* CONFIRMED * Pentagon Says NO Pre-War Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: PrevaricatorJohn
You are ignoring the fact that Saddam was given 10 years to disarm and cooperate with inspectors and during that time he did neither.

You are ignoring the fact that Saddam had a history of responding to threats by cooperating with inspectors for a while. And then when the worlds attention turned away he returned to playing games and throwing up smoke screens.

You are using 20/20 hindsight, see he had no WMD, as evidence that the inspections were going to be successful. You ignore the fact that at the time of the war EVERY nation in the world believed that Saddam still had WMD. The only thing the world disagreed upon is how to deal with Saddam and his WMD stockpiles.

The US, UK and Spain thought we should go to war, France, Russia and China thought we should allow more inspections. But no matter which side of the fence they sat on they all agreed that there were still unanswered questions when it came to Saddam and his WMD programs.
The Blair admininstration was up to their eyeballs with the Bushwhackos in cookiing the books. The rest of the world "thought" no such thing, and many of the world's intelligence agencies, including many honest members of our own intelligence community, tried to tell the Bushwhackos their evidence of Saddam's alleged WMD's was bullsh8.

They paid about as much attention to them as they did to General Eric Shinseki, who told them they'd need 300,000 - 400,000 troops to accomplish their goals in Iraq.

They paid about as much attention to them as they did to Richard Clarke, anti-terrorism expert and consultant to four administrations, who warned the Bushwhackos from day one of their administration that they needed to take stronger precautions to prevent attacks like 9-11 and told them ON 9-11, following the attack, that Iraq had nothing to do with it.

They paid about as much attention to them as they did to Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who warned them that there was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq was trying to acquire yellow cake uranium in Niger.

They paid about as much attention to them as they did to Bushlite's father, George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft who, in their book, A World Transformed, wrote:
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different ? and perhaps barren ? outcome.
Sound familiar? :shocked:

Go ahead and tell us again that the Bushwhackos' lies have been worth the lives of 3282 (and counting) American troops, tens of thousands more American wounded, many scarred and disabled for life, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians dead, wounded or displaced and trillions dollars in debt our great grandchildren will be paying long after we're gone. :(
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
How much time should we have given them?
Iraq already had 10+ years to disarm and they had still not done so.
More than 5 months (Nov 02 - Mar 03) would have been nice. You really expect the weapon inspectors to be able to comb through an entire country like Iraq in 5 months. WTF are you smoking?!?
You are ignoring the fact that Saddam was given 10 years to disarm and cooperate with inspectors and during that time he did neither.

You are ignoring the fact that Saddam had a history of responding to threats by cooperating with inspectors for a while. And then when the worlds attention turned away he returned to playing games and throwing up smoke screens.

You are using 20/20 hindsight, see he had no WMD, as evidence that the inspections were going to be successful. You ignore the fact that at the time of the war EVERY nation in the world believed that Saddam still had WMD. The only thing the world disagreed upon is how to deal with Saddam and his WMD stockpiles.

The US, UK and Spain thought we should go to war, France, Russia and China thought we should allow more inspections. But no matter which side of the fence they sat on they all agreed that there were still unanswered questions when it came to Saddam and his WMD programs.

I think that you should try your hand at critical thinking for a change instead of the above example of letting others do the thinking for you.

You are right that Saddam had ten years to disarm. Now that we have been in there, what have they (weapons inspectors and/or US troops) found? They found old, antiquated shells that were more harmful as blunt objects than as tactical weapons. They found that we wouldn't be greeted at liberators. And, that's about it. Oh wait....that isn't it. They did find that he actually followed the UN orders and disarmed but Bush didn't allow enough time for that fact to come to light.

If you have any proof or documentation that backs up your claims that doesn't come in the form of a talking head's opinion, now would be the time to present it.

Here you go cowboy:

Long read, but an outline of UNSCON in the 90's.

Pretty much proves the no WMD claim absolutely false. Read it and then cry to us.

