennessee.

Big f*cking deal!

If this stuff constitutes a "link", then Al Qaeda had a much, much stronger link to the UNITED STATES than it did to Iraq. Should we have invaded ourselves? Bombed Florida where the 9/11 terrorists did some of their flight training? Damned Floridians harboring terrorists again!

Hmmm... maybe we'd better look into the Osama/Jeb Bush link! ;)

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by shetline
This is pretty weak stuff, even with the partisan slant trying to squeeze it for all it's worth.

I really liked the newsletter title - "Nailing The Left"
:lol:

Hmmm... maybe we'd better look into the Osama/Jeb Bush link! ;) It's about frigging time *someone* does...

[NaplesX]

Because I am not afraid of your challenge I have redone my post:

1. Saddam provided training to Islamists.

http://www.floydreport.com/view_article.php?lid=266

SH also financed terrorist attacks on the US (and it's interests)

http://solohq.com/Articles/Rick/

Click on the for "A Retroactive Analysis of National Security Casus Belli for the Iraq War Part 2" - strange url problem when posting here.

SH held "terrorist conventions" and recruited operatives from the attendees, that included members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

http://www.intelmessages.org/Hack/ZKZ_Osama_and_Saddam_002.html

"On August 19 Saddam Hussein opened his fifth annual conference of resistance organizations in Baghdad. The guests of honor represented some of the most notorious and violent terrorist groups. Among with Iraq‘s top intelligence officers during the three days of speeches and meetings were representatives from Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian Hamas, the radical Egyptian Gamaa al-Islamiya and Osama bin Laden‘s Al-Qaida organization. In the audience were more than 100 known terrorists from groups as distant and as diverse as Somalia, the Philippines and Bangladesh. (12)

Amidst chants of "Down with America" and "Down with Israel," Saddam told the gathering of urban guerrillas, assassins, hijackers and bomb-makers that their time of vengeance was close at hand. Three weeks later, 19 members of bin Laden‘s Al-Qaida hijacked four American airliners to launch the suicide attacks that took the lives of thousands of people in New York alone. Of that number, many were foreign nationals from 80 countries. Ten were French citizens. Many more died at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. (12, 20)"

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/28/waziz228.xml

Saddam provided safe haven to avowed terrorists.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.abbas.arrested/
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast.nidal/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm

It is easily seen that his rhetoric turned more religious over the last decade.

http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/meria/meria00_baa01.html

"After the government "Islamized" much of its rhetoric during the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran War, President Saddam Husayn led the Ba'th party in introducing some Islamic principles into the Iraqi legal system. This started a short while before the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, when Saddam made clear that whenever laws clashed with the divine Shari'a, the former must always give way. One day before the Allied bombing began the fighting in January 1991, Saddam Husayn added the slogan, "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) to the Iraqi national flag. 3

During the war, Saddam's rhetoric was fully Islamized in a way unparalleled by any other Arab secular leader. By implication he presented himself as the modern-day champion of Islam (mujaddid al-din). He promised his warriors that when the battle commenced, God would give them victory as had happened in the seventh-century battle of Badr, when a tiny Muslim army defeated a multitude of Meccan idol worshippers. The president also invoked the memory of a pre-Islamic battle between the Arabs and an Ethiopian invading army that had marched on Mecca with war elephants. The invaders, he promised, would be defeated in the same way that the Ethiopians had been, through a miraculous, divine intervention"

Any questions?

[Moe_in_Texas]

.

[BRussell]

Iraq had probably the least terrorist links of most of its neighbors.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by BRussell
Iraq had probably the least terrorist links of most of its neighbors. Nope.

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/28/waziz228.xml

This was the 5th annual terror-paluza.

Look into it, it will open your eyes. Well, probably not, but it's worthwhile knowledge anyway.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by BRussell
Iraq had probably the least terrorist links of most of its neighbors. No but wait . . . Naples has a whole circle of like minded fanatic wingnuts who can mutually support absurd and virtually fictitious claims . . . . golly . . . a bunch of bloggers and wing-nuts, just like him, who link to each other and go on at the mouth in endless diatribes of idiot fanaticism and irrational jingoism . . . but hey, they are legitimate because they can link to each other and give each other mutual support . . . despite the fictitious nature of the evidence

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Naples, is there any reason in particular you didn't institute regime change in Saudi Arabia before Iraq?

You're defending the war on supposed links between Iraq and Osama bin Laden. Why did you not invade the country that provided eleven of the hijackers before a country that didn't provide a single one?

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Nope.

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/28/waziz228.xml

This was the 5th annual terror-paluza.

Look into it, it will open your eyes. Well, probably not, but it's worthwhile knowledge anyway. Hmm?

