• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Disagreeable is missing so can't rub his nose in this

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
June 29, 2005, 9:12 a.m.
It’s All About 9/11
The president links Iraq and al Qaeda — and the usual suspects moan.



President George W. Bush forcefully explained last night — some of us would say finally forcefully explained last night after too long a lull — why our military operations in Iraq are crucial to success in the war on terror.


It was good to hear the commander-in-chief remind people that this is still the war against terror. Specifically, against Islamo-fascists who slaughtered 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. Who spent the eight years before those atrocities murdering and promising to murder Americans — as their leader put it in 1998, all Americans, including civilians, anywhere in the world where they could be found.

It is not the war for democratization. It is not the war for stability. Democratization and stability are not unimportant. They are among a host of developments that could help defeat the enemy.

But they are not the primary goal of this war, which is to destroy the network of Islamic militants who declared war against the United States when they bombed the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, and finally jarred us into an appropriate response when they demolished that complex, struck the Pentagon, and killed 3000 of us on September 11, 2001.

That is why we are in Iraq.

On September 12, 2001, no one in America cared about whether there would be enough Sunni participation in a fledgling Iraqi democracy if Saddam were ever toppled. No one in lower Manhattan cared whether the electricity would work in Baghdad, or whether Muqtada al-Sadr’s Shiite militia could be coaxed into a political process. They cared about smashing terrorists and the states that supported them for the purpose of promoting American national security.

Saddam Hussein’s regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al Qaeda. A place where terror attacks against the United States and the West were planned. A place where Saddam’s intelligence service aided and abetted al Qaeda terrorists planning operations. A place where terrorists could hide safely between attacks. A place where terrorists could lick their wounds. A place where committed terrorists could receive vital training in weapons construction and paramilitary tactics. In short, a platform of precisely the type without which an international terror network cannot succeed.

The president should know he hit the sweet spot during his Fort Bragg speech because all the right people are angry. The New York Times, with predictable disingenuousness, is railing this morning that the 9/11 references in the speech are out of bounds because Iraq had “nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and the tedious David Gergen, among others, are in Gergen’s words “offended” about use of the 9/11 “trump card.”

If the president is guilty of anything, it's not that he's dwelling on 9/11 enough. It's that the administration has not done a good enough job of probing and underscoring the nexus between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for him to stress that connection. This is still the war on terror, and Iraq, where the terrorists are still arrayed against us, remains a big part of that equation.

And not just because every jihadist with an AK-47 and a prayer rug has made his way there since we invaded. No, it’s because Saddam made Iraq their cozy place to land long before that. They are fighting effectively there because they’ve been invited to dig in for years.

The president needs to be talking about Saddam and terror because that’s what will get their attention in Damascus and Teheran. It’s not about the great experiment in democratization — as helpful as it would be to establish a healthy political culture in that part of the world. It’s about making our enemies know we are coming for them if they abet and harbor and promote and plan with the people who are trying to kill us.

On that score, nobody should worry about anything the Times or David Gergen or Senator Reid has to say about all this until they have some straight answers on questions like these. What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about:

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?

Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda 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.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.


There's more. Stephen Hayes’s book, The Connection, remains required reading. But these are just the questions; the answers — if someone will just investigate the questions rather than pretending there’s “nothing whatsoever” there — will provide more still.

So Gergen, Reid, the Times, and the rest are “offended” at the president's reminding us of 9/11? The rest of us should be offended, too. Offended at the “nothing whatsoever” crowd’s inexplicable lack of curiosity about these ties, and about the answers to these questions.

Just tell us one thing: Do you have any good answer to what Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was doing with the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lampur? Can you explain it?

If not, why aren't you moving heaven and earth to find out the answer?

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
Cal,
Don't you miss old disagreeable something awful? It just isn't the same here without him.

This quote from the article you posted says a lot:
Just tell us one thing: Do you have any good answer to what Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was doing with the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lampur? Can you explain it?

If not, why aren't you moving heaven and earth to find out the answer?

Good question, isn't it? And a darn good article. Thanks.
 

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
Hi Liberty Belle, it sure used to get exciting on here before the election, didn't it? Do you suppose sdpatriot ever checks in either. Her and old Dis used to really "duke it out". Hope your summer's going well.
 