 

sierrita

Senior member
Mar 24, 2002
929
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
How much time should we have given them?
Iraq already had 10+ years to disarm and they had still not done so.
More than 5 months (Nov 02 - Mar 03) would have been nice. You really expect the weapon inspectors to be able to comb through an entire country like Iraq in 5 months. WTF are you smoking?!?
You are ignoring the fact that Saddam was given 10 years to disarm and cooperate with inspectors and during that time he did neither.

You are ignoring the fact that Saddam had a history of responding to threats by cooperating with inspectors for a while. And then when the worlds attention turned away he returned to playing games and throwing up smoke screens.

You are using 20/20 hindsight, see he had no WMD, as evidence that the inspections were going to be successful. You ignore the fact that at the time of the war EVERY nation in the world believed that Saddam still had WMD. The only thing the world disagreed upon is how to deal with Saddam and his WMD stockpiles.

The US, UK and Spain thought we should go to war, France, Russia and China thought we should allow more inspections. But no matter which side of the fence they sat on they all agreed that there were still unanswered questions when it came to Saddam and his WMD programs.

I think that you should try your hand at critical thinking for a change instead of the above example of letting others do the thinking for you.

You are right that Saddam had ten years to disarm. Now that we have been in there, what have they (weapons inspectors and/or US troops) found? They found old, antiquated shells that were more harmful as blunt objects than as tactical weapons. They found that we wouldn't be greeted at liberators. And, that's about it. Oh wait....that isn't it. They did find that he actually followed the UN orders and disarmed but Bush didn't allow enough time for that fact to come to light.

If you have any proof or documentation that backs up your claims that doesn't come in the form of a talking head's opinion, now would be the time to present it.

Here you go cowboy:

Long read, but an outline of UNSCON in the 90's.

Pretty much proves the no WMD claim absolutely false. Read it and then cry to us.

Read what?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Oh yeah baby. I got pwned. I hate it when I use the prez's own words to disagree with this assertion and all he can do is nah nah nah.

TOTALLY owned.

BTW...He says Bush lied. So he lied when he said: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."

Very very odd.
Boy you're pathetic.

On a daily basis for months on end, Bush and Cheney would say "9/11 and Al Qaeda" in one sentence and then say "Iraq" in the next sentence. Over and over and over again. Then, about once every three months, they'd say something about there being no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Then it would be "9/11 and Al Qaeda" and "Iraq" again, over and over and over.

Now, if you're the typical American - the type with an attention span of about 50 seconds - what conclusion do you think you'd draw? Why do you suppose that 70% of FOX TV viewers said they believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11?

It's called propaganda. It's called sending a non-message message. It's called knowing that people really don't pay too much attention.

It's also called lying.

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
How much time should we have given them?
Iraq already had 10+ years to disarm and they had still not done so.

More than 5 months (Nov 02 - Mar 03) would have been nice. You really expect the weapon inspectors to be able to comb through an entire country like Iraq in 5 months. WTF are you smoking?!?

WTF are YOU smoking...inspectors were denied access all throughout the 90's. Read a little it'll do you good.

I'm quite aware of that, however I'm talking about AFTER the inspectors were let back in (2002) but before the start of the war in March 2003. Pay some f'n attention for once.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
The number of people who believed Iraq played a major role in the 9/11 attacks went from under 5% right after the attacks to over 40% a few months later. That number, IIRC, reached well over 50% at it's peak. Yet, Bush never bothered to say the words "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" until 2006. And then it was only because a reporter asked him directly.

Do you think that he (and Rove, Rummy, Rice, etc) ever thought "Good. Let them think that. It makes my job of gathering support easier."

Or do you think that they thought "Whoa. People are getting the wrong idea. I'd better set the record straight."

Do you think he was told to never set the record straight? Or do you think it was more like..."Eh, whatever. Let them believe what they want to believe. I certainly never purposely hinted at a link."
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Oh yeah baby. I got pwned. I hate it when I use the prez's own words to disagree with this assertion and all he can do is nah nah nah.

TOTALLY owned.

BTW...He says Bush lied. So he lied when he said: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."

Very very odd.
Boy you're pathetic.

