Proof that Al Qaeda had connections to Iraq/Saddam

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Harvey
OMFGLMFAOPIMPWTFBBQ!!! This one just may win a prize for the funniest, if not the most unusual, supporting opinion piece ever posted on ATP&N! It's from... < gasp > WorldNetDaily !!! :shocked:

[ ... clip ...]

I'm heading out to get a huge supply of aluminum foil, plastic spinners and flashing blue LED's. If this is what World Net Daily is willing to publish, my friends and I need more beanies. 😎

apologetic -- No joke. No flames. I hope this at least gets you thinking and questioning your views. :beer:

Great article Harvey.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Wow...just wow. Definitely <gasp> on that one!!!

:thumbsup:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Harvey
The weird thing about the WorldNetDaily article is, it's from 2003! :shocked:

WTF is it all about when they continue to pimp the party line two years later? :roll:

Good question, cognitive dissonance I imagine. They wholly invested in the Bush faith. They proselytized for him, excitedly told all their friends and neighbors how great he was, maybe even got into heated debates defending him. Now, if they face the truth, they have to admit they were wrong, that their faith was misplaced. Their egos cannot handle that, so they ignore all evidence that threatens their faith.

 

[Harvey]

Here are two more articles from the same author, also on WorldNetDaily from 2003.

Saddam bin Laden

Beltway & Beyond
Paul Sperry

Saddam bin Laden

Posted: March 12, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON ? Remember when Osama bin Laden had a ZZ Top beard? Well, he's apparently replaced it with a bushy mustache and now looks to Americans a lot like Saddam Hussein ? thanks to White House brainwashing.

With last week's press conference, President Bush completed the morphing of bin Laden into Saddam. He mentioned the Sept. 11 attacks nine times, Saddam 40 times, and bin Laden zero.

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. Sept. 11 changed the strategic thinking for how to protect our country," Bush intoned.

"Used to be that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror," he went on in his breathy drawl. "Sept. 11 should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home."

So we had better hit him before he hits New York or Washington again.

Hey, don't laugh. I just heard a Sean Hannity caller describe Saddam as "America's archenemy." Earlier, a Rush fan said that "after what happened Sept. 11," we have to invade Iraq. A country singer is just as confused. His hot single pushing for war in Iraq reminds Americans not to forget Sept. 11.

Propaganda works.

At his State of the Union speech, Bush slammed Saddam 19 times. Bin Laden didn't get a single mention.

The uber-terrorist must have felt slighted, because a few weeks later, he gave his own State of Islam speech, carried by Al-Jazeera. Bin Laden made sure to remind everyone that he was the guy who actually attacked America, though he would support Saddam if we attacked him.

But then the White House knows this. Rewind to Sept. 16, 2001.

"Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?" NBC's Tim Russert asked Vice President Dick Cheney on "Meet the Press."

"No," replied Cheney.

You want to protect Americans, Mr. President? Re-deploy those 200,000 troops to Pakistan.

Anatomy of a radioactive lie

Beltway & Beyond
Paul Sperry

Anatomy of a lie

Posted: July 15, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON ? National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice insists neither she nor the president knew the CIA raised serious doubts about a nuke-weapons charge against Iraq in his last State of the Union speech.

"If there was a concern about the underlying intelligence there, the president was unaware of that concern, as was I," she told reporters Friday aboard Air Force One.

The language the White House originally wanted to use in its allegation was even more baseless and reckless ? that Iraq recently sought up to 500 tons of uranium from Niger.

But CIA analysts strenuously objected, arguing that they could not verify such a charge, which we now know was based on forged letters.

Undeterred, the White House kept it in the speech, but dropped the specific references to amount and source. And, to be safe, it also attributed the charge to British intelligence.

Here's the final language Bush used on Jan. 28: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

CIA Director George Tenet acknowledges his analysts raised a fuss after receiving a draft "shortly before the speech was given." He revealed that "some of the language was changed" to assuage them. What was changed? "Some specifics about amount and place were taken out," Rice said, guardedly, in response to a reporter?s question during the Air Force One gaggle.

