Bush's False Case For War

[No Limit]

This thread is meant mostly to be between Bodacious and me as he said I am twisting facts. However, if anyone wants to paticipate feel free.

Since I am spending a lot of time on this you have to address everything in this post if you are going to try to say I am wrong, if you pick only certain quotes and ignore others I will not waste time replying to it.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/09/wmd.controversy/index.html

Democrats were making the following claims:

I do think there's evidence that the CIA did shade and embellish this information in a number of areas.

Remember, this is only 3 months after we went in to war meaning it didn't have anything to do with elections and it made it clear that serious questions were coming up about this 'intelligence'. Well guess what, it turns out that these idiot liberals were 100% correct a year and a half before it was official that no WMDs would be found.

Moving right along. Now read the following; remember this is just days before the war:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/07/aldouri.transcript/index.html

Now, what I want you to find is any instence of a lie he was telling. Everything he said was 100% true. Also, take note of the following:

The French, German, Russian, Chinese position clearly expresses the fact that there is no need for a second resolution to be adopted in the Security Council. It demands that the work of the inspectors continue and that enough time is given them to complete their tasks by peaceful means.





Quote:
Let me affirm that Iraq's strategic decision to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction was indeed taken in 1991. UNSCOM worked for eight years. Iraq handed over many of those weapons to UNSCOM for destruction in the period from 1991 to 1994. Indeed, UNSCOM did undertake the destruction of those weapons. That, in addition to the weapons unilaterally destroyed by Iraq in the summer of 1991. These include all proscribed material in the biological area.





Quote:
Let me also point to what Secretary Powell stated, arguing regarding Iraq's VX program. The fact of the matter is that Iraq had no weapons, no VX weapons to declare, no VX agents remained to be declared by Iraq. Iraq never produced stable VX and never weaponized VX. No one has any evidence whatsoever to prove the contrary.

Mr. Powell ought not to jump into such hasty conclusions as he has in the past concerning aluminum tubes and the claims on importing uranium

We heard directly from Mr. ElBaradei today to the exact opposite.





Quote:
In that press conference, he stated that Iraq is cooperating proactively. I would underline the word proactively. He stated that a real disarmament is taking place on the ground -- real disarmament. He stated that the efforts exerted by Iraq and the inspectors represent steps towards actual verification, verification of Iraq's unilateral destruction of its previous proscribed programs.

When asked if Iraq represents a threat now, he replied that all agree that Iraq possesses very limited military capacities in comparison with 1991 and that Iraq is being monitored and very closely guarded by the inspectors.



Quote:
Mr. President, the U.S.-U.K. statements in addition with some others today show a state of confusion, because officials in the United States and the U.K. and those standing on their side are unable to provide any evidence proving the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They have also not been able to mask their own private agenda in the region and the world.


Quote:
So it all started with the issue of Iraq possessing and developing weapons of mass destruction. Then they demanded that Iraq accept the return of inspectors. Then they moved on to proactive cooperation with the inspectors. Then they demanded the submission of evidence, proof that Iraq was free of weapons of mass destruction. Then, at the last meeting, they concentrated on the need to destroy the Al-Samoud 2 missiles.

Then talk moved on to the alleged link that Iraq is destroying on the one hand and manufacturing on the other. Then talk began of an alleged link with terrorism and regime change. And finally, here we are hearing about Iraq being a threat to U.S. national security, stated by President Bush, having previously heard that Iraq is a threat to its neighbors.


Quote:
Let me add, Mr. President, that war against Iraq will not unearth any weapons of mass destruction. But it will wreak destruction for a very simple reason. There are no such weapons except in the imagination of some. And therefore, all those who abetted in the commission of that crime without a direct interest will be sorry indeed.

The bottom line there is that no matter what Iraq did to comply nothing was good enough for Bush. When they complied with something Bush found another reason. This just went around in circles until Bush finally invaded.

