FBI parte due
Folces Weard
It's kind of ironic that he accuses people of being evil in the same post that he claims his belief system isn't based on emotion.
Troll Kingdom
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Chris Wallace interviews Bill Clinton
- Thread starter Ogami
- Start date
Sarek
Vuhlkansu Wihs
That would be the difference between us. While I don't believe Bush is a terrorist, I do believe he's not concerned about the well being of this country or the citizens. I don't think he cares about what type of legacy we leave our children and what type of future we leave then to live in. I think his main concern is finding whatever way possible to continue to make himself and his cronies wealthier at the expense of the people who work hard for every dime they make and need every dime to support their families. I poke fun at him and I express my dislike for him. But I don't think he's a terrorist. Just an exceptionally good political crook that has managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public for the last 6 years.
You on the other hand I do believe view the Democrats as a party that supports terrorism. And sadly, I've seen "public service" ads paid for by the Republican Party that are along the same lines. That tells me you and the Republican Party will continue to turn a blind eye to what's been going on to toe the party line all the way until the end.
You on the other hand I do believe view the Democrats as a party that supports terrorism. And sadly, I've seen "public service" ads paid for by the Republican Party that are along the same lines. That tells me you and the Republican Party will continue to turn a blind eye to what's been going on to toe the party line all the way until the end.
Ogami
New member
Sarek wrote:
While I don't believe Bush is a terrorist, I do believe he's not concerned about the well being of this country or the citizens.
But every time Bush has been asked about whether it was the correct decision to remove Saddam Hussein's government, he points to his Constitutional oath to protect this country and its citizens. You say Saddam wasn't a threat, well Bush wasn't going to take his word for it. Case closed, too bad for Saddam.
I don't think he cares about what type of legacy we leave our children and what type of future we leave then to live in.
He cared about not leaving to our children a world where the Saddam Husseins, Bin Ladens, and their like run free. Not bad, and certainly far-seeing.
I think his main concern is finding whatever way possible to continue to make himself and his cronies wealthier at the expense of the people who work hard for every dime they make and need every dime to support their families.
I'm failing to distinguish where this is different from Bill Clinton and his cronies. Apparently you want politicians in charge who are in dire poverty, if not homeless! How silly. Don't tell me you're thinking deep thoughts when you engage in such sophistry, Sarek. "I want politicians who are poor, then I can trust them". Ha.
I poke fun at him and I express my dislike for him.
Which as we've seen from countless clowns on the left, takes zero courage, zero originality, and zero intellectual effort. I've watched five years worth of assclowns braying how they'd do things better than Bush, all without specifics, of course. It gets old.
Just an exceptionally good political crook that has managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public for the last 6 years.
Is he a dummy or a Machiavellian genius? That dilemma is why the Democrats have been out of power and will stay out of power, they can't keep their story straight.
You on the other hand I do believe view the Democrats as a party that supports terrorism.
Of course! As the New York Times selectively cited last week, the war on terror has increased Islamic terrorism. Imagine that. Such sophistry from the brainless left. Why fight back against the Nazis in World War II? It only led to more bloodshed!
The left/liberal/democrat side is intellectually vacant. They don't have history on their side, they don't have the facts on their side, in fact all they have is Rafterman's old picture of Bush with devil horns. That's it, that's the best you've got.
-Ogami
While I don't believe Bush is a terrorist, I do believe he's not concerned about the well being of this country or the citizens.
But every time Bush has been asked about whether it was the correct decision to remove Saddam Hussein's government, he points to his Constitutional oath to protect this country and its citizens. You say Saddam wasn't a threat, well Bush wasn't going to take his word for it. Case closed, too bad for Saddam.
I don't think he cares about what type of legacy we leave our children and what type of future we leave then to live in.
He cared about not leaving to our children a world where the Saddam Husseins, Bin Ladens, and their like run free. Not bad, and certainly far-seeing.