DOC HARRIS

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Location
Ft. Collins, CO
Cal said:
June 29, 2005, 9:12 a.m.
It’s All About 9/11
The president links Iraq and al Qaeda — and the usual suspects moan.



President George W. Bush forcefully explained last night — some of us would say finally forcefully explained last night after too long a lull — why our military operations in Iraq are crucial to success in the war on terror.


It was good to hear the commander-in-chief remind people that this is still the war against terror. Specifically, against Islamo-fascists who slaughtered 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. Who spent the eight years before those atrocities murdering and promising to murder Americans — as their leader put it in 1998, all Americans, including civilians, anywhere in the world where they could be found.

It is not the war for democratization. It is not the war for stability. Democratization and stability are not unimportant. They are among a host of developments that could help defeat the enemy.

But they are not the primary goal of this war, which is to destroy the network of Islamic militants who declared war against the United States when they bombed the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, and finally jarred us into an appropriate response when they demolished that complex, struck the Pentagon, and killed 3000 of us on September 11, 2001.

That is why we are in Iraq.

On September 12, 2001, no one in America cared about whether there would be enough Sunni participation in a fledgling Iraqi democracy if Saddam were ever toppled. No one in lower Manhattan cared whether the electricity would work in Baghdad, or whether Muqtada al-Sadr’s Shiite militia could be coaxed into a political process. They cared about smashing terrorists and the states that supported them for the purpose of promoting American national security.

Saddam Hussein’s regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al Qaeda. A place where terror attacks against the United States and the West were planned. A place where Saddam’s intelligence service aided and abetted al Qaeda terrorists planning operations. A place where terrorists could hide safely between attacks. A place where terrorists could lick their wounds. A place where committed terrorists could receive vital training in weapons construction and paramilitary tactics. In short, a platform of precisely the type without which an international terror network cannot succeed.

The president should know he hit the sweet spot during his Fort Bragg speech because all the right people are angry. The New York Times, with predictable disingenuousness, is railing this morning that the 9/11 references in the speech are out of bounds because Iraq had “nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and the tedious David Gergen, among others, are in Gergen’s words “offended” about use of the 9/11 “trump card.”

If the president is guilty of anything, it's not that he's dwelling on 9/11 enough. It's that the administration has not done a good enough job of probing and underscoring the nexus between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for him to stress that connection. This is still the war on terror, and Iraq, where the terrorists are still arrayed against us, remains a big part of that equation.

And not just because every jihadist with an AK-47 and a prayer rug has made his way there since we invaded. No, it’s because Saddam made Iraq their cozy place to land long before that. They are fighting effectively there because they’ve been invited to dig in for years.

The president needs to be talking about Saddam and terror because that’s what will get their attention in Damascus and Teheran. It’s not about the great experiment in democratization — as helpful as it would be to establish a healthy political culture in that part of the world. It’s about making our enemies know we are coming for them if they abet and harbor and promote and plan with the people who are trying to kill us.

On that score, nobody should worry about anything the Times or David Gergen or Senator Reid has to say about all this until they have some straight answers on questions like these. What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about:

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?

Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda 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.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.


There's more. Stephen Hayes’s book, The Connection, remains required reading. But these are just the questions; the answers — if someone will just investigate the questions rather than pretending there’s “nothing whatsoever” there — will provide more still.

So Gergen, Reid, the Times, and the rest are “offended” at the president's reminding us of 9/11? The rest of us should be offended, too. Offended at the “nothing whatsoever” crowd’s inexplicable lack of curiosity about these ties, and about the answers to these questions.

Just tell us one thing: Do you have any good answer to what Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was doing with the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lampur? Can you explain it?

If not, why aren't you moving heaven and earth to find out the answer?

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
Thanks for a timley post, Cal. To preclude repitition and the time involved in doing so, please peruse my answer to ez now in the post "Private property rights now non-existant" regarding Political rhetoric. Same old same old! :mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Why Are We There?


Every day there are news reports about more deaths. Every night on TV
there are photos of death and destruction. Why are we still there?