According to news reports at the time, Bush began rehearsing the speech from a teleprompter in the White House theater on Jan. 24. It was one of the most important speeches in history, as it was laying the case for baldly starting a war overseas ? an American first.

Assuming he wasn't in on the debate raging over the uranium language, Bush had to have at least wondered why at one point he was practicing to say "up to 500 tons" and "from Niger" (which isn't an easy country to pronounce), and then, sometime later on, "significant quantities" and "from Africa." If these revisions didn't catch his attention, surely the addition of the reference to the "British government" did. It's not every State of the Union that an American president cites foreign intelligence.

Yet we are led to believe that Bush remained in the dark about the reasons for the changes in the line.

It's been reported that Tenet believed Bush to be oblivious.

But that's not what Tenet said. Here's the relevant quote in his carefully worded statement:

"The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound [emphasis added]," Tenet said.

Sure, the text, as revised, was technically correct (and therefore an acceptable lie that apparently everybody thought they could live with, at least at the time). However, the content that the text represented ? that is, the substance of the charge ? was another story entirely.

Tenet didn't let Bush off the hook. All he said was that the president had every reason to believe that the British believed the uranium charge to be true, even though his own intelligence didn't. That's hardly an exoneration.

Did Bush know he was passing off bad intelligence? Depends on what the meaning of "text" is.

Rice, meanwhile, claims even she was in the dark.

Yet a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's banned weapons programs cast doubt on the uranium claim last October ? just months before the speech. In the high-level secret report, which went to Rice, the CIA said it couldn't confirm any African link to Iraq involving uranium sales, let alone the alleged Niger one. And the State Department called the claim "highly dubious."

It strains credulity that Rice, a hands-on manager who goes by the nickname "Warrior Princess," would not have read the Iraq report in full at the time it was sent to the White House. Her boss was beating the war tom-toms pretty hard then.

If she failed to brief Bush about the report's reservations, and let him go into a key State of the Union speech blind to them, Bush needs to get himself a new security adviser.

Rice, for her part, blames Tenet for the bogus charge getting in the speech. So does Bush (yet he won't fire him, oddly enough).

Truth is, Tenet thought so little of the uranium story that he personally got Rice's deputy to yank it from Bush's October speech on Iraq in Cincinnati. And he never once used it in any of his congressional testimonies or public statements prior to the State of the Union.

Neither did Secretary of State Colin Powell. In fact, he chose not to use it in his own speech to the U.N. eight days after the State of the Union.

Powell claims the uranium allegation was just a throw-away line in the president's 5,500-word speech, and was not integral to the case against Iraq ? unlike, apparently, Bush's related assertion that Iraq had attempted to buy aluminum tubes to make weapons-grade uranium (oops, that also turned out to be false).

But intervening bad press might also have influenced Powell's decision to leave the African uranium claim out of his own speech.

The day after Bush made the claim before Congress, the head of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, shot it down in a Washington Post interview.

"We haven't gotten anything specific," he argued in the Jan. 29 Post story. "Niger denied it, Iraq denied it, and we haven't seen any contracts."

And if it was just a throw-away line, as claimed, why was the White House so desperate to keep it in the president's speech?

We know in hindsight that his October speech didn't convince the U.N. to back his war. Three months later, the uranium charge reappeared, this time in the State of the Union ? despite another row with the CIA.

The issue isn't why Tenet didn't object more strenuously to it, as the White House is trying to spin the scandal, but why the White House resisted CIA objections so strenuously? And why, of all things, did it defer to foreign intelligence over its own?

Why did it want that dubious information in there so badly?

For one, it's the only thing in Bush's whole speech that conveys any real sense of urgency about the alleged Iraqi threat (the rest is based on old U.N. arms reports from last decade, many of which are now available on the Internet). The key word in the 16-word uranium charge is "recently," implying Iraq was reactivating its nuke-weapons programs and, if we didn't act fast, we'd all be toast.