It Was Lies Lies and more Lies . . . but what else was news in those days (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/07/20/the-lies-of-the-press-/)

ar the worst of these offenders is the Sunday Telegraph. In September 2001, it claimed that “the Iraqi leader had been providing al-Qaeda … with funding, logistical back-up and advanced weapons training. His operations reached a “frantic pace” in the past few months”.(13) In October 2001 it reported that “Saddam Hussein has relocated his chemical weapons factories after the first case of anthrax poisoning in America … A senior Western intelligence official said that … “The entire contents of their chemicals weapons factories around Baghdad have been moving through the nights to specially built bunkers”.”(14)


In September 2002 it reported that “Saddam Hussein is developing frightening new ways to deliver his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, including smallpox and the deadly VX nerve agent.”(15) Another report on the same day claimed that “Saddam is on the verge of possessing crude nuclear devices that could be “delivered” using “unorthodox” means such as on lorries or ships. ... Saddam has the capability to assemble all the components required to make nuclear weapons.”(16) In February 2003, it claimed that “Iraq’s air force has advanced poison bombs”.(17)


All of these stories – and many others – appear to be false. But far from retracting them, it keeps publishing new allegations, which look as dodgy as its pre-war claims. Like the Observer, it appears to have been used by black propagandists in the intelligence services and Iraqi defectors seeking to boost their credentials. Unlike the Observer, it seems happy to be duped.


So who will hold the newspapers to account? It seems to me that the only possible answer is you. You the readers must take us to task if we mislead you. Pressure groups should be bombarding us with calls and emails – you’d be amazed by the difference it makes. And if we don’t respond with openness and honesty, you should cancel your subscriptions and look elsewhere for your news.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Aurora
Lets post the Facts. Osama and his Saudi associates funded and did the 911. Bush took us to Iraq over WMDs that they didnt have. Are we so ignorant that we cant except the truth? Oh i forgot this one and Dick Cheneys Haliburton gets paid for it even though they are charging double. The truth will set the spinmasters free.:no:

Patently not true. Yet again.

Here is what the 9-11 "Independent Commission" said about it, for what little that's worth. (I have a hard time with this pathetic attempt to "investigate" 9-11...as the executive director of this "investigation" deliberately blocked the inclusion or mention of the vast array of facts that ran contary to the pre-ordained conclusion that the White House ordered the "Commission" to arrive at). But even the "Investigation" found that the source of the 9-11 financing was still a "mystery". I wish I had been a fly on the wall at the side meetings between selected Dich Cheney's perpetually secret "energy task force" in early 2001.

to quote the "Commission":

Funding behind 9/11 still a mystery
From AFP
26jul04

WASHINGTON: Despite almost three years pursuing the September 11 "money trail", investigators remain in the dark about who financed the 2001 al-Qa'ida strike on the US that killed 2973 people.

The final report of the September 11 commission indicates that the FBI, CIA and numerous US and foreign intelligence agencies failed to find a definitive answer as to who paid for the attacks.
"To date, the US Government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks," the report said.

"The origin of the funds remains unknown, although we have a general idea of how al-Qa'ida financed itself during the period leading up to 9/11."

The report, released late last week, does shed some light on the finances of al-Qa'ida and the resources of its leader Osama bin Laden, suggesting his personal fortune was not as great as some had believed.

Much of the information about the finances comes from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the former al-Qa'ida commander who orchestrated the attacks and arranged financing, but who has refused to divulge the source of the funds.

Referred to as KSM in the report, Khalid was captured in Pakistan last year. The report traces the funding through several sources around the world, including Dubai, Germany and Pakistan, and back to KSM, but no further.

The 19 hijackers and al-Qa'ida spent a relatively modest $US400,000-$US500,000 ($560,000-$700,000) to plan and conduct the devastating attack, the commission report said. About $US270,000 of that was spent in the US.

The investigation uncovered "no credible evidence that any person in the United States gave the hijackers substantial financial assistance".

"Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government - or foreign government official - supplied any funding," the report said.

The report dismissed the conventional wisdom that bin Laden inherited $US300million when his property mogul father died. In fact, between 1970 and 1994, he received about $US1million per year - "a significant sum, to be sure, but not a $US300 million fortune that could be used to fund jihad".

The commission concluded that the bulk of al-Qa'ida's money came from "corrupt" Islamic charities and wealthy individuals in the Gulf region, particularly in bin Laden's native Saudi Arabia.

Contrary to many reports, the commission found there was no evidence that the hijackers used false social security numbers to open bank accounts in the US.

.....

That was in theOsama bin Laden denied any involvement in the 9-11 attacks shortly after they happened. The only evidence we have to connect him was that much ballyhooed videotape that "surfaced in Jalalabad", Afghanistan, some weeks afterwards. That tape has been analysed by many, and is now considered phoney, and a very poor fake at that. Apart from that fraud, there is no evidence that could secure a conviction in a US court of law against OBL for 9-11 specifically. He is wanted for the African embassy and USS Cole bombings for sure, but those are separate issues.

