It's time for you libs to apologize for calling Pres Bush a liar

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: conjur
Because there was NO COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The only documentation of any link are attempts at contact that went nowhere.

They were NOT allies!

bin Laden HATED Saddam.

What are your thoughts then on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/16/iraq.main/

The same as any other person's. al-Zarqawi is an evil bastard and needs to be eliminated.

But, I think your lame implication is that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq and planning attacks with Saddam against the U.S.

Is that what you are trying to imply?

????

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: A5
The Saddam-era Iraq was probably one of the more secular Arab regimes (at least to compared to our Saudi "allies" or Iran). Not exactly conductive for relations with religous extremists. Not to mention that Saddam would have gained nothing from an alliance with Al-Qaeda, or at least not nearly as much as A-Q would...

Interesting hypothesis but here's what the two top members of the 9/11 Commission had to say at a June 17 press conference:

Chairman Thomas Kean: ?Were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them are shadowy, but there?s no question they were there....?

Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton: ?I have trouble understanding the flap over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein?s government. We don?t disagree with that....It seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: A5
The Saddam-era Iraq was probably one of the more secular Arab regimes (at least to compared to our Saudi "allies" or Iran). Not exactly conductive for relations with religous extremists. Not to mention that Saddam would have gained nothing from an alliance with Al-Qaeda, or at least not nearly as much as A-Q would...

Interesting hypothesis but here's what the two top members of the 9/11 Commission had to say at a June 17 press conference:

Chairman Thomas Kean: ?Were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them are shadowy, but there?s no question they were there....?

Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton: ?I have trouble understanding the flap over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein?s government. We don?t disagree with that....It seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.?

Hehe, you want connections? we know for sure which country trained the pilots who flew the planes into WTC. Why are we doing nothing to the Presidant of that country? Are you saying the link between Iraq and al-qeada or 911 is stronger than that?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: A5
The Saddam-era Iraq was probably one of the more secular Arab regimes (at least to compared to our Saudi "allies" or Iran). Not exactly conductive for relations with religous extremists. Not to mention that Saddam would have gained nothing from an alliance with Al-Qaeda, or at least not nearly as much as A-Q would...

Interesting hypothesis but here's what the two top members of the 9/11 Commission had to say at a June 17 press conference:

Chairman Thomas Kean: ?Were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them are shadowy, but there?s no question they were there....?

Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton: ?I have trouble understanding the flap over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein?s government. We don?t disagree with that....It seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.?

Hehe, you want connections? we know for sure which country trained the pilots who flew the planes into WTC. Why are we doing nothing to the Presidant of that country? Are you saying the link between Iraq and al-qeada or 911 is stronger than that?

Rather stupid, if the terrorists had been discovered in the US and it was known what they were planning they would have been thrown in jail. Saddam would have thrown them a going away party.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: A5
The Saddam-era Iraq was probably one of the more secular Arab regimes (at least to compared to our Saudi "allies" or Iran). Not exactly conductive for relations with religous extremists. Not to mention that Saddam would have gained nothing from an alliance with Al-Qaeda, or at least not nearly as much as A-Q would...

Interesting hypothesis but here's what the two top members of the 9/11 Commission had to say at a June 17 press conference:

Chairman Thomas Kean: ?Were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them are shadowy, but there?s no question they were there....?

Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton: ?I have trouble understanding the flap over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein?s government. We don?t disagree with that....It seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.?

Hehe, you want connections? we know for sure which country trained the pilots who flew the planes into WTC. Why are we doing nothing to the Presidant of that country? Are you saying the link between Iraq and al-qeada or 911 is stronger than that?

Rather stupid, if the terrorists had been discovered in the US and it was known what they were planning they would have been thrown in jail. Saddam would have thrown them a going away party.

But the terrorist did trained in the US and not in Iraq did they not? My point is that even with such connection like the terrorist training in a country doesn't indicate the country sponsors them. How are those "some of them shadowy" contacts indicate Saddam sponsors al-qaeada?

If you guys wanna present some connection that justify an invasion of a country, you gotta do better than that.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: A5
The Saddam-era Iraq was probably one of the more secular Arab regimes (at least to compared to our Saudi "allies" or Iran). Not exactly conductive for relations with religous extremists. Not to mention that Saddam would have gained nothing from an alliance with Al-Qaeda, or at least not nearly as much as A-Q would...

Interesting hypothesis but here's what the two top members of the 9/11 Commission had to say at a June 17 press conference:

Chairman Thomas Kean: ?Were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them are shadowy, but there?s no question they were there....?

Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton: ?I have trouble understanding the flap over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein?s government. We don?t disagree with that....It seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.?

Hehe, you want connections? we know for sure which country trained the pilots who flew the planes into WTC. Why are we doing nothing to the Presidant of that country? Are you saying the link between Iraq and al-qeada or 911 is stronger than that?

Rather stupid, if the terrorists had been discovered in the US and it was known what they were planning they would have been thrown in jail. Saddam would have thrown them a going away party.

Uh...the terrorists (at least some of them) *were* known to be in the U.S.

Forgot that part, eh?

 

[etech]

Forgot how to read?

" if the terrorists had been discovered in the US and it was known what they were planning"

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech
Forgot how to read?