But that explanation begs another, more disturbing question about overall motives: Why did this administration want to invade and occupy Iraq so badly that it was willing to scare Congress and the American people with ginned-up intelligence in order to sell its war scheme?

It's incumbent upon Congress to find out. It can start by calling Tenet and Rice to testify ? under oath and in open hearings ? before the intelligence committees about what really happened in the days leading up to the State of the Uranium.

If this keeps up, next, I'll be expecting an in depth refutation of the Swift Boat liars. 😛

 

[rustynails]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
For the record, the original question was:

• "Meanwhile, I'll start by asking you if you believe the administration, including Bush, himself, has tried to link Saddam and Iraq to 9/11?"

Not just to al Qaida (though even then there is no evidence of any substantive and significant connection), but specifically a connection to 9/11.

It?s called preventative maintenance. See, you?re damned if you do and damned if you don?t. Sort of like you, Jellyfinger. I mean you still visit your proctologist for the full- fisted exam. Doesn?t mean there is direct evidence, but keeping the possibilities at bay is wise thing to do. I guess the only analogy here is, perhaps like you and your proctologist, Bush and the Administration went full-fisted into this war. I now see it?s become a 3 finger attempt at appeasement and pacification, which is sad. I would have never recommended this type of execution after the thrust of the war. I would, however, suggest that your doc ought to stop with the fist and try two jelly coated fingers instead, because I can see your previous examinations, liking it or not, has affected the flow of BS, and is now flooding your brain rather than vacating the normal method.

---

rustynails,

Your account is locked for 2 weeks for your irrelevant proctological references. Please take the time to consider improving your forum courtesy.

AnandTech Moderator

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
For the record, the original question was:

• "Meanwhile, I'll start by asking you if you believe the administration, including Bush, himself, has tried to link Saddam and Iraq to 9/11?"

Not just to al Qaida (though even then there is no evidence of any substantive and significant connection), but specifically a connection to 9/11.

It?s called preventative maintenance. See, you?re damned if you do and damned if you don?t. Sort of like you, Jellyfinger. I mean you still visit your proctologist for the full- fisted exam. Doesn?t mean there is direct evidence, but keeping the possibilities at bay is wise thing to do. I guess the only analogy here is, perhaps like you and your proctologist, Bush and the Administration went full-fisted into this war. I now see it?s become a 3 finger attempt at appeasement and pacification, which is sad. I would have never recommended this type of execution after the thrust of the war. I would, however, suggest that your doc ought to stop with the fist and try two jelly coated fingers instead, because I can see your previous examinations, liking it or not, has affected the flow of BS, and is now flooding your brain rather than vacating the normal method.

eh?

😕

So you're saying that Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda and/or 9/11?

 

[tommywishbone]

At this time, I would like to take responsibility for the bubonic plague. I go poo-poo. Rats like poo-poo; ergo I caused the bubonic plague. I'm sorry.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam

Saddam's al Qaeda Connection

Saddam and al Qaeda

Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship

Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus
There is no controversy about Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden, and Saddam having "links" to each other. These have been documented by the 9/11 commission.

The question is about what kind of a "relationship" Al-Qaeda had with Saddam.

With all the poo flinging going on, I think a lot of you guys might have missed what is actually a very good point. There are certainly "links", but most of those links do not establish any kind of relationship beyond association, something I think is important to clarify if we're invading anyone.

Terrorists probably know a lot of people, some of them were former military officers in countries we have not invaded yet if I remember correctly. Something a little more substantial seems necessary here.

 

[rustynails]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
For the record, the original question was:

• "Meanwhile, I'll start by asking you if you believe the administration, including Bush, himself, has tried to link Saddam and Iraq to 9/11?"

Not just to al Qaida (though even then there is no evidence of any substantive and significant connection), but specifically a connection to 9/11.