[MarcUK]

uh oh, it dont look good

saddam is really bad (http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/sex/57527/)

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Naples, is there any reason in particular you didn't institute regime change in Saudi Arabia before Iraq? I don't have that power. Besides, SA has been a long-time ally who at least upheld the appearance of being an ally. But that has nothing to do with this conversation.

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
You're defending the war on supposed links between Iraq and Osama bin Laden. Why did you not invade the country that provided eleven of the hijackers before a country that didn't provide a single one? I am not defending anything, except the claims I made to counter seg's claim there are absolutely no ties between AQ and Iraq. There are, and they are not few.

Afghanistan provided the training and harbored AQ who the hijackers pledge their allegiance to, that's why we didn't attack SA. What is so confusing about that. They didn't choose where they were born, but they sure chose who they fought for.

Wake up.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Because I am not afraid of your challenge I have redone my post:

1. Saddam provided training to Islamists.

http://www.floydreport.com/view_article.php?lid=266

The Salman Pak "evidence" was gleaned from operatives of the INC headed by Ahmad Chalabi, a convicted bank fraudster, who also supplied classified information to Iran. The material supplied by thse operatives, who were probably also paid tp supply "bad intelligence" cannot be considered as reliable. This material must be so unreliable that even Bushco have refrained from milking this one. This speaks for itself.

SH also financed terrorist attacks on the US (and it's interests)

http://solohq.com/Articles/Rick/A_Retroactive_Analysis_of_National_Security_Casus_ Belli_for_the_Iraq_War_Part_2.shtml

How convenient that your link is not functional

[SH held "terrorist conventions" and recruited operatives from the attendees, that included members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad.[/b]

http://www.intelmessages.org/Hack/ZKZ_Osama_and_Saddam_002.html

The author of this article prefers to censor his identity. Nice one.

i'll look at the rest later

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Because I am not afraid of your challenge I have redone my post:

1. Saddam provided training to Islamists.

http://www.floydreport.com/view_article.php?lid=266

Dammit, naples. You don't do any research at all, do you? Hell, that article didn't even spell his name correctly.

All of these claims made by Chalabi's INC defectors were discredited individually and as a group years ago. Your whole post shows that you still haven't moved beyond your serial killer Clinton asinine beliefs and crackpot websites.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
Dammit, naples. You don't do any research at all, do you? Hell, that article didn't even spell his name correctly.

All of these claims made by Chalabi's INC defectors were discredited individually and as a group years ago. Your whole post shows that you still haven't moved beyond your serial killer Clinton asinine beliefs and crackpot websites. Perhaps you understand pictures:

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

It is a very pithy overview of the court case that tied Iraq to AQ the case was upheld.

Sorry.

[running with scissors]

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
Links Between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/pdf/limlet1.pdf

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/pdf/limlet2.pdf

ah yes, rush limbaugh is the pinnacle of thorough and unbiased journalism. why he hasn't won a peabody or better yet an oscar, i will never know. maybe when he comes down from his drug induced high we can ask him.

[Relic]

I’ve become so friggen numb over this war I cant make any connection to my left hemisphere. The only thing I know is we pissed these people off first; these terrorist organizations didn’t popup because they hate democracy or Americans. No, we pissed in their backyard and we’re getting are just deserves. I have spent enough time in the Middle East to know that these people are as thick headed about patriotism as we are. Fuck with us and will fuck with you is motto number one. Pulling out now and letting Iraq deal with their own shitt is the only course of action that is right.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Perhaps you understand pictures:

http://www.husseinandterror.com/
Junk information destroys...

the rest has been edited for personal attacks. this part was okay though. - rageous

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Perhaps you understand pictures:

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

It is a very pithy overview of the court case that tied Iraq to AQ the case was upheld.

Sorry. Damn Naples . . . . you can't see the most vulgar form of propaganda when its staring you right in the face?!

That kind of cheap picture show, complete with wax-mustacheod villain liberals, is worthy of the dumbest Socialist Realist Soviet PR machine.

Oh yeah . . . its from Deroy Murdoch (any covert relationship?) the man who wrote that infamous article about Kerry blocking funding for F-15s . . . and the tears of joy at feeling protected when the planes flew over Manhattan . . . . . AFTER the Towers fell!!!

Wingnuts do not make for decent argumentative support . . . at least not if you live in the real world!!

[johnq]

Not all of these victims are Israeli. American Abigail Litle, the daughter of a Baptist minister, was just 14 years old when she was killed on an Israeli bus on March 5, 2003."

Blonde daughter of a baptist minister???

Oh, it's on!!!

Who needs WMD?

