If Bush really lied to go to Iraq would you still support him?

Would You Support Bush If He Lied To Get Us In To War

  • Total voters
    43
No Limit

No Limit

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Messages
9,018
Reaction score
1
My last thread asked a good question, what would Bush have to do make Republicans stop liking him. So lets assume that it turns out that Bush really did lie to the American people about the Iraq war (lets not get much deeper than that); would you still support him as a president? Every Republican that defended Bush on this board please respond to the poll, it is public so you don't even have to post a response; I just want to know your answer.
 
Why would I?

I think it was all based off bad intelligence... not some deceitful lie.
 
If he had lied about it I would still support the war (It's about more than WMD) but the congress should vote to impeach him. But as Raziaar said- it wasn't some sneaky evil lie type thing going on here.
 
I don't support him ether way.

That wannabe southerner can kiss my ass.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
If he had lied about it I would still support the war (It's about more than WMD) but the congress should vote to impeach him. But as Raziaar said- it wasn't some sneaky evil lie type thing going on here.
Click to expand...

I would still support the removal of Saddam.
 
Raziaar said:
I would still support the removal of Saddam.
Click to expand...
But you wouldn't support Bush, right?

Edit: I guess you wouldn't from the first reply; I misread it.
 
My stance should be known on this.




...





That's "No" for you blockheads. :)
 
dream431ca said:
I doubt that President Bush knows the difference :LOL:
Click to expand...

Its replies like this that make me want to support him no matter what he does. Just to spite the idiots that are always insulting his intelligence. Heh.
 
Raziaar said:
Its replies like this that make me want to support him no matter what he does. Just to spite the idiots that are always insulting his intelligence. Heh.
Click to expand...

Why insult his intelligence when he has none....good point.
 
Although I might not like bush, he's really not that much of an idiot. He knows that oil is going to be scarce in the years to come, and he also knows that if he does not have some base of influence in the Middle Eastern area, the oil prices are up to the terrorists to make up. Thats why you always see him hugging and kissing up to Saudi princes, he's trying to squeeze the last drops out of the oil well at cheap prices so he can keep the leaky raft us Americans are on afloat for a little longer.

Enough ranting, I never really supported Bush anyways, so him lying about the war or not is irrelevant.
 
Raziaar said:
Its replies like this that make me want to support him no matter what he does. Just to spite the idiots that are always insulting his intelligence. Heh.
Click to expand...
Oh so true.

WOW BUSH IS STUPID HOW FUNNY AM I!!11

I don't support the Bush administration, but I do/did support the war. I am, quite frankly sick of this stupid pop-politics bollocks that's so prevalent these days.
 
ComradeBadger said:
Oh so true.

WOW BUSH IS STUPID HOW FUNNY AM I!!11

I don't support the Bush administration, but I do/did support the war. I am, quite frankly sick of this stupid pop-politics bollocks that's so prevalent these days.
Click to expand...
Yeah but wouldn't you prefer to support the war without the president lying to you (again, assuming he lied). Don't you think the American people deserve to know the real truth and real facts before they support the war?
 
No Limit said:
Yeah but wouldn't you prefer to support the war without the president lying to you (again, assuming he lied). Don't you think the American people deserve to know the real truth and real facts before they support the war?
Click to expand...

For almost 50 years, your government has lied to you about various things. I see no change at all from that.
 
the only thing i didn;t support is that they didn;t publicly execute Saddam after they found him
 
I dont think he lied about WMD, i think it was bad intel; but he was right about Iraq harboring terrorists because the group responsible for the London attack said this was revenge for invading Iraq, clearly Al Quada are in partnership/allies with Saddams regime. Eventually when Iraq gets rebuilt with a democratic gov it will be completly worth it all.
 
operative x said:
I dont think he lied about WMD, i think it was bad intel; but he was right about Iraq harboring terrorists because the group responsible for the London attack said this was revenge for invading Iraq, clearly Al Quada are in partnership/allies with Saddams regime.
Click to expand...


no:


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0109-01.htm

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

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm
 
Joking about taking the President's life is all fun and games until a nation ends up leaderless.

