It's about time it was said

[maineman]

from that link:

"A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that there was no evidence Saddam's government was involved or even aware of this medical treatment, and found no conclusive evidence the regime had harbored Zarqawi. A US official told Reuters that the report was a mix of new information and a look at some older information and did not make any final judgments or come to any definitive conclusions. "To suggest the case is closed on this would not be correct," the official said."[84] A US official familiar with the report told Knight-Ridder that "what is indisputable is that Zarqawi was operating out of Baghdad and was involved in a lot of bad activities." Another U.S. official summarized the report as such: "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything."

 

[Ozmar]

we borrowed the money to run bush's pretend war of choice...

which led to our economic meltdown...

i think the president was more than nice to his predecessor.

So basically it's Bush's fault. Oh wait! Obama can't blame Bush anymore... the conservatives don't like it...

 

[asterism]

THEY sure didn't GO into Iraq, that is for damned sure. The "AQ in Iraq" group was just an offshoot franchise operation that only came about AFTER we invaded.

That's not true. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi relocated to Iraq after US forces routed his camp in Afghanistan before the invasion of Iraq. He joined other elements of Afghanistan militants there. We all know how that worked out.

Zarqawi was not a member of AQ originally, and he only affiliated with AQ, in a franchise sort of relationship, after our invasion of Iraq.

That's false. He was an Al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan.

 

[asterism]

Zarqawi was not a member of AQ originally, and he only affiliated with AQ, in a franchise sort of relationship, after our invasion of Iraq.

then why was he INJURED IN AFGHANISTAN??????

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that should answer your question

From your own source:

In 1989, Zarqawi traveled to Afghanistan to join the insurgency against the Soviet invasion, but the Soviets were already leaving by the time he arrived.[7] There he met and befriended Osama bin Laden. Instead of fighting, he became a reporter for an Islamist newsletter.[8] There are reports that in the mid-1990s, Zarqawi traveled to Europe and started the al-Tawhid paramilitary organization, a group dedicated to installing an Islamic regime in Jordan.
Zarqawi was arrested in Jordan in 1992, and spent five years in a Jordanian prison for conspiring to overthrow the monarchy to establish an Islamic caliphate.[7] He was arrested for possessing explosives. While in prison, he attempted to draft his cell mates into joining him to overthrow the rulers of Jordan. "You were either with them or against them. There was no gray area," a former prison mate told Time magazine in 2004. Zarqawi became a feared leader among inmates there. In prison he met and befriended Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein, who later published a book on Zarqawi.
Upon his release from prison in 1999, Zarqawi was involved in an attempt to blow up the Radisson Hotel in Amman, where many Israeli and American tourists lodged.[9] He fled Jordan and traveled to Peshawar, Pakistan, near the Afghanistan border. In Afghanistan, Zarqawi established a militant training camp near Herat, near the Iranian border.[10] The training camp specialized in poisons and explosives.[11] Zarqawi met with Saif al-Adel and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan,[9] and explained he intended to set up his own training camp in Herat for Jordanian militants.[12][9]


What about this makes you think he wasn't part of Al Qaeda?

 

[asterism]

from that link:

"A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that there was no evidence Saddam's government was involved or even aware of this medical treatment, and found no conclusive evidence the regime had harbored Zarqawi. A US official told Reuters that the report was a mix of new information and a look at some older information and did not make any final judgments or come to any definitive conclusions. "To suggest the case is closed on this would not be correct," the official said."[84] A US official familiar with the report told Knight-Ridder that "what is indisputable is that Zarqawi was operating out of Baghdad and was involved in a lot of bad activities." Another U.S. official summarized the report as such: "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything."

That doesn't negate who Zarqawi was (al Qaeda) where he was before we invaded Afghanistan (Afghanistan) and where he went after his camp was routed (Iraq) before we invaded Iraq. It doesn't matter if Saddam harbored him or simply couldn't stop al Qaeda from setting up a base of operations there. The results would have been the same, Al Qaeda in Iraq.

We fought Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and followed them to Iraq. What's so difficult to understand about that?

