Obama has an epiphany. Finally admits we are at war.

[CurveLight]

I think the point is to say the US isn't the only place on earth where humans live and that priorities are a bit fucked up.

A bit off topic souldn't you say?

He's countering the OP argument by saying the WOT is Nationally off topic.

 

[Liability]

Fear is your Master.

Zzzz. You've already trotted out that lie and had it *****-slapped down for the lie it is --on more than one prior occasion.

Ignorantly and stupidly repeating your dishonest rhetorical nonsense -- after having had it refuted -- only underscores how dishonest and utterly ineffectual you are, bent tight.

Stupidity and dishonesty are your masters.

Fear is your Master.

Untrue, as you know. Dishonesty and stupidity remain your masters, however.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

He's countering the OP argument by saying the WOT is Nationally off topic.

REALLY? Wow.... I guess this explains a lot.

 

[CurveLight]

He's countering the OP argument by saying the WOT is Nationally off topic.

REALLY? Wow.... I guess this explains a lot.

You could share with us in this thread about your safety plans in the event of a terrorist attack.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/101043-after-8-years-tarp-updates.html

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You could share with us in this thread about your safety plans in the event of a terrorist attack

Perhaps I could share with you my plans for the weekend? Would be just as relavant to a thread about Obama's late epiphany regarding something he declared didn't exist.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Buh Bye.

 

[CurveLight]

You could share with us in this thread about your safety plans in the event of a terrorist attack

Perhaps I could share with you my plans for the weekend? Would be just as relavant to a thread about Obama's late epiphany regarding something he declared didn't exist.

Like it or not, you just helped show why the WOT is nationally off topic. Thank you.

 

[Liability]

You could share with us in this thread about your safety plans in the event of a terrorist attack

Perhaps I could share with you my plans for the weekend? Would be just as relavant to a thread about Obama's late epiphany regarding something he declared didn't exist.

Like it or not, you just helped show why the WOT is nationally off topic. Thank you.

Untrue. No such thing was "shown" via Soggy's post.

Really, bent tight, you flaming idiot, you need to just stop lying.

The so-called War on Terror is and should be a topic of national discussion.

You feeble-minded idiots who would prefer to stick your collective head in the sand, are far too stupid and delusional (and in your case, dishonest) to engage in any such discussion however.

What Soggy pointed out (quite correctly) is that your retarded question was absurd and off-topic for this thread.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

and there was a relationship between the 2....but it didn't amount to anything OPERATIONAL...you got that?

I think you got accidentally dropped on your ******* head...only an idiot can't see that there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraqi intel services...it's CLEARLY STATED IN THE REPORT...so...what's your next excuse for being a complete and utter failure at anything you've ever attempted?

The Pentagon report stated point blank there were no "direct connections" between iraq and alkida. But it's interesting to see you flip flop several times. Also seems pretty convenient to ignore the fact both bush and cheney stated there was a relationship between the two. You just said they never made that claim. It looks like you really have no idea what you are talking about so every time someone provides you with facts your response is to alter your claims but you fail to avoid self contradiction, denial, and hypocrisy.

Once again your complete stupidity and dishonesty is on display for all to see.

Iraq and terrorism go back decades.... But what I want to bring to your attention
today is the potentially more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda
terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and
modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed
by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden
and his Al Qaeda lieutenants. Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin
Laden was based in Sudan, an Al Qaeda source tells us that Saddam and bin
Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaeda would no longer support
activities against Baghdad.... We know members of both organizations met
repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early
1990s.... Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan [after bin Laden moved there in mid-1996].... From the late 1990s until 2001, the
Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaeda organization

This liason did not result in an OPERATIONAL RELATIONSHIP BUT THEY DID HAVE CONTACT.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL32217.pdf

 

[CurveLight]

Perhaps I could share with you my plans for the weekend? Would be just as relavant to a thread about Obama's late epiphany regarding something he declared didn't exist.

Like it or not, you just helped show why the WOT is nationally off topic. Thank you.