It?s called preventative maintenance. See, you?re damned if you do and damned if you don?t. Sort of like you, Jellyfinger. I mean you still visit your proctologist for the full- fisted exam. Doesn?t mean there is direct evidence, but keeping the possibilities at bay is wise thing to do. I guess the only analogy here is, perhaps like you and your proctologist, Bush and the Administration went full-fisted into this war. I now see it?s become a 3 finger attempt at appeasement and pacification, which is sad. I would have never recommended this type of execution after the thrust of the war. I would, however, suggest that your doc ought to stop with the fist and try two jelly coated fingers instead, because I can see your previous examinations, liking it or not, has affected the flow of BS, and is now flooding your brain rather than vacating the normal method.

eh?

😕

So you're saying that Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda and/or 9/11?

I?m saying there have been enough remote possibilities to take the risk. I lump all terrorist into the same sh!t hole. I don?t; we don?t, have time to separate and distinguish between thy multi-faceted terror networks. It may make you feel good inside to do so, but i dont give a crap.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
For the record, the original question was:

• "Meanwhile, I'll start by asking you if you believe the administration, including Bush, himself, has tried to link Saddam and Iraq to 9/11?"

Not just to al Qaida (though even then there is no evidence of any substantive and significant connection), but specifically a connection to 9/11.

It?s called preventative maintenance. See, you?re damned if you do and damned if you don?t. Sort of like you, Jellyfinger. I mean you still visit your proctologist for the full- fisted exam. Doesn?t mean there is direct evidence, but keeping the possibilities at bay is wise thing to do. I guess the only analogy here is, perhaps like you and your proctologist, Bush and the Administration went full-fisted into this war. I now see it?s become a 3 finger attempt at appeasement and pacification, which is sad. I would have never recommended this type of execution after the thrust of the war. I would, however, suggest that your doc ought to stop with the fist and try two jelly coated fingers instead, because I can see your previous examinations, liking it or not, has affected the flow of BS, and is now flooding your brain rather than vacating the normal method.

eh?

😕

So you're saying that Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda and/or 9/11?

I?m saying there have been enough remote possibilities to take the risk. I lump all terrorist into the same sh!t hole. I don?t; we don?t, have time to separate and distinguish between thy multi-faceted terror networks. It may make you feel good inside to do so, but i dont give a crap.

Ah, so Saudi Arabia should have been taken out first, and then maybe Pakistan...and then....

 

[rustynails]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
For the record, the original question was:

• "Meanwhile, I'll start by asking you if you believe the administration, including Bush, himself, has tried to link Saddam and Iraq to 9/11?"

Not just to al Qaida (though even then there is no evidence of any substantive and significant connection), but specifically a connection to 9/11.

It?s called preventative maintenance. See, you?re damned if you do and damned if you don?t. Sort of like you, Jellyfinger. I mean you still visit your proctologist for the full- fisted exam. Doesn?t mean there is direct evidence, but keeping the possibilities at bay is wise thing to do. I guess the only analogy here is, perhaps like you and your proctologist, Bush and the Administration went full-fisted into this war. I now see it?s become a 3 finger attempt at appeasement and pacification, which is sad. I would have never recommended this type of execution after the thrust of the war. I would, however, suggest that your doc ought to stop with the fist and try two jelly coated fingers instead, because I can see your previous examinations, liking it or not, has affected the flow of BS, and is now flooding your brain rather than vacating the normal method.

eh?

😕

So you're saying that Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda and/or 9/11?

I?m saying there have been enough remote possibilities to take the risk. I lump all terrorist into the same sh!t hole. I don?t; we don?t, have time to separate and distinguish between thy multi-faceted terror networks. It may make you feel good inside to do so, but i dont give a crap.

Ah, so Saudi Arabia should have been taken out first, and then maybe Pakistan...and then....

great.. your finally on-board. I will pass it along.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
For the record, the original question was:

• "Meanwhile, I'll start by asking you if you believe the administration, including Bush, himself, has tried to link Saddam and Iraq to 9/11?"

Not just to al Qaida (though even then there is no evidence of any substantive and significant connection), but specifically a connection to 9/11.