 

[hortysir]

from that link:

"A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that there was no evidence Saddam's government was involved or even aware of this medical treatment, and found no conclusive evidence the regime had harbored Zarqawi. A US official told Reuters that the report was a mix of new information and a look at some older information and did not make any final judgments or come to any definitive conclusions. "To suggest the case is closed on this would not be correct," the official said."[84] A US official familiar with the report told Knight-Ridder that "what is indisputable is that Zarqawi was operating out of Baghdad and was involved in a lot of bad activities." Another U.S. official summarized the report as such: "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything."

WADR, Commander, I can't take the word of a CIA report when a good portion of these assholes we're "fighting" are on their payroll.

 

[maineman]

from that link:

"A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that there was no evidence Saddam's government was involved or even aware of this medical treatment, and found no conclusive evidence the regime had harbored Zarqawi. A US official told Reuters that the report was a mix of new information and a look at some older information and did not make any final judgments or come to any definitive conclusions. "To suggest the case is closed on this would not be correct," the official said."[84] A US official familiar with the report told Knight-Ridder that "what is indisputable is that Zarqawi was operating out of Baghdad and was involved in a lot of bad activities." Another U.S. official summarized the report as such: "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything."

That doesn't negate who Zarqawi was (al Qaeda) where he was before we invaded Afghanistan (Afghanistan) and where he went after his camp was routed (Iraq) before we invaded Iraq. It doesn't matter if Saddam harbored him or simply couldn't stop al Qaeda from setting up a base of operations there. The results would have been the same, Al Qaeda in Iraq.

We fought Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and followed them to Iraq. What's so difficult to understand about that?

except you got your timing wrong. Zarqawi was NOT part of AQ until AFTER he came to Iraq and until AFTER we invaded. AQ in Iraq was a home grown group of Iraqis angry at the US for invading their country, and Zarqawi became their leader.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Using soldiers to fight a war. How exactly is that misusing them?

You've been so effectively indoctrinated in right-wing, pro-Bush propaganda that you can't shake loose the implanted deception well enough to realize the difference between your country being at war and your government conducting an illegal invasion of a non-threatening, militarily defenseless nation.

As I previously suggested, you're probably too young to remember when your country was at war, which was back in 1941, so you have trouble understanding the difference. I can tell you this about it: when my father, who had two infant sons, learned that his country was at war he and his brother went straight to the Washington Street Post Office in Broooklyn and enlisted in the Army -- as did the majority of able-bodied American men.

So I have this question: How old are you? Are you fit for military service? If so, and if you believe your country was at war, did you sign up? If not, why not?

Prove that either confict was unlawful. Then sue somebody!

While I am certain of it beyond any reasonable doubt I can't prove it in court because my government is too corrupt to investigate the crimes of the Bush Administration and make the evidence available. And the reason for this is half of the population consists of ignorant right-wing dupes who don't know the difference between war and war crimes.

N'est pas?

Illegal invasion? Damn dude that koolaid is going straight to your head. I suggest you change your diet.

You can't prove any of the idiotic claims you make so you build a strawman argument. Classic liberal ploy.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I understand your mentally challenged and all and I really hate to take advantage of that fact. But huh... there were WMDS found in Iraq back in '03 and '04. I posted the links once already. Here's a website I believe you idiots use, so I'll use it.

Saddam's WMD have been found. New evidence unveils chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic arms.

WorldNet Daily? Please. That is a known right-wing propaganda rag.

Here is the truth, right from the horse's mouth, i.e., Hans Blix, citizen of neutral Sweden, responsible, honorable and respected Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector assigned to Iraq. Read what he had to say about it. Former UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal

You really should stop wiggling on the hook. It is a well-established fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And if you just can't stand finding out that you've been duped and insist on holding fast in this faded deception, ask yourself this question:

If Saddam Hussein had these monstrous weapons why didn't he use them on the forces who attacked him? After all, what are weapons for?

Do you suppose he chose not to use them because he didn't want to make us angry?

Blix is certainly entitled to his opinion and that just what it is an opinion. Saddam refused to allow the inspectors to do their job and they were ordered out by the UN in '98. So Blix didn't know with any degree of certainty that no WMDs existed. Enough weapons were found that showed Saddam wasn't as innocent as you seem to paint him.

 

[maineman]

I understand your mentally challenged and all and I really hate to take advantage of that fact. But huh... there were WMDS found in Iraq back in '03 and '04. I posted the links once already. Here's a website I believe you idiots use, so I'll use it.