Until then, I can still gleam amusement from such humor.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Name game. Ansar al-Islam, and Jund al-Islam before it was renamed, were active in Iraq for years (long before the 2003 invasion)
Click to expand...

but they're not al qaeda are they? bush made the public believe that saddam was equally responsible for 9/11

"Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

- never substantiated, no evidence whatsoever. In fact Cheney even claimed that an al qaeda operative met with saddam in prague ...again no evidence whatsoever

"He referred to meetings in Sudan between Iraqi intelligence agents and al Qaeda and said Saddam had connections with organizations considered by the United States to be terror groups -- including Abu Nidal. That group is a spinoff from the Palestinian Liberation Organization"

he lumped in al qaeda ...because no one recognises Abu Nidal



source


funny how he later retracted his statement saying that there was no evidence saddam was behind 9/11 ...but the damage was already done because 70% of americans believed saddam was responsible for 9/11



fear-mongering and propaganda rhetoric ...pure and simple
 
CptStern said:
but they're not al qaeda are they? bush made the public believe that saddam was equally responsible for 9/11

"Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

- never substantiated, no evidence whatsoever. In fact Cheney even claimed that an al qaeda operative met with saddam in prague ...again no evidence whatsoever

"He referred to meetings in Sudan between Iraqi intelligence agents and al Qaeda and said Saddam had connections with organizations considered by the United States to be terror groups -- including Abu Nidal. That group is a spinoff from the Palestinian Liberation Organization"

he lumped in al qaeda ...because no one recognises Abu Nidal



source


funny how he later retracted his statement saying that there was no evidence saddam was behind 9/11 ...but the damage was already done because 70% of americans believed saddam was responsible for 9/11



fear-mongering and propaganda rhetoric ...pure and simple
Click to expand...
Association. Contacts and deals with groups who have ties to al qaeda themselves. Kicker is the ties Hussein did have them with were doing the same things Al Qaeda was, if you're going by terrorism in general they're guilty as charged. They didn't tie with Al Qaeda itself though. I thought this was reasonably clear, and Ansar al-Islam and Jund al-Islam along with a few other key figures, and the payment of the families of Palestinian suicide bombers by Hussein, spurs me personally to support it even further. Even without any links to terrorists I'd still support the ousting of him, but that just piles onto the mounting reasons.
 
Al Qaeda or not, Saddam was a very bad man and needed to be gotten rid of.
 
could have fooled me


read it, dont comment on it till you've read it ..ALL of it


RakuraiTenjin: guilty by association IS NOT A VALID REASON TO INVADE ...bush and co made it clear that saddam had ties to 9/11 ...70% of americans believed him as late as 2004 ...come on if that isnt misleading the public I dont know what is:

everything they said around al qaeda 9/11 and saddam was utter bullshit
 
who cares? I dont care if it was Mary freakin poppins ..dont pull this partisan bullshit on me I dont care
 
CptStern said:
who cares? I dont care if it was Mary freakin poppins ..dont pull this partisan bullshit on me I dont care
Click to expand...

Then what's the point of you debating if you don't care? I think what they're trying to say, is that it wasn't just 'bush' who believed in the tie to al qaeda. And bush got his information from the CIA and other sources.

You seem to think he said, "Well gee, my daddy couldn't do it, so i'm gonna finish his work for him! And i'm going to find any way I can do accomplish it"
 
Raziaar, does this CptStern character always have to have things explained to him?
 
Olympus said:
Raziaar, does this CptStern character always have to have things explained to him?
Click to expand...

would you care to try to explain it to me? maybe you can start by explaining why bush went to so much trouble to mislead the american people?


maybe you'd like to explain that even though there was NO evidence saddam was behind 9/11 the bush admin pressured the CIA to pin it on him?