It?s called preventative maintenance. See, you?re damned if you do and damned if you don?t. Sort of like you, Jellyfinger. I mean you still visit your proctologist for the full- fisted exam. Doesn?t mean there is direct evidence, but keeping the possibilities at bay is wise thing to do. I guess the only analogy here is, perhaps like you and your proctologist, Bush and the Administration went full-fisted into this war. I now see it?s become a 3 finger attempt at appeasement and pacification, which is sad. I would have never recommended this type of execution after the thrust of the war. I would, however, suggest that your doc ought to stop with the fist and try two jelly coated fingers instead, because I can see your previous examinations, liking it or not, has affected the flow of BS, and is now flooding your brain rather than vacating the normal method.

eh?

😕

So you're saying that Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda and/or 9/11?

I?m saying there have been enough remote possibilities to take the risk. I lump all terrorist into the same sh!t hole. I don?t; we don?t, have time to separate and distinguish between thy multi-faceted terror networks. It may make you feel good inside to do so, but i dont give a crap.

The fact that all terrorists are in the same "sh!thole" and you just compared the war to cramming stuff up a dude's butt is pretty funny for some reason...

Anyways, while your zeal is nice, I'd prefer to deal with actual threats before following remote connections. Not only do we have time to distinguish between terror networks, but it is foolishg not to. I'd prefer the cops track down the DC sniper before trying to find all the lunatics with rifles out there, for example, mostly because not everyone represents the same threat.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: rustynails
great.. your finally on-board. I will pass it along.

and you are no where near the boat. Yawn.

 

[rustynails]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
For the record, the original question was:

• "Meanwhile, I'll start by asking you if you believe the administration, including Bush, himself, has tried to link Saddam and Iraq to 9/11?"

Not just to al Qaida (though even then there is no evidence of any substantive and significant connection), but specifically a connection to 9/11.

It?s called preventative maintenance. See, you?re damned if you do and damned if you don?t. Sort of like you, Jellyfinger. I mean you still visit your proctologist for the full- fisted exam. Doesn?t mean there is direct evidence, but keeping the possibilities at bay is wise thing to do. I guess the only analogy here is, perhaps like you and your proctologist, Bush and the Administration went full-fisted into this war. I now see it?s become a 3 finger attempt at appeasement and pacification, which is sad. I would have never recommended this type of execution after the thrust of the war. I would, however, suggest that your doc ought to stop with the fist and try two jelly coated fingers instead, because I can see your previous examinations, liking it or not, has affected the flow of BS, and is now flooding your brain rather than vacating the normal method.

eh?

😕

So you're saying that Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda and/or 9/11?

I?m saying there have been enough remote possibilities to take the risk. I lump all terrorist into the same sh!t hole. I don?t; we don?t, have time to separate and distinguish between thy multi-faceted terror networks. It may make you feel good inside to do so, but i dont give a crap.

The fact that all terrorists are in the same "sh!thole" and you just compared the war to cramming stuff up a dude's butt is pretty funny for some reason...

Anyways, while your zeal is nice, I'd prefer to deal with actual threats before following remote connections. Not only do we have time to distinguish between terror networks, but it is foolishg not to. I'd prefer the cops track down the DC sniper before trying to find all the lunatics with rifles out there, for example, mostly because not everyone represents the same threat.

But dont you see thats the problem. Lets get it straight here, these fvcks want us to treat the threat with some third rate barney fife. Im fvcking sick of this endless, and i mean endless game of what to do, what to do. We've become such pussies, its really embarrassing.

 

[rustynails]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: rustynails
great.. your finally on-board. I will pass it along.

and you are no where near the boat. Yawn.

Full or wit and quick to his feet.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
For the record, the original question was:

• "Meanwhile, I'll start by asking you if you believe the administration, including Bush, himself, has tried to link Saddam and Iraq to 9/11?"

Not just to al Qaida (though even then there is no evidence of any substantive and significant connection), but specifically a connection to 9/11.

It?s called preventative maintenance. See, you?re damned if you do and damned if you don?t. Sort of like you, Jellyfinger. I mean you still visit your proctologist for the full- fisted exam. Doesn?t mean there is direct evidence, but keeping the possibilities at bay is wise thing to do. I guess the only analogy here is, perhaps like you and your proctologist, Bush and the Administration went full-fisted into this war. I now see it?s become a 3 finger attempt at appeasement and pacification, which is sad. I would have never recommended this type of execution after the thrust of the war. I would, however, suggest that your doc ought to stop with the fist and try two jelly coated fingers instead, because I can see your previous examinations, liking it or not, has affected the flow of BS, and is now flooding your brain rather than vacating the normal method.

eh?

😕

So you're saying that Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda and/or 9/11?

I?m saying there have been enough remote possibilities to take the risk. I lump all terrorist into the same sh!t hole. I don?t; we don?t, have time to separate and distinguish between thy multi-faceted terror networks. It may make you feel good inside to do so, but i dont give a crap.

The fact that all terrorists are in the same "sh!thole" and you just compared the war to cramming stuff up a dude's butt is pretty funny for some reason...

Anyways, while your zeal is nice, I'd prefer to deal with actual threats before following remote connections. Not only do we have time to distinguish between terror networks, but it is foolishg not to. I'd prefer the cops track down the DC sniper before trying to find all the lunatics with rifles out there, for example, mostly because not everyone represents the same threat.

But dont you see thats the problem. Lets get it straight here, these fvcks want us to treat the threat with some third rate barney fife. Im fvcking sick of this endless, and i mean endless game of what to do, what to do. We've become such pussies, its really embarrassing.

What the hell are you talking about? "That's the problem"? Our problem is in wanting to try and apply our resources in the most effective way possible? Somehow doing this makes us pussies, while (presumably) real men just do something, whether or not it's actually the best idea or not.

Far from being "some third rate barney fife", I'd say my approach takes the threat far more seriously than your's does. You seem to think this is some sort of video game, while I'm saying the world is a dangerous place, and we have limited resources to deal with it. If we really are trying to defend the US (instead of whatever the hell you seem to want to do), I can't see an approach that makes more sense than going after the biggest threats first and trying to maximize how much bang we get for our buck. It might not be as macho as running around guns blazing, but the truth is that people who think are the ones who win wars, not the people with the most testosterone points.

 

[apologetic]

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
For the record, the original question was:

• "Meanwhile, I'll start by asking you if you believe the administration, including Bush, himself, has tried to link Saddam and Iraq to 9/11?"

Not just to al Qaida (though even then there is no evidence of any substantive and significant connection), but specifically a connection to 9/11.

It?s called preventative maintenance. See, you?re damned if you do and damned if you don?t. Sort of like you, Jellyfinger. I mean you still visit your proctologist for the full- fisted exam. Doesn?t mean there is direct evidence, but keeping the possibilities at bay is wise thing to do. I guess the only analogy here is, perhaps like you and your proctologist, Bush and the Administration went full-fisted into this war. I now see it?s become a 3 finger attempt at appeasement and pacification, which is sad. I would have never recommended this type of execution after the thrust of the war. I would, however, suggest that your doc ought to stop with the fist and try two jelly coated fingers instead, because I can see your previous examinations, liking it or not, has affected the flow of BS, and is now flooding your brain rather than vacating the normal method.

LMAO!!! Great post!!

 

[1EZduzit]

Neither of you would know a great post if someone hit you smack between your eyes with it.

 

[rustynails]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
For the record, the original question was:

• "Meanwhile, I'll start by asking you if you believe the administration, including Bush, himself, has tried to link Saddam and Iraq to 9/11?"

Not just to al Qaida (though even then there is no evidence of any substantive and significant connection), but specifically a connection to 9/11.