[giant]

The salman pak part is amusing. First it quotes the frontline interview with Khodada, discredited member of Chalabi's discredited INC bullshit machine, and then claims that because he can draw a picture of the salman pak that looks nothing like salman pak (which, incidentally, wasn't a secret facility) that it "bolster[s] his credibility." What more proof do you need?! :lol:

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by pfflam
No but wait . . . Naples has a whole circle of like minded fanatic wingnuts who

can mutually support absurd and virtually fictitious claims . . . . golly . . . a

bunch of bloggers and wing-nuts, just like him, who link to each other and

go on at the mouth in endless diatribes of idiot fanaticism and irrational

jingoism . . . DING DING DING DING DING DING. I believe we have a winner.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Gilsch]

After those posts....I can't wait for the new, updated and improved version of The Clinton Body Count.

Coming Soon: The Democrat's Body Count with pictures!

The Gore Body Count .com and .net

WMDs in Every Home in Iraq.com with COLOR pictures.

[rageous]

I encourage those of you who feel this might be directed towards you to cease railing on Naples and instead focus on debunking his positions.

[NaplesX]

There you have it. The personal attacks have started.

At least we know who has nothing of any value to add. You should hear yourselves.

Notice that the Clinton admin thought there were ties back in 1998:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

Senator Bayh D-Ind. who sits on the Intelligence Committe said ""the relationship seemed to have its roots in mutual exploitation. Saddam Hussein used terrorism for his own ends, and Osama bin Laden used a nation-state for the things that only a nation-state can provide."

Looks like a link, acts like a link. smells like a link... Ignore what your senses tell you... unless a democrat wants to bomb an aspirin factory. Then it's a link.

[hardeeharhar]

Nips,

No there was no significant link. The administration admitted as much some time ago.

It is an idiotic position to take in any event (on both sides)... There are plenty of countries like Russia, or Iran, or NK, or Pakistan, or India, or Uzbekistan, or Georgia, or the Ukraine, or any other state with real nuclear capabilities, heavy weapons capabilities and lax security measures out there are are even more real potential sources for funds both monetary and material for terrorist acts than Iraq was. Nothing says loving like trading a running BMW for a nuclear warhead...

The entire Saddams regime supports terrorism is a bit of a lark since post-ouster we have far more terrorist acts in the world (especially in Iraq) than before... It is damned apparent that Saddam, for better or for worse, was controlling the violence that our presence has awaken...

In other words... There were no other goals to our invading Iraq that have any basis in reality other than regime change. Take that tack, Nips, and you are likely to win more arguments...

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
In other words... There were no other goals to our invading Iraq that have any basis in reality other than regime change. Take that tack, Nips, and you are likely to win more arguments... There is no provable link between Iraq and the events of 9/11. This is something we all can agree with.

But I am not arguing otherwise. I am debunking the lie that sego put forth that SH did not allow terrorists into his country, and that they are only there because the US now occupies Iraq.

There are countless links between Iraq and AQ and other terrorists. That's what I'm arguing. We can all legitimately argue the strengths of the links, but to wholesale dismiss all of them is ID (intellectually dishonest).

And if you step back for a second, you will see that this is at the heart of the Iraq war political battle. If liberals recognize the links between Iraq and AQ, it opens up the possibility that Iraq did have some role in or knowledge of 9/11. It is unreasonable to think that they would not talk about the plans for 9/11, if such a relationship existed. Thus the venom when the libs think Bush is trying to tie the two together.

But as I said, I didn't hear him tying Iraq to 9/11, rather tying the 9/11 terrorist's mentality and tactics to the terrorists that are fighting in Iraq. He is of course right:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/iraq.main/index.html
"Meanwhile Thursday, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said the Iraqi insurgency had probably reached its "high water mark" over the past 12 months.

In an interview with CNN, Iraqi Interior Minister Baqir Jabbur said "terrorists" had killed 8,175 people and wounded another 12,000 since January 2005.

According to the U.S. Department of Defense, there have been 307 U.S. fatalities in combat during the same period."

The suicide murderers are in fact aiming at the civilian population. It seems like a parallel to me.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
There is no provable link between Iraq and the events of 9/11. This is something we all can agree with.

But I am not arguing otherwise. I am debunking the lie that sego put forth that SH did not allow terrorists into his country, and that they are only there because the US now occupies Iraq.

There are countless links between Iraq and AQ and other terrorists. That's what I'm arguing. We can all legitimately argue the strengths of the links, but to wholesale dismiss all of them is ID (intellectually dishonest).

And if you step back for a second, you will see that this is at the heart of the Iraq war political battle. If liberals recognize the links between Iraq and AQ, it opens up the possibility that Iraq did have some role in or knowledge of 9/11. It is unreasonable to think that they would not talk about the plans for 9/11, if such a relationship existed. Thus the venom when the libs think Bush is trying to tie the two together.

