Bush Administration Strikes Back

[bpt8056]

LINK

Striking Back
Monday, June 21, 2004
By Bill O'Reilly

The Bush administration strikes back against the deceptive media. I hope you were watching The Factor last night, when we established beyond a reasonable doubt that there were indeed ties between Al Qaeda (search) and Iraq, and that newspaper headlines denying that were misleading and/or downright wrong.

Vice President Cheney agreed. Here's what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What "The New York Times" did today was outrageous. They do a lot of outrageous things, but the headline, "Panel Finds No Al Qaeda-Iraq Tie," the press wants to run out and say there's a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said. Jim Thompson, who's a member of the commission, has since been on the air. I saw him with my own eyes, and there's no conflict.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: Cheney has a right to be angry, and so does every American who wants a truthful media. "The Wall Street Journal" editorialized the situation this way: "The 'no Saddam link' story is getting so much play because it fits the broader anti-war, anti-Bush narrative that Iraq was a 'distraction' from the broader war on terror. So once again the 9/11 Commission is being used to tarnish the Iraqi effort and damage President Bush's credibility in fighting terror."

The Bush administration strikes back against the deceptive media. I hope you were watching The Factor last night, when we established beyond a reasonable doubt that there were indeed ties between Al Qaeda (search) and Iraq, and that newspaper headlines denying that were misleading and/or downright wrong.

Vice President Cheney agreed. Here's what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What "The New York Times" did today was outrageous. They do a lot of outrageous things, but the headline, "Panel Finds No Al Qaeda-Iraq Tie," the press wants to run out and say there's a fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said. Jim Thompson, who's a member of the commission, has since been on the air. I saw him with my own eyes, and there's no conflict.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'REILLY: Cheney has a right to be angry, and so does every American who wants a truthful media. "The Wall Street Journal" editorialized the situation this way: "The 'no Saddam link' story is getting so much play because it fits the broader anti-war, anti-Bush narrative that Iraq was a 'distraction' from the broader war on terror. So once again the 9/11 Commission is being used to tarnish the Iraqi effort and damage President Bush's credibility in fighting terror."


And that's the importance of this matter, ladies and gentlemen. Anti-Bush zealots are hurting the fight against terror by misleading Americans about what's actually happening. That puts all of our lives in danger.

Now I knew when I presented the facts linking Al Qaeda to Iraq that the far left would accuse me of shilling for the president. Viewer Jason Gambone, who lives in Palm Coast, Florida quickly echoed the far left response.

"O'Reilly, you and the Bush administration cheerleaders at Fox News are spinning the Saddam-Al Qaeda 9/11 connection like a frisbee. It's time for you to face the reality that President Bush misled the nation."

That opinion, of course, is nonsense, and here's the proof. In a CIA letter to the Select Committee on Intelligence dated October 9, 2002, then CIA Chief George Tenet writes, "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade...We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."

Now we have posted that entire CIA letter on billoreilly.com if you want to read it. Also, just today, Russian President Putin said he himself gave the Bush administration intelligence, after 9/11, that Saddam was preparing to launch terror attacks inside the USA. That report comes from the Associated Press.

Now all of this information "Talking Points" is giving you is solid. It is fact, not opinion. President Bush was told by the CIA and foreign intelligence outfits that there was immediate danger to America. But those facts will not matter to the anti-Bush fanatics, who put partisan politics ahead of both truth and national security.

As you know, we're independent here, but I'm getting awful tired, awful tired, of the far left lying and endangering us all.

And that's "The Memo."

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: bpt8056
As you know, we're independent here

lol...yes...Fox News...totally independent...

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: bpt8056
As you know, we're independent here

lol...yes...Fox News...totally independent...

What about the wall street journal?

"The Wall Street Journal" editorialized the situation this way: "The 'no Saddam link' story is getting so much play because it fits the broader anti-war, anti-Bush narrative that Iraq was a 'distraction' from the broader war on terror. So once again the 9/11 Commission is being used to tarnish the Iraqi effort and damage President Bush's credibility in fighting terror."

 

[TheBDB]

It is always ironic when this administration bitches about someone misleading people about something.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: TheBDB
BAaaaaaaaaa

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: TheBDB
BAaaaaaaaaa

:cookie;

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: TheBDB
BAaaaaaaaaa

What is sad is there really are simple-minded Bush-hating sheep on this forum....but I'm not one of them, which only shows your lack of intelligence.

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: TheBDB
It is always ironic when this administration bitches about someone misleading people about something.

Aye; poor Cheney

 

[halik]

Bill O'Reilly...he's more of a comedian than a politcal jeournalist. His show is fun to watch nontheless.

I don't see how you can fight back with no evidence...I'd be lot better if they put one the members of 9/11 comitee denying those claims....

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: TheBDB
BAaaaaaaaaa

What is sad is there really are simple-minded Bush-hating sheep on this forum....but I'm not one of them, which only shows your lack of intelligence.

I readily admit, I am not an expert on the political stances of every poster on P&N. If that's your gauge of intelligence, well, then, I just don't know what to tell you other than to unplug.