"After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it. "


"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this. "


"Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.' "
 
When did I say anything about 9/11? I said Al-Qaeda. Al-qaeda is a terrorist network. 9/11 is a day in which a tragedy occured.

I see you suffer from a poor lack of reading comprehension that a whole bunch of othe r liberals suffer from.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp?pg=2

Iraq has far more links to terrorism than you give him credit for. It is not just Al-Qaeda he had links to. I can compile a large list of other links to Al-Qaeda, some even 9/11 related, if you like.
 
Olympus said:
When did I say anything about 9/11? I said Al-Qaeda. Al-qaeda is a terrorist network. 9/11 is a day in which a tragedy occured.

I see you suffer from a poor lack of reading comprehension that a whole bunch of othe r liberals suffer from.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp?pg=2

Iraq has far more links to terrorism than you give him credit for. It is not just Al-Qaeda he had links to. I can compile a large list of other links to Al-Qaeda, some even 9/11 related, if you like.
Click to expand...


I can compile one too:



Sky News (London): "One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?"

Bush: "I can't make that claim.'
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html

Bush: No evidence Saddam Hussein involved in Nine-Eleven attacks
http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1447698

Rice: U.S. Never Said Saddam Was Behind 9/11
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/983821/posts

Rumsfeld sees no link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm

Wolfowitz: Iraq Was Not Involved In 9-11 Terrorist Attacks, No Ties To Al-Qaeda
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4372.htm

Brent Scowcroft, one of the Republican Party’s most respected foreign policy advisors;

"Don't Attack Saddam. It would undermine our antiterror efforts. There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

Allies Find No Links Between Iraq, Al Qaeda

"What I'm asked is if I've seen any evidence of that. (Iraq links to al Qaeda) And the answer is: I haven't.” -British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who supports U.S. invasion & occupation of Iraq.]
http://web.archive.org/web/20031005195549/http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-noqaeda4nov04,0,4538810.story

British Intelligence agencies, MI6 and MI5

A dossier prepared by the two agencies “showed no discernible links between Iraq and al-Qaida,”
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=375403

Richard Kerr, a former deputy CIA director who lead an internal review of the CIA's prewar intelligence;

“the CIA has not found any proof of operational ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime.”
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?pid=800

The White House’s own publication, A Decade of Defiance and Deception, makes no mention of Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

The 2002 congressional joint intelligence committee’s report on the Sept. 11 attacks revealed that the Bush administration had no evidence to support its claim that Saddam’s government was supporting al-Qaeda.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030723-064812-9491r

No proof links Iraq, al-Qaida, Powell says
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/3909150

According to a "top secret British document", quoted by the BBC, "there is nothing but enmity between Iraq and Al Qaeda." The BBC said the leak came from intelligence officials upset that their work was being used to justify war." (quoted in Daily News, New York, 6 February 2003).
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html

Three former Bush administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues have told National Journal that the prewar evidence tying al Qaeda to Iraq was tenuous, exaggerated, and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0803/080803nj2.htm

"…analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said."

and…

"At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden|s network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D1EF83E5C0C718CDDAB0894DB404482

This is consistent with what they were saying back in October 2002.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A14056-2002Oct24

"There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."
-Richard Clarke, former terrorism chief under bush.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

Iraq-al Qaeda ties have not been found

Bush administration hyped sketchy and false evidence to push for war
The Bush administration’s claim that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda — one of the administration’s central arguments for a pre-emptive war — appears to have been based on even less solid intelligence than the administration’s claims that Iraq had hidden stocks of chemical and biological weapons.

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 Qaeda, and several key parts of the administration’s case have either proved false or seem increasingly doubtful.
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/2004/03/04/news/nation/8101079.htm

Iraq and al Qaeda: What Evidence?
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=23816

bush's own hand-picked Republican weapons hunter ISG, Dr. David Kay;

David Kay was on the ground for months investigating the activities of Hussein's regime. He concluded "But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all."