We occupied this land, which we had to take by force, but it causes us
nothing but trouble. Why are we still there?


Many of our children go there and never come back. Why are we still
there?


Their government is unstable, and they have loopy leadership. Why are
we still there?


Many of their people are uncivilized. Why are we still there?


The place is subject to natural disasters, which we are supposed to
bail them out of. Why are we still there?


There are more than 1000 religious sects, which we do not understand.
Why are we still there?


Their folkways, foods and fads are unfathomable to ordinary Americans.
Why are we still there?


We can't even secure the borders. Why are we still there?


They are billions of dollars in debt and it will cost billions more to
rebuild, which we can't afford. Why are we still there?


It is becoming clear.




WE MUST PULL OUT OF California
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Rub my nose in it! What a laugh! Apparently your memory isn’t very long. First and foremost, Bush didn’t invade Iraq because Saddam was hiding terrorist or involved in 9-11. He said he had proof that Saddam had WMDs. That lie was the basis of the Iraqi invasion. Of course, when we found out that was a lie he said he was freeing the Iraqi people from a bad man. That didn't work, so he changed it to a war on terror. But tell me, please, was George W. Bush lying when

President Bush said yesterday that the US government has no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, thereby undermining a claim that a majority of Americans believe is true.”

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2003/09/18/bush_puts_distance_on_a_hussein_link_to_911/

or was he lying when he invoked 9-11 five times during his 25 minute speech last week?

Things are getting tough for George W. Polls are showing support for his Iraqi war is slipping fast among Americans, just as I said it would when they discovered they had been lied to by the Bush administration.

We’ve had a long, patriotic weekend. It will be interesting to see the polls later this week. But George is losing control of his own party. A Republican has called for a timetable for leaving Iraq. A Republican has introduced a bill to allow stem cell research to be funded by our tax dollars. A Republican has introduced a Social Security bill without private accounts. Both Republican-led legislative branches have a Transportation Bill that is way above the cost Bush laid out as his bottom line.

Your conspiracy theorist can write all the excuses they want and you can buy into them them but it doesn’t matter. If Saddam stood up today and said, yes, I funded the 9-11 attack, it wouldn’t excuse this war BECAUSE BUSH DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT IT WHEN HE ORDERED OUR MILITARY INTO IRAQ WHEN HE SAID SADDAM HAD WMDs. So spin, spin, spin, but the truth is being recognized by more and more people and, hopefully, the Republicans will pay for Bush’s lies next November.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
I would seem to think if daschle was any indication, it would be the Democrats paying for lieing to a whole generation,

But then again, For now, we know that for the past two off-year elections, 1998 and 2002, the party in control of the White House picked up seats.

Another Red November?
There's no reason 2006 has to be an off year for Republicans.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110006293
 

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
Disagreeable said:
Rub my nose in it! What a laugh! Apparently your memory isn’t very long. First and foremost, Bush didn’t invade Iraq because Saddam was hiding terrorist or involved in 9-11. He said he had proof that Saddam had WMDs. That lie was the basis of the Iraqi invasion. Of course, when we found out that was a lie he said he was freeing the Iraqi people from a bad man. That didn't work, so he changed it to a war on terror. But tell me, please, was George W. Bush lying when

President Bush said yesterday that the US government has no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, thereby undermining a claim that a majority of Americans believe is true.”

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2003/09/18/bush_puts_distance_on_a_hussein_link_to_911/

or was he lying when he invoked 9-11 five times during his 25 minute speech last week?

Things are getting tough for George W. Polls are showing support for his Iraqi war is slipping fast among Americans, just as I said it would when they discovered they had been lied to by the Bush administration.

We’ve had a long, patriotic weekend. It will be interesting to see the polls later this week. But George is losing control of his own party. A Republican has called for a timetable for leaving Iraq. A Republican has introduced a bill to allow stem cell research to be funded by our tax dollars. A Republican has introduced a Social Security bill without private accounts. Both Republican-led legislative branches have a Transportation Bill that is way above the cost Bush laid out as his bottom line.