On a daily basis for months on end, Bush and Cheney would say "9/11 and Al Qaeda" in one sentence and then say "Iraq" in the next sentence. Over and over and over again. Then, about once every three months, they'd say something about there being no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Then it would be "9/11 and Al Qaeda" and "Iraq" again, over and over and over.

Now, if you're the typical American - the type with an attention span of about 50 seconds - what conclusion do you think you'd draw? Why do you suppose that 70% of FOX TV viewers said they believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11?

It's called propaganda. It's called sending a non-message message. It's called knowing that people really don't pay too much attention.
It's also called lying.

No what its called is recalling the pre-Bush years. Something you obviously forgot. You know what Im talking about...Bush brainwashing the US population, the previous president, his cabinate, the senate, the congress, the UN, the weapons inspectors...and holy sh1t he did it all while governer of Texas!!!!! AMAZING!!!!
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Gaard
The number of people who believed Iraq played a major role in the 9/11 attacks went from under 5% right after the attacks to over 40% a few months later. That number, IIRC, reached well over 50% at it's peak. Yet, Bush never bothered to say the words "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" until 2006. And then it was only because a reporter asked him directly.

Do you think that he (and Rove, Rummy, Rice, etc) ever thought "Good. Let them think that. It makes my job of gathering support easier."

Or do you think that they thought "Whoa. People are getting the wrong idea. I'd better set the record straight."
Do you think he was told to never set the record straight? Or do you think it was more like..."Eh, whatever. Let them believe what they want to believe. I certainly never purposely hinted at a link."


But then again, most of us already have our mind made up, so why ask?
 
Jan 9, 2007
180
0
71
Originally posted by: shira
Now, if you're the typical American - the type with an attention span of about 50 seconds - what conclusion do you think you'd draw? Why do you suppose that 70% of FOX TV viewers said they believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11?

It's called propaganda. It's called sending a non-message message. It's called knowing that people really don't pay too much attention.

It's also called lying.

The whole entire time, directly before our foray into the Iraqi war, *all* *we* *heard* was 9/11 this, Iraq that from our administration. Did the public get the impression that 9/11 was linked with Iraq? Of course they did because every sentence had Bush and Co. linking the two. Listen to any speech made at that time, and it is clear what they implied.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
The people heard what Team Bush wanted them to hear. You mix the words 9/11, Al Qaeda, and Iraq enough times (as the Administration did) and soon enough people start to equate them.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
If Clinton started the Iraq war we would have never heard the end of "Wag the Dog"

meh. You wingey's are nothing but whiners when it comes to Clinton. and he didn't do half the things GWB did. Clinton is a freakin angel next to GWB...

I think you guys know that and it burrnnssss you up. too bad so sad.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Oh yeah baby. I got pwned. I hate it when I use the prez's own words to disagree with this assertion and all he can do is nah nah nah.

TOTALLY owned.

BTW...He says Bush lied. So he lied when he said: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."

Very very odd.
Boy you're pathetic.

On a daily basis for months on end, Bush and Cheney would say "9/11 and Al Qaeda" in one sentence and then say "Iraq" in the next sentence. Over and over and over again. Then, about once every three months, they'd say something about there being no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Then it would be "9/11 and Al Qaeda" and "Iraq" again, over and over and over.

Now, if you're the typical American - the type with an attention span of about 50 seconds - what conclusion do you think you'd draw? Why do you suppose that 70% of FOX TV viewers said they believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11?

It's called propaganda. It's called sending a non-message message. It's called knowing that people really don't pay too much attention.
It's also called lying.

No what its called is recalling the pre-Bush years. Something you obviously forgot. You know what Im talking about...Bush brainwashing the US population, the previous president, his cabinate, the senate, the congress, the UN, the weapons inspectors...and holy sh1t he did it all while governer of Texas!!!!! AMAZING!!!!

are you saying Bush didn't start the Iraq war???

AMAZING!!!

edit: wait...don't answer that. That would be going too far on a tangent...sort like your long a$$ post earlier that basically amounted to BS.