I think his main concern is finding whatever way possible to continue to make himself and his cronies wealthier at the expense of the people who work hard for every dime they make and need every dime to support their families.
I'm failing to distinguish where this is different from Bill Clinton and his cronies. Apparently you want politicians in charge who are in dire poverty, if not homeless! How silly. Don't tell me you're thinking deep thoughts when you engage in such sophistry, Sarek. "I want politicians who are poor, then I can trust them". Ha.
I poke fun at him and I express my dislike for him.
Which as we've seen from countless clowns on the left, takes zero courage, zero originality, and zero intellectual effort. I've watched five years worth of assclowns braying how they'd do things better than Bush, all without specifics, of course. It gets old.
Just an exceptionally good political crook that has managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public for the last 6 years.
Is he a dummy or a Machiavellian genius? That dilemma is why the Democrats have been out of power and will stay out of power, they can't keep their story straight.
You on the other hand I do believe view the Democrats as a party that supports terrorism.
Of course! As the New York Times selectively cited last week, the war on terror has increased Islamic terrorism. Imagine that. Such sophistry from the brainless left. Why fight back against the Nazis in World War II? It only led to more bloodshed!
The left/liberal/democrat side is intellectually vacant. They don't have history on their side, they don't have the facts on their side, in fact all they have is Rafterman's old picture of Bush with devil horns. That's it, that's the best you've got.
-Ogami
Sarek
Vuhlkansu Wihs
I don’t have time for a depth reply right now because I’m running off to work. But I’ll cover your first two points quick. You’ll have until late tonight to lick these wounds and then if I get time, I’ll poke you and your theories full of some more holes.
But every time Bush has been asked about whether it was the correct decision to remove Saddam Hussein's government, he points to his Constitutional oath to protect this country and its citizens. You say Saddam wasn't a threat, well Bush wasn't going to take his word for it. Case closed, too bad for Saddam.
1. He lied about Iraq. Iraq and Saddam were no threat to the U.S. NOW that is changing. Because of Bush invading Iraq, Iraq is now a hot bed of terrorist activity bent on killing our citizens there and here.
He cared about not leaving to our children a world where the Saddam Husseins, Bin Ladens, and their like run free. Not bad, and certainly far-seeing.
2. Been 6 years, Bin Laden is still running free and Bush has publicly stated he’s not concerned about it. Iran and Korea are becoming a problem, and the international community is tired of his bullshit. He's made the world a far more dangerous place then it was before he took office. (He’s also stated that the issues of Iraq and Bin laden will be the problem of the next person to hold his office. Both comments are public record.). That to me doesn’t exactly show a lot of concern on his part. More a “get what I can while the getting is good and let someone else clean up the mess” mentality.
You lost that argument before you even wrote your reply.
But every time Bush has been asked about whether it was the correct decision to remove Saddam Hussein's government, he points to his Constitutional oath to protect this country and its citizens. You say Saddam wasn't a threat, well Bush wasn't going to take his word for it. Case closed, too bad for Saddam.
1. He lied about Iraq. Iraq and Saddam were no threat to the U.S. NOW that is changing. Because of Bush invading Iraq, Iraq is now a hot bed of terrorist activity bent on killing our citizens there and here.
He cared about not leaving to our children a world where the Saddam Husseins, Bin Ladens, and their like run free. Not bad, and certainly far-seeing.
2. Been 6 years, Bin Laden is still running free and Bush has publicly stated he’s not concerned about it. Iran and Korea are becoming a problem, and the international community is tired of his bullshit. He's made the world a far more dangerous place then it was before he took office. (He’s also stated that the issues of Iraq and Bin laden will be the problem of the next person to hold his office. Both comments are public record.). That to me doesn’t exactly show a lot of concern on his part. More a “get what I can while the getting is good and let someone else clean up the mess” mentality.
You lost that argument before you even wrote your reply.