But as I said, I didn't hear him tying Iraq to 9/11, rather tying the 9/11 terrorist's mentality and tactics to the terrorists that are fighting in Iraq. He is of course right:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/iraq.main/index.html
"Meanwhile Thursday, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said the Iraqi insurgency had probably reached its "high water mark" over the past 12 months.

In an interview with CNN, Iraqi Interior Minister Baqir Jabbur said "terrorists" had killed 8,175 people and wounded another 12,000 since January 2005.

According to the U.S. Department of Defense, there have been 307 U.S. fatalities in combat during the same period."

The suicide murderers are in fact aiming at the civilian population. It seems like a parallel to me.

You need to define your terms. I mentioned 'Islamists' rather than terrorists and I stand by that.

Saddam's Baa'thists and the Islamists were implacable foes. You had problems getting your head round this with the Syrian Ba'athists also despite the evidence repeatedly pointed out to you.

Re 'terrorists' - as your definition is a loose one then in your terms you may be right. For example - many of the insurgents fighting in Iraq are ex-Ba'athists. To you these are 'terrorists' - therefore in your terms, there is a link between Saddam and these 'terrorists because Saddam was (again according to you) a terrorist - ie a Ba'athist.

In the real world however, things are slightly different.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
There is no provable link between Iraq and the events of 9/11 ... There are countless links between Iraq and AQ and other terrorists. That's what I'm arguing ... And if you step back for a second, you will see that this is at the heart of the Iraq war political battle. If liberals recognize the links between Iraq and AQ, it opens up the possibility that Iraq did have some role in or knowledge of 9/11.
Naples, you really need to lay off the crackpot websites.

[pfflam]

This is funny, Robin Hayes stated there was a connection, but:
Hayes suggested that members of Congress know things about 9/11 that the rest of us -- including, apparently, the members of the 9/11 Commission -- don't. His colleagues in Congress don't agree. John McCain said Wednesday that he's seen no compelling evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and Rep. Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat, told the Independent Tribune that he hasn't, either. "Unless Robin is going to some tippy-top secret briefing, I’m not sure what Robin’s source of information is," Miller said hmm?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
Naples, you really need to lay off the crackpot websites. Grow up.

[giant]

When are you going to figure out that people are serious when they tell you things like that? The fact is that as your posts go further and further out there the absurdity just leaves us :???: :???: :???: I wonder where you come up with this stuff (Clinton is a serial killer, belief in long-discredited Chalabi INC BS, this 'analysis' of the "Iraq war political battle," etc), but then you post links to garbage frontpage nutball websites filled with misspelled names, +6 fonts and discredited quotes from discredited con men and it all becomes clear.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
When are you going to figure out that people are serious when they tell you things like that? The fact is that as your posts go further and further out there the absurdity just leaves us :???: :???: :???: I wonder where you come up with this stuff (Clinton is a serial killer, belief in long-discredited Chalabi INC BS, this 'analysis' of the "Iraq war political battle," etc), but then you post links to garbage frontpage nutball websites filled with misspelled names, +6 fonts and discredited quotes from discredited con men and it all becomes clear. How do I put a person on "ignore"? You have not added anything constructive or enlightening in... well... 100 posts at least.

I see no reason to even waste time to read or reply to you anymore.

Sad really.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
You need to define your terms. I mentioned 'Islamists' rather than terrorists and I stand by that.

Saddam's Baa'thists and the Islamists were implacable foes. You had problems getting your head round this with the Syrian Ba'athists also despite the evidence repeatedly pointed out to you.

Re 'terrorists' - as your definition is a loose one then in your terms you may be right. For example - many of the insurgents fighting in Iraq are ex-Ba'athists. To you these are 'terrorists' - therefore in your terms, there is a link between Saddam and these 'terrorists because Saddam was (again according to you) a terrorist - ie a Ba'athist.

In the real world however, things are slightly different. Most ME terrorist are Islamist. If you are just saying that they are are not true Islamists, they would probably have a different view. Either way, you are playing word games here.

Read my blog and the interview I did with Lt. Rhoads. It reasonably explains who is fighting the US. The Iraqi population describes them as "terrorists" So I'm gonna go with them.

I have described links, not perceived links. SH held yearly terrorist conventions in Baghdad. He spoke to them and invited them. This is a direct link to AQ and many other terrorists.

I realize your struggle though, so take your time getting your brain around the concept.

[pfflam]

and you refuse to look at every subsequent post that undoes your misguided linking of SH with 911 . . .