He called a speech where Cheney made the claim there was a link, as being "evidence free."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w..._cheney_on_assertion_linking_hussein_al_qaeda

Israeli intelligence (the Moussad)

“According to Israeli intelligence, Palestinians are still not connected to the global terror network, and neither is Iraq.”
http://www.haaretz.com /

bush's second and final hand-picked Republican weapons hunter ISG, Dr. Charles Dueffler;

Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq, no capability since 1991, no evidence of ties to al Qaeda, no serious threat;
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/06/1096949583023.html?from=storylhs

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/

OFFICIAL VERDICT: WHITE HOUSE MISLED WORLD OVER SADDAM-AL QAEDA TIEShttp://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0617-03.htm

No evidence of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties: 9/11 commission
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/cheney.911

"CIA Review Finds No Evidence Saddam Had Ties to Islamic Terrorists"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1005-01.htm

NO ties between Iraq and international terrorists, al-Qaeda or otherwise:

1. Central to the Saddam - al Qaeda connection claim is the assertion that Czech authorities had evidence of a meeting between one of the September 11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent in Prague in April 2001.
Both Czech President Vaclav Havel and Czech intelligence refuted this report.
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/2155.html

More than that, so do the FBI and CIA; Only one problem with that story, the FBI pointed out. Atta was traveling at the time between Florida and Virginia Beach, Va. (The bureau had his rental car and hotel receipts)
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060203A.shtml

This lie of BushCo's was debunked last year. But to this day, members of the Administration cite the Prague report as evidence of an Iraq - al Qaeda connection.

2. Cheney also claimed that 1993 World Trade Center bombing co-conspirator Abdul Rahman Yasin had received “financing” and “safe haven” from Saddam’s government.

You have to really love this one...yeah he did. Sort of. He was in an Iraqi JAIL from 1994 until shortly before the invasion;

"He was being clothed and fed by them so long as he wore stripes,” joked one U.S. investigator.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067794 /

Yasin had hopped onto a plane for Iraq. He was picked up by the Iraqi police a year later and had been held without a charge placed against him. Iraq had twice offered to deliver him to the United States, but only upon written receipt that Iraq had given him up… "like a receipt for a FedEx package"
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00755.html

but the US refused the offer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2022991.stm

Yasin was picked up by the FBI a few days after the bombing in an apartment in Jersey City, N.J., that he was sharing with his mother. He was so helpful and cooperative, giving the FBI names and addresses, that they released him.

Yasin says he was even driven back home in an FBI car.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/60minutes/main510795.shtml

The FBI agree, saying they decided to let Yasin go free.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/60minutes/main510795.shtml

Yasin, whose picture is on the FBI Web site along with Osama bin Laden, is one of President Bush’s 22 most-wanted terrorists.

3. Ansar al-Islam, a radical Kurdish group, whose leader lives a free man in Norway, after 2 FBI interrogations found nothing to even declare him an "enemy combatant".

Of course there's that other pesky little fact, that Ansar al lives in the Kurdish north of Iraq, out of Saddam's control and under Kurdish AND AMERICAN control for the past 13 years.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041015154605/http://www.iht.com/articles/85957.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO302B.html

Iraq had no ties to al Qaeda, and nothing to do with the 911 attacks; so would a bush-supporting moran please explain why bush is suddenly again LYING by implying Iraq was involved with the 911 attacks?

And yes, his "We went to war because we were attacked..." is clearly a LIE
 
My biggest problem with this whole situation is the fact that so many people are outraged that their government lied to them. Big surprise.

I support Bush insofar as he is our president and the people should support him as such, but also be free to criticize him/his organization if the need ever arises(which it evidently has).