" if the terrorists had been discovered in the US and it was known what they were planning"

Nope. I saw that part. Apparently you forgot the fact that some of the terrorists known to be Al Qaeda were known to be taking flying lessons. The FBI even arrested Moussaoui after a tip from his flight-school instructors.

Forgot that part, too, eh?

 

[etech]

So my reply was correct. The terrorists would have been and were arrested in the US.

And an assumption but a valid one I believe, Saddam would have thrown them a 'going away' party.

 

[biostud]

I'm sorry for calling Bush a liar, I clearly see it know. He actually believed in what he said.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: biostud666
I'm sorry for calling Bush a liar, I clearly see it know. He actually believed in what he said.

Do you also than think Edwards believed?

Edwards

"s a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

Saddam has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people. Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel.

What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror. ....
"

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech
So my reply was correct. The terrorists would have been and were arrested in the US.

And an assumption but a valid one I believe, Saddam would have thrown them a 'going away' party.

Uh...the case against Moussaoui was being stonewalled/obstructed by FBI HQ. You might want to do some research before you stick your other foot in your mouth.

Also, other terrorists were known to be in the country and known to be taking flying lessons but were not arrested and ended up piloting aircraft into the WTC and the Pentagon.

 

[etech]

If that is true Conjur, than the 9/11 commision will bring it out in it's report.

We will see.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: biostud666
I'm sorry for calling Bush a liar, I clearly see it know. He actually believed in what he said.

Do you also than think Edwards believed?

Edwards

"s a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

Saddam has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people. Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel.

What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror. ....
"

Weak. The Congress made the mistake of believing that Bush was being Truthful and really did have the evidence he claimed to have.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech
If that is true Conjur, than the 9/11 commision will bring it out in it's report.

We will see.

IF?? It's already been made public in many different venues!

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: biostud666
I'm sorry for calling Bush a liar, I clearly see it know. He actually believed in what he said.

Do you also than think Edwards believed?

Edwards

"s a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

Saddam has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people. Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel.

What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror. ....
"

Weak. The Congress made the mistake of believing that Bush was being Truthful and really did have the evidence he claimed to have.

Edwards is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Was he so stupid that as a member of that committe he blindly believed without checking?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: conjur
Because there was NO COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The only documentation of any link are attempts at contact that went nowhere.

They were NOT allies!

bin Laden HATED Saddam.

What are your thoughts then on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/16/iraq.main/

The same as any other person's. al-Zarqawi is an evil bastard and needs to be eliminated.

But, I think your lame implication is that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq and planning attacks with Saddam against the U.S.

Is that what you are trying to imply?

????

??????

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: conjur
Because there was NO COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The only documentation of any link are attempts at contact that went nowhere.

They were NOT allies!

bin Laden HATED Saddam.

What are your thoughts then on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/16/iraq.main/

The same as any other person's. al-Zarqawi is an evil bastard and needs to be eliminated.

But, I think your lame implication is that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq and planning attacks with Saddam against the U.S.

Is that what you are trying to imply?

????

??????

Another one for the 'yellow' list?

 

[conjur]

Most definitely.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Try and find one successfull polititian that isn't a liar.

Every politician in the history of politics has told lies.

I now quote the band Slow Horse "promises are just lies to gain my trust"

 

[burnedout]

**Breaking News**Inquiry will back intelligence that Iraq sought uranium**Film at 11**

[Hat tip: The Sage of Knoxville]

A UK government inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq is expected to conclude that Britain's spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger.

etc....

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: conjur
Because there was NO COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The only documentation of any link are attempts at contact that went nowhere.

They were NOT allies!

bin Laden HATED Saddam.

What are your thoughts then on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/16/iraq.main/

The same as any other person's. al-Zarqawi is an evil bastard and needs to be eliminated.

But, I think your lame implication is that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq and planning attacks with Saddam against the U.S.

Is that what you are trying to imply?

????

??????

Yoo hoo?!?!

Mockery?!?!?

 

[conjur]

"Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastard!
Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!"

 

[rickn]

you people don't actually fall for this crap do you? if so, I have bridge in brooklyn to sell ya

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: conjur
The same as any other person's. al-Zarqawi is an evil bastard and needs to be eliminated.

But, I think your lame implication is that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq and planning attacks with Saddam against the U.S.

Is that what you are trying to imply?

I was wondering what thread I posted this in?.I have a while to go until I?ll be receving my MA in whoring anytime soon, as you can see.

No?I wasn?t implying anything really. I was just curious as to what the DNC talking points were on this Al-Zaraqawi guy. So I thought I would ask you (seeing that you have a Kerry/Edwards thing in your sig).

I find it interesting that al-Zarqawi is conducting attacks in Iraq, has links to Al Qaeda, yet he is not an Iraqi citizen. It has me questioning how long he has been there, or what his ties to the former regime were, if there even were any. What I do know is that he has an agenda to kill American?s and is hellbent on following it through. He will also be moving ahead of OBL for the number one most want terrorist spot if things keep up the way they are.

So whether or not this war in Iraq was originally one against Terror, it has turned into one now. Many of the enemy insurgents we are fighting over there have links and goals similar to Al Qaeda (if not directly part of it). So while the question of whether these people were directly connected to Saddam pre-invasion, or not, is a subjective one (and will forver be), we know that there are numerous terrorists conducting operations in that country today.

BTW: What is the DNC?s stance on Salman Pak? Just out of curiousity.