Untrue. No such thing was "shown" via Soggy's post.

Really, bent tight, you flaming idiot, you need to just stop lying.

The so-called War on Terror is and should be a topic of national discussion.

You feeble-minded idiots who would prefer to stick your collective head in the sand, are far too stupid and delusional (and in your case, dishonest) to engage in any such discussion however.

What Soggy pointed out (quite correctly) is that your retarded question was absurd and off-topic for this thread.

I guess you must have •accidently• overlooked the fact I offered her to respond to the question in a DIFFERENT thread:

You could share with us in this thread about your safety plans in the event of a terrorist attack.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/101043-after-8-years-tarp-updates.html

I agreed it was off topic and that is why I gave the chance to respond in a thread where it would be on topic. But thanks for the late advice.

 

[CurveLight]

and there was a relationship between the 2....but it didn't amount to anything OPERATIONAL...you got that?

I think you got accidentally dropped on your ******* head...only an idiot can't see that there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraqi intel services...it's CLEARLY STATED IN THE REPORT...so...what's your next excuse for being a complete and utter failure at anything you've ever attempted?

The Pentagon report stated point blank there were no "direct connections" between iraq and alkida. But it's interesting to see you flip flop several times. Also seems pretty convenient to ignore the fact both bush and cheney stated there was a relationship between the two. You just said they never made that claim. It looks like you really have no idea what you are talking about so every time someone provides you with facts your response is to alter your claims but you fail to avoid self contradiction, denial, and hypocrisy.

Once again your complete stupidity and dishonesty is on display for all to see.

Iraq and terrorism go back decades.... But what I want to bring to your attention
today is the potentially more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda
terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and
modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed
by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden
and his Al Qaeda lieutenants. Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin
Laden was based in Sudan, an Al Qaeda source tells us that Saddam and bin
Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaeda would no longer support
activities against Baghdad.... We know members of both organizations met
repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early
1990s.... Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan [after bin Laden moved there in mid-1996].... From the late 1990s until 2001, the
Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaeda organization

This liason did not result in an OPERATIONAL RELATIONSHIP BUT THEY DID HAVE CONTACT.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL32217.pdf

You seem to be having trouble keeping up. Nobody ever claimed there was never any contact. What was pointed out is there was never a relationship. So let's see....so far you have falsely accused me of claiming there was a relationship and that I had to wait for the Pent Report to say there was none. Then you flip flop your position when you realize you were actually arguing a position opposite your normal neocon crowd, then you try to completely change the claims. Wow.

 

[Liability]

Like it or not, you just helped show why the WOT is nationally off topic. Thank you.

Untrue. No such thing was "shown" via Soggy's post.

Really, bent tight, you flaming idiot, you need to just stop lying.

The so-called War on Terror is and should be a topic of national discussion.

You feeble-minded idiots who would prefer to stick your collective head in the sand, are far too stupid and delusional (and in your case, dishonest) to engage in any such discussion however.

What Soggy pointed out (quite correctly) is that your retarded question was absurd and off-topic for this thread.

I guess you must have •accidently• overlooked the fact I offered her to respond to the question in a DIFFERENT thread:

You could share with us in this thread about your safety plans in the event of a terrorist attack.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/101043-after-8-years-tarp-updates.html

I agreed it was off topic and that is why I gave the chance to respond in a thread where it would be on topic. But thanks for the late advice.

It was still off topic in THIS thread, which is where you extended the invitation.

I guess you just have no hope of ever grasping how transparently phony you are to everyone.

No need to thank me. I enjoy exposing your endless and bountiful fraudulence.

I wonder what your posts might say if you ever chose to post honestly?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The Pentagon report stated point blank there were no "direct connections" between iraq and alkida. But it's interesting to see you flip flop several times. Also seems pretty convenient to ignore the fact both bush and cheney stated there was a relationship between the two. You just said they never made that claim. It looks like you really have no idea what you are talking about so every time someone provides you with facts your response is to alter your claims but you fail to avoid self contradiction, denial, and hypocrisy.