Bush sent troops into Iraq...a war started...end of story.

now back to Shira's point. He is right...political propaganda linked Iraq and Saddam to 9/11. That point is crystal clear.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The people heard what Team Bush wanted them to hear. You mix the words 9/11, Al Qaeda, and Iraq enough times (as the Administration did) and soon enough people start to equate them.

So whats your excuse for war planning and preliminary missle strikes pre-Bush? Coincidence?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: blackangst1
So whats your excuse for war planning and preliminary missle strikes pre-Bush? Coincidence?
There were sanctions in place against Iraq, including "no fly" zones in the north and south and we were authorized to strike against any installations that tried to fire on our planes or even painted them with radar.

Do you have a clue what contingency planning is? You know -- those plans we have in case someone really does attack? That's NOT the same as starting a war, and it's far beyond starting one based on nothing but lies.

GIVE UP! You're full of sh8, and there's no way you can lie yourself out of the corner you've painted yourself into. All you can do is continue to prove that either you're as much of a liar as your Idiot In Chief, or you're too stupid to know the truth if it bit you. :roll:
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Oh yeah baby. I got pwned. I hate it when I use the prez's own words to disagree with this assertion and all he can do is nah nah nah.

TOTALLY owned.

BTW...He says Bush lied. So he lied when he said: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."

Very very odd.
Boy you're pathetic.

On a daily basis for months on end, Bush and Cheney would say "9/11 and Al Qaeda" in one sentence and then say "Iraq" in the next sentence. Over and over and over again. Then, about once every three months, they'd say something about there being no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Then it would be "9/11 and Al Qaeda" and "Iraq" again, over and over and over.

Now, if you're the typical American - the type with an attention span of about 50 seconds - what conclusion do you think you'd draw? Why do you suppose that 70% of FOX TV viewers said they believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11?

It's called propaganda. It's called sending a non-message message. It's called knowing that people really don't pay too much attention.
It's also called lying.

No what its called is recalling the pre-Bush years. Something you obviously forgot. You know what Im talking about...Bush brainwashing the US population, the previous president, his cabinate, the senate, the congress, the UN, the weapons inspectors...and holy sh1t he did it all while governer of Texas!!!!! AMAZING!!!!

are you saying Bush didn't start the Iraq war???

AMAZING!!!

edit: wait...don't answer that. That would be going too far on a tangent...sort like your long a$$ post earlier that basically amounted to BS.

Bush sent troops into Iraq...a war started...end of story.

now back to Shira's point. He is right...political propaganda linked Iraq and Saddam to 9/11. That point is crystal clear.

Wow. You are a fine example of lunacy. With a bad memory to boot!

Youre memory is absolutely pathetic. I guess your definition and the rest of the sane worlds is different? Let me remind you ya tool (its a SOTU address, so I gave the into. You can read the rest of *cough* Bush's war he started from Texas:

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

---------------------------------------------------

You are so in denial and your lack of explanation for pre-Bush dealings with Iraq, its absolutely amazing you can get up in the morning and remember your own name.

Unless, of course, you dont think a missle attack is an agression of war....

Lets not forget THIS little part you loonies probably call "Diplomacy": "That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq."

SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
So whats your excuse for war planning and preliminary missle strikes pre-Bush? Coincidence?
There were sanctions in place against Iraq, including "no fly" zones in the north and south and we were authorized to strike against any installations that tried to fire on our planes or even painted them with radar.

Do you have a clue what contingency planning is? You know -- those plans we have in case someone really does attack? That's NOT the same as starting a war, and it's far beyond starting one based on nothing but lies.

GIVE UP! You're full of sh8, and there's no way you can lie yourself out of the corner you've painted yourself into. All you can do is continue to prove that either you're as much of a liar as your Idiot In Chief, or you're too stupid to know the truth if it bit you. :roll:


Read dumbass. Your memory fails you:

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

Source http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html


Let me get this straight. A series of sustained air strikes is what you call contingency? hahahahahahaha ZING!
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Oh yeah baby. I got pwned. I hate it when I use the prez's own words to disagree with this assertion and all he can do is nah nah nah.