Ogami
New member
Sarek wrote:
1. He lied about Iraq. Iraq and Saddam were no threat to the U.S. NOW that is changing. Because of Bush invading Iraq, Iraq is now a hot bed of terrorist activity bent on killing our citizens there and here.
You've got CNN.com, you've got news service transcripts of every Bush speech from 2001 to 2006. And you can't cite ONE SPEECH which has a SINGLE LIE about Iraq. Not one. So go ahead, insist Bush lied. It's a bumper-sticker, Sarek. You can't make ONE QUOTE of Bush lying about Iraq because there aren't any. Go ahead, look for a single quote from Bush and post it. I dare you because you can't.
2. Been 6 years, Bin Laden is still running free and Bush has publicly stated he’s not concerned about it.
Of course he's not concerned about it. Neither am I. Bush critics cannot point to our war on terror as a failure so they bray about "Bin Laden Bin Laden Bin Laden" like it's some holy charm.
As Bush clearly stated in November 2001, getting Bin Laden is desirable, but not the be-all or end-all of the war on terror. One person can hide easily. They still haven't found that unfortunate Natalee in Aruba, maybe she knows where Bin Laden is.
He's made the world a far more dangerous place then it was before he took office. (He’s also stated that the issues of Iraq and Bin laden will be the problem of the next person to hold his office. Both comments are public record.).
Of course he did. He stated back in December 2001 that the war on terror would take several presidents. Our war against the Barbary pirates back in 1800 took decades. Bush draws on historical lessons for charting his course, proving he's not as shallow as his critics. We've fought amorphous terrorism like this before, and we prevailed. We outlasted our enemies.
If you can't handle that, then get the fuck out of the way and leave the war on terror to those serious about it. And you can keep clucking about Bin Laden for the next 50 years, too. It won't make a whit of difference.
-Ogami
1. He lied about Iraq. Iraq and Saddam were no threat to the U.S. NOW that is changing. Because of Bush invading Iraq, Iraq is now a hot bed of terrorist activity bent on killing our citizens there and here.
You've got CNN.com, you've got news service transcripts of every Bush speech from 2001 to 2006. And you can't cite ONE SPEECH which has a SINGLE LIE about Iraq. Not one. So go ahead, insist Bush lied. It's a bumper-sticker, Sarek. You can't make ONE QUOTE of Bush lying about Iraq because there aren't any. Go ahead, look for a single quote from Bush and post it. I dare you because you can't.
2. Been 6 years, Bin Laden is still running free and Bush has publicly stated he’s not concerned about it.
Of course he's not concerned about it. Neither am I. Bush critics cannot point to our war on terror as a failure so they bray about "Bin Laden Bin Laden Bin Laden" like it's some holy charm.
As Bush clearly stated in November 2001, getting Bin Laden is desirable, but not the be-all or end-all of the war on terror. One person can hide easily. They still haven't found that unfortunate Natalee in Aruba, maybe she knows where Bin Laden is.
He's made the world a far more dangerous place then it was before he took office. (He’s also stated that the issues of Iraq and Bin laden will be the problem of the next person to hold his office. Both comments are public record.).
Of course he did. He stated back in December 2001 that the war on terror would take several presidents. Our war against the Barbary pirates back in 1800 took decades. Bush draws on historical lessons for charting his course, proving he's not as shallow as his critics. We've fought amorphous terrorism like this before, and we prevailed. We outlasted our enemies.
If you can't handle that, then get the fuck out of the way and leave the war on terror to those serious about it. And you can keep clucking about Bin Laden for the next 50 years, too. It won't make a whit of difference.
-Ogami
Sarek
Vuhlkansu Wihs
2002
“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. “
- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002
September 2002: Rumsfeld said he had five or six sentences of "bulletproof" evidence that "demonstrate that there are in fact Al Qaeda in Iraq."
When a reporter asked if there are linkages between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Rumsfeld answered,
"Yes." Asked "Is there any intelligence that Saddam Hussein has any ties to Sept. 11?" Rumsfeld left the question wide open, saying, "you have to recognize that the evidence piles up."