Get it straight, you're wrong and won't let go . . . even John McCain says you're wrong, the 911 panel said you're wrong . . . . you are wrong.

but then you twist your semantics to try and rewrite what you're saying to stretch it out to include all forms of terrorist support: to say that since he supported the families of Palastinian bombers that he was involved in 911 . . . . those are different things entirely . . . SH was a totalitarian thug, who supported muslim terrorists who were involved with secular goals . . . near the end of his reign he started to wear the very false garb of being a M<uslim . . . but still, he was a tribalist using every means at his disposal to consolidate his power . . . his thuggery and murder was tribal/sunni but Islamist in a secular-identity label alone

He was adamatly enemies with AQ: OBL even called him an enemy in a public statement before 911 . . . he was a totalitarian secular power-monger and that runs counter to the Fundamentalist islamist totalitarian power-mongery of OBL . . . they were enemies by very definition

Now look what happens after we invade Iraq: well, the religious Islamists now find a common cause and I'm sure that they work together quite well as long as Americans are there and as long as Shi'ah present another enemy.

But SH and 911? no no no . . . and your links have all been shown to be either lies, subsequently shown as such, or merely ideological bloggery from the network of mutually supporting wing-nut fanatics like yourself.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I see no reason to even waste time to read or reply to you anymore.
Of course not. Clinton is a serial killer and you don't want to hear otherwise. Saddam was behind 9/11 and you don't want to hear otherwise. You aren't interested in a dialogue, you just want to hammer out nutjob theories and claim to be a victim when people point out how loony they are.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
and you refuse to look at every subsequent post that undoes your misguided linking of SH with 911 . . .

Get it straight, you're wrong and won't let go . . . even John McCain says you're wrong, the 911 panel said you're wrong . . . . you are wrong.

but then you twist your semantics to try and rewrite what you're saying to stretch it out to include all forms of terrorist support: to say that since he supported the families of Palastinian bombers that he was involved in 911 . . . . those are different things entirely . . . SH was a totalitarian thug, who supported muslim terrorists who were involved with secular goals . . . near the end of his reign he started to wear the very false garb of being a M<uslim . . . but still, he was a tribalist using every means at his disposal to consolidate his power . . . his thuggery and murder was tribal/sunni but Islamist in a secular-identity label alone

He was adamatly enemies with AQ: OBL even called him an enemy in a public statement before 911 . . . he was a totalitarian secular power-monger and that runs counter to the Fundamentalist islamist totalitarian power-mongery of OBL . . . they were enemies by very definition

Now look what happens after we invade Iraq: well, the religious Islamists now find a common cause and I'm sure that they work together quite well as long as Americans are there and as long as Shi'ah present another enemy.

But SH and 911? no no no . . . and your links have all been shown to be either lies, subsequently shown as such, or merely ideological bloggery from the network of mutually supporting wing-nut fanatics like yourself. Are you insane?

I admitted there is no provable link between Iraq and the events of 9/11. I have agreed with this sentiment.

WE AGREE! Get it?

There are and were links between SH and AQ among other terrorists. That's all I'm saying.

You wish to dismiss the links, that's OK. But you can't sit here and honestly say they have all been debunked. They have not.

The 9/11 commission did not say anything that disagrees with me. I suggest you read that document again.

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
....

'Anonymous' who left the (only) comment 'good job on the blogg' (sic) on your blog - it was you wasn't it ? :lol:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
'Anonymous' who left the (only) comment 'good job on the blogg' (sic) on your blog - it was you wasn't it ? :lol: It's only a couple weeks old and has not been promoted and only visited by some of the people I interviewed and contacted to start the project.

You might want to join giant in the "grow up" line.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I admitted there is no provable link between Iraq and the events of 9/11....WE AGREE! Get it?
somehow I doubt that pfflam believes that the 'links' that you believe exist but haven't been proven (hence your insistance on saying 'no provable links' instead of 'no links') are anything more than what they are: already discredited.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
has not been promoted
promoted? It's one of some 5-6 million political blogs. Promoting a political blog is like promoting a shopping list.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I admitted there is no provable link between Iraq and the events of 9/11. I have agreed with this sentiment. WE AGREE! Get it?

There are and were links between SH and AQ among other terrorists. That's all I'm saying.

Look at the quote above . . . you can see exactly what the problem is . . . first you say that there are no 'provable' links . . .then in the same breath you say there were links between SH and AQ.

Now note that may not be completely false, however you say it and quite obviously hold on to it as if it somehow shows that there are links that are substantial and would eventually imply SH=911.

You also are overlooking the entire reality of SH and his modus operandi, his form of control and power, his stridently secular though dressed as 'Muslim' beliefs . . . hell, he was a fan of Stalins, literally: he idolozed the athiest murderous thug, and you are refusing to see that not only was it expressly (by OBL) opposite of the forms of power, modus operandi and goals of the Radical Islamists: they simply could only work together if and only if there were a common enemy within their midst!!

kinda like now . . .