Moving on...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/14/sprj.irq.elbaradei/index.html

Why did Bush not give them six months? If you say Iraq was a threat show me the exact intelligence that says this. If you say they don't want to share this intelligence tell me why. Not knowing why is not a valid response.

Now, remember that you said the entire world had the same intelligence that Saddam clearly had these WMDs? This is a load of shit:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/30/sprj.irq.iaea/index.html

Quote:
The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency says that, in his view, Iraq as yet is not in material breach of a U.N. resolution on disarmament -- contrary to what Britain and the United States have said.





Quote:
ElBaradei said IAEA inspectors were still investigating aluminum tubes found in Iraq for signs that they were being readied as part of banned weapons, but he said the agency's preliminary conclusion was that they were being used for conventional arms.

So let me summerize what I want from you:

What did Iraq's ambassador to the UN say that wasn't true? If your response will be that at the time we thought he was lying I want to know why. Show me examples of intelligence that directly contradicted anything he said.

Why did Bush not listen to the inspectors who were saying Saddam was complying fully?

Why did Bush not listen to Blix when he said Saddam posed no threat to the world?

Why did Bush not give the inspectors the 6 months they asked for?

Why did Bush not listen to the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog who said he didn't believe Saddam wasn't violating the resolution and why didn't he give them the 4-5 months they asked for to investigate?

Why did Condoleeza Rice say the only thing the aluminum tubes could be used for was for uranium when a large part of the world; including the IAEA, was saying otherwise? This is A DIRECT LIE from the administration.

If you can not address anyone one point I want you to admit that the WHITE HOUSE LIED.

 

[Bodacious]

So let me summerize what I want from you:

What did Iraq's ambassador to the UN say that wasn't true? If your response will be that at the time we thought he was lying I want to know why. Show me examples of intelligence that directly contradicted anything he said.

Hindsight is 20/20. He was telling the truth, wasn't he? At the time there were a lot more pople that Bush who thought the ambassador was lying, including Clinton, Kerry, and a bunch of othe democrats. Why is the hate only for Bush?

I can't give you proof that the ambassador was lying because I am not privy to secret documents. And those secret documents obviously weren't right were they?

Why did Bush not listen to the inspectors who were saying Saddam was complying fully?

At the time the intelligence that not only Bush, but many democrats, and a lot of othe world leaders had, indicated that Saddam did have WMD. In Bush's mind, and many other democrat's and world leader's minds, Saddam was lying and was hiding the WMDs. Saddam's lying is eveident because, over the course of a decade, saddam defied the inspectors at every turn.

Why did Bush not listen to Blix when he said Saddam posed no threat to the world?

At the time the intelligence that not only Bush, but many democrats, and a lot of othe world leaders had, indicated that Saddam did have WMD. In Bush's mind, and many other democrat's and world leader's minds, Saddam was lying and was hiding the WMDs. Saddam's lying is eveident because, over the course of a decade, saddam defied the inspectors at every turn.

Why did Bush not give the inspectors the 6 months they asked for?

At the time the intelligence that not only Bush, but many democrats, and a lot of othe world leaders had, indicated that Saddam did have WMD. In Bush's mind, and many other democrat's and world leader's minds, Saddam was lying and was hiding the WMDs. Saddam's lying is eveident because, over the course of a decade, saddam defied the inspectors at every turn.

Why did Bush not listen to the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog who said he didn't believe Saddam wasn't violating the resolution and why didn't he give them the 4-5 months they asked for to investigate?

At the time the intelligence that not only Bush, but many democrats, and a lot of othe world leaders had, indicated that Saddam did have WMD. In Bush's mind, and many other democrat's and world leader's minds, Saddam was lying and was hiding the WMDs. Saddam's lying is eveident because, over the course of a decade, saddam defied the inspectors at every turn.

Why did Condoleeza Rice say the only thing the aluminum tubes could be used for was for uranium when a large part of the world; including the IAEA, was saying otherwise? This is A DIRECT LIE from the administration.