Asked to name senior Al Qaeda members who were in Baghdad, Rumsfeld said, "I could, but I won't."
In that same month, Rice said that while Saddam was not being accused of directly planning 9/11, "there are clearly links between Iraq and terrorism. . . . Links to terrorism would include Al Qaeda."
October 2002, President Bush gave a speech in which he said, "We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.
"We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. . . . Confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror."
In his February presentation to the United Nations, Secretary of State Colin Powell warned of the "sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network."
In the most cynical moment of all, after launching the invasion, Bush on March 21 wrote a letter to the heads of the House and the Senate that said: "The use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
On May 1, when he announced the end of "major combat operations" (more US soldiers have now died in the occupation than the invasion), Bush proclaimed: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001. . . . The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of Al Qaeda. . . . Our war against terror is proceeding according to the principles that I have made clear to all: Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country and a target of American justice."
"You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam." President Bush, Sept. 25, 2002
"There clearly are contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship here. ... And there are some al-Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad." Rice, Sept. 25
"We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade" and "we've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." Bush, Oct. 7, Cincinnati Union Terminal
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." Bush Oct. 7, Cincinnati Union Terminal
"The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.
2003
"And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda." Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28
"Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al-Qaeda" and "Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training." Bush, Feb. 6
“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda." Major Combat Operations In Iraq Have Ended': Speech by US President George W. Bush, May 1
“There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.” Vice President Cheney, Sept 14, 2003
There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties. President Bush, Sept 14, 2003
“Iraq [is] the central front in the war on terror.” President Bush's UN speech, Sept 23, 2003
“The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction.” President Bush's UN speech, Sept 23, 2003
2004
"I continue to believe — I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there." Cheney, Jan. 21
“Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with al-Qaeda." Cheney, Jan. 26
2006 (And my favorite quote to date...)
“Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.” George W. Bush, Whitehouse Press Conference, August 21, 2006
“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. “
- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002
September 2002: Rumsfeld said he had five or six sentences of "bulletproof" evidence that "demonstrate that there are in fact Al Qaeda in Iraq."
When a reporter asked if there are linkages between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Rumsfeld answered,
"Yes." Asked "Is there any intelligence that Saddam Hussein has any ties to Sept. 11?" Rumsfeld left the question wide open, saying, "you have to recognize that the evidence piles up."
Asked to name senior Al Qaeda members who were in Baghdad, Rumsfeld said, "I could, but I won't."
In that same month, Rice said that while Saddam was not being accused of directly planning 9/11, "there are clearly links between Iraq and terrorism. . . . Links to terrorism would include Al Qaeda."
October 2002, President Bush gave a speech in which he said, "We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.
"We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. . . . Confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror."
In his February presentation to the United Nations, Secretary of State Colin Powell warned of the "sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network."
In the most cynical moment of all, after launching the invasion, Bush on March 21 wrote a letter to the heads of the House and the Senate that said: "The use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
On May 1, when he announced the end of "major combat operations" (more US soldiers have now died in the occupation than the invasion), Bush proclaimed: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001. . . . The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of Al Qaeda. . . . Our war against terror is proceeding according to the principles that I have made clear to all: Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country and a target of American justice."
"You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam." President Bush, Sept. 25, 2002
"There clearly are contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship here. ... And there are some al-Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad." Rice, Sept. 25
"We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade" and "we've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." Bush, Oct. 7, Cincinnati Union Terminal
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." Bush Oct. 7, Cincinnati Union Terminal
"The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.
2003
"And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda." Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28
"Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al-Qaeda" and "Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training." Bush, Feb. 6
“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda." Major Combat Operations In Iraq Have Ended': Speech by US President George W. Bush, May 1
“There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.” Vice President Cheney, Sept 14, 2003
There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties. President Bush, Sept 14, 2003
“Iraq [is] the central front in the war on terror.” President Bush's UN speech, Sept 23, 2003
“The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction.” President Bush's UN speech, Sept 23, 2003
2004
"I continue to believe — I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there." Cheney, Jan. 21
“Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with al-Qaeda." Cheney, Jan. 26
2006 (And my favorite quote to date...)
“Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.” George W. Bush, Whitehouse Press Conference, August 21, 2006
Ogami
New member
I notice that not once in that post does Sarek say Bush lied, because I know you can't. Bush's statements are consistent and truthful, the same for the rest of the Administration. Let's go through 'em. I don't need a butt-kisser like Kefta declaring who is 'owned' and who isn't, I stand on my own:
Precisely true. When President Clinton declared the same exact thing throughout his eight years as President, every Democrat with a functioning tongue agreed with this sentiment. (Including such goofs as Senator Bob Graham, who spent the 2004 campaign talking about how Bush lied about the same intel he himself saw every week as the head of the Senate's Intel Committee.)
Democrats like to pretend that Islamic terrorists could come and go as they pleased in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Please! It was a locked-down police state, and the only way information or people could get in or out was with defectors. No terrorist just happened to be living in Iraq without Saddam's knowledge or permission. And they were there. Ask Abu Nidal! Oops we can't, Saddam had him killed after giving him safe haven there for years.
You'll have to find the full interview for this one. Hate-crazed psychocrats like to take things out of context with this administration. (Recall the selective clips Jon Stewart ran of Rumsfeld. We had no idea what Rumsfeld's full quote was. Same here.)
Unlike treasonous Traitorcrats, who hate this country with a greater passion than Al-Queda, Rumsfeld has no desire to reveal classified intelligence programs.
This is indisputable. Saddam Hussein proudly and openly funded Islamic terrorist groups across the Middle East, even rewarding the families of Palestinian suicide-bombers with $25,000 American dollars each. Of course, Saddam would not think of them as terrorists, but freedom fighters. (One of many views he holds in common with the Traitorcrats.)
Absolutely true, confirmed in the 9/11 Commission report, confirmed in every report ever issued to the public. Did Saddam plan 9/11? Bush never said it! Cheney never said it! Rumsfeld never said it! You can't quote it because it never happened! I was right, because I have a command of the facts. That's a slam dunk, Sarek, and your face was in the way!
The insane liberal attitude is that Saddam's support of Islamic terrorism was "okay" as long as it didn't mean Saddam and Bin Laden high-fiving each other over some joint operation. That's ludicrous and laughable, but that has been the serious Democrat position since 2003. Their angle hasn't changed.
If I remember Powell's unedited statement, he made a clear case for Saddam's clear connections with Islamic terorrism, and unclear connections between Saddam and Al-Queda. But you don't need to be a brain surgeon or rocket scientist to see common cause between the two.
The Japanese didn't need Hitler or Moussolini to sign off on their attack on Pearl Harbor, but gosh Democrats, they still had common cause between them! What a shocker, especially if you're a Democrat who thinks world history doesn't go back beyond one's own lifetime.
Quite true. Bush sees Iraq as part of the global war on terror. It was partisan reporters and partisan Democrats who have gone to ludicrous lengths to insist that the war on terror and the war in Iraq are separate. They aren't, especially to our enemies. And right now I'd pay more attention to them than the Traitorcrats. The Democrats have said and done nothing to aid in the war on terror, quite the contrary.
Quite true. Saddam Hussein can no longer fund Islamic terrorist organizations, as he did. Saddam Hussein can no longer give shelter to Islamic terrorists on the run, as he did. Too bad for Saddam, too bad for traitorcrats.
True. Should we distinguish between either of them, Sarek? They don't need to be talked to, they need to be defeated. No difference there.
All true. Again, I don't see Rice saying Saddam planned 9/11! That is only gospel at moveon.org and other wacko outfits, but no one has ever said it but Democrats!