Once again your complete stupidity and dishonesty is on display for all to see.

Iraq and terrorism go back decades.... But what I want to bring to your attention
today is the potentially more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda
terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and
modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed
by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden
and his Al Qaeda lieutenants. Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin
Laden was based in Sudan, an Al Qaeda source tells us that Saddam and bin
Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaeda would no longer support
activities against Baghdad.... We know members of both organizations met
repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early
1990s.... Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan [after bin Laden moved there in mid-1996].... From the late 1990s until 2001, the
Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaeda organization

This liason did not result in an OPERATIONAL RELATIONSHIP BUT THEY DID HAVE CONTACT.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL32217.pdf

You seem to be having trouble keeping up. Nobody ever claimed there was never any contact. What was pointed out is there was never a relationship. So let's see....so far you have falsely accused me of claiming there was a relationship and that I had to wait for the Pent Report to say there was none. Then you flip flop your position when you realize you were actually arguing a position opposite your normal neocon crowd, then you try to completely change the claims. Wow.

YOU ******* LYING SACK OF SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You're busted dickhead!!!!!!

First you say there is no link!!!! Now you admit there is a link!!!!!!

YOU are a ******* dumb ass bullshit artist and now EVERYONE KNOWS IT!!!

CurveLight: What are you talking about? I just explained I always knew there was no link between iraq and alkida.

CurveLight: How does your punk whiny ass ignore the Pentagon report that points out no link between Iraq and alkida?

You are the prime example of why everyone thinks LIBERALS ARE ******* STUPID. You just can't seem to get your story straight and stay on point like a good little DailyKOS fucktard!!!!!

 

[CMike]

and there was a relationship between the 2....but it didn't amount to anything OPERATIONAL...you got that?

I think you got accidentally dropped on your ******* head...only an idiot can't see that there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraqi intel services...it's CLEARLY STATED IN THE REPORT...so...what's your next excuse for being a complete and utter failure at anything you've ever attempted?

Neither the 9/11 Commission nor the Duelfer Report nor the Bush administration nor any other investigative group has tried to link Saddam to 9/11. But while all agreed there was communication between al Qaeda and Saddam over the years, the problem with Saddam was other terrorist activity and threats. Almost every leader in the free world, the entire UN, the entire US Congress, and the entire Clinton and Bush Administrations, and the UN inspectors all believed Saddam had WMD and was capable of using them. All were not in agreement about what to do about it, but they believed he had them. And it was THAT which made Saddam a target for the War on Terror. 9/11 was the push that got it done.

Otherwise we would still probably be getting shot at in the no fly zone, the sanctions would be in place, and 50,000 more Iraqis, mostly children, would die of malnutrition and/or lack of medical supplies while Saddam and his cronies continued to pay off their buddies and enrich themselves with the Oil for Food money.

What is that supposed to mean? There were "communications" between iraq and alkida? There is ample evidence there was no relationship at all so is this rhetoric to try and keep suggesting some sort of connection to help justify the invasion? Also, Cheney clearly tried to suggest the possibility Iraq had some role in 9/11 by saying intel from a Chech agency suggested it but nobody could confirm nor deny its accuracy.

Then you make up fantasies about agreement on WMD? Are you still living in 2002? Our top CIA covert chief in europe told the Bush admin back in August 02' there was no reliable intel saddam had wmd and the yellowcake crap was garbage too. UN inspectors as far back as 98' said Saddam didn't have wmd. In March 03 Blix said there was no evidence wmd. Where do you people dream up these fantasies?


Then you complain about the NFZ? That was not legal as it was imposed mainly by the US and outside all UN sanctions. You people should be made to take classes on this issue before being allowed to post. (okay, not really, but the ignorance is scary.)