Your source says that the IAEA was investigating. I don't see a conclusion to that investigation in your sources. I don't see, "the rest of the world saying otherwise" either.

If you can not address anyone one point I want you to admit that the WHITE HOUSE LIED.

Did I leave anything out that you want me to address?

 

[burner69]

Since when has it been legal to go to wars on worst case scenario "if"'s with no backing whatsoever, apart from the fact that he has broken a few UN rules in the past.

If I once beat someone up, then someone was murdered near my house could they arrest me, and send me to jail for murder because I broke a law before? No, you couldn't.

And would you like some linkage to show you the government admitting Saddam has no WMD?

 

[No Limit]

Hindsight is 20/20. He was telling the truth, wasn't he? At the time there were a lot more pople that Bush who thought the ambassador was lying, including Clinton, Kerry, and a bunch of othe democrats. Why is the hate only for Bush?

I can't give you proof that the ambassador was lying because I am not privy to secret documents. And those secret documents obviously weren't right were they?

If you can't prove he was lying Bush couldn't prove he was lying at the time. Saying I don't have access to secret documents isn't a valid response as I said in the original post.

At the time the intelligence that not only Bush, but many democrats, and a lot of othe world leaders had, indicated that Saddam did have WMD. In Bush's mind, and many other democrat's and world leader's minds, Saddam was lying and was hiding the WMDs. Saddam's lying is eveident because, over the course of a decade, saddam defied the inspectors at every turn.

You are completely ignoring what I said there. Why didn't Bush give them the time they asked for to prove Saddam didn't have anythign?

At the time the intelligence that not only Bush, but many democrats, and a lot of othe world leaders had, indicated that Saddam did have WMD. In Bush's mind, and many other democrat's and world leader's minds, Saddam was lying and was hiding the WMDs. Saddam's lying is eveident because, over the course of a decade, saddam defied the inspectors at every turn.

Again, you side stepped the question.

And you did the same for most of my replies.

Your source says that the IAEA was investigating. I don't see a conclusion to that investigation in your sources. I don't see, "the rest of the world saying otherwise" either.

The IAEA was saying they weren't sure of Saddam's WMDs and wanted to investigate. Since the IAEA is part of the UN and the UN represents the world that means a large part of the world was skeptical and needed to investigate.

Did I leave anything out that you want me to address?

No, but you side stepped everything.

Your main argument is that everyone saw the same intelligence. Are you telling me there was no intelligence that said Saddam had no WMDs? If the whole world saw the same intelligence why was most of the world against the war? Because the world knew the intelligence was fishy at best.

If you want you can leave it at that as I won't run around in circles with you. However, I made my point and you made yours; I think it is safe to say my point is a lot more solid than yours.

 

[Bodacious]

Since when has it been legal to go to wars on worst case scenario "if"'s with no backing whatsoever, apart from the fact that he has broken a few UN rules in the past.

At the time, according to intelligence held by the US, UK, and a lot of other places, there weren't any "Ifs". Like I said, hindsight is 20/20.

And would you like some linkage to show you the government admitting Saddam has no WMD?

What? Those powel and condi videos? Seen those. Doesn't change the fact that we went to war, huh?

 

[No Limit]

At the time, according to intelligence held by the US, UK, and a lot of other places, there weren't any "Ifs". Like I said, hindsight is 20/20.

What intelligence are you talking about. My entire post showed examples of intelligence that said the WMDs claim was a huge "if". So yes, there were many "ifs".

What? Those powel and condi videos? Seen those. Doesn't change the fact that we went to war, huh?

No, but it still shows that Condi and Powell lied. DIRECTLY LIED TO THE WORLD!

 

[burner69]

At the time, according to intelligence held by the US, UK, and a lot of other places, there weren't any "Ifs". Like I said, hindsight is 20/20.



What? Those powel and condi videos? Seen those. Doesn't change the fact that we went to war, huh?