Common enemy. Sarek, for you to insist this is a lie, that means that either 1) Saddam Hussein did not consider America his enemy, 2) Al-Queda did not consider America their enemy, or 3) Both did not consider America their enemy. Where did Bush lie, Sarek? You can't wiggle away from this, Bush's words are crystal clear.
Could. Meaning we stopped the possibility of a further relationship or deepening of what appears to have been a casual relationship between Iraq and Al-Queda. Rather than assume it wouldn't happen (The Democrats position), Bush took action to eliminate the possibility. That's foreign policy. I have no idea what you'd call the Democrat policy, just sitting around hoping our enemies don't get together. That's stupidity, and it would have been irresponsible for Bush to share that view.
Yep. So Saddam had their phone numbers on speed dial. Not surprising. Well, it would be surprising to Democrats, who insist that because of his secular nature, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Saddam to have Al-Queda's phone numbers. That's naive, and that's why Democrats don't deserve to be in charge of our foreign policy.
Quite true. Whether Senior Al-Queda members or not were given refuge in Iraq is irrelevant. Saddam Hussein was a proud financier and supporter of Islamic terrorism. Whether he supported one group over another is irrelevant. Bottom line, he can't support any of them now. Good job, Bush!
Where's the lie, Sarek? Iraq had these chemical and biological training camps, just because they tore them down in the period from the Summer of 2002 to March 2003 doesn't mean Bush lied. If Bush lied, then I guess those Kurds and Iranians that layed down and died from Saddam gassing their villages were just faking! It must have just been their imagination, they were neocon dupes! LOL
Perfectly accurate there. Only crazed Democrats insist that Saddam Hussein and Al-Queda had no reason to share their hate of America. And they offer no sane reason for why these two would never ever want to get together.
All true, not one lie there. Not once did Bush say "Saddam planned 9/11", only Democrats and wacks at moveon.org say he said that. He never did. No one in the Bush administration did.
Absolutely. But did Al-Queda and Saddam plan 9/11? Cheney never said it.
Absolutely. But did Al-Queda and Saddam plan 9/11? Cheney never said it. Too easy, Sarek.
Exactly. Sarek, you have FAILED TO PROVIDE ONE SINGLE QUOTE from a SINGLE PERSON in the Bush administration where they say "Yep, Saddam planned 9/11, so we gotta kick him out". We kicked him out because of his decades-long history with our country and his neighbors in the region, and to deny Islamic terrorists one of their confirmed sponsors. And that's what we did. Too bad.
Whatever you 'owned', better check that receipt and return it to Wal-Mart. You just got your ass handed to you.
-Ogami
Precisely true. When President Clinton declared the same exact thing throughout his eight years as President, every Democrat with a functioning tongue agreed with this sentiment. (Including such goofs as Senator Bob Graham, who spent the 2004 campaign talking about how Bush lied about the same intel he himself saw every week as the head of the Senate's Intel Committee.)
Democrats like to pretend that Islamic terrorists could come and go as they pleased in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Please! It was a locked-down police state, and the only way information or people could get in or out was with defectors. No terrorist just happened to be living in Iraq without Saddam's knowledge or permission. And they were there. Ask Abu Nidal! Oops we can't, Saddam had him killed after giving him safe haven there for years.
You'll have to find the full interview for this one. Hate-crazed psychocrats like to take things out of context with this administration. (Recall the selective clips Jon Stewart ran of Rumsfeld. We had no idea what Rumsfeld's full quote was. Same here.)
Unlike treasonous Traitorcrats, who hate this country with a greater passion than Al-Queda, Rumsfeld has no desire to reveal classified intelligence programs.
This is indisputable. Saddam Hussein proudly and openly funded Islamic terrorist groups across the Middle East, even rewarding the families of Palestinian suicide-bombers with $25,000 American dollars each. Of course, Saddam would not think of them as terrorists, but freedom fighters. (One of many views he holds in common with the Traitorcrats.)
