Al Qaeda Was In Iarq BEFORE The War

[Superlative]

Such flimsy evidence like this MM?


“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources—something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.”—Madeline Albright, 1998

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983”—National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.”—Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

We have gone through this before, and you are still clinging to these for your life, because you are too ignorant to let useless information go.

EVERYONE of your Democratic quotes, says, and always has said that the Dems fear Saddam will one day have WMD's, which he very well may have accomplished, if EVERYONE in the world ignored him for 5 years.

The Dems said the same thing as Bush, because Bush scared the US into believing everything he said.

He used propaganda, and everyone ate it up like ice cream covered shit.

 

[CSM]

...

He used propaganda, and everyone ate it up like ice cream covered shit.

just goes to show how stupid everyone else is compared to the President!

 

[Annie]

just goes to show how stupid everyone else is compared to the President!

Not to mention that most of those democrat quotes are from when Clinton asked to be able to attack Iraq. *sigh*

Then there was the information provided by the CIA to both intelligence committees and the administration.

 

[maineman]

I personally see a HUGE difference in targeted air strikes against high value targets undertaken by a squadron of aircraft relatively invulnerable to the primative AA systems of Saddam's Iraq - as planned and occasionally accomplished by Clinton.... and the massive ground invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq.

Comparing the two is like saying that buying a $2 powerball ticket is the same thing as putting your house down as collateral on a longshot entry in a horserace.

 

[Annie]

I personally see a HUGE difference in targeted air strikes against high value targets undertaken by a squadron of aircraft relatively invulnerable to the primative AA systems of Saddam's Iraq - as planned and occasionally accomplished by Clinton.... and the massive ground invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq.

Comparing the two is like saying that buying a $2 powerball ticket is the same thing as putting your house down as collateral on a longshot entry in a horserace.

And so did Congress, prior to 9/11. That DOESN"T mean Iraq had a connection to 9/11, rather the paradigm of how to address terrorist states/proponents of such, changed.

 

[T-Bor]

Why is it that when you find ONE article you state is FACT.....But I am sure we could post an article that says differently. Which you will NOT say is fact. You are such a tool. You find one article and always claim it as FACT...ALWAYS...

What in your article is FACTUAL RSR ?? What do you believe is in your article that is no way shape or form can be dis-proven??

And don't provide your typical runaway answers...Like...Libs avoid facts like a vampire BS...That's your way of avoidance.

Once again, the myth that the left is the party open mindedness is debunked

 

[maineman]

And so did Congress, prior to 9/11. That DOESN"T mean Iraq had a connection to 9/11, rather the paradigm of how to address terrorist states/proponents of such, changed.

and after 9/11, even though the paradigm shifted, the congress got it wrong. We should not, nor should we EVER have been in Iraq. I fervently believed that BEFORE we invaded and everything I predicted - which was denounced by republicans as foolish doom and gloom - has come to pass to the detriment of the US.

We are poorer, fewer, nowhere near any safer, and way more despised around the world because of this mistake.....

and when the majority of democrats in congress were voting against the war, congressional republicans were making a big deal about THEM and how they were on the wrong side of history...but now that it has turned into the bucket of shit that I predicted it would from the start, republicans can't stop reminding us of the minority of congressional democrats who were cowed into voting with them. Don't you find that interesting?

 

[Annie]

and after 9/11, even though the paradigm shifted, the congress got it wrong. We should not, nor should we EVER have been in Iraq. I fervently believed that BEFORE we invaded and everything I predicted - which was denounced by republicans as foolish doom and gloom - has come to pass to the detriment of the US.

We are poorer, fewer, nowhere near any safer, and way more despised around the world because of this mistake.....

and when the majority of democrats in congress were voting against the war, congressional republicans were making a big deal about THEM and how they were on the wrong side of history...but now that it has turned into the bucket of shit that I predicted it would from the start, republicans can't stop reminding us of the minority of congressional democrats who were cowed into voting with them. Don't you find that interesting?

All of which may be true, it doesn't change the facts that it wasn't the administration alone that made the decision.

 

[maineman]

All of which may be true, it doesn't change the facts that it wasn't the administration alone that made the decision.

[cough cough bullshit! cough cough]

the administration ABSOLUTELY made the decision alone.

The AUTHORIZATION to make that decision was given to the president by an overwhelming majority of republicans in congress joined by a minority of democrats in congress, but make no mistake about it...the decision TO go to war and WHEN to go to war was made by the Bush administration ALL BY THEMSELVES.

 

[Annie]

[cough cough bullshit! cough cough]

the administration ABSOLUTELY made the decision alone.

The AUTHORIZATION to make that decision was given to the president by an overwhelming majority of republicans in congress joined by a minority of democrats in congress, but make no mistake about it...the decision TO go to war and WHEN to go to war was made by the Bush administration ALL BY THEMSELVES.

I expressed myself wrong, I'm sorry. Yes they made the decision, but not without input, advice, and consent.

 

[maineman]

input: not a lot of democrats were giving Bush input to go to war.... they voted for it because they caved in under the pressure from Team Bush that painted them as traitors and cowards and weak on terrorism if they DIDN'T.


advice: I think the "advice" that Bush received from Democrats as documented in the floor speeches that preceded the vote to authorize force was pretty unanimous in its urging for him to use force as an absolute LAST resort, to let diplomatic efforts run their course, to get the backing of the UNSC, and to LET THE UN INSPECTORS CONTINUE their work and come to a conclusion before deciding to take military action.

consent: as stated. a minority of democrats caved in for political reasons. I think that, for each and every democrat that voted for the war, I will always consider that single vote as the most irresponsible and cowardly thing any of them have ever done while in public office.