Well there were, because they didn't find any WMDs.
Saddam wasn't linked to 9/11, that was Bush desperate to rally support.
Saddam never had any intention of using WMDs on the West.
Saddam could never launch them in 45minutes.
There was no evidence to support any of the above, but the claims were made. That=lie.Lie=war.

 

[Bodacious]

Your main argument is that everyone saw the same intelligence. Are you telling me there was no intelligence that said Saddam had no WMDs?

For all I know there could have been. If that is the case then obviously the Bush administration, along with a lot of democrats and other world leaders, thought that the evidence saying Saddam did have wmds was more damning than the intelligence that there weren't any wmds

If the whole world saw the same intelligence why was most of the world against the war? Because the world knew the intelligence was fishy at best.

Probably the oil for palaces scandal. A lot of other places had an interest in keeping Iraq the way it was because they were getting major kickbacks in oil and money. Not to mention the debt Iraq owed to a lot of places. Not to mention all the weapons they bought from Russia and France.

Yes, I know you ponted out there were people in the US who are just as guilty as the other countries as far as the oil for food thing is concerned, but did that stop us from going into Iraq? Yes, I know we sold weapons to Iraq, but did that stop us from invading?

 

[Bodacious]

Well there were, because they didn't find any WMDs.

At the time there wasn't. Hindsight is 20/20, do you know what that means?

Saddam wasn't linked to 9/11, that was Bush desperate to rally support.

Show me where Bush said that.

Saddam never had any intention of using WMDs on the West.

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/410014|top|06-18-2004::08:05|reuters.html

Maybe not WMDs, but I guess we will never know now, huh?

Saddam could never launch them in 45minutes.
There was no evidence to support any of the above, but the claims were made. That=lie.Lie=war.

Show me where those claims were made.

 

[No Limit]

Probably the oil for palaces scandal. A lot of other places had an interest in keeping Iraq the way it was because they were getting major kickbacks in oil and money. Not to mention the debt Iraq owed to a lot of places. Not to mention all the weapons they bought from Russia and France.

No, Americans were making just as much off the oil for food scandal; this is just a crappy republican talking point to try and discredit other countries WHO SAID THERE WASN'T ENOUGH INTELLIGENCE TO GO INTO IRAQ; THEY WERE 100% RIGHT.

This is a valid point; the fact we invaded has nothing to do with the oil-for-food scandal just as the fact other countries didn't want to invade has nothing to do with it.

For all I know there could have been. If that is the case then obviously the Bush administration, along with a lot of democrats and other world leaders, thought that the evidence saying Saddam did have wmds was more damning than the intelligence that there weren't any wmds

I am leaving work right now so if I don't get it today I will post CIA agents that said Saddam had no WMDs; Bush ignored them and only listened to the pro-WMD intelligence. He then only shared that intelligence with the country and left everything else out; this is the reason the democrats believed Saddam had WMDs; even if Bush didn't.

Now address everything else I said.

 

[No Limit]

Show me where Bush said that.

Let me ask you, what is the war on terror and when was it started?

 

[burner69]

At the time there wasn't. Hindsight is 20/20, do you know what that means?

Yeah. Do you know what, illegal war means?

Show me where Bush said that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

This article just about covers it all, and includes in the second block a quote linking Iraq with 9/11. Where were you when we were being told over and over that Saddam was involved with 9/11?

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/410014|top|06-18-2004::08:05|reuters.html

Maybe not WMDs, but I guess we will never know now, huh?

We'll never know.

Show me where those claims were made.

You seriously don't believe we were fed a 45min claim, are you serious?

 

[MjM]

Bizarre, how come clinton can be put through impeachment proceedings for chatting up Monica on the phone, and yet Bush invades Iraq on rediculously flawed evidence and bugger all happens?

 

[MarcoPollo]

"chatting up monica on the phone" i hope thats a euphamism for disgracing america and making a fool of himself by having "sexual relations with that woman" or else you have some twisted facts my friend lol

 

[MjM]

disgracing america - have you not realised that your country is percieved worse than it ever was under Clinton?