TOTALLY owned.

BTW...He says Bush lied. So he lied when he said: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."

Very very odd.
Boy you're pathetic.

On a daily basis for months on end, Bush and Cheney would say "9/11 and Al Qaeda" in one sentence and then say "Iraq" in the next sentence. Over and over and over again. Then, about once every three months, they'd say something about there being no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Then it would be "9/11 and Al Qaeda" and "Iraq" again, over and over and over.

Now, if you're the typical American - the type with an attention span of about 50 seconds - what conclusion do you think you'd draw? Why do you suppose that 70% of FOX TV viewers said they believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11?

It's called propaganda. It's called sending a non-message message. It's called knowing that people really don't pay too much attention.
It's also called lying.

No what its called is recalling the pre-Bush years. Something you obviously forgot. You know what Im talking about...Bush brainwashing the US population, the previous president, his cabinate, the senate, the congress, the UN, the weapons inspectors...and holy sh1t he did it all while governer of Texas!!!!! AMAZING!!!!

are you saying Bush didn't start the Iraq war???

AMAZING!!!

edit: wait...don't answer that. That would be going too far on a tangent...sort like your long a$$ post earlier that basically amounted to BS.

Bush sent troops into Iraq...a war started...end of story.

now back to Shira's point. He is right...political propaganda linked Iraq and Saddam to 9/11. That point is crystal clear.

Wow. You are a fine example of lunacy. With a bad memory to boot!

Youre memory is absolutely pathetic. I guess your definition and the rest of the sane worlds is different? Let me remind you ya tool (its a SOTU address, so I gave the into. You can read the rest of *cough* Bush's war he started from Texas:

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

---------------------------------------------------

You are so in denial and your lack of explanation for pre-Bush dealings with Iraq, its absolutely amazing you can get up in the morning and remember your own name.

Unless, of course, you dont think a missle attack is an agression of war....

Lets not forget THIS little part you loonies probably call "Diplomacy": "That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq."

SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

I think you might be the only person in America that thinks that Clinton started the war with Iraq.

how does that make you feel? I would be a bit embarassed.

Something you need to reconcile in your fantasy world..but I'm not going to help you...I'm just point out the glaring inconsistancy in your fantasy;

If War was already declared and in process prior to GWB, why did GWB have to go and get congressional approval to go into Iraq? Why did GWB first have to kick out UN inspectors before he dropped his first missle attack on Bagdad? Why did GWB have to justify to the American public that we needed to remove Saddam?

if we were at war...he could have just did what he wanted to do the moment he stepped into office... as you all so love to tout the idea that he is THE great CIC and the "Decider"...he could have put 150,000 troops on the ground the minute after he was sworn in.

But he didn't.

because we weren't at war with Iraq.

and you are looking pretty foolish now...er let me restate that. You continue to look pretty foolish.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Oh yeah baby. I got pwned. I hate it when I use the prez's own words to disagree with this assertion and all he can do is nah nah nah.

TOTALLY owned.

BTW...He says Bush lied. So he lied when he said: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."

Very very odd.
Boy you're pathetic.

On a daily basis for months on end, Bush and Cheney would say "9/11 and Al Qaeda" in one sentence and then say "Iraq" in the next sentence. Over and over and over again. Then, about once every three months, they'd say something about there being no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Then it would be "9/11 and Al Qaeda" and "Iraq" again, over and over and over.

Now, if you're the typical American - the type with an attention span of about 50 seconds - what conclusion do you think you'd draw? Why do you suppose that 70% of FOX TV viewers said they believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11?

It's called propaganda. It's called sending a non-message message. It's called knowing that people really don't pay too much attention.
It's also called lying.

No what its called is recalling the pre-Bush years. Something you obviously forgot. You know what Im talking about...Bush brainwashing the US population, the previous president, his cabinate, the senate, the congress, the UN, the weapons inspectors...and holy sh1t he did it all while governer of Texas!!!!! AMAZING!!!!

are you saying Bush didn't start the Iraq war???