Absolutely true, confirmed in the 9/11 Commission report, confirmed in every report ever issued to the public. Did Saddam plan 9/11? Bush never said it! Cheney never said it! Rumsfeld never said it! You can't quote it because it never happened! I was right, because I have a command of the facts. That's a slam dunk, Sarek, and your face was in the way!
The insane liberal attitude is that Saddam's support of Islamic terrorism was "okay" as long as it didn't mean Saddam and Bin Laden high-fiving each other over some joint operation. That's ludicrous and laughable, but that has been the serious Democrat position since 2003. Their angle hasn't changed.
If I remember Powell's unedited statement, he made a clear case for Saddam's clear connections with Islamic terorrism, and unclear connections between Saddam and Al-Queda. But you don't need to be a brain surgeon or rocket scientist to see common cause between the two.
The Japanese didn't need Hitler or Moussolini to sign off on their attack on Pearl Harbor, but gosh Democrats, they still had common cause between them! What a shocker, especially if you're a Democrat who thinks world history doesn't go back beyond one's own lifetime.
Quite true. Bush sees Iraq as part of the global war on terror. It was partisan reporters and partisan Democrats who have gone to ludicrous lengths to insist that the war on terror and the war in Iraq are separate. They aren't, especially to our enemies. And right now I'd pay more attention to them than the Traitorcrats. The Democrats have said and done nothing to aid in the war on terror, quite the contrary.
Quite true. Saddam Hussein can no longer fund Islamic terrorist organizations, as he did. Saddam Hussein can no longer give shelter to Islamic terrorists on the run, as he did. Too bad for Saddam, too bad for traitorcrats.
True. Should we distinguish between either of them, Sarek? They don't need to be talked to, they need to be defeated. No difference there.
All true. Again, I don't see Rice saying Saddam planned 9/11! That is only gospel at moveon.org and other wacko outfits, but no one has ever said it but Democrats!
Common enemy. Sarek, for you to insist this is a lie, that means that either 1) Saddam Hussein did not consider America his enemy, 2) Al-Queda did not consider America their enemy, or 3) Both did not consider America their enemy. Where did Bush lie, Sarek? You can't wiggle away from this, Bush's words are crystal clear.
Could. Meaning we stopped the possibility of a further relationship or deepening of what appears to have been a casual relationship between Iraq and Al-Queda. Rather than assume it wouldn't happen (The Democrats position), Bush took action to eliminate the possibility. That's foreign policy. I have no idea what you'd call the Democrat policy, just sitting around hoping our enemies don't get together. That's stupidity, and it would have been irresponsible for Bush to share that view.
Yep. So Saddam had their phone numbers on speed dial. Not surprising. Well, it would be surprising to Democrats, who insist that because of his secular nature, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Saddam to have Al-Queda's phone numbers. That's naive, and that's why Democrats don't deserve to be in charge of our foreign policy.
Quite true. Whether Senior Al-Queda members or not were given refuge in Iraq is irrelevant. Saddam Hussein was a proud financier and supporter of Islamic terrorism. Whether he supported one group over another is irrelevant. Bottom line, he can't support any of them now. Good job, Bush!
Where's the lie, Sarek? Iraq had these chemical and biological training camps, just because they tore them down in the period from the Summer of 2002 to March 2003 doesn't mean Bush lied. If Bush lied, then I guess those Kurds and Iranians that layed down and died from Saddam gassing their villages were just faking! It must have just been their imagination, they were neocon dupes! LOL
Perfectly accurate there. Only crazed Democrats insist that Saddam Hussein and Al-Queda had no reason to share their hate of America. And they offer no sane reason for why these two would never ever want to get together.
All true, not one lie there. Not once did Bush say "Saddam planned 9/11", only Democrats and wacks at moveon.org say he said that. He never did. No one in the Bush administration did.
Absolutely. But did Al-Queda and Saddam plan 9/11? Cheney never said it.
Absolutely. But did Al-Queda and Saddam plan 9/11? Cheney never said it. Too easy, Sarek.