Iraq is a horrible traversty, the Clinton issue was a fiasco, a fiasco perpetuated by political jealousy.

There is just such a huge difference in the ramifications.

 

[MarcoPollo]

where do you live???

 

[X|Rolando]

Why did Bush not listen to Blix when he said Saddam posed no threat to the world?

Yes, and why was he blackmailed by the US Government? (Cue BBC Interview... Or is that too left-ish to be trusted as a source? )

 

[MjM]

I live i NewZealand. I suppose i am ignorant of your affairs? I may well be, just point me to the facts my friend.

 

[MarcoPollo]

well MjM once you stop putting words into my mouth that encourage you to flame me i will tell you what i was going to say

 

[MjM]

My bad.

 

[MarcoPollo]

im just messing but what I was going to say was that, if left alone, Sadamm would have kept doing evil things each more dastardly than the last and it would have escaladed to him having WMDs powerfull enough to blow away a large city ,most likely european. And personly I wouldnt have waited until it came to that and might have possibly been too late.....but its an opinion and I think that we all have to remember that when we post. lol

 

[MjM]

Reverting to hindsight as an excuse isnt all that fullproof in this case because Hans Blix was on the ground in Iraq saying there was nothing, while all the US and Britian were relying on analysts and the word of disaffected Saddam scientists saying there was an active programme.

Marco: agreed its opinion, and well speculation, You cant justify a war on speculation.

 

[burner69]

im just messing but what I was going to say was that, if left alone, Sadamm would have kept doing evil things each more dastardly than the last and it would have escaladed to him having WMDs powerfull enough to blow away a large city ,most likely european. And personly I wouldnt have waited until it came to that and might have possibly been too late.....but its an opinion and I think that we all have to remember that when we post. lol

Sorry bud, it wouldn't happen.
Saddam has never showed any sign of wishing to attack the western world. For a start we helped him get in power, and he was well aware that his army stood no chance against the US.

Why would he just "blow away" a european city? What would that achieve for him?

No, what you needed to worry about was the growing hatred towards the west mounting in the middle east not because of Saddam, or OBL, but because arab youths were hearing about the US supplying Saddam with WMDs, about them getting their wealth through deeply immoral practises, about the US's actions that have resulted in many deaths. People did not like the US.

Then OBL gets some willing volunteers, equally pissed off with the US, with a bit of fanatic religion thrown in for good measure - and they strike a massive blow to the US.
All the people who hated the US for what it had done to them celebrated... you saw the videos. But didn't you cheer when Saddam was captured. Didn't you cheer when you heard how we were annihilating Iraqs army? We see them as the enemy, they see us.

Then, to show that we weren't these evil killer, money grabbing evil monsters much of the arab world saw us as... we invaded Iraq. Thousands of innocents died, and it was all over a lie.

If there was ever a moment when it looked like the west were trying to take over the Middle East, it's now. Two countries in 3 years, a third possibly on the horizon. People now believe, perhaps rightly so, perhaps not, that the US is there to take over, convert them to our way of life, Secular, democratic, immoral. That's how they see it.

That's how you explain all the people moving into Iraq to attack the coalition. That's how you explain why the Iraqi police are being targetted. It's all about the good and evil concept. These 'terrorists', although I think it's far more accurate to call them just 'the opposition', believe that they are right about things, and the west wants to take them over. There's certainly a lot of evidence for it at the moment.
America on the otherhand has labelled themselves the good, spreading freedom, and all who oppose it are 'evil-doers'.

It's a war, and a stupid war because it's all about one side's actions being designed to repel the other, but all it does is magnify the situation.

 

[MarcoPollo]

ouch lol

 

[No Limit]

I see this thread was unlocked, thanks mods.

:cheers:

 

[Bodacious]

No, Americans were making just as much off the oil for food scandal; this is just a crappy republican talking point to try and discredit other countries WHO SAID THERE WASN'T ENOUGH INTELLIGENCE TO GO INTO IRAQ; THEY WERE 100% RIGHT.

