And how will he do that with a republican house/senate?
But whatever, you reap what you sow as they say, and you're sowing your own future problems. It's your country, not mine.
And how will he do that with a republican house/senate?
But whatever, you reap what you sow as they say, and you're sowing your own future problems. It's your country, not mine.
is this not good enough of a connection for you?
the fact that he gave money to the family of a suicide bomber, with a congratulations is not enough of a connection? now, imagine what that money went towords. bullets to shoot Isrealis with? materials to make bombs for suicide bombers? RPG ammo? God only knows.
personally, i view the war with Iraq as one of the many battles to the war on terror. Just as im pretty sure that som/most/all in the current administration view the war with Iraq as one of the many battles in the war on terror.
now, granted im only assuming that Red Dawn is referring to the war with Iraq as one of the Presidents foreign policy mistakes, and since Iraq [in somes view] is part of the war on terror, to be against it is to be against the war on terror.
there, is your question answered?
Has Iraq been conclusively linked to aiding terrorists? I don't care about training camps outside of Saddam's zone of control, I'm sure there's terrorist training camps in the US as we speak.
Zephyr
Zephyr
Moonbeam, what is your drug of choice? It must be a strong mind-altering hallucinogen as evident from your posts.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
No, it certainly is not. Old news, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the active support coming from other countries in the region. Further, as we all know, Bush didn't try to sell this war based on that "connection" to terrorism. He sold it on implied ties to 9/11 (and WMDs, of course).
Saddam had WMDs. He also had a core group of pro-terrorist elements within his foreign service known as "The Strikers". The Strikers met with Atta in the Czech Republic. Whatever they met about wasn't as important as the marriage of terror cells and outlawed regimes. After 9/11, the President's fear of another Taliban-Al Qaeda marriage was unacceptable. Couple that with the fact that Hussein had no qualms about making trouble for his neighbors, and you have a threat that could rival that of the state-less terror organizations. It was unacceptable in the new world (after September 11).
BTW, while at Princeton, I was all for the removal of Hussein (because of all the UN resolutions he had violated) and other rogue elements on the international stage. Because of this stance, I was called a liberal. Today, I'm called a neocon, conservative, or any other categorization that will suit my political opponents. How ironic that I'm neither. And how the tables have turned? Wouldn't you say?
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Yeah, up until 1998. Who cares? It's history, having nothing to do with Bush's 2003 invasion.
With all due respect Dari, you have little more credibility than tcsenter. If you'd care to document these claims with links to reputable sources, then we can talk. Last I heard, the infamous Czech meeting was completely discredited by everyone except Bush and his apologists. I haven't researched it, but I'm not going to take your word for it.
Re. terrorism, as I'm sure a highly educated person like yourself understands quite well, making trouble for one's neighbors is not at all the same as terrorism. Just ask Israel's neighbors. (Maybe that's a bad example.)
and why not? if he supports palestineans blowing themselves up, whose to say he didnt have ties to other terrorist orginizations? how about ties to syria? they support terrorism, no?
and i never once got these implied ties to 9/11 that i hear so many libs blather about. perhaps it was only the simple minded that tried to make that connection? all i heard was how the UN Sec Council passed 1441, then the US got impatient and decided to take matters into its own hands because the US government felt that the UN was taking too long. So the US invaded on the basis of Iraq having WMDs. Do we know if we were right? No. They could be buried in the sand. They could be in Syria. Or, Bush could have been wrong. It doesnt really matter, I still see the war with Iraq as totally justified, and I still see libs as desperate people who are trying their hardest to get a good President out of office because he has good moral character and doesnt reverse his stand on his issues when he knows they are unpopular, no matter how slight the unpopularity.
Wasn't it something like 70% who thought that Saddam had a direct involvement with 9/11? I wonder where 70% of the population got that idea?
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
So it's your contention that we can go around invading other countries, killing thousands of innocent people, wasting hundreds of billions of dollars because we suspect someone might have ties to terrorism? Wow. I suppose that's a viable approach if your goal is to become the world's biggest terrorist state. I don't believe civilized countries act that way.
Speaking of Syria, if any level of supporting Middle Eastern terrorism justifies full-blown invasion, why aren't you calling for the U.S. to invade Syria too? How about Saudi Arabia and Egypt? They both had direct ties to 9/11. How about Israel? How many innocent people have they killed? With all due respect, my friend, if you believe what you typed above, you are a loon.
No, I'm pretty sure it's only the "simple minded" that missed that connection.
Some of you need to learn to read. I've posted this several times, but every couple of months, some ignoranus will pop up and try to claim Bush never suggested a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Let's start with this:
There you go, Genesys, straight from the horse's ... err ... mouth.
Read that and tell us Bush did not suggest a link between Iraq and 9/11. If you still want to go around calling others simple-minded, I can dig out some of his comments from around the the October Cincinnati speech, also direct from the White House's web site. Over and over, Bush and his minions tried to suggest a link between Iraq and 9/11. Cheney was still doing it just a few months ago, even after Bush himself came forward and said there was no connection.
This continued denial by some of you (hi tcsenter) just proves how desperately some of you will cling to that man, no matter what he says or does. Let it go. He's a man, not a god. He's not perfect. If you crack your eyes open just a smidge, you may start to see what the rest of us have known for months. Bush lied. He willfully misled America to justify his invasion of Iraq.
Edit: typo
How about the fact that Bush gave money to the Bin Laden family? Imagine what that money went towards. bullets to shoot Isrealis with? materials to make bombs for suicide bombers? RPG ammo? God only knows. BTW, how do you KNOW Saddam gave money to terrorist families? Or do you just accept everything the neo-"con" Bush Regime feeds you?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter