Straight from the horse's mouth....

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Red Irish

Guest
Mar 6, 2009
1,605
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Straight from the horse's mouth....

I found this interesting, because at the time (and even to this day), so many people believed that we were justified starting a war in Iraq, because of Saddam's supposed links to terrorists / Al Qaeda. What a load of crap.

I don't recall that being (one of the many) the reason(s) for the Iraqi war?

Numerous violations of the cease fire/treaty from from Gulf War #1, ties to terrorists (confirmed - althought not tied to 911, but the likes Abi Nidal etc), money to suicide bombers in Israel etc., fear of WMD etc.

Were you of age back then?

Fern

Fern, don't you remember the "weapons of mass destruction"? (Edit: I missed WMD the first time - so did everybody else as they clearly never existed)
Then there was the "War on Terrorism", which I feel has produced more terrorists, and of course there's this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/29/usa.iraq
?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Straight from the horse's mouth....

I found this interesting, because at the time (and even to this day), so many people believed that we were justified starting a war in Iraq, because of Saddam's supposed links to terrorists / Al Qaeda. What a load of crap.

I don't recall that being (one of the many) the reason(s) for the Iraqi war?

Numerous violations of the cease fire/treaty from from Gulf War #1, ties to terrorists (confirmed - althought not tied to 911, but the likes Abi Nidal etc), money to suicide bombers in Israel etc., fear of WMD etc.

Were you of age back then?

Fern

We're a hell of a lot more linked to terrorists than Saddam ever was.

The contra terrorists in Nicaragua, the terrorists trained and sent into Cuba - we ran a massive terrorism training operation for the Americas, the 'School of the Americas'...

You can go back further too, for example we have supplied many dictators with 'secret police' forces that torutre and murder opposition, we trained South Vietnamese terrorists to infiltrate North Vietnam before the war apart from the Tiger Team American terrorists during the war - today we are harboring a terrorist who blew up a vicilian airliner, because he's a terrorist 'on uor side' doing his terrorism against Cuba.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
There was so little connection between Iraq and 9/11 that we even had the gall to attack Iraq BEFORE 9/11 EVEN HAPPENED. OMG.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
SNIP

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski



Don't blame Bush, he just presented a case, truthful or not. Congress is the one that declares war thus Congress needs to be the one that checks the info given to them, thus Congress is the party that should be held liable for the "illegal war"

Don't blame Bush for lying, because being a Republican he has no concept of the truth anyway.

Lying or not, Congress needs to investigate and determine if the evidence given them is truthful. They shouldn't be the rubber stamp machi..... I almost go through that.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Don't blame Bush, he just presented a case, truthful or not. Congress is the one that declares war thus Congress needs to be the one that checks the info given to them, thus Congress is the party that should be held liable for the "illegal war"

I blame Bush for lying and scheming to go to war. Congress did not declare war, they approved Bush's request for the leverage Bush said he needed to pressure Saddam into cooperating with the return of UN WMD inspectors, and Bush promised not to use the leverage to go to war if the inspectors got back in. He lied, and started the war while the inspections were in progress. It was entirely Bush's decision to start the war using the resources he'd obtained by his lies promising not to start a war with them under the circumstances.

Congress does have some blame for believiing Bush at all, but that blame goes directly through them to the majority of the American people who would have punished Congress in the 2002 elections for not believing Bush had they turned down his request - Congress had little choice but to do what they did, or to vote no, and get replaced two weeks later by Republicans who would give Bush what he wanted anyway.

Typical liberal thinking. Pass the blame. There was/IS a war going on. Congress had to vote to declare the war. If they voted thinking about their re-election then they failed the people, not carried out the wishes of the people. Stop blaming one man or one party for the issue as it is everyone's issue and fault.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Don't blame Bush, he just presented a case, truthful or not. Congress is the one that declares war thus Congress needs to be the one that checks the info given to them, thus Congress is the party that should be held liable for the "illegal war"

I blame Bush for lying and scheming to go to war. Congress did not declare war, they approved Bush's request for the leverage Bush said he needed to pressure Saddam into cooperating with the return of UN WMD inspectors, and Bush promised not to use the leverage to go to war if the inspectors got back in. He lied, and started the war while the inspections were in progress. It was entirely Bush's decision to start the war using the resources he'd obtained by his lies promising not to start a war with them under the circumstances.

Congress does have some blame for believiing Bush at all, but that blame goes directly through them to the majority of the American people who would have punished Congress in the 2002 elections for not believing Bush had they turned down his request - Congress had little choice but to do what they did, or to vote no, and get replaced two weeks later by Republicans who would give Bush what he wanted anyway.

Typical liberal thinking. Pass the blame.

Not pass the blame - assign the blame where it belongs, unlike your dishonest position.

There was/IS a war going on. Congress had to vote to declare the war.

They never declared war. They authorized the funds Bush requested for the purposes he promised to use them for and he lied and broke his promise.

If they voted thinking about their re-election then they failed the people, not carried out the wishes of the people.

Wrong. The voters share the blame for supporting Bush.

Stop blaming one man or one party for the issue as it is everyone's issue and fault.

Wrong. While there is blame to go around, it varies from massive (Bush/Cheney) to lesser (voters who supported them, some in Congress of both parties) to none (some Democrats).
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
SNIP

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski



Don't blame Bush, he just presented a case, truthful or not. Congress is the one that declares war thus Congress needs to be the one that checks the info given to them, thus Congress is the party that should be held liable for the "illegal war"

Don't blame Bush for lying, because being a Republican he has no concept of the truth anyway.

Lying or not, Congress needs to investigate and determine if the evidence given them is truthful. They shouldn't be the rubber stamp machi..... I almost go through that.

There are limits to wha Congress can investigate. The organizations who have the hundres of billions of dollars in resources to investigate are run by the administration.

But, that's not to say that Congress has not fallen short on the investigating and accountability for the administration for the lies. They should have done and should do more.
 

TechAZ

Golden Member
Sep 8, 2007
1,188
0
71
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
SNIP

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski



Don't blame Bush, he just presented a case, truthful or not. Congress is the one that declares war thus Congress needs to be the one that checks the info given to them, thus Congress is the party that should be held liable for the "illegal war"

Don't blame Bush for lying, because being a Republican he has no concept of the truth anyway.

Lying or not, Congress needs to investigate and determine if the evidence given them is truthful. They shouldn't be the rubber stamp machi..... I almost go through that.

There are limits to wha Congress can investigate. The organizations who have the hundres of billions of dollars in resources to investigate are run by the administration.

But, that's not to say that Congress has not fallen short on the investigating and accountability for the administration for the lies. They should have done and should do more.

OR, OR, maybe you're just wrong and he didn't try to decieve Congress.

 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: ebaycj

Topic Title: Straight from the horse's ASS....

Fixed it for ya. :cool:

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Faux Outrage! Where were you back in 2001 saying it was not connected? (How's that for turning around a lefty tactic back on them?)

I don't know where you were in 2001, but most Americans were quite rightly supporting the Bushwhackos when they went after those who actually attacked us on 9-11, Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban, in the war they should already have won, but FAILED to win long ago in Afghanistan. :Q

Where we were in 2001 isn't the question. Shortly after they achieved some initial success, there, they screwed the pooch and the American people by pulling troops and resources out of Afghanistan to pursue their war of LIES in Iraq. As of 6/2/09, your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang have squandered the lives of 4,308 American troops and left tens of thousands more Americans wounded, scarred and disabled for life from that tragically stupid, criminal blunder.
rose.gif
:(

I also know where the Bushwackos were in 2002 and 2003. They were all over the media, ramping up their propoganda, domestic spying and torture machines.
  • Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction
    Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, 8/26/02
  • "Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
    Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
  • Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
    Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  • Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
    Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  • Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
    Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
  • "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
    Dick Cheney, 3/16/2003 on "Meet the Press"
  • We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
    Dick Cheney, 3/16/2003 on "Meet the Press"
  • We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ?90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
    Dick Cheney, 9/14/03 on ?Meet the Press?
  • We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ?93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ?93. And we?ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
    Dick Cheney, 9/14/2003 on "Meet The Press"
I know where I was, then. I was deep in skepticism about what they said and what they were doing, and I've been posting about it since evidence to support that skepticism emerged. It didn't take long for that skepticism to become confirmed as full blown knowledge that every ever-changing "reason" the Bushwhackos gave for invading Iraq was one lie after another, after another.

I know where I was, then. Why were you too stupid to figure it out? Even more important, what's your lame ass excuse for continuing to pimp their lies, NOW? :shocked:

The dumbest President who ever lived someone tricked practically the entire congress of the United States and the American people into supporting him. Not sure how that happens.

Look in the mirror. :roll:

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Liberals are hilarious. Except they are so sad. They rabidly accuse Bush of being an idiot and lying, yet they adamantly refuse to admit that they (of super human intelligence, of course) were "tricked" by a guy they constantly derided for being a moron!

The irony is delicious.

:laugh:

You find it "hilarious" and that "the irony is delicious" that your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang have squandered the lives of thousands of American troops trillions of dollars for lies, shredded the rights guaranteed to every American citizen under our once honored, once values U.S. Constitution and committed horrific acts of torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity???

You are one sick, perverted, inhuman anti-American asshole. :thumbsdown: :|
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: HomerJS
Originally posted by: Genx87
The administration never once said there was a link between saddam and 9-11. That link was made by people who wanted to believe that is what they said.

I beg to differ

You care to revise your post??????

Are you retarded??!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Cheney never said Saddam was behind 9-11 even with the best cutting effort that video used.

Go read the transcripts from those meet the depressed interviews from 2002-2003. Every single one of them talks about Saddam and links to AQ, but not 9-11. We have gone over this topic over and over and over again. It has been beaten like a dead horse. There isnt a single time Bush nor Cheney say "Saddam is responsbile for 9-11". I cant believe this is still believed on either side of the aisle.

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: HomerJS
Originally posted by: Genx87
The administration never once said there was a link between saddam and 9-11. That link was made by people who wanted to believe that is what they said.

I beg to differ

You care to revise your post??????

Are you retarded??!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Cheney never said Saddam was behind 9-11 even with the best cutting effort that video used.

Go read the transcripts from those meet the depressed interviews from 2002-2003. Every single one of them talks about Saddam and links to AQ, but not 9-11. We have gone over this topic over and over and over again. It has been beaten like a dead horse. There isnt a single time Bush nor Cheney say "Saddam is responsbile for 9-11". I cant believe this is still believed on either side of the aisle.

'Al Queda was behind 9/11' and 'Iraq was linked to Al Queda in months before 9/11'.

But who knows HOW most Republicans came to believe Saddam was part of 9/11?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
SNIP

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski



Don't blame Bush, he just presented a case, truthful or not. Congress is the one that declares war thus Congress needs to be the one that checks the info given to them, thus Congress is the party that should be held liable for the "illegal war"

Don't blame Bush for lying, because being a Republican he has no concept of the truth anyway.

Lying or not, Congress needs to investigate and determine if the evidence given them is truthful. They shouldn't be the rubber stamp machi..... I almost go through that.

There are limits to wha Congress can investigate. The organizations who have the hundres of billions of dollars in resources to investigate are run by the administration.

But, that's not to say that Congress has not fallen short on the investigating and accountability for the administration for the lies. They should have done and should do more.

OR, OR, maybe you're just wrong and he didn't try to decieve Congress.

Uh, no, I've reviews the historyk the statements, and what you say is not the case.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Genx87

Are you retarded??!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Cheney never said Saddam was behind 9-11 even with the best cutting effort that video used.

October 5, 2004, Cheney says:

The clip of Cheney is from "Meet the Press" on September 14, 2003. He said:

With respect to 9/11, of course, you've had the story that's been public out there -- The Czecs alleged that Mohammed Ata, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack.

Then, the clip following Cheney's statement shows George W Bush on September 17, 2003 three days later. He said:

We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September eleventh. Now, the Vice President said was that he had been involved with Al Qaeda.

1. Cheney was using his standard technique of lying by implication. When the Vice President of the United States appears on a top network news program and, in ONE sentence, cites such "alleged" meetings, and includes the words, "9/11," "Mohammed Atah," "the lead attacker" "Al Qaeda" and "met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack," the implication of linkage between them is NOT subtle.

If such meetings were not considered as serious, credible evidence supporting the Bushwhackos' "justifications" for their war of LIES, any government official with a profile as high as Cheney had no business opening his lying mouth that way.

2. Three days later, your EX-Traitor In Chief clouded the issue further. HE said that Cheney said Saddam "had been involved with Al Qaeda."

Obviously, at least one is lying. Years of further documented statements by both of them and the rest of their lying, traitorous gang of thugs prove that ALL of them were spewing ever changing lie, after lie, after lie.

Go read the transcripts from those meet the depressed interviews from 2002-2003. Every single one of them talks about Saddam and links to AQ, but not 9-11. We have gone over this topic over and over and over again. It has been beaten like a dead horse. There isnt a single time Bush nor Cheney say "Saddam is responsbile for 9-11". I cant believe this is still believed on either side of the aisle.
And I can't believe you believe that.
  • Al Qaeda attacked us on 9-11.
  • Cheney tells us "Mohammed Ata, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack."
  • Bush, Cheney, Dumbsfeld and the entire team of Bushwhacko traitors spew an endless stream of bullshit that Saddam has WMD's that he is all to willing to give use against us and to give to others who would do so.
If you don't see that as continuous, blatant attempts to link Saddam to 9-11 and the threat of further attacks, the only two possible conclusions are that you're dumb as a stump, or you're one of the liars.

Which is it? :confused:
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
'Al Queda was behind 9/11' and 'Iraq was linked to Al Queda in months before 9/11'.

But who knows HOW most Republicans came to believe Saddam was part of 9/11?

Republicans? Seems to me HomerJS still believes this. Is he a Republican now?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
If you don't see that as continuous, blatant attempts to link Saddam to 9-11 and the threat of further attacks, the only two possible conclusions are that you're dumb as a stump, or you're one of the liars

I see a blatant attempt to link Saddam with the greater WoT. If you see 9-11 and Saddam I dont know what to tell you. You fall into the % of people who cant read or understand simple english.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Genx87

I see a blatant attempt to link Saddam with the greater WoT.

Here... I'll repeat Cheney's quote and give you the paint by numbers kit...

With respect to 9/11, of course, you've had the story that's been public out there -- The Czecs alleged that...

Mohammed Ata,...

the lead attacker,...

met in Prague with a...

senior Iraqi intelligence official...

five months before the attack.

Originally posted by: Genx87

If you see 9-11 and Saddam I dont know what to tell you. You fall into the % of people who cant read or understand simple english.

If you DON'T see 9-11 and Saddam in Cheney's words, I know exactly what to tell you. In fact, I'll sing the song I wrote about your problem... :laugh:

Can I Do It Til I need Glasses?

Words and Music by Harvey Rubens and Bob Vernoff
Copyright © 1995

Verse 1:

Mama said she was alarmed,
When she caught me in the barn.
Now, you know she didn't come up from behind.

She said (Mama's voice) "That ain't the way I taught ya.
It's a good thing that I caught ya.
Don't you know, if you don't stop it, you'll go blind?

Chorus:

Can I do it 'til I need glasses?
Can I stroke my spoke, can I fiddle my twiddly-dee?
I want to do it 'til the girls start making passes,
'Til I need glasses, just let me be.

Bridge:

When I'm feeling low,
(Chorus) Where do you go?
Oooh, X-rated show.
(Chorus) Wouldn't you know!
Oooh, Down in the front row, here I go.
(Chorus) You'll be blind by the time you count to
(with heavy breathing) 1, 2, 3 .....

Chorus:

Can I do it...

Verse 2:

Papa told me man to man,
(Papa) "You'll grow hair upon your hands.
If you don't stop, you know you'll lose your mind."
Now, maybe there's something to it,
But it feels so good to do it that when they say,
(Chorus) "If you don't stop it, you'll go blind." I say,

Chorus:

Can I do it...

Were you in the movie? :p
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,139
236
106
So besides getting to the oil and the rich getting richer off of it all. Why did we go?

I guess I'll still believe the real reason as Allen Greenspan said it.

 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Originally posted by: OCguy
Its almost as stupid as the people who think we went for oil.

We didn't go to Iraq to steal their oil. But of course oil had major consideration in it. The world runs on oil, and the stability of the middle east is of major national security and global economy importance.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Faux Outrage! Where were you back in 2001 saying it was not connected? (How's that for turning around a lefty tactic back on them?)

The dumbest President who ever lived someone tricked practically the entire congress of the United States and the American people into supporting him. Not sure how that happens.

:laugh:

Good one!

I thought Bush was just a simpleton from Texas who couldn't tie his shoes?!

Yet he tricked everyone, including all of these "super intelligent" liberals!

:Q

Congratulation on your guy successfully lying to the Congress and getting an illegal war. What a great accomplishment you should be proud of, as you obviously are.

Liberals are hilarious. Except they are so sad. They rabidly accuse Bush of being an idiot and lying, yet they adamantly refuse to admit that they (of super human intelligence, of course) were "tricked" by a guy they constantly derided for being a moron!

The irony is delicious.

:laugh:

And of course, as craig so clearly demonstrated, instead of dealing with the issue at hand, they spin and dance and launch attacks to feint attention away from the question posed to them.

How could all these super smart liberals be fooled by some simple cowhand from Texas?

:confused:

that simple cowhand wasn't in charge. He was the front man dumb enough to be influenced by all the behind the scenes people. It's like when I was in highschool. I was perfectly content having sex with all the girls and not telling anybody about it and being able to continue doing it :)
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Faux Outrage! Where were you back in 2001 saying it was not connected? (How's that for turning around a lefty tactic back on them?)

The dumbest President who ever lived someone tricked practically the entire congress of the United States and the American people into supporting him. Not sure how that happens.

You really are stupid if you don't know. Politics. Dumb citizens that hear the propaganda, and are told that dissension is unpatriotic. Dumb-ass politicians are afraid to be portrayed as "weak", and don't do anything so they get re-elected.

Straight out of the Nazi (not that they are/were the only ones to use this of course) playbook:

?Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.? -Hermann Goering

Sound familiar? That's you.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
If you don't see that as continuous, blatant attempts to link Saddam to 9-11 and the threat of further attacks, the only two possible conclusions are that you're dumb as a stump, or you're one of the liars

I see a blatant attempt to link Saddam with the greater WoT. If you see 9-11 and Saddam I dont know what to tell you. You fall into the % of people who cant read or understand simple english.

Polls conducted around the time we went to war in Iraq suggest that percentage of people is pretty large, as somewhere around 50% of the people in this country believed Iraq as connected to 9/11. I can't remember the exact numbers, but I remember being pretty surprised by them.

People don't just come up with that stuff by themselves, if they got that impression, it was because someone was trying to give it to them.

Edit: Link to poll I was wrong, it wasn't 50%...it was 70%. If you're trying to dismiss the link as something imagined by complete morons or lefties hearing what they want to hear, you should reconsider. The numbers suggest the mistaken belief was incredibly widespread, surely you don't think that happened by accident...?
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
If you don't see that as continuous, blatant attempts to link Saddam to 9-11 and the threat of further attacks, the only two possible conclusions are that you're dumb as a stump, or you're one of the liars

I see a blatant attempt to link Saddam with the greater WoT. If you see 9-11 and Saddam I dont know what to tell you. You fall into the % of people who cant read or understand simple english.

Polls conducted around the time we went to war in Iraq suggest that percentage of people is pretty large, as somewhere around 50% of the people in this country believed Iraq as connected to 9/11. I can't remember the exact numbers, but I remember being pretty surprised by them.

People don't just come up with that stuff by themselves, if they got that impression, it was because someone was trying to give it to them.

Yes and then you have Cheney on Meet the Press back in 2001 telling everyone that a 9.11 hijacker met with senior Iraq security officials prior to 9.11. Phokus linked the youtube earlier maybe he can drop it in this thread too.

yeah.... its all in the public's head...or lack of english skills. :roll:
 

colonel

Golden Member
Apr 22, 2001
1,786
21
81
I still remember buying a cup of coffee in Donkin when I heard Cheney telling rush limbaugh about Saddam with 9/11.