Nevertheless, the whole point of the article is that people refuse to believe anything other than that Bush lied even when faced with evidence to the contrary...then you chime in and give a perfect example. It was too ironic for me to pass up.

 

[Moonbeam]

This issue goes straight to the credibility of the POS. They have to maintain this fiction or loose the illusion established in millions that there was an Iraqi threat. Bush lied and Cheney lied and that have to pretend they didn't or loose the election. They have to pretend they aren't a thousand times worse than Clinton when it comes to lying. But it hurts bad to realize you've been played for a chump so there's still lots of support from those who have invested their pride in these two pieces of scum. It's so sad, cause nobody needs them. Everybody wants to believe and everybody gets fooled. Just let go. The water's fine.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This issue goes straight to the credibility of the POS. They have to maintain this fiction or loose the illusion established in millions that there was an Iraqi threat. Bush lied and Cheney lied and that have to pretend they didn't or loose the election. They have to pretend they aren't a thousand times worse than Clinton when it comes to lying. But it hurts bad to realize you've been played for a chump so there's still lots of support from those who have invested their pride in these two pieces of scum. It's so sad, cause nobody needs them. Everybody wants to believe and everybody gets fooled. Just let go. The water's fine.

And you have to maintain that he did lie. You'll believe what ever you have to do to keep the specter of big brother around to frighten all the idiots into voting for candidates who will advance your liberal agenda.

 

[preslove]

Am I the only one who finds the title funny??? The Bush Administration (Empire) Strikes Back?? O.k. so Bush is Jar Jar, Cheney is the Emperor, Darth Rumsfeld plays hiimself. Who are Wolfowitz and Pearl??

 

[SuperTool]

I watched the "Daily Show" and they showed very convincingly that Cheney said what he now denies saying about the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Why isn't the "liberal" media showing this? Why do I have to watch John Stewart to see the administration called on the carpet on their lies.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This issue goes straight to the credibility of the POS. They have to maintain this fiction or loose the illusion established in millions that there was an Iraqi threat. Bush lied and Cheney lied and that have to pretend they didn't or loose the election. They have to pretend they aren't a thousand times worse than Clinton when it comes to lying. But it hurts bad to realize you've been played for a chump so there's still lots of support from those who have invested their pride in these two pieces of scum. It's so sad, cause nobody needs them. Everybody wants to believe and everybody gets fooled. Just let go. The water's fine.

And you have to maintain that he did lie. You'll believe what ever you have to do to keep the specter of big brother around to frighten all the idiots into voting for candidates who will advance your liberal agenda.

Can you explain what you mean here? I guess the fantastical nature of your statement makes it hard to digest. Either that or you got me where I'm blind. But because I would rather face truth if I have the strength to, I would like to know more. I understand what you mean by maintaining a lie as I just posted on it. Having just spoken about not getting my sense of self respect from external sources though, I fail to see an attachment to a liberal agenda, and particularly of the form you suggest and that is where I find the confusion. What is this specter of big government you speak of. I was talking about Cheney and Bush. Are they the specter? I thought us Libs were supposed to love big gov not be afraid of it. I thought B and C were anti big government. And of course all the idiots will be voting for those two clowns but I don't think that's what you meant. You were probably trying to say that I was trying to hurd the sharp people into the liberal camp, but that's the big gov camp. Maybe you are just confused and not me, I don't know, but if you care to clarify I will listen. Thanks

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This issue goes straight to the credibility of the POS. They have to maintain this fiction or loose the illusion established in millions that there was an Iraqi threat. Bush lied and Cheney lied and that have to pretend they didn't or loose the election. They have to pretend they aren't a thousand times worse than Clinton when it comes to lying. But it hurts bad to realize you've been played for a chump so there's still lots of support from those who have invested their pride in these two pieces of scum. It's so sad, cause nobody needs them. Everybody wants to believe and everybody gets fooled. Just let go. The water's fine.

And you have to maintain that he did lie. You'll believe what ever you have to do to keep the specter of big brother around to frighten all the idiots into voting for candidates who will advance your liberal agenda.

Can you explain what you mean here? I guess the fantastical nature of your statement makes it hard to digest. Either that or you got me where I'm blind. But because I would rather face truth if I have the strength to, I would like to know more. I understand what you mean by maintaining a lie as I just posted on it. Having just spoken about not getting my sense of self respect from external sources though, I fail to see an attachment to a liberal agenda, and particularly of the form you suggest and that is where I find the confusion. What is this specter of big government you speak of. I was talking about Cheney and Bush. Are they the specter? I thought us Libs were supposed to love big gov not be afraid of it. I thought B and C were anti big government. And of course all the idiots will be voting for those two clowns but I don't think that's what you meant. You were probably trying to say that I was trying to hurd the sharp people into the liberal camp, but that's the big gov camp. Maybe you are just confused and not me, I don't know, but if you care to clarify I will listen. Thanks

There is evidence on both sides. Whether or not the administration lied is still an unknown. To come out and formally declare one or the other, as the NY Times did and like you and many other here do, is what people like O'Riley and myself and most rational-thinking individuals find disgusting.