AMAZING!!!

edit: wait...don't answer that. That would be going too far on a tangent...sort like your long a$$ post earlier that basically amounted to BS.

Bush sent troops into Iraq...a war started...end of story.

now back to Shira's point. He is right...political propaganda linked Iraq and Saddam to 9/11. That point is crystal clear.

Wow. You are a fine example of lunacy. With a bad memory to boot!

Youre memory is absolutely pathetic. I guess your definition and the rest of the sane worlds is different? Let me remind you ya tool (its a SOTU address, so I gave the into. You can read the rest of *cough* Bush's war he started from Texas:

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

---------------------------------------------------

You are so in denial and your lack of explanation for pre-Bush dealings with Iraq, its absolutely amazing you can get up in the morning and remember your own name.

Unless, of course, you dont think a missle attack is an agression of war....

Lets not forget THIS little part you loonies probably call "Diplomacy": "That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq."

SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

I think you might be the only person in America that thinks that Clinton started the war with Iraq.

how does that make you feel? I would be a bit embarassed.

Something you need to reconcile in your fantasy world..but I'm not going to help you...I'm just point out the glaring inconsistancy in your fantasy;

If War was already declared and in process prior to GWB, why did GWB have to go and get congressional approval to go into Iraq? Why did GWB first have to kick out UN inspectors before he dropped his first missle attack on Bagdad? Why did GWB have to justify to the American public that we needed to remove Saddam?

if we were at war...he could have just did what he wanted to do the moment he stepped into office... as you all so love to tout the idea that he is the CIC...he could have put 150,000 troops on the ground the minute after he was sworn in.

But he didn't.

because we weren't at war with Iraq.

and you are looking pretty foolish now...er let me restate that. You continue to look pretty foolish.

Let me answer. The reason is because EVERYONE wanted to eliminate Iraq EXCEPT Clinton. He was the decider also. Go back to news article and find the ones where we were cheering him for restraint...dont bother. There arent any. What you WILL find, however, in links I have already quoted, is his ENTIRE cabinet, the majority of congress, the UN, and the majority of the public asking WTF is he waiting for? The reason GWB finally pulled the trigger is Clinton is a pu$$y.

Now. Answer my question. Is sustained air attacks YOUR version of diplomacy?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: blackangst1
The reason GWB finally pulled the trigger is Clinton is a pu$$y.
PUT DOWN THE PIPE! You've lost all sense of reality. :roll:

That flapping sound you hear is your ass cheeks beating against your ears when you fart all that garbage you post. :laugh:
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Oh yeah baby. I got pwned. I hate it when I use the prez's own words to disagree with this assertion and all he can do is nah nah nah.

TOTALLY owned.

BTW...He says Bush lied. So he lied when he said: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."

Very very odd.
Boy you're pathetic.

On a daily basis for months on end, Bush and Cheney would say "9/11 and Al Qaeda" in one sentence and then say "Iraq" in the next sentence. Over and over and over again. Then, about once every three months, they'd say something about there being no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Then it would be "9/11 and Al Qaeda" and "Iraq" again, over and over and over.

Now, if you're the typical American - the type with an attention span of about 50 seconds - what conclusion do you think you'd draw? Why do you suppose that 70% of FOX TV viewers said they believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11?

It's called propaganda. It's called sending a non-message message. It's called knowing that people really don't pay too much attention.
It's also called lying.

No what its called is recalling the pre-Bush years. Something you obviously forgot. You know what Im talking about...Bush brainwashing the US population, the previous president, his cabinate, the senate, the congress, the UN, the weapons inspectors...and holy sh1t he did it all while governer of Texas!!!!! AMAZING!!!!

are you saying Bush didn't start the Iraq war???

AMAZING!!!

edit: wait...don't answer that. That would be going too far on a tangent...sort like your long a$$ post earlier that basically amounted to BS.

Bush sent troops into Iraq...a war started...end of story.

now back to Shira's point. He is right...political propaganda linked Iraq and Saddam to 9/11. That point is crystal clear.