Your conspiracy theorist can write all the excuses they want and you can buy into them them but it doesn’t matter. If Saddam stood up today and said, yes, I funded the 9-11 attack, it wouldn’t excuse this war BECAUSE BUSH DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT IT WHEN HE ORDERED OUR MILITARY INTO IRAQ WHEN HE SAID SADDAM HAD WMDs. So spin, spin, spin, but the truth is being recognized by more and more people and, hopefully, the Republicans will pay for Bush’s lies next November.

Hey Dis, you been lurking in the shadows all this time? How've you been? I thought maybe you had to have some intensive therapy or something after the election.

You forgot to post that last paragraph of that two year old article you linked to, you know, when they were still gathering evidence about Saddam's association with al Qaeda. But nevermind, here it is.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2003/09/18/bush_puts_distance_on_a_hussein_link_to_911/

From Disagreeable's 2year old article:
"We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s," he said. "That it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems, and involved the Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the Al Qaeda organization."

And just think, for months you told us there was no association between Saddam and Al Qaeda!

I see you're still really into following those polls closely. Is that the same pollsters that told us Kerry was going to win the election? I think Kerry and Edwards were really surprised that they were all wrong. After quoting those polls to us time and time again before the election, you must have been surprised as well. But I'm glad to see you're comforted by knowing that there are a few spineless, cave-in Reps out there.

Dis, BTW, are you a little disappointed that so many terrorists are congregating and getting killed and captured in Iraq instead of causing death and destruction in other parts of the world? Oh wait! I forgot! That doesn't matter to you.

I see by your last paragraph that you've pretty much given Saddam a pass. Geuss I'm not surprised.
 

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
Will the real liars please stand up?
David Limbaugh
July 1, 2005

Democrat leaders, preparing their rebuttal to the president's speech even before he delivered it, said he should concede he made mistakes as a means to reclaiming credibility on Iraq -- as if they actually want him to have greater credibility.

In the same breath they say he lied to get us into war -- an offense so grave that some of them are advocating he be impeached over it. While national Democrat politicians have long been confused over the distinction between intentional wrongs and mistakes -- thanks to Bill Clinton successfully depicting his pre-meditated transgressions as mistakes -- isn't it clear that if President Bush lied to get us into the war, he didn't merely make a mistake?

But let's explore this beyond semantics. As everyone should know by now, President Bush based his decision to attack on intelligence information provided to him and which he didn't pressure the intelligence agencies to exaggerate. The intelligence agencies of most other nations, including those who nevertheless refused to join us against Iraq, concurred that Saddam was amassing WMD stockpiles.

This assessment was bolstered by Saddam's intractable behavior in persistently defying U.N. weapons inspectors as if he had something to hide and repeatedly violating U.N. resolutions. He had the burden of proving he had disposed of the WMD he demonstrably had and used on his own people, but instead submitted a bogus 12,000-page document, virtually inviting us to attack.

President Bush believed -- and the evidence confirms -- that Saddam's Iraq was a safe haven for international terrorists not unlike Afghanistan under the Taliban. Credible reports have emerged that some of his henchmen were present at 9-11 planning meetings.

But Democrats contend that our failure to find Saddam's WMD stockpiles after we deposed him proves that President Bush lied about their existence in the first place. President Bush's reliance on the best available intelligence, though it may have turned out to be wrong, doesn't make him a liar or prove that he made a mistake in attacking. He would have made a mistake had he failed to act on the information he had, especially considering Saddam's self-incriminating behavior.

As I've written before, Democrats are the ones who are lying when they say they weren't relying on the very same intelligence in supporting the Iraq war resolution. And they are lying when they falsely accuse President Bush of lying about the intelligence.

Among the worst of them is Sen. Kerry, who still pathetically clings to the fantasy that he can be president someday. In his latest lurch for relevance -- on "Larry King Live" -- he again accused President Bush of deceiving the American people, this time by constantly switching his rationale for attacking Iraq: from WMD, to spreading democracy, to suppressing a "hotbed of terrorism."