It?s called preventative maintenance. See, you?re damned if you do and damned if you don?t. Sort of like you, Jellyfinger. I mean you still visit your proctologist for the full- fisted exam. Doesn?t mean there is direct evidence, but keeping the possibilities at bay is wise thing to do. I guess the only analogy here is, perhaps like you and your proctologist, Bush and the Administration went full-fisted into this war. I now see it?s become a 3 finger attempt at appeasement and pacification, which is sad. I would have never recommended this type of execution after the thrust of the war. I would, however, suggest that your doc ought to stop with the fist and try two jelly coated fingers instead, because I can see your previous examinations, liking it or not, has affected the flow of BS, and is now flooding your brain rather than vacating the normal method.

eh?

😕

So you're saying that Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda and/or 9/11?

I?m saying there have been enough remote possibilities to take the risk. I lump all terrorist into the same sh!t hole. I don?t; we don?t, have time to separate and distinguish between thy multi-faceted terror networks. It may make you feel good inside to do so, but i dont give a crap.

The fact that all terrorists are in the same "sh!thole" and you just compared the war to cramming stuff up a dude's butt is pretty funny for some reason...

Anyways, while your zeal is nice, I'd prefer to deal with actual threats before following remote connections. Not only do we have time to distinguish between terror networks, but it is foolishg not to. I'd prefer the cops track down the DC sniper before trying to find all the lunatics with rifles out there, for example, mostly because not everyone represents the same threat.

But dont you see thats the problem. Lets get it straight here, these fvcks want us to treat the threat with some third rate barney fife. Im fvcking sick of this endless, and i mean endless game of what to do, what to do. We've become such pussies, its really embarrassing.

What the hell are you talking about? "That's the problem"? Our problem is in wanting to try and apply our resources in the most effective way possible? Somehow doing this makes us pussies, while (presumably) real men just do something, whether or not it's actually the best idea or not.

Far from being "some third rate barney fife", I'd say my approach takes the threat far more seriously than your's does. You seem to think this is some sort of video game, while I'm saying the world is a dangerous place, and we have limited resources to deal with it. If we really are trying to defend the US (instead of whatever the hell you seem to want to do), I can't see an approach that makes more sense than going after the biggest threats first and trying to maximize how much bang we get for our buck. It might not be as macho as running around guns blazing, but the truth is that people who think are the ones who win wars, not the people with the most testosterone points.

As far as i know this is the only "war" we've started in the name of "terror". So up until now, have not we done it the way you want? Why dont you give the other side a chance, after all im a fellow american with a differnt point of view (Descriptive relativism), that has lived with your expectations for the past 36 years.

 

[rustynails]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Neither of you would know a great post if someone hit you smack between your eyes with it.

Another one full of candor and wit. You and the "umbrella man" ought to compare notes sometime.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: rustynails

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
For the record, the original question was:

• "Meanwhile, I'll start by asking you if you believe the administration, including Bush, himself, has tried to link Saddam and Iraq to 9/11?"

Not just to al Qaida (though even then there is no evidence of any substantive and significant connection), but specifically a connection to 9/11.

It?s called preventative maintenance. See, you?re damned if you do and damned if you don?t. Sort of like you, Jellyfinger. I mean you still visit your proctologist for the full- fisted exam. Doesn?t mean there is direct evidence, but keeping the possibilities at bay is wise thing to do. I guess the only analogy here is, perhaps like you and your proctologist, Bush and the Administration went full-fisted into this war. I now see it?s become a 3 finger attempt at appeasement and pacification, which is sad. I would have never recommended this type of execution after the thrust of the war. I would, however, suggest that your doc ought to stop with the fist and try two jelly coated fingers instead, because I can see your previous examinations, liking it or not, has affected the flow of BS, and is now flooding your brain rather than vacating the normal method.

eh?

😕

So you're saying that Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda and/or 9/11?

I?m saying there have been enough remote possibilities to take the risk. I lump all terrorist into the same sh!t hole. I don?t; we don?t, have time to separate and distinguish between thy multi-faceted terror networks. It may make you feel good inside to do so, but i dont give a crap.

The fact that all terrorists are in the same "sh!thole" and you just compared the war to cramming stuff up a dude's butt is pretty funny for some reason...