Wow. You are a fine example of lunacy. With a bad memory to boot!

Youre memory is absolutely pathetic. I guess your definition and the rest of the sane worlds is different? Let me remind you ya tool (its a SOTU address, so I gave the into. You can read the rest of *cough* Bush's war he started from Texas:

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

---------------------------------------------------

You are so in denial and your lack of explanation for pre-Bush dealings with Iraq, its absolutely amazing you can get up in the morning and remember your own name.

Unless, of course, you dont think a missle attack is an agression of war....

Lets not forget THIS little part you loonies probably call "Diplomacy": "That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq."

SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

I think you might be the only person in America that thinks that Clinton started the war with Iraq.

how does that make you feel? I would be a bit embarassed.

Something you need to reconcile in your fantasy world..but I'm not going to help you...I'm just point out the glaring inconsistancy in your fantasy;

If War was already declared and in process prior to GWB, why did GWB have to go and get congressional approval to go into Iraq? Why did GWB first have to kick out UN inspectors before he dropped his first missle attack on Bagdad? Why did GWB have to justify to the American public that we needed to remove Saddam?

if we were at war...he could have just did what he wanted to do the moment he stepped into office... as you all so love to tout the idea that he is the CIC...he could have put 150,000 troops on the ground the minute after he was sworn in.

But he didn't.

because we weren't at war with Iraq.

and you are looking pretty foolish now...er let me restate that. You continue to look pretty foolish.

Let me answer. The reason is because EVERYONE wanted to eliminate Iraq EXCEPT Clinton. He was the decider also. Go back to news article and find the ones where we were cheering him for restraint...dont bother. There arent any. What you WILL find, however, in links I have already quoted, is his ENTIRE cabinet, the majority of congress, the UN, and the majority of the public asking WTF is he waiting for? The reason GWB finally pulled the trigger is Clinton is a pu$$y.

Now. Answer my question. Is sustained air attacks YOUR version of diplomacy?

air attacks are exactly that. Air Attacks, without a War resolution or a declaration what else is it supposed to be?

If there was a War resolution in the Clinton years...I don't remember it.

maybe in your fantasy world though...

that corner is getting smaller and smaller for you. why don't you just admit you are wrong? its OK I swear!
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
one other thing...you can hate on Clinton all you want.. Call him a pvssy, an ingrate, whatever.

bottom line is you can't use him to deflect responsibilty for starting the Iraq war. that is alll on GWB.

Ask Rush, I'm sure even he will agree with me. :)

Edit: darn I forgot to add

you didn't even come close to giving an appropriate response to my question(s) you just kind of...I dunno...misdirected or something...

not like YOU would do that tho right? :p
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Oh yeah baby. I got pwned. I hate it when I use the prez's own words to disagree with this assertion and all he can do is nah nah nah.

TOTALLY owned.

BTW...He says Bush lied. So he lied when he said: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."

Very very odd.
Boy you're pathetic.

On a daily basis for months on end, Bush and Cheney would say "9/11 and Al Qaeda" in one sentence and then say "Iraq" in the next sentence. Over and over and over again. Then, about once every three months, they'd say something about there being no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Then it would be "9/11 and Al Qaeda" and "Iraq" again, over and over and over.

Now, if you're the typical American - the type with an attention span of about 50 seconds - what conclusion do you think you'd draw? Why do you suppose that 70% of FOX TV viewers said they believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11?

It's called propaganda. It's called sending a non-message message. It's called knowing that people really don't pay too much attention.
It's also called lying.

No what its called is recalling the pre-Bush years. Something you obviously forgot. You know what Im talking about...Bush brainwashing the US population, the previous president, his cabinate, the senate, the congress, the UN, the weapons inspectors...and holy sh1t he did it all while governer of Texas!!!!! AMAZING!!!!

are you saying Bush didn't start the Iraq war???

AMAZING!!!

edit: wait...don't answer that. That would be going too far on a tangent...sort like your long a$$ post earlier that basically amounted to BS.