This is a valid point; the fact we invaded has nothing to do with the oil-for-food scandal just as the fact other countries didn't want to invade has nothing to do with it.

Lie to yourself all you want. The countries involved in the Oil for palaces scandal had an interest in keeping saddam in power, for many reasons other than the oil for palaces thing, too, like arms sales. The US might have had people getting money from it, but that didn't stop us from going to war, did it?

I am leaving work right now so if I don't get it today I will post CIA agents that said Saddam had no WMDs; Bush ignored them and only listened to the pro-WMD intelligence. He then only shared that intelligence with the country and left everything else out; this is the reason the democrats believed Saddam had WMDs; even if Bush didn't.

Ok

Now address everything else I said.

Make me.

 

[Bodacious]

What intelligence are you talking about. My entire post showed examples of intelligence that said the WMDs claim was a huge "if". So yes, there were many "ifs".

Your links were to the Iraqi ambassador to the UN and Elbaradai saying he wasn't finished with his investigation.

I already gave you my answer. Let me cut and paste it agian.

At the time the intelligence that not only Bush, but many democrats, and a lot of othe world leaders had, indicated that Saddam did have WMD. In Bush's mind, and many other democrat's and world leader's minds, Saddam was lying and was hiding the WMDs. Saddam's lying is eveident because, over the course of a decade, saddam defied the inspectors at every turn.

No, but it still shows that Condi and Powell lied. DIRECTLY LIED TO THE WORLD!

Or new intelligence was gathered between when those videos aired and we went to war.

None of us can view secret documents. All of your claims, and mine, are based on accusation and heresay. Maybe we will find out someday, but not today.

 

[Bodacious]

Let me ask you, what is the war on terror and when was it started?

First, let me clarify. It is my belief that Saddam isn't linked to 9/11. It is also my belief that Bush never made the claim that Saddam was linked to 9/11. However, it is also a false claim that Saddam had nothing to do with terror.

You know the answer to that question.

 

[Bodacious]

Yeah. Do you know what, illegal war means?

Kofi Anan's opinion doesn't make the war illegal. The UN has no credibility. They don't enforce their resolutions. How can an organization with no credibility make any decisions that have any value?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

This article just about covers it all, and includes in the second block a quote linking Iraq with 9/11. Where were you when we were being told over and over that Saddam was involved with 9/11?

First, let me clarify. It is my belief that Saddam isn't linked to 9/11. It is also my belief that Bush never made the claim that Saddam was linked to 9/11. However, it is also a false claim that Saddam had nothing to do with terror.

Cheney said that, not Bush. People can be wrong. people make mistakes.

You seriously don't believe we were fed a 45min claim, are you serious?

I don't recall that at all. Please give me a link.

 

[SAJ]

"if left alone, Sadamm would have kept doing evil things each more dastardly than the last and it would have escaladed to him having WMDs powerfull enough to blow away a large city ,most likely european"

I think you are confusing Saddam with DrEvil(a fictional character).

 

[No Limit]

Lie to yourself all you want. The countries involved in the Oil for palaces scandal had an interest in keeping saddam in power, for many reasons other than the oil for palaces thing, too, like arms sales. The US might have had people getting money from it, but that didn't stop us from going to war, did it?

OK, you just ignored what I said. Meaning you lose this one. I already pointed out how the fact we went to war has nothing to do with it. WE STILL PROFITED FROM THIS AS MUCH AS ANYONE ELSE; CHENEY DID. The fact we went in to Iraq is because Bush wanted to; other countries saw the faulty intelligence and didn't want to go it. Are you telling me the entire world is opposed to the war because they are all profiting from the oil for food scandal. You are so full of shit buddy. And stop trying to spin this in circles by replying that we still went in to Iraq; it will make you look like an ass.

Make me.

