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

NOT for dis......we all know why

passin thru

Well-known member
No need to get huffy, since I will not tolerate someone trying to hijack this thread.

Oh yes, the documents. One shows that an official from Iraq's government met with Osama bin Laden on Feb. 19, 1995, with the explicit permission of Saddam Hussein

The documents further disclose that the Iraqi intelligence service issued detailed instructions to directors and managers of weapons sites regarding UN inspections. They were to remove files from computers, "remove correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons" and "remove prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages (sic) of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored . . ."


Back on the thread...............I wonder which it is for you.

In order to dismiss these documents you have to come to the conclusion that either:
1 Sadam or Al Quieda did a Dan Rather on these documents
2 Admit connections
3 Admit nothing........stick with the Hate Bush agenda

WE KNOW THE ANSWER DON'T WE KOLA..................thanks for your time
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
This will be my last post as going back and forth with you is like a dog worrying a rag!!

I just asked a question...I didn't dismiss/hijack any of your posts...in fact never commented on any of them....so you are reading a WHOLE lot into a simple question.

And so what if I don't like Bush....you didn't like Clinton I'm guessing....BIG DEAL....it IS America right???? I can agree/disagree or like or dislike anyone I want.

Your turban is a wee bit too tight for me, wanting me to think as you think and do as you do, just can't get with that program, sorry!!!!. You're the one drawing conclusion....not me. In fact, your conservative buddy BBJ and I agree pretty closely on how we should be fighting this war....why not read up on that before jumping in my cornflakes!!!!

I wish you a calm and peaceful day!
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Getting you to respond is like nailing water to a board..............it's to bad that you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

I just love it when a liberal plays like jello
bowdown.gif


Oh and you made my day, thanks
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Yes, George W. Bush knowingly mis-lead (lied) the American people into a war with Iraq. A career CIA officer in charge of Middle East intelligence has said Bush "cherry picked" the intelligence that he released to the public and Congress.

Your post is funny. I posted just recently excerpts from this same batch of information recently released where Saddam said specifically he had no WMDs. If Saddam had WMDs why didn't he use them on American forces? No one on this board has ever explained that. But I'd be happy to hear your reasoning on that fact.

Several government agencies investigated and found no ties between Saddam and Bin Laden. Did they ever have contact? Apparently. So what? Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. The UN weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq. They could have gotten the truth if Bush had not ordered them out of Iraq so he could invade. Two of the 9/11 highjackers were from Dubai and Bush was willing to turn some of our major seaports over to them! Why didn't he invade that country instead of Iraq? My emphasis; links to all article below.

The 9/11 commision said:

The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found "no credible evidence" of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States.
In a report based on research and interviews by the commission staff, the panel said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam even though he opposed the Iraqi leader's secular regime and had, at one time, supported "anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan."
The commission staff said that bin Laden, at the urging of allies in Sudan eager to protect their own ties to Iraq, ceased the support in the early 1990s. That opened the way for a senior Iraqi intelligence officer to meet with bin Laden in 1994 in Sudan, a session at which bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps in Iraq as well as Iraqi assistance in procuring weapons.
But Iraq apparently never responded to bin Laden's request, the staff report said.
No 'collaborative relationship' seen It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."
The report concluded, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
The panel's findings were released two days after Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida. President Bush defended the statement in a news conference Tuesday, saying the presence in Iraq of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is accused of trying to disrupt the transfer of sovereignty as well as last month's decapitation of American Nicholas Berg, provides "the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida."
In making the case for war in Iraq, Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam's decade-long contacts with al-Qaida operatives. They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public."


In writing his book, Mickey Herskowitz spent a lot of time with Bush and he says:

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade·.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."

Bush's choice for Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'neill said:

"“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”


How they reacted to 9/11:
"(Retired General Wesley) Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."

Another White House insider, Richard Clark, says

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

The charge comes from the adviser, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes.

The administration maintains that it cannot find any evidence that the conversation about an Iraq-9/11 tie-in ever took place.
(Dis’s note here: first the White House declared this conversation never took place. But when Clark named two other individuals who were there at the time, the White House dropped it.)

Clarke also tells CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl that White House officials were tepid in their response when he urged them months before Sept. 11 to meet to discuss what he saw as a severe threat from al Qaeda.

Who’s Richard Clark?
“Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorism czar, then held over again by the current President Bush.”

You guys can spin and pretend all you want. But there's plenty of evidence that George W. Bush used the worst mainland attack on this country, the deaths of thousands of Americans, as an excuse for his own personal war. That you defend this unjust and illegal war speaks volumns about your character.

http://www.politiqueglobale.org/article.php3?id_article=843
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
speechless-smiley-022.gif



This is precisely why I'm an Independant.

This thing partisans have with, --If the information agrees with my postion, it must be true! If it agrees with theirs, it must be spin!
The incessant need to put everyone on a team so we can hand out pom-poms and learn the cheer...
good night.

"But only the liberals do it!!"




Puhleeze... :roll:
 

Latest posts

Top