Bush sent troops into Iraq...a war started...end of story.

now back to Shira's point. He is right...political propaganda linked Iraq and Saddam to 9/11. That point is crystal clear.

Wow. You are a fine example of lunacy. With a bad memory to boot!

Youre memory is absolutely pathetic. I guess your definition and the rest of the sane worlds is different? Let me remind you ya tool (its a SOTU address, so I gave the into. You can read the rest of *cough* Bush's war he started from Texas:

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

---------------------------------------------------

You are so in denial and your lack of explanation for pre-Bush dealings with Iraq, its absolutely amazing you can get up in the morning and remember your own name.

Unless, of course, you dont think a missle attack is an agression of war....

Lets not forget THIS little part you loonies probably call "Diplomacy": "That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq."

SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

I think you might be the only person in America that thinks that Clinton started the war with Iraq.

how does that make you feel? I would be a bit embarassed.

Something you need to reconcile in your fantasy world..but I'm not going to help you...I'm just point out the glaring inconsistancy in your fantasy;

If War was already declared and in process prior to GWB, why did GWB have to go and get congressional approval to go into Iraq? Why did GWB first have to kick out UN inspectors before he dropped his first missle attack on Bagdad? Why did GWB have to justify to the American public that we needed to remove Saddam?

if we were at war...he could have just did what he wanted to do the moment he stepped into office... as you all so love to tout the idea that he is the CIC...he could have put 150,000 troops on the ground the minute after he was sworn in.

But he didn't.

because we weren't at war with Iraq.

and you are looking pretty foolish now...er let me restate that. You continue to look pretty foolish.

Let me answer. The reason is because EVERYONE wanted to eliminate Iraq EXCEPT Clinton. He was the decider also. Go back to news article and find the ones where we were cheering him for restraint...dont bother. There arent any. What you WILL find, however, in links I have already quoted, is his ENTIRE cabinet, the majority of congress, the UN, and the majority of the public asking WTF is he waiting for? The reason GWB finally pulled the trigger is Clinton is a pu$$y.

Now. Answer my question. Is sustained air attacks YOUR version of diplomacy?

air attacks are exactly that. Air Attacks, without a War resolution or a declaration what else is it supposed to be?

If there was a War resolution in the Clinton years...I don't remember it.

maybe in your fantasy world though...

that corner is getting smaller and smaller for you. why don't you just admit you are wrong? its OK I swear!


Jesus man a rock has more common sense than you. Im done...not from defeat, but from your (and everyone elses) refusal to even acknowledge the fact there was significant worldwide pressure to dethrone Sadaam far before Bush got into office.

I dunno man but there was NEVER diplomacy with Iraq since 1993. But go ahead and think otherwise.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
edit: heres some trivia for you:

*Clintons "diplomatic" air raids were the longest sustained air raids in US history since Vietnam.

*Between 1993-1998 Clinton sent a total of 160,000 troops to gaurd Iran and Kuwait's borber.

*It has extimated Clinton's sanctioned resulted in the death of at least 500,000 children as food was shut off.

And this is sh1t from a 10 minute Google search.

BTW what color is your house on Da Nile?
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
you are done. From defeat, from ignorance, from confusion take your pick.

you are plain done.

I acknowledge the fact that people wanted Saddam out. I also acknowledge the fact that one of those people is/was Bill Clinton.

But damn man, that has nothing to do with starting *edit* this Iraq war. You need a declaration to do that (something I dont think GWB even has...BUT he does have his Resolution) *edit* all of that anger and frustration directed at Saddam certainly created the environment to remove him through military action (AKA the Iraq war) but THAT is something GWB did, not Clinton. Hell you even said it yourself Clinton was too big a pv$$y to do it!!

That kind of stuff is taught in grade school. You couldn't/wouldn't answer my question(s) because of the gapping hole in your fantasy. Painfully obvious, hell even I'm embarassed for you.

You went off the deep end when you tried to lay the Iraq war at Clinton's feet. Reap what you sow...maybe a beer will make it go away..the embarassment. go grab a cold one.