I also support the war insofar as I support the troops and because now that it has become such a hotspot, I will support anyone willing to help bring it back down to a slow simmer. Pointing fingers and laying blame will just prolong the process. What has happenned has happened and there is nothing anyone can do about it, so the countries with an interest in a better future for this world need to stand together to remedy this horrific situation.
 
I like how most, if not all, of your links assume 9/11 = al-qaeda. Tsk tsk.

Here is mine:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/28/85938.shtml

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8887

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/889jldct.asp

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts (don't be fooled, this one sources the Ney York TImes)

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030912-012437-3992r.htm

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/296fmttq.asp

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12292

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/14/141831.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.alqaeda.links/

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.06.20/news2.html

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030210fa_fact

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005016

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8927

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp

http://www.radioamerica.org/audio/MR_ABC-Osama-Hussein-connections.mp3

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm
 
CptStern said:
I can compile one too:



Sky News (London): "One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?"

Bush: "I can't make that claim.'
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html

Bush: No evidence Saddam Hussein involved in Nine-Eleven attacks
http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1447698

Rice: U.S. Never Said Saddam Was Behind 9/11
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/983821/posts

Rumsfeld sees no link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm

Wolfowitz: Iraq Was Not Involved In 9-11 Terrorist Attacks, No Ties To Al-Qaeda
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4372.htm

Brent Scowcroft, one of the Republican Party’s most respected foreign policy advisors;

"Don't Attack Saddam. It would undermine our antiterror efforts. There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

Allies Find No Links Between Iraq, Al Qaeda

"What I'm asked is if I've seen any evidence of that. (Iraq links to al Qaeda) And the answer is: I haven't.” -British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who supports U.S. invasion & occupation of Iraq.]
http://web.archive.org/web/20031005195549/http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-noqaeda4nov04,0,4538810.story

British Intelligence agencies, MI6 and MI5

A dossier prepared by the two agencies “showed no discernible links between Iraq and al-Qaida,”
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=375403

Richard Kerr, a former deputy CIA director who lead an internal review of the CIA's prewar intelligence;

“the CIA has not found any proof of operational ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime.”
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?pid=800

The White House’s own publication, A Decade of Defiance and Deception, makes no mention of Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

The 2002 congressional joint intelligence committee’s report on the Sept. 11 attacks revealed that the Bush administration had no evidence to support its claim that Saddam’s government was supporting al-Qaeda.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030723-064812-9491r

No proof links Iraq, al-Qaida, Powell says
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/3909150

According to a "top secret British document", quoted by the BBC, "there is nothing but enmity between Iraq and Al Qaeda." The BBC said the leak came from intelligence officials upset that their work was being used to justify war." (quoted in Daily News, New York, 6 February 2003).
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html

Three former Bush administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues have told National Journal that the prewar evidence tying al Qaeda to Iraq was tenuous, exaggerated, and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0803/080803nj2.htm

"…analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said."

and…

"At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden|s network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D1EF83E5C0C718CDDAB0894DB404482

This is consistent with what they were saying back in October 2002.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A14056-2002Oct24

"There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."
-Richard Clarke, former terrorism chief under bush.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

Iraq-al Qaeda ties have not been found

Bush administration hyped sketchy and false evidence to push for war
The Bush administration’s claim that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda — one of the administration’s central arguments for a pre-emptive war — appears to have been based on even less solid intelligence than the administration’s claims that Iraq had hidden stocks of chemical and biological weapons.

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 Qaeda, and several key parts of the administration’s case have either proved false or seem increasingly doubtful.
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/2004/03/04/news/nation/8101079.htm

Iraq and al Qaeda: What Evidence?
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=23816

bush's own hand-picked Republican weapons hunter ISG, Dr. David Kay;

David Kay was on the ground for months investigating the activities of Hussein's regime. He concluded "But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all."