-one thing to note, when OBL makes a mediated pronouncement like the one where he called for the overthrow of such secular regimes as SHs it isn't really possible for it to be a lie in the sense that what he is doing by making those statements is a kind of call-to-arms for all of the Islamist sympathisers in the Mid-East to take it on themselves to agree with him in the form of action . . . so that discounts the possibilitiy that OBL was just denying the real working relationship: he hated SH because SH was a secularist, Statist, and tribal based thinker, and was not a real Pan-Islamist religious fanatic . . .

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
. . . I stated it as clearly as I know how.

You are choosing to ignore what I say and just continue.rambling.

I think it is obvious we disagree.

I'm wrong, you're right. Case closed.

[segovius]

If one visits the Claims vs Facts Database (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=124702) and selects 'Iraq al-Qaeda links', this is what one finds (selected sample from many links):

Speaker: Cheney, Dick - Vice President

Date: 9/9/2004

Quote/Claim:
"[Saddam Hussein] provided safe harbor and sanctuary…for Al Qaeda. [Source: LA Times, 9/9/04]"

Fact:
"There is no evidence Iraq and al Qaeda ever developed a collaborative operational relationship. - 9/11 Commission Report"

-----------------------------

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 9/7/2003

Quote/Claim:
"And there was an Ansar al-Islam, which appears also to try to be operating in Iraq. So yes, the al Qaeda link was there. [Source: Fox News Sunday transcript]"

Fact:
"Ansar al-Islam was based in the Kurdish area of Iraq beyond Saddam Hussein's control. - Waxman Report"


-----------------------------

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 9/28/2003

Quote/Claim:
"No one has said that there is evidence that Saddam Hussein directed or controlled 9/11, but let's be very clear, he had ties to al-Qaeda, he had al-Qaeda operatives who had operated out of Baghdad. [Source: Meet the Press transcript]"

Fact:
"CIA interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Saddam. - NY Times, 1/15/04

The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.” - NY Times, 6/27/03"

-----------------------------

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 9/26/2002

Quote/Claim:
"You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam.” [Source: White House Web site]"

Fact:
"Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.” - National Journal, 8/9/03"

-----------------------------

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 9/23/2003

Quote/Claim:
"The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction.” [Source: White House Web site -- Speech to UN]"

Fact:
"CIA interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Saddam. - NY Times, 1/15/04

Nearly a year after U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq, no evidence has turned up to verify allegations of Saddam's links with al-Qaida, and several key parts of the administration's case have either proved false or seem increasingly doubtful. Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league. - Knight-Ridder, 3/02/04"

-----------------------------

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 9/17/2003

Quote/Claim:
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” [Source: White House Web site]"

Fact:
"Declassified documents undercut Bush administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to al Qaeda.” - LA Times, 7/19/03"


-----------------------------

Speaker: Coulter, Ann - Political Pundit

Date: 9/17/2003

Quote/Claim:
"Saddam Hussein has harbored, promoted, helped, sheltered al Qaeda members. We know that.” [Source: Salon]"

Fact:
"Senior US officials confirm that they have found no provable connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.” - Miami Herald 3/3/04

The bipartisan September 11th commission report undercuts Bush administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda.” -LA Times, 7/19/03"

-----------------------------

Speaker: Cheney, Dick - Vice President

Date: 9/14/2003

Quote/Claim:
"With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack... [Source: Meet the Press transcript]"

Fact:
"This meeting likely never happened, and Cheney knew it. Czech intelligence officials were skeptical about the report and U.S. intelligence had contradictory evidence, such as records indicating Atta was in Virginia at the time of the meeting; and the C.I.A. and F.B.I. had concluded the meeting probably didn’t occur. - Waxman Report"

-----------------------------

Speaker: Cheney, Dick - Vice President

Date: 9/14/2003

Quote/Claim:
"There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s.” [Meet the Press transcript]"

Fact:
"The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.” - NY Times, 6/27/03

U.S. allies have found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. 'We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda,' said Europe's top investigator. 'If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.' - LA Times, 11/4/02"

-----------------------------

Speaker: Cheney, Dick - Vice President

Date: 6/25/2004

Quote/Claim:
"[Saddam Hussein] had an established relationship with al Qaeda. [Source: Fox News transcript]"

Fact:
"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no 'collaborative relationship' between Iraq and al Qaeda. - Washington Post, 6/17/04"

-----------------------------

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 6/18/2004

Quote/Claim:
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. [Source: Washington Post, 6/18/04]"

Fact:
"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no ‘collaborative relationship’ between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.” - Washington Post, 6/17/04

We simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all. - Bush Weapons Inspector David Kay, Boston Globe, 6/16/04"

-----------------------------

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 6/17/2004

Quote/Claim:
"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda.” [Source: White House Web site]"

Fact:
"Bush and Cheney also have sought to tie Iraq specifically to the 9/11 attacks. In a letter to Congress on March 19, 2003 — the day the war in Iraq began — Bush said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.' - USA Today, 6/16/04

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001. - President Bush, 5/1/03

[Iraq is] the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” - Vice President Dick Cheney, 9/14/03"

-----------------------------

Speaker: Cheney, Dick - Vice President

Date: 6/14/2004

Quote/Claim:
"[Saddam] had long established ties with al Qaeda."