Saddam's WMD have been found. New evidence unveils chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic arms.

WorldNet Daily? Please. That is a known right-wing propaganda rag.

Here is the truth, right from the horse's mouth, i.e., Hans Blix, citizen of neutral Sweden, responsible, honorable and respected Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector assigned to Iraq. Read what he had to say about it. Former UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal

You really should stop wiggling on the hook. It is a well-established fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And if you just can't stand finding out that you've been duped and insist on holding fast in this faded deception, ask yourself this question:

If Saddam Hussein had these monstrous weapons why didn't he use them on the forces who attacked him? After all, what are weapons for?

Do you suppose he chose not to use them because he didn't want to make us angry?

Blix is certainly entitled to his opinion and that just what it is an opinion. Saddam refused to allow the inspectors to do their job and they were ordered out by the UN in '98. So Blix didn't know with any degree of certainty that no WMDs existed. Enough weapons were found that showed Saddam wasn't as innocent as you seem to paint him.

you do recall that Bush scored a major foreign policy victory by getting Saddam to let Blix back IN in November of 2002. If we had let him do his job, he would have found out what we have since found out... that Saddam didn't have any dangerous stockpiles of WMD's.... thirty year old chemical cannisters are no more "weapons of mass destruction" than a bottle of clorox.

 

[SFC Ollie]

And it doesn't bother anyone that Saddam retained the capabilities of rebuilding his "stockpiles" within months?

 

[rightwinger]

And it doesn't bother anyone that Saddam retained the capabilities of rebuilding his "stockpiles" within months?

Saddam was fully contained and was a threat to nobody. He had WMDs during Dessert Storm but knew better than to try to use them.

He also knew enough to get rid of the stuff he had in stock. Bush's "Slam Dunk" embarassed the US in front of the whole world

He invaded Iraq on the assumption he would find something....ANYTHING he could pin on Saddam. Instead, he ended up with his pants around his ankles

 

[DiveCon]

And it doesn't bother anyone that Saddam retained the capabilities of rebuilding his "stockpiles" within months?

Saddam was fully contained and was a threat to nobody. He had WMDs during Dessert Storm but knew better than to try to use them.

He also knew enough to get rid of the stuff he had in stock. Bush's "Slam Dunk" embarassed the US in front of the whole world

He invaded Iraq on the assumption he would find something....ANYTHING he could pin on Saddam. Instead, he ended up with his pants around his ankles

contained????

by sanctions that were about to expire
LOL

 

[antagon]

do those defending our invasion of iraq with hundreds of thousands of ours and our allies troops still feel that the invasion served its purpose and was worth it as executed?

 

[SFC Ollie]

do those defending our invasion of iraq with hundreds of thousands of ours and our allies troops still feel that the invasion served its purpose and was worth it as executed?

The war, yes. The peace, No.

 

[Againsheila]

we borrowed the money to run bush's pretend war of choice...

which led to our economic meltdown...

i think the president was more than nice to his predecessor.

Obama campaigned for the 2 bailouts.......which led to our economic meltdown.....

I'm so sick of the Obama worshipers, and the Bush worshipers...people who think their candidate can do no wrong when the truth is that America has been sold out by both the democrats and the republicans.

 

[DiveCon]

we borrowed the money to run bush's pretend war of choice...

which led to our economic meltdown...

i think the president was more than nice to his predecessor.

Obama campaigned for the 2 bailouts.......which led to our economic meltdown.....

I'm so sick of the Obama worshipers, and the Bush worshipers...people who think their candidate can do no wrong when the truth is that America has been sold out by both the democrats and the republicans.

shush, you aint supposed to know that
LOL

 

[antagon]

do those defending our invasion of iraq with hundreds of thousands of ours and our allies troops still feel that the invasion served its purpose and was worth it as executed?

The war, yes. The peace, No.

what 'peace'?

 

[antagon]

Obama campaigned for the 2 bailouts.......which led to our economic meltdown.....

this statement makes you an imbecile.

 

[DiveCon]

Obama campaigned for the 2 bailouts.......which led to our economic meltdown.....

this statement makes you an imbecile.

no, it makes her correct