PDA

View Full Version : Suckers!!!!!



rkrough
09-16-2003, 09:50 PM
Did you think we were in Iraq because Saddam had a hand in 9/11? Guess again!

ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

At a Pentagon (news - web sites) news conference, Rumsfeld was asked about a poll that indicated nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved.

"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that," Rumsfeld said.

He added: "We know he was giving $25,000 a family for anyone who would go out and kill innocent men, women and children. And we know of various other activities. But on that specific one, no, not to my knowledge."

The Bush administration has asserted that Saddam's government had links to al-Qaida, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden that masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks. And in various public statements over the past year or so administration officials have suggested close links.

Vice President Dick Cheney said on Sunday, for example, that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC's "Nightline," White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons President Bush (news - web sites) went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged."

In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in the Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.

"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied.

Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-11."

"What we have said," she added, "is that this is someone who supported terrorists, helped to train them, but most importantly that this is someone who, with his animus toward the United States, with his penchant for and capability to gain weapons of mass destruction, and his obvious willingness to use them, was a threat in this region that we were not prepared to tolerate."

Cheney said he recalled being asked about an Iraq connection to 9-11 shortly after the attacks, and he recalled saying he knew of no evidence at that point.

"Subsequent to that, we have learned a couple of things," he said. "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s; that it involved training, for example, on BW (biological warfare) and CW (chemical warfare) that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems, and involved the Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization."

LeeG
09-16-2003, 10:10 PM
OH MY GOD, THEY"VE BECOME LIBERALS!!!IS JOHN ASHCROFT THE ONLY PURE ONE LEFT?

Mrleft8
09-17-2003, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by LeeG:
OH MY GOD, THEY"VE BECOME LIBERALS!!!IS JOHN ASHCROFT THE ONLY PURE ONE LEFT?Can you say"damage control"?

stan v
09-17-2003, 08:11 AM
I see this lovefest needs a few facts. It wasn't because of any involvement with 9/11 that Damsad needed his a** kicked, it was his involvement with terrorism, as is being witnessed now in Iraq, that we went after him. Great place to start IMO. I know killing terrorists and their supporters is hard on the left, but you need to get used to this. Haven't heard of anyone else giving $25,000 to homicide bombers lately. Did hear about Saudi's and money though. These dictators will wake up soon once they know America won't crater under pressure from hand wringers. You're doing a fine job by the way.

Eric Sea Frog
09-17-2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by stan v:
It wasn't because of any involvement with 9/11 that Damsad needed his a** kicked, it was his involvement with terrorism, as is being witnessed now in Iraq, that we went after him. In Iraq? What terrorism, Stan? You're asking for facts.
There has been terrorism since the war, for sure.
But rather as a consequence of it, than a cause.
Terrorism (i.e Iraqis shooting US soldiers) may now originate both in Damsad's guerilla troops continued fighting, and in religious conflicting factions.
Was it a timely move, just when the world was facing a terrorist threat, to topple and disarm an antiterrorist dictator -however harsh he was- right in the middle of Middle East?
Wouldn't Afghanistan, where Allies, under fire, are still having so much trouble eliminating Al Qaida, a priority?
Or Pakistan, that sems to be helping Al Q. as much as fighting it?

rkrough
09-17-2003, 08:44 AM
Nice shuffle Stan, You are better at spinning their agenda than the Bush folks are. Though I suspect that many folks will view " he needed his ass kicked" as a less than compelling reason to spend close to 160 billion dollars doing just that.

Looking at Yahoo news this morning this is the second story:
Blix says Iraq probaly destroyed WMD's (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030917/ap_on_re_mi_ea/blix_iraq&cid=540&ncid=716) .

stan v
09-17-2003, 08:44 AM
Leave it to the French to ask "what terrorism".

stan v
09-17-2003, 08:46 AM
Blix has no more credibility than the French.