But it's Kerry who's doing the misleading. From the very beginning, President Bush's rationale for attacking Iraq was that under Saddam, she was our enemy in the global war on terror and a threat -- indirect and direct -- to our national security. The three reasons Kerry cites are not incompatible, but of a piece. President Bush believed Saddam was amassing WMD and acting in concert with Islamic terrorists. And, he's always had a vision that the spread of freedom and democracy in the Middle East would be a natural antidote to the proliferation of terrorism. That's not why we attacked Iraq, because we are not in the business of gratuitous nation building, but it's a potentially glorious byproduct that we shouldn't underestimate and is certainly consistent with our war aims.

No matter how incapable Kerry's Democrats are of comprehending this, 9-11 confirmed that Islamic radicals throughout the world are at war with the United States. The terrorist threat is not localized to Osama and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Democrats' quixotic refrain that we concentrate our resources only on capturing Saddam reveals how radically they misapprehend the global scope of this war.

Saddam was begging to be removed, and President Bush neither lied nor made a mistake in removing him. But he would be making a catastrophic mistake if he acceded to the Democrats' suicidal demand that we telegraph a withdrawal date for our troops in Iraq or take other action to undermine our cause -- and the cause of the Iraqi people -- there.

While I'm sure President Bush appreciates all their unsolicited advice and carping, Democrats might be well advised to clean up their own house for a change. Instead of gloating over the president's inconsistent poll numbers, they might awaken to the sobering fact that they are the ones who have been losing elections and need help in the credibility department, especially concerning national security.

But until they demonstrate some comprehension of the global reach and gravity of this war, quit exploiting every morsel of negative news flowing from Iraq for political purposes and start supporting our cause, it's hard to envision a scenario where Americans will entrust them with safeguarding our national security.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Same old Cal and Steve. You read those opinions that you agree with and think the rest of the country feels that way, too. They don't.

I'll bold this and put it in caps; you seemed to have missed it: BUSH NEVER CLAIMED THERE WERE TERRORIST IN IRAQ OR THAT SADDAM CAUSED 9-11. HE SAID SADDAM HAD WMDS. THAT WAS THE RATIONAL FOR HIS INVASION OF A SMALL COUNTRY THAT WAS NO THREAT TO THE US. Keep spinning, but the polls show more and more Americans are catching on to the Bush Bunch.

The 9-11 commission said there was no link between Saddam and 9-11. The Senate investigation said there was no link between Saddam and 9-11. BUSH has said there is no proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11, and yet in his speeches, he invokes 9-11 as an excuse for this war in Iraq. Truthfully, his blatent use of the worst tragedy this country has ever suffered, makes me smile. It shows that the White House is beginning to feel the heat.

Bush has to come back to Washington sooner or later. When he does, it's not going to be pretty. His Social Security "reform" blew up in his face. His own party is calling for a time table for Iraq withdrawal...
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Sierraman said:
I'm sorry, but in my opinion Saddam is a WMD. The people he killed and murdered, raped, tortured effected people worldwide, as if the direct results weren't enough. He's out of "office" and I'm glad. Iraq is a much smaller threat to us now, and I'm grateful!

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Do you think the US should send troops into North Korea? That's a terrible situation, people are starving, and they actually have nuclear weapons. So why not go in there and take out their dictator? Or Africa? There is ethnic violence across the world. Should the US send troops to every place where a leader is supressing, murdering, his own people? You do know, of course, that the US gave Saddam his first WMDs, the poisoin gas that he used on the Kurds?
 

Sierraman

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
299
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Dear disagreeable,

I have read your response to the other post before this one. You said we could beat you up but.../ I just want you to know that I ( and I believe I speak for almost all of us) do not want to beat you up. You write a lot of posts in short periods of time though with very interesting subjects, very controversial and with a viewpoint that the the majority of us do not hold. So, speaking with you about these things represents a challenge to us and a very different kind of conversation.

But about your questions....

Yes, I do think USA could go into other countries and free the people and end the violence. I said could and tnot should, because it would be okay ,but I'm not saying USA is responsible to take crae of violent nations . Other countries should be helping and some do. The USAi s in a war called the war on Terrorism, and frankly, terrorism will probably never end, but that doesn't mean we're not supposed to fight it. So I don't know what you think we should do with terrorists, but I would like to know.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Yes, I do think USA could go into other countries and free the people and end the violence. I said could and tnot should, because it would be okay ,but I'm not saying USA is responsible to take crae of violent nations . Other countries should be helping and some do. The USAi s in a war called the war on Terrorism, and frankly, terrorism will probably never end, but that doesn't mean we're not supposed to fight it. So I don't know what you think we should do with terrorists, but I would like to know.

