Hate to say I told ya so...

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h1><a href=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20040616/pl_nm/security_commission_dc_7>Panel Says No Signs Iraq Aided Qaeda Plots on US</a></h1></center>


<blockquote>By Deborah Charles

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Contrary to the Bush administration's prewar rhetoric, investigators have found no evidence Iraq (news - web sites) aided al Qaeda attempts to strike the United States, a commission probing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks said on Wednesday.</blockquote>

...But I told ya so. The last tenuous shreds of credibilty possessed by the administration have just vanished like the morning mist before the rising sun.

Bush lied...Thousands died, and for no good reason.

 

[freeandfun1]

depends on one's definition of "aide". If they (Iraq) allowed AQ to hide out in Iraq, they aided. That has been proven.

Furthermore, after 9-11 the proclomation was not "those that give direct quid pro quo aide ". It was "those that harbour, give refuge, etc."

DOH!

 

[5stringJeff]

freeandfun, good point. Also overlooked by the liberals is that we are fighting a war on TERRORISM, not a war on al-Qaeda, although they are the primary enemy. Iraq is defintely guilty of conspiring with terrorists, and there are already proven connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda, even if Saddam didn't sit on the 9/11 Planning Committee.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Do we have a definition of terrorist that pertains to the new doctrine?

 

[Avatar4321]

Funny, no ones argued that Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11 so who cares if your straw man is accurate.

The fact is Iraq did have links to terrorism. We have severed those links.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
The fact is Iraq did have links to terrorism. We have severed those links.

we have? so those are just pranksters with firecrackers over there now?

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
we have? so those are just pranksters with firecrackers over there now?

Ha-ha.

Where the hell do you get your information, Avatar?:

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Ha-ha.

Where the hell do you get your information, Avatar?:

Does the Iraqi Government currently support Terrorism. yes or no?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Does the Iraqi Government currently support Terrorism. yes or no?

the current one? I dont' even remember the name of the one in charge, let alone the others.

after the general elections? who's to say.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Do we have a definition of terrorist that pertains to the new doctrine?

No special definition that I know of. What are you getting at?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
No special definition that I know of. What are you getting at?

since 9/11 it seems we've spent alot of time redefining things, like what torture is or isn't, what WMD's are or aren't, what an enemy combatant, insurgent, radical, extremist, or detainee is, and I'm just wondering if there is a definition that exists currently for what a terrorist is?

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
since 9/11 it seems we've spent alot of time redefining things, like what torture is or isn't, what WMD's are or aren't, what an enemy combatant, insurgent, radical, extremist, or detainee is, and I'm just wondering if there is a definition that exists currently for what a terrorist is?

Lately they all seem to be young muslim males who wish to kill non muslims or anyone else that they see as an enemy

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
depends on one's definition of "aide". If they (Iraq) allowed AQ to hide out in Iraq, they aided. That has been proven.

Furthermore, after 9-11 the proclomation was not "those that give direct quid pro quo aide ". It was "those that harbour, give refuge, etc."

DOH!

Just a last desperate grab at a last desperate straw...Your effort at playing semantics is laughably feeble.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
freeandfun, good point. Also overlooked by the liberals is that we are fighting a war on TERRORISM, not a war on al-Qaeda, although they are the primary enemy. Iraq is defintely guilty of conspiring with terrorists, and there are already proven connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda, even if Saddam didn't sit on the 9/11 Planning Committee.

Sorry, but Dubbyuh's last attempt to justify the war in Iraq rested upon linking Al Qaeda and Iraq. You only need to review the drumbeat for war against Iraq to see this. But the memories of DUbbyuh's supporters are conveniently blank when it comes to such details.

Face it boys and girls...Bush lied...Thousands died.

 

[Captain_Steel]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

The links between the Saddam Hussein regime and Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have already been established. They have had an operational relationship since 1990.
Was Saddam personally responsible for 9-11? No. But noone said he was. After 9-11, Bush pledged to go after any nations who sponsored terrorists. Iraq was one of the biggest partners of al Qaeda, along with Afghanistan, that is the reason for the war. Again, noone from the Bush administration ever said Saddam was directly connected to 9-11. And noone who died in this war died in vain. They died eliminating a threat to the United States in the form of a terrorist sponsoring regime. Do you object to our military actions in Afghanistan? Because it's the same deal. The Taliban were working with terrorists. So was Saddam.

 

[Annie]

Excellent piece, the first one that cites what I think is the largest issue about the Commission, "are answering a question no one asked them. They were supposed to investigate 9/11, not al Qaeda as a whole. In an election year, this makes them look partisan. "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 17, 2004 -- THE 9/11 Commission is in danger of going the way of the Warren Commission — a blue-chip panel investigating a national tragedy that foolishly ends up fueling controversy. And that's a shame.
Yesterday, the commission announced there was "no credible evidence" linking Iraq and al Qaeda. In reality, there's a wealth of evidence.

And by disputing the Iraq-al Qaeda connection, the commissioners are answering a question no one asked them. They were supposed to investigate 9/11, not al Qaeda as a whole. In an election year, this makes them look partisan.

The timing of the final report smells fishy, too: 500,000 copies are due in book stores on July 26 — the very day the Democratic convention begins in Boston. Again, not a credibility-enhancing move.

MORE

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Such a cute little riddle Bully, did you come up with that all by yourself? I doubt it!

Clinton was too busy playing with a cigar, let Bin laden stay afar.
Bully forgotten that important part, now he must act like it was Bush from the start.
Like a fool Bully comes to this board, with lack of a tool he must lie once more. within your posts you lack brains and class, once again you show your an ass!!!

You're a poet and we know it
:rotflmao:

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Such a cute little riddle Bully, did you come up with that all by yourself? I doubt it!

Clinton was too busy playing with a cigar, let Bin laden stay afar.
Bully forgotten that important part, now he must act like it was Bush from the start.
Like a fool Bully comes to this board, with lack of a tool he must lie once more. within your posts you lack brains and class, once again you show your an ass!!!

Ad hominem attacks, with doggerel at that.

Just can't bear to see Dubbyuh's house of cards come crashing down...Can you?

 

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h2><a href=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-cheney-terrorism,1,3411931,print.story>Cheney Claims al-Qaida Linked to Saddam</a></h2></center>

<blockquote>By MIKE SCHNEIDER
Associated Press Writer

June 15, 2004, 10:19 AM CDT

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Saddam Hussein had "long-established ties" with al Qaida, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers.</blockquote>

Time changes all things...And such a short time indeed. It seems like only yesterday that Dubbyuh and that jolly band of neocons were gleefully chortling about how tight Saddam and Osama were.

But wait, it was only yesterday...And the tissue of Administration lies has vanished in a puff of smoke.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Sorry, but Dubbyuh's last attempt to justify the war in Iraq rested upon linking Al Qaeda and Iraq. You only need to review the drumbeat for war against Iraq to see this. But the memories of DUbbyuh's supporters are conveniently blank when it comes to such details.

Face it boys and girls...Bush lied...Thousands died.

Um hello! Al Queda aint the only terrorist organization out there. I know you dont like thinking about this but its a fact. not only that this is only saying Iraq had nothing to do with 911. which of course no one has really argued. the link between Saddam and Al Queda has been established. Continually saying it doesnt exist isnt going to change that.