Anyways, while your zeal is nice, I'd prefer to deal with actual threats before following remote connections. Not only do we have time to distinguish between terror networks, but it is foolishg not to. I'd prefer the cops track down the DC sniper before trying to find all the lunatics with rifles out there, for example, mostly because not everyone represents the same threat.

But dont you see thats the problem. Lets get it straight here, these fvcks want us to treat the threat with some third rate barney fife. Im fvcking sick of this endless, and i mean endless game of what to do, what to do. We've become such pussies, its really embarrassing.

What the hell are you talking about? "That's the problem"? Our problem is in wanting to try and apply our resources in the most effective way possible? Somehow doing this makes us pussies, while (presumably) real men just do something, whether or not it's actually the best idea or not.

Far from being "some third rate barney fife", I'd say my approach takes the threat far more seriously than your's does. You seem to think this is some sort of video game, while I'm saying the world is a dangerous place, and we have limited resources to deal with it. If we really are trying to defend the US (instead of whatever the hell you seem to want to do), I can't see an approach that makes more sense than going after the biggest threats first and trying to maximize how much bang we get for our buck. It might not be as macho as running around guns blazing, but the truth is that people who think are the ones who win wars, not the people with the most testosterone points.

As far as i know this is the only "war" we've started in the name of "terror". So up until now, have not we done it the way you want? Why dont you give the other side a chance, after all im a fellow american with a differnt point of view (Descriptive relativism), that has lived with your expectations for the past 36 years.

I still have no idea what you are talking about...as far as I can tell, we're debating whether or not thinking through our use of resources in the war on terror is a good idea or not. Us "fellow Americans" can certainly debate that, in fact that's exactly what the thread you linked to was about. But I'm not so sure that is what we are debating, because so far you haven't given me any reason to think random uses of force is a reasonable approach.

 

[Engineer]

Notice that the OP doesn't comment on the "proof" and the big lack of thereof, that Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaeda and, instead, refers to a mystic post as a "Great Post"? 😕

heh...not suprising.

 

[apologetic]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Notice that the OP doesn't comment on the "proof" and the big lack of thereof, that Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaeda and, instead, refers to a mystic post as a "Great Post"? 😕

heh...not suprising.

Why don't you reply to my proof, troll?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: apologetic

Originally posted by: Engineer
Notice that the OP doesn't comment on the "proof" and the big lack of thereof, that Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaeda and, instead, refers to a mystic post as a "Great Post"? 😕

heh...not suprising.

Why don't you reply to my proof, troll?

Why would he bother to reply to your proof of stupidity?

 

[Engineer]

Why don't you read your own thread (page #2 - based on my settings)?

Any comment on these? Are they lies by "YOUR" own administration?

Originally posted by: Engineer
Click me #1

Oops...

Even FoxNews picked up something

Even before the war, someone knew

Ah shucks, that Damn Rumsfield opened his mouth too much too...

Oh, and for kicks, Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11 either.

 

[Zebo]

It?s called preventative maintenance. See, you?re damned if you do and damned if you don?t. Sort of like you, Jellyfinger. I mean you still visit your proctologist for the full- fisted exam. Doesn?t mean there is direct evidence, but keeping the possibilities at bay is wise thing to do. I guess the only analogy here is, perhaps like you and your proctologist, Bush and the Administration went full-fisted into this war. I now see it?s become a 3 finger attempt at appeasement and pacification, which is sad. I would have never recommended this type of execution after the thrust of the war. I would, however, suggest that your doc ought to stop with the fist and try two jelly coated fingers instead, because I can see your previous examinations, liking it or not, has affected the flow of BS, and is now flooding your brain rather than vacating the normal method.

Quite the anal fixation you got going there. You wern't in on the sodomy of little boys in our custody in Iraq were ya? Na probably not -- by the sound of things you like it "on-bottom" right? I can tell cuz you been pumped up your a** so hard the sh1ts coming out your mouth.

http://amconmag.com/2004_08_02/article.html