He called a speech where Cheney made the claim there was a link, as being "evidence free."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w..._cheney_on_assertion_linking_hussein_al_qaeda

Israeli intelligence (the Moussad)

“According to Israeli intelligence, Palestinians are still not connected to the global terror network, and neither is Iraq.”
http://www.haaretz.com /

bush's second and final hand-picked Republican weapons hunter ISG, Dr. Charles Dueffler;

Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq, no capability since 1991, no evidence of ties to al Qaeda, no serious threat;
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/06/1096949583023.html?from=storylhs

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/

OFFICIAL VERDICT: WHITE HOUSE MISLED WORLD OVER SADDAM-AL QAEDA TIEShttp://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0617-03.htm

No evidence of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties: 9/11 commission
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/cheney.911

"CIA Review Finds No Evidence Saddam Had Ties to Islamic Terrorists"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1005-01.htm

NO ties between Iraq and international terrorists, al-Qaeda or otherwise:

1. Central to the Saddam - al Qaeda connection claim is the assertion that Czech authorities had evidence of a meeting between one of the September 11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent in Prague in April 2001.
Both Czech President Vaclav Havel and Czech intelligence refuted this report.
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/2155.html

More than that, so do the FBI and CIA; Only one problem with that story, the FBI pointed out. Atta was traveling at the time between Florida and Virginia Beach, Va. (The bureau had his rental car and hotel receipts)
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060203A.shtml

This lie of BushCo's was debunked last year. But to this day, members of the Administration cite the Prague report as evidence of an Iraq - al Qaeda connection.

2. Cheney also claimed that 1993 World Trade Center bombing co-conspirator Abdul Rahman Yasin had received “financing” and “safe haven” from Saddam’s government.

You have to really love this one...yeah he did. Sort of. He was in an Iraqi JAIL from 1994 until shortly before the invasion;

"He was being clothed and fed by them so long as he wore stripes,” joked one U.S. investigator.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067794 /

Yasin had hopped onto a plane for Iraq. He was picked up by the Iraqi police a year later and had been held without a charge placed against him. Iraq had twice offered to deliver him to the United States, but only upon written receipt that Iraq had given him up… "like a receipt for a FedEx package"
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00755.html

but the US refused the offer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2022991.stm

Yasin was picked up by the FBI a few days after the bombing in an apartment in Jersey City, N.J., that he was sharing with his mother. He was so helpful and cooperative, giving the FBI names and addresses, that they released him.

Yasin says he was even driven back home in an FBI car.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/60minutes/main510795.shtml

The FBI agree, saying they decided to let Yasin go free.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/60minutes/main510795.shtml

Yasin, whose picture is on the FBI Web site along with Osama bin Laden, is one of President Bush’s 22 most-wanted terrorists.

3. Ansar al-Islam, a radical Kurdish group, whose leader lives a free man in Norway, after 2 FBI interrogations found nothing to even declare him an "enemy combatant".

Of course there's that other pesky little fact, that Ansar al lives in the Kurdish north of Iraq, out of Saddam's control and under Kurdish AND AMERICAN control for the past 13 years.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041015154605/http://www.iht.com/articles/85957.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO302B.html

Iraq had no ties to al Qaeda, and nothing to do with the 911 attacks; so would a bush-supporting moran please explain why bush is suddenly again LYING by implying Iraq was involved with the 911 attacks?

And yes, his "We went to war because we were attacked..." is clearly a LIE
Click to expand...


Roffle... so you compiled that huh Stern? You just plagarize your stuff from other people and post it as your own :-P

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3891171
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
CptStern
US intelligence briefings to Bush had Bible quotes on cover
Replies
13
Views
1K
Gunner
G
Sulkdodds
Engineering Dissent: The Rise of the Political Commentator
Replies
14
Views
2K
Absinthe
Absinthe
Baal
McCain halts campaign in order to save US economy, Bush goes into fetal position
Replies
29
Views
2K
nurizeko
nurizeko
CptStern
New poll reveals 52% americans favour military strikes on Iran
5 6 7
Replies
252
Views
18K
Warped
Warped
Back
Top