Iraqi drone 'could drop chemicals on troops' - Times Online

Iraqi drone 'could drop chemicals on troops'
From James Bone in New York

A REPORT declassified by the United Nations yesterday contained a hidden bombshell with the revelation that inspectors have recently discovered an undeclared Iraqi drone with a wingspan of 7.45m, suggesting an illegal range that could threaten Iraq’s neighbours with chemical and biological weapons.
US officials were outraged that Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, did not inform the Security Council about the drone, or remotely piloted vehicle, in his oral presentation to Foreign Ministers and tried to bury it in a 173-page single-spaced report distributed later in the day. The omission raised serious questions about Dr Blix’s objectivity.

“Recent inspections have also revealed the existence of a drone with a wingspan of 7.45m that has not been declared by Iraq,” the report said. “Officials at the inspection site stated that the drone had been test-flown. Further investigation is required to establish the actual specifications and capabilities of these RPV drones . . . (they) are restricted by the same UN rules as missiles, which limit their range to 150km (92.6 miles).

Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, told the Security Council in February that Washington had evidence that Iraq had test-flown a drone in a race-track pattern for 500km non-stop.

In another section of the declassified report, the inspectors give warning that Iraq still has spraying devices and drop tanks that could be used in dispersing chemical and biological agents from aircraft. “A large number of drop tanks of various types, both imported and locally manufactured, are available and could be modified,” it says.

The paper, obtained by The Times, details the possible chemical and biological arsenal that British and US Forces could face in an invasion of Iraq. The paper suggests that Iraq has huge stockpiles of anthrax, may be developing long-range missiles and could possess chemical and biological R400 aerial bombs and Scud missiles, and even smallpox.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, told his fellow Security Council Foreign Ministers that the document was a“chilling read”.

General Powell resorted to reading passages from the paper out loud in the Council chamber. He pointed out that it chronicled nearly 30 times when Iraq had failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate its claims, and 17 instances when inspectors uncovered evidence that contradicted those claims. But his draft copy, dating from a meeting of the inspectors’ advisory board last week, did not contain the crucial passage about the new drone.

The decision by Dr Blix to declassify the internal report marks the first time the UN has made public its suspicions about Iraq’s banned weapons programmes, rather than what it has been able to actually confirm. “Unmovic has credible information that the total quantity of biological warfare agent in bombs, warheads and in bulk at the time of the Gulf War was 7,000 litres more than declared by Iraq. This additional agent was most likely all anthrax,” it says.

The report says there is “credible information” indicating that 21,000 litres of biological warfare agent, including some 10,000 litres of anthrax, was stored in bulk at locations around the country during the war and was never destroyed.
The paper, a collection of 29 “clusters” of questions for Iraq, offers some reassurance about Iraq’s missing botulinum toxin, which Unmovic believed is “unlikely to retain much, if any, of its potency” if it has been stockpiled since 1991.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

con·tact:
a. Connection or interaction; communication
c. Association

link:
1. To connect with or as if with a link
2. (tr) to connect by association, etc

CurveLight...you seem to have trouble with basic english skills and comprehension...I recommend you repeat the 3rd grade...then come back.

 

[CMike]

No, I didn't have to wait for that you dumbass. I always known there was no connetion. See, in a different thread I posted several sources showing CMike that there was no relationship. He tap danced around all of those sources so then I linked the Pent Report which was the latest and most thorough of them all and CMike is still trying to find a way to ignore that evidence.

So once again you dumbass, you jump on something with little understanding and a lot of assumptions and make an ass of yourself. The best part is you inadvertently called CMike a stupid mother ******. Lol.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha........this is how stupid the libtard hacks are on this board. CurveLight had to wait for a report to come out of the Pentagon that said there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. He/she was probably one of the one's duped when all of the MSM outlets began saying that Al Qaeda and Iraq were linked...NOTING THAT BUSH AND CHENEY NEVER EVER SAID THAT.

I defy ANYONE to post a link where BUSH OR CHENEY or ANYONE in the Bush Admin. said Iraq was responsible for 9/11

You are one fucked up code pink tool CurveLight....you really need to remove your head from your extremely fat ass and come up for air.

and for the record the Pentagon report acknowledged that there were Al Qaeda contacts with Iraq intel services but none of them developed into an "operational relationship". This makes sense as Iraq just wanted to find out what the intentions of Al Qaeda were and to make sure they weren't going to be a target of any attacks by Al Qaeda.