I don't have to make you do anything. I just proved that you have no clue what you are talking about since you won't respond and will support Bush blindly no matter how much he lies to you or how wrong he is. Meaning you are nothing more than a liar and partisan hack.

Your links were to the Iraqi ambassador to the UN and Elbaradai saying he wasn't finished with his investigation.

I already gave you my answer. Let me cut and paste it agian.

At the time the intelligence that not only Bush, but many democrats, and a lot of othe world leaders had, indicated that Saddam did have WMD. In Bush's mind, and many other democrat's and world leader's minds, Saddam was lying and was hiding the WMDs. Saddam's lying is eveident because, over the course of a decade, saddam defied the inspectors at every turn.

Again, a load of shit coming from you, what a suprise. You said that all the intelligence at the time showed Saddam had WMDs. I show you how everyone in the world at the time thought this evidance was weak (as it was since we now know) and you give me this shit that it isn't intelligence.

There is no point debating anything else with you. You can not address facts even if they slap you directly in the face. Then you claim I pull facts out of my ass. I think I proved my point and I hope you know anyone reading this thread knows you have absolutely no credibility as many members have already pointed out in other threads. Bye.

 

[KoreBolteR]

iraq - al qaeda connections here!

 

[No Limit]

Kofi Anan's opinion doesn't make the war illegal. The UN has no credibility. They don't enforce their resolutions. How can an organization with no credibility make any decisions that have any value?

This proves you are a LIAR that will repeat disproven LIES over and over again no matter how many times people point out you are wrong. I would like to point you to this thread:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=69992&page=6&pp=15&highlight=sign

Look at stern's post asking "why did you sign this". It shows exactly why his opinion means a lot and you quoted it so I know you saw it; however, you never gave a response since you were proved wrong. Again, you have absolutely no credibility what so ever and this proves debating with you is a total waste of time as you will repeat the same old talking points over and over again that we already pointed out to you were false.

 

[jondy]

It is also my belief that Bush never made the claim that Saddam was linked to 9/11

"That's the nature of this man. We know he's got ties with Al Qaeda."

Portsmouth, New Hampshire, November 1, 2002

"This is a man who cannot stand America, he cannot stand what we stand for, he can't stand some of our closest friends and allies. his is a man who has got connections with Al Qaeda."

Dallas, Texas, November 4, 2002

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements from people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda."

State of the Union Address, January 28th, 2003

A Knight-Ridder Poll at the time showed that around half of the people questioned thought that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. You do the math.

 

[No Limit]

A Knight-Ridder Poll at the time showed that around half of the people questioned thought that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. You do the math.

Actually it was 70% of Americans . I wonder where they got that from.

 

[Bodacious]

A Knight-Ridder Poll at the time showed that around half of the people questioned thought that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. You do the math.

Ties to Al-Qaeda != 9/11

That is an assumption on the left.

 

[No Limit]

Ties to Al-Qaeda != 9/11

That is an assumption on the left.

:stare:


Again, ignoring the point. I am not going to waste time debating with you; I will simply point out every time you try to spin or you ignore a simple point.

 

[jondy]

Ties to Al-Qaeda != 9/11

That is an assumption on the left.

Yeah, because fifty, oh, shit, sorry Nolimit, seventy percent of America is leftwing.

 

[CptStern]

iraq - al qaeda connections here!

sigh ...kore ..google is your friend


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19822-2003Jun21?language=printer

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727471.stm

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Anthropology/publications/General_Powell.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

http://www.harpers.org/WeeklyReview2004-06-22.html#20040621-446531937329

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/Iraq.Qaeda.link/

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jun2004/911-j18.shtml



9/11 Commission - 16 June 2004:

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

 

[No Limit]

sigh ...kore ..google is your friend

9/11 Commission - 16 June 2004:

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

Then I wonder why Cheney was saying there was "overwhelming evidance of a Hussein-Al Queda link" since he was looking at the same intelligence as the commission was. Does that mean he is a LIAR? I think so.