Mrleft8
09-17-2003, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by stan v:
Blix has no more credibility than the French.But a lot more credibility than the Texan.

oldriverat
09-17-2003, 09:09 AM
Subtle isn't it. We have an election coming up, remember?

stan v
09-17-2003, 09:17 AM
Ladies, there's nothing new in this article. We're going after those that support terrorism all over the world. In ways we may never know. Get over it. Terrorism is under attack.

martin schulz
09-17-2003, 09:36 AM
Ahh yes - by the way, since the discussions are more and more turning to:

- the Iraque-war was a war against terrorism
- the Iraque-war was a humanitarian war to get rid of Saddam Hussein
- the Iraque-war was about helping those poor Iraquis against their cruel dictator (who cared about them after Gulf war 1?).

and somehow inconspicuous to:
- Saddam tolaerated or even helped Al Quaida
- Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11

I would like to post what I posted here in April:

Watching the news I get the feeling the question of the womds always follows the same pattern.
1. somebody hysterically points out that wmds in form of white powder, amunition in schools or some sort of missiles has been found
2. the media jumps at it with almost the same depth of information " from unconfirmed sources we have heard that...white powder, amunition in schools or some sort of missiles have been found
3. the war moves on, the media gets other things to chew on
4. it has been a week since the last womd-news. The last womd-discovery has neither be confirmed nor denied.
5. back to 1

But going though that pattern again and again everybody gets the feeling that there has to be something. This will go on for a while unless there will definetely be a confirmed finding, or the war is finally won, the discussion about building up Iraq gets into focus and people eventually don't care about those womds anymore. ...by the way, where are the WOMD?

Everybody knew Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator and everybody including me was glad he was disposed. But that alone was never a proper reason to invade a country, esspecially not when there is a history of tolerating or even installing dictators in the past. So there was the "proven" fact of being threatened by Iraqui WOMD presented to the world to rightfully start a war.

...and... were are the WOMD's?

ahp
09-17-2003, 10:00 AM
Indeed so Martin. Our fearless leader had a great itch to be a war leader. He could barely hid his contempt for the UN when they asked for more time in their search for WMD's. Now we have over 100,000 troop in Iraq and we can't find any either. W is asking for more time.

LeeG
09-17-2003, 10:21 AM
oh stan oh stan,,what a wicked web we weave,,

they hate us because we're free

they're coming

across the Rio Grande

let's go to Iran

bring 'em on.

martin schulz
09-17-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by stan v:
We're going after those that support terrorism all over the world.Hmm if I recall correctly, the money earned in delivering weapons to the Iran (for a hoped for release of the embassy hostages) was spend on supporting the Terrorist Contra's (anti-Sandinista) in Niceragua.

I think you are right Stan, we, the world comunity should go after everyone that supports terrorism.

[ 09-17-2003, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: martin schulz ]

John of Phoenix
09-17-2003, 10:43 AM
Ummm... in case you hadn't heard, we're being NICE to the French and Germans these days. It seems we need their help after all. I guess they don't report things like that on the Fox channel.

mmd
09-17-2003, 10:55 AM
<whispered aside to John Teetsel> Hey, John - didya get that package from Nova Scotia yet?

John of Phoenix
09-17-2003, 11:03 AM
Just yesterday. Thanks. I'll email you tonight.

Eric Sea Frog
09-17-2003, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by John Teetsel:
Ummm... in case you hadn't heard, we're being NICE to the French and Germans these days.Too bad, we liked the short words with li**le stars in the middle...like those on the strip-teaser's nipples in The Graduate. :D

Eric Sea Frog
09-17-2003, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by stan v:
Leave it to the French to ask "what terrorism".They've been fighting terrorism for a decade, alone. (1985-1995)
They've warned the US something of that kind could happen in september 2001, but their warning went unheard.
They're been fighting terrorism -the real one- in Afghanistan from then on.
Facts.
Who cares.

stan v
09-17-2003, 06:49 PM
Looks like most of the facts involving terrorism is upsetting to the French, Germans, Canadians, and Canadian wanttobes.

OK, OK. There is NO TERRORISM.

Greg H
09-17-2003, 07:06 PM
White House denies linking Iraq to 9/11
attacks


Bush spokesman says US does not have any evidence to
suggest connection between Iraq and 9/11 attacks.


WASHINGTON - The White House on Wednesday denied ever
linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11 terrorist attacks, even
though US President George W. Bush often cited those strikes in his
case for the war in Iraq.

"We said that we don't have any evidence to suggest a connection,"
said Bush spokesman Scott McClellan, who told reporters he knew
of no instance in which the US leader explicitly tied Iraq to
al-Qaeda's devastating suicide strikes.