Exactly. Sarek, you have FAILED TO PROVIDE ONE SINGLE QUOTE from a SINGLE PERSON in the Bush administration where they say "Yep, Saddam planned 9/11, so we gotta kick him out". We kicked him out because of his decades-long history with our country and his neighbors in the region, and to deny Islamic terrorists one of their confirmed sponsors. And that's what we did. Too bad.
Whatever you 'owned', better check that receipt and return it to Wal-Mart. You just got your ass handed to you.
-Ogami
Sarek
Vuhlkansu Wihs
^Nice spin, denial, misdirection, whatever you want to call it. The lies are there. From Iraq being a hot bed of terror, Saddam training and supplying Al Qaeda, to covert meetings years in advance of 9/11. Yet not one single claim that was made before or during the invasion has paned out. From massive stock piles of WMD's to Al Qaeda training grounds. We invaded, we ousted Saddam and what do we find......
.
.
.
.
Nothing.
.
.
.
.
2712 American soldiers killed.
.
.
.
.
Nothing.
.
.
.
.
20468 Americans wounded.
.
.
.
.
Still nothing.
.
.
.
.
45000 civilians killed.
.
.
.
.
And George W. Bush finally shrugs his head at reporters and says "We were wrong. There were no ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Shit happens".
.
.
.
.
Nothing.
.
.
.
.
2712 American soldiers killed.
.
.
.
.
Nothing.
.
.
.
.
20468 Americans wounded.
.
.
.
.
Still nothing.
.
.
.
.
45000 civilians killed.
.
.
.
.
And George W. Bush finally shrugs his head at reporters and says "We were wrong. There were no ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Shit happens".
Ogami
New member
Sarek, Saddam Hussein had from 1991 to March 2003 to hide, bury, dismantle, ship, smuggle, or otherwise get rid of any of his WMD. Pretend if you like that these things can't be moved, but you know that's silly.
Bush-hatred has blinded the opposition to all reason. It's why they lost before, and why they'll lose again. Because Bush is all they can see. Democrats think they play hardball. But it's more like whiffleball.
-Ogami
Bush-hatred has blinded the opposition to all reason. It's why they lost before, and why they'll lose again. Because Bush is all they can see. Democrats think they play hardball. But it's more like whiffleball.
-Ogami
Sarek
Vuhlkansu Wihs
Absolutely correct! And you just blew Bush's justification for going into Iraq right out of the water.
He had from 1991 to March of 2003 to move or dismantle any and all WMD's he may have had. Now, are you going to sit and tell me that Bush and his advisors were to stupid to think of that themselves? Or was it so obvious to them that they had to manufacture a lie for the American people to buy into an invasion of Iraq?
I would say that if he had any, he probably started moving them around, say, the time the Republican party announced it's candidate for the 2000 Presidential elections. Saddam was a two-bit dictator, but I don’t necessarily think he was stupid. If George won the election, it was a sure bet we’d be in Iraq sometime during his term. 9/11 was just the goose that laid the golden egg. Add a few hints that Iraq was part of the scheme; combine that with the high degree of patriotism sweeping the nation after the attacks and it gave Bush the justification he needed. It was an open road all the way to Baghdad.
He had from 1991 to March of 2003 to move or dismantle any and all WMD's he may have had. Now, are you going to sit and tell me that Bush and his advisors were to stupid to think of that themselves? Or was it so obvious to them that they had to manufacture a lie for the American people to buy into an invasion of Iraq?
I would say that if he had any, he probably started moving them around, say, the time the Republican party announced it's candidate for the 2000 Presidential elections. Saddam was a two-bit dictator, but I don’t necessarily think he was stupid. If George won the election, it was a sure bet we’d be in Iraq sometime during his term. 9/11 was just the goose that laid the golden egg. Add a few hints that Iraq was part of the scheme; combine that with the high degree of patriotism sweeping the nation after the attacks and it gave Bush the justification he needed. It was an open road all the way to Baghdad.