And how much money are you willing to spend to defeat tyrants all across the world? Are you willing to send your own children off to die in North Korea to give freedom to the NK people? Or only other people's children, wives, husbands?

Bush didn't invade Iraq because there were terrorist in Iraq. There were few, if any, terrorist in Iraq when we invaded the country. Since Bush didn't send enough troops and we were unable to secure the borders of Iraq, terrorist from around the world have flocked to Iraq as their best chance to kill (or defeat) Americans. It's a lot easier to get from Yemen to Iraq than from Yemen to the US. Bush will continually try to tie Iraq to 9-11, but it's a lie.

I think anyone convicted of terrorism should be punished according to the law. I don't think holding anyone in jail for years without lawyers or bringing charges is the American way. And the Bush Bunch is doing that, too.
 

DOC HARRIS

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Location
Ft. Collins, CO
Liberty Belle said:
And how about we pull out of New York too?
- - - - -and Mass-a-two-shitz - -and Noo Jurzee - - and Chi-cargo - -and Watching-tongue - - and Oree-gone - -along with Mane, Noo-hang-sure, Var-munt, Wurst-verjina and part of Oh-Yoo-hoo :twisted: no no no not the States themselves - just the Liberal "Donkey Butts" (Get the significance???) who 'represent' those areas in "Whoopington" D.C. - -Oh, yes,- - - - and firmly tie the drag line around 'Disagreeable's' - whatever-you-can-grab and flush him out with all the rest of the scum! :evil:

- - -and have a :lol: GOOD Day! :D
 

DOC HARRIS

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
821
Reaction score
0
Location
Ft. Collins, CO
Disagreeable said:
Yes, I do think USA could go into other countries and free the people and end the violence. I said could and tnot should, because it would be okay ,but I'm not saying USA is responsible to take crae of violent nations . Other countries should be helping and some do. The USAi s in a war called the war on Terrorism, and frankly, terrorism will probably never end, but that doesn't mean we're not supposed to fight it. So I don't know what you think we should do with terrorists, but I would like to know.

And how much money are you willing to spend to defeat tyrants all across the world? Are you willing to send your own children off to die in North Korea to give freedom to the NK people? Or only other people's children, wives, husbands?

Bush didn't invade Iraq because there were terrorist in Iraq. There were few, if any, terrorist in Iraq when we invaded the country. Since Bush didn't send enough troops and we were unable to secure the borders of Iraq, terrorist from around the world have flocked to Iraq as their best chance to kill (or defeat) Americans. It's a lot easier to get from Yemen to Iraq than from Yemen to the US. Bush will continually try to tie Iraq to 9-11, but it's a lie.

I think anyone convicted of terrorism should be punished according to the law. I don't think holding anyone in jail for years without lawyers or bringing charges is the American way. And the Bush Bunch is doing that, too.
- - -Folks - Here is a classic, typical example of the Liberal Democrat's ploy to interject their Socialistic poisonous rhetoric into the thoughts of those of us who are really too busy making a living to analyze the Political Game that they play - and :twisted: disagreeable :twisted: is in the vanguard of this tyrannous behavior: that is - to ANSWER a question WITH another question (NOT answering the original question) and, thereby, CHANGING the subject and diverting ( I call it ricochet) the discussion in another direction. The Liberal Democrat's "PLAYBOOK of POLITICAL DEBATE" stresses this technique to the MAX for their lackey's, toady's, sycophant's and parasites who appear on TV shows and write their garbage for the dissemination of their sordid socialistic glop! :twisted:

It is interesting to observe the maneuverings of these scheming, superficial mis-informed people, because they are NOT stupid, as one may think! :shock: They are DIABOLICALLY skilled! :twisted: One must watch EVERY move they make!
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
And here's a typical right wing personal attack on someone who has an opposing view. I did answer the question. But don't let a little thing like facts get in your way.....
 

Latest posts

Top