Bush has discussed "the importance of confronting the new threats
we face in light of September 11, the fact that September 11
brought to light the importance of going after these threats before
they come to our shores," said McClellan.

"And he has made very clear that Saddam Hussein certainly would
not be providing weapons of mass destruction to any terrorists and
that threat should be taken away," the spokesman said.

His comments came a week after a public opinion poll found that
nearly 70 percent of Americans believe that Saddam's regime,
which US-led forces toppled in April, was linked to the attacks that
prompted the global war on terrorism.

Asked how that could be, McClellan dismissively replied that he
was not a pollster and could not explain those findings, but said
Saddam had a "long history" of ties to terrorism.

On Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney told NBC television "it's
not surprising that people make that connection" and hinted at a
growing body of evidence tying Saddam's regime to Osama bin
Laden's network.

"We learn more and more that there was a relationship between
Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of
the 1990s," he said in the interview.

But Cheney added that "we don't know" whether Baghdad had
played a role in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon, which killed some 3,000 people.

During the run up to the March invasion of Iraq, Bush frequently
said the attack aimed to prevent Saddam from arming terrorists
with unconventional weapons, and accused the regime of having ties
to al-Qaeda -- though never explicitly tied the dictator to the
September 11 strikes.

Separately, McClellan said Washington stood by the other major
pillar of its case for war, saying that US-led forces would
eventually unearth weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"We stand by what we have said," he said, adding that former UN
weapons inspector David Kaye was compiling a report detailing the
"complete history" of Baghdad's alleged weapons and weapons
programs.

"He will present that information when he is ready," said the
spokesman.

Earlier, former chief UN arms inspector Hans Blix said Saddam
misled the world into believing he possessed weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) in order to ward off any attack.

"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as
they maintained, destroyed almost all of what they had in the
summer of 1991," Blix told Australian national radio.

Asked if it was likely Iraq has not had WMD for at least a decade,
he said: "Yup, that's right."

Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past.
Orwell

High C
09-17-2003, 07:19 PM
Salman Pak

rkrough
09-17-2003, 07:42 PM
"Earlier, former chief UN arms inspector Hans Blix said Saddam
misled the world into believing he possessed weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) in order to ward off any attack."

Oops I guess that didn't work! :D

[ 09-17-2003, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: rkrough ]

stan v
09-17-2003, 07:48 PM
Damsad lied, too? ;)

Greg H
09-17-2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by stan v:
Damsad lied, too? ;) So yu've accepted the fact that bush lied, eh? Yep, and Saddam lied too

stan v
09-17-2003, 08:07 PM
I was grouping Damsad with the Germans, French, NY Times, BBC, etc...that appears on another thread. Oh yea, include Reuters.

imported_Daniel
09-17-2003, 08:31 PM
Gee Stan, reading your posts for some time now, it seems to me you think the Bush admin is infallible. Is this truly what you believe? I would think an intelligent person like you would take all sides of a story in and then draw your own conclusions, rather than towing the same line over and over.

stan v
09-17-2003, 08:44 PM
I see Bush doing the job he said he would do. Unusual for a politician. I also see several of my country men have forgot 9/11.

rkrough
09-17-2003, 09:12 PM
Bush set sights on Saddam after 9/11, never looked back (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-20-bushwar-usat_x.htm)

Here is an interesting excerpt from the article
" The private dinner had been arranged at the last minute. Bush wanted to make sure Annan knew how seriously he wanted U.N. support for the showdown with Saddam that was ahead. After Bush talked about Iraq, his top priority, Annan discussed issues critical to him. High on the list was the spread of AIDS in Africa. President Clinton had focused on that issue; his successor had not.

There was no mistaking that this was a working dinner, but Bush was careful to make the setting informal, almost familial. When Annan accepted the offer of a cigar, Bush walked the expanse of the room to summon a steward to produce a lighter.

A week later, Bush offered a concrete sign of his goodwill. In the State of the Union address on Jan. 29, he unexpectedly added a plan to triple spending to deal with AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean."


That boy can multitask! he tries to bribe Kopi Annan with aid to Africa and then pays off the Christian right by funneling some of the money through them