As for you and similar propogandists like Conjur and Michael Moore, you have concluded, despite evidence to the contrary, that Bush lied. You won't even consider that he didn't. That's a frighteningly closed-mind for somebody calling other people sheep. I, therefore, have come to the only possible conclusion I can from this situation: You believe what you want to believe or at the very least say what you want other people to believe. Either way you're either a purveyer of ignorance or an unabashed liar. The logical question stemming from that understanding is why you would choose to become such. I think I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you aren't just a flounding fish and actual have a motivation. Since you've chosen to repeat incessently your beliefs on a public forum, I can only assume you are hoping to befuddle, indoctrinate, or downright scare the uninformed or incapable into voting against the guy preventing a liberal form entering the White House. Like a featherweight Michael Moore.

I hope that was more explicit.

 

[conjur]

Interesting you felt it necessary to name me when I've said nothing of the sort.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: conjur
Interesting you felt it necessary to name me when I've said nothing of the sort.

So you aren't convinced that Bush lied?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: TheBDB
It is always ironic when this administration bitches about someone misleading people about something.

Aye; poor Cheney

Oops

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: conjur
Interesting you felt it necessary to name me when I've said nothing of the sort.

So you aren't convinced that Bush lied?

I never said he lied. He has led us down the wrong path, though. And I think that was deliberate, perhaps at the prodding of the PNAC neocons in his administration.

 

[Alistar7]

I thought everyone might like to read Bush's actual speech to the American people when he sold the war on Iraq to them, his words, not taken out of context:


March 17, 2003
8:01 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.

Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.

In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.

Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.

Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people -- yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will face fearful consequences.

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.

Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

Good night, and may God continue to bless America.

END 8:15 P.M. EST





March 19, 2003
10:16 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.

To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.

The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military -- a final atrocity against his people.

I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.

We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.


My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.

May God bless our country and all who defend her.

END 10:20 P.M. EST



Notice there was no claim that Iraq had anything to do with 911 and that AQ was mentioned as only ONE OF the terrorist groups it has been shown he had ties to at the very least. He adequately and diplomatically covered the UN security council and their objection, and stated the reasons America was taking action. All of which are true or were thought to be true even by those who objected formally through the UN. Notice the freedom of the people of Iraq is a main theme, not something added months later to the admins policy line as most like to claim.

 

[conjur]

And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

You don't think that was an intentional comment aimed at Americans' fears of Al Qaeda, post-9/11? That is certainly an implication that Iraq had a hand in the 9/11 attacks and was meant to elicit fear that Iraq would be apt to attack us on our soil again (although it never had before.)

Perhaps you've forgotten the statements that have come from former Bush administration members re:Bush's push to find a link between Iraq and 9/11.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: conjur

And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

You don't think that was an intentional comment aimed at Americans' fears of Al Qaeda, post-9/11? That is certainly an implication that Iraq had a hand in the 9/11 attacks and was meant to elicit fear that Iraq would be apt to attack us on our soil again (although it never had before.)

Perhaps you've forgotten the statements that have come from former Bush administration members re:Bush's push to find a link between Iraq and 9/11.

That line does not mention 9/11, so how could there be an implication of it??????????????? How does it imply Iraq is going to attack on US soil, where do you read so deeply into such a simple statement????

It says "Iraq has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda." THATS IT.

Could Bush have stated he knew Iraq was planning attacks on US soil, Putin admitted giving him that intelligence BEFORE the war. He could have added that, and it would have also been truthful.

Of course they looked for a link, especially considering they knew Iraq had previous contact with AQ and were also planning attacks on US soil. It's not like there is only one terrorist group out there he could have been supplying with materials/money/training/harbor, like it makes it better if Tony's Muslim Avengers release Anthrax instead of AQ.....

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: conjur

And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

You don't think that was an intentional comment aimed at Americans' fears of Al Qaeda, post-9/11? That is certainly an implication that Iraq had a hand in the 9/11 attacks and was meant to elicit fear that Iraq would be apt to attack us on our soil again (although it never had before.)

Perhaps you've forgotten the statements that have come from former Bush administration members re:Bush's push to find a link between Iraq and 9/11.

That line does not mention 9/11, so how could there be an implication of it??????????????? How does it imply Iraq is going to attack on US soil, where do you read so deeply into such a simple statement????

It says "Iraq has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda." THATS IT.

Could Bush have stated he knew Iraq was planning attacks on US soil, Putin admitted giving him that intelligence BEFORE the war. He could have added that, and it would have also been truthful.

Hello!!

War on terror?
Attacks in Afghanistan post-9/11?
Hunt for bin Laden?

Those things ringing any bells?

 

[Alistar7]

I print his exact words, and you just want to twist and read things that are not even there. The motives were clear and honest, refute them please if you think you can.


Provide me ANY country that was willing to state before the war that Iraq had fully complied to disarmament, and there was no connection between Iraq and any terrorism/terrorists worldwide.
You will not find one, in fact you will find the general consensus is the exact opposite. Care to address the corruption being investigated within the Food for OIl Program? Why don't you question the motives of the objectors considering they profitied at the expense of the people they claimed to care so much about......