 

[Annie]

input: not a lot of democrats were giving Bush input to go to war.... they voted for it because they caved in under the pressure from Team Bush that painted them as traitors and cowards and weak on terrorism if they DIDN'T.


advice: I think the "advice" that Bush received from Democrats as documented in the floor speeches that preceded the vote to authorize force was pretty unanimous in its urging for him to use force as an absolute LAST resort, to let diplomatic efforts run their course, to get the backing of the UNSC, and to LET THE UN INSPECTORS CONTINUE their work and come to a conclusion before deciding to take military action.

consent: as stated. a minority of democrats caved in for political reasons. I think that, for each and every democrat that voted for the war, I will always consider that single vote as the most irresponsible and cowardly thing any of them have ever done while in public office.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/iraq_10-03.html

Seems to me they were all trying to act in the best interests of the country.

 

[maineman]

so were the MAJORITY of DEMOCRATS who voted against it.

that has been my point all along: I think the vote was stupid..for whatever reason anyone of them used to justify it, it was stupid. That is MY opinion. And I have always had the best interest of MY country in mind.

Democrats wanted Bush to use the resolution to go to war as a last resort. Democrats wanted Bush to let the UN inspectors do their jobs. Democrats wanted the adminstration to work hard to achieve UNSC agreement. Bush did NOT use war as a last resort, but nearly the first. Bush asked the inspectors to leave before they had finished their job specifically so that he COULD use war as a first resort. Bush made a half hearted attempt at best to convince the UNSC that invading immediately made any sense. He promised us a vote...he promised us he would count heads in the UNSC, but then he backed down... said "fuck it" to the UNSC, gathered together Tony Blair and the rest of the "coalition of the billing" and invaded anyway.

 

[Annie]

so were the MAJORITY of DEMOCRATS who voted against it.

that has been my point all along: I think the vote was stupid..for whatever reason anyone of them used to justify it, it was stupid. That is MY opinion. And I have always had the best interest of MY country in mind.

Democrats wanted Bush to use the resolution to go to war as a last resort. Democrats wanted Bush to let the UN inspectors do their jobs. Democrats wanted the adminstration to work hard to achieve UNSC agreement. Bush did NOT use war as a last resort, but nearly the first. Bush asked the inspectors to leave before they had finished their job specifically so that he COULD use war as a first resort. Bush made a half hearted attempt at best to convince the UNSC that invading immediately made any sense. He promised us a vote...he promised us he would count heads in the UNSC, but then he backed down... said "fuck it" to the UNSC, gathered together Tony Blair and the rest of the "coalition of the billing" and invaded anyway.

wooh, simmer down. You know I wouldn't imply you didn't have the best interests at heart, nor do I think the other side was all for going and killing all the innocents they could find.

I do think it's way past time to throw around insinuations or accusations that there are evil intentions on either side. As for the UN, I think a combination of machinations, including the problems with finances, added to the whole problem configuration, yet we never hear that from either side.

 

[maineman]

I am sure that those democrats who voted for the use of force were guided by the country's best interest..along with their own politically motivated enlightened self interest. As I said, I fault them for taking their own political futures into consideration when voting on a resolution that could ultimately put troops in harm's way. I believe that those democrats who voted for the war were hoping against hope that Bush would NOT go immediately to battle, but would, instead, let the inspectors work and all the other points I made above... the ones who voted against it did not similarly delude themselves.

 

[Shogun]

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During Groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

 

[actsnoblemartin]

No, I don't. He (she, it) cites sources which provide no documentation to back up their claims...and that's not kosher. If Worldnet has these purported documents, they need to post them. If not they're just another tool of the right-wing noise machine.

what kind of documentation?

 

[maineman]

what kind of documentation?

do you think that those names and stories of Iraqis collaborating with AQ just mysteriously appeared on tablets like the Book of Mormon?

 

[Creek_George]

One of the main talking points of the anti war left was how Saddam had no ties to Al Qaida

]

I remember you said not long ago..the surge is working etc..

Any neighborhood in the U.S..and you pushing your shopping cart down the street selling this propoganda..might tar & feather your arse.

Saddam had NO terrorist cells there..anywhere close in terms of Al Qaida...I do admit I should have proof of text..a news source supporting my claims...

Go back to the WMD story bro...You'll fool more American Voters that way....

I suppose your next therory is the Kurds had something to do with 911...

 

[Psychoblues]

You never responded to my observation, rsr. Al Queda Was In Boston (and all over the United States as well) prior to 9/11.

BP has that standard repsonse ready everytime the facts gets in the way

And to make matters worse, it appears their activities from on or about Jan. 20, 2001 untill Sept, 11, 2001 were heavily accelerated and thusly ignored by the lil' shrub bunch despite repeated warnings from the previous administration and even the warnings of his own administration.

But, those are facts that totally fuck you up as they did the CIC and are better left alone or continued to be portrayed as unpatriotic or somehow disrespectful to hold. The onus is on you at this point.

This old vet ain't forgetting it.