Fact:
"There is 'no credible evidence' that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, including the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackings, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the hijacking plot. - Washington Post, 6/16/04

''At various times Al Qaeda people came through Baghdad and in some cases resided there, said David Kay, former head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, which searched for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism. ''But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all...Cheney's speech is evidence-free. - Boston Globe, 6/16/04"

-----------------------------

Speaker: Powell, Colin - Secretary of State

Date: 3/9/2003

Quote/Claim:
"We have seen connections and we are continuing to pursue those connections. . . . And the fact that there is also an al-Qaida connection, I think certainly adds to the case. - [Source: Meet the Press transcript, reprinted in Waxman database]"

Fact:
"The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.” - NY Times, 6/27/03"

-----------------------------

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 3/9/2003

Quote/Claim:
"Now the al-Qaeda is an organization that's quite disbursed and --and quite widespread in its effects, but it clearly has had links to the Iraqis, not to mention Iraqi links to all kinds of other terrorists. - [Source: CBS Face the Nation, reprinted in Waxman database] "

Fact:
"The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.” - NY Times, 6/27/03

Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.” - National Journal, 8/9/03

U.S. allies have found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. 'We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda,' said Europe's top investigator. 'If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.' - LA Times, 11/4/02




-----------------------------

Speaker: Woolsey, James - Former CIA Director

Date: 3/28/2004

Quote/Claim:
"But in this case, [Richard Clarke] got locked into the view early on that there was nothing ever, no contacts of any kind between al Qaeda and governments such as Iraq. And so I think he ignored some of the clear evidence that George Tenet spread out before the Senate in 2002 about Iraqi training of al Qaeda in poisons, gases and explosives. [Source: Fox News transcript]"

Fact:
"Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.” - National Journal, 8/9/03"

-----------------------------

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 3/22/2004

Quote/Claim:
"The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.” [Source: CNN Web site]"

Fact:
"If true, why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11.” "

-----------------------------

Speaker: Specter, Arlen - Senator (R-PA)

Date: 3/21/2004

Quote/Claim:
[b]"The Bush administration never made any claim that there was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. [Source: CNN Web site]"

Fact:
"[Hussein] also had an established relationship to al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases and making conventional bombs. - Dick Cheney, 10/9/03

There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” - President Bush, 9/17/03"

-----------------------------

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 2/8/2003

Quote/Claim:
"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.” [Source: White House Web site] "

Fact:
"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no ‘collaborative relationship’ between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.” - Washington Post, 6/17/04

We simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all. - Bush Weapons Inspector David Kay, Boston Globe, 6/16/04"


So basically the same old lies. lies and more lies form an administration and its brainless supporters who in the absence of any apprehension of truth or morality can do nothing else but that....lie.

[NaplesX]

Yep. Same lies told by the 9/11 commission:

"There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number
of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported
to have received a significant response.According to one report,Saddam Hus-
sein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle
Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.

In mid-1998,the situation reversed;it was Iraq that reportedly took the ini-
tiative.In March 1998,after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States,
two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelli-
gence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with
the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps
both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egypt-
ian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was
under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air
attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have
occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting,Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.

Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan
remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe
friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of
the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the ear-
lier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor
have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in devel-
oping or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

"The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan,
Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda
had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda
would not work against that government and that on particular projects,
specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work
cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

This passage led Clarke, who for years had
read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons,
to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khar-
toum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke
added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula
used by Iraq.”

"Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq,
even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist
agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against
“Crusaders” during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact
been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan,and sought to attract
them into his Islamic army.

To protect his own ties with Iraq,Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement
that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin
apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to
aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside
of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major
defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into
an organization called Ansar al Islam.There are indications that by then the Iraqi
regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common
Kurdish enemy.

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met
with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995.
Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as
assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded
to this request. As described below,the ensuing years saw additional efforts to
establish connections."

"Clarke commented that Iraq and Libya
had previously discussed hosting Bin Ladin, though he and his staff had their
doubts that Bin Ladin would trust secular Arab dictators such as Saddam Hus-
sein or Muammar Qadhafi."

"In February 1999,Allen proposed flying a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to
build a baseline of intelligence outside the areas where the tribals had cover-
age.Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that
Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible.He wrote Deputy National
Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin’s
having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.” Other
intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar,
had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq."

Those liars.