What are you talking about? I just explained I always knew there was no link between iraq and alkida. I've never said the Bush admin claimed iraq had any role in 9/11. You are now flat out fabricating to try and hide your mistakes. Then you say bush and cheney never said there was a link between alkida and iraq? Hmmmmmm......


"Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."
CNN.com - Cheney blasts media on*al Qaeda-Iraq link - Jun 18, 2004


"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting.
Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship (washingtonpost.com)


So what else you got? Unless you want to keep getting pwned you better admit your mistakes or pretend the thread got "accidentally" dropped from your subscriptions.

Why don't you tell us what your new position is?

 

[Liability]

The whispers coming out of Washington might alarm some libs.

Now that the President has warmed to the concept that "we are at war," he is demonstrating a little independent thinking in the questions he has been putting to his advisors.

Rumor has it that the President's thoughts have now turned to, "If we are at war, maybe it would be a good idea for us to actually fight it?"

Libs are afraid. Very afraid.

 

[CMike]

and there was a relationship between the 2....but it didn't amount to anything OPERATIONAL...you got that?

I think you got accidentally dropped on your ******* head...only an idiot can't see that there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraqi intel services...it's CLEARLY STATED IN THE REPORT...so...what's your next excuse for being a complete and utter failure at anything you've ever attempted?

The Pentagon report stated point blank there were no "direct connections" between iraq and alkida. But it's interesting to see you flip flop several times. Also seems pretty convenient to ignore the fact both bush and cheney stated there was a relationship between the two. You just said they never made that claim. It looks like you really have no idea what you are talking about so every time someone provides you with facts your response is to alter your claims but you fail to avoid self contradiction, denial, and hypocrisy.

The Institutue For Defense Analysis said that they didn't find a "smoking gun (i.e. direct connection") That is very ambiguious. Direct connection between Al Qaida and Hussein planning 911, training, financies, what?

In any case what do we have?

We have the CIA Director Tenet who testified that Al Qaida and Hussein had ties that went back a decade.

We had a CIA declassified memo that said the same thing

We have a DOD memo that gave at least 50 contacts between Al Qaida & Hussein.

Also, we don't necessarily know how deep it truely was.

Just because there wasn't evidence that Hussein didn't participate in 911, doesn't mean he didn't. It just means that they didn't find evidence of it. I would imagine finding evidence of something so secret would be very difficult. So I don't know if he did or he didn't. He certainly was capabable of it, and had the motivation.

 

[CurveLight]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha........this is how stupid the libtard hacks are on this board. CurveLight had to wait for a report to come out of the Pentagon that said there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. He/she was probably one of the one's duped when all of the MSM outlets began saying that Al Qaeda and Iraq were linked...NOTING THAT BUSH AND CHENEY NEVER EVER SAID THAT.

I defy ANYONE to post a link where BUSH OR CHENEY or ANYONE in the Bush Admin. said Iraq was responsible for 9/11

You are one fucked up code pink tool CurveLight....you really need to remove your head from your extremely fat ass and come up for air.

and for the record the Pentagon report acknowledged that there were Al Qaeda contacts with Iraq intel services but none of them developed into an "operational relationship". This makes sense as Iraq just wanted to find out what the intentions of Al Qaeda were and to make sure they weren't going to be a target of any attacks by Al Qaeda.

What are you talking about? I just explained I always knew there was no link between iraq and alkida. I've never said the Bush admin claimed iraq had any role in 9/11. You are now flat out fabricating to try and hide your mistakes. Then you say bush and cheney never said there was a link between alkida and iraq? Hmmmmmm......


"Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."
CNN.com - Cheney blasts media on*al Qaeda-Iraq link - Jun 18, 2004


"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting.
Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship (washingtonpost.com)


So what else you got? Unless you want to keep getting pwned you better admit your mistakes or pretend the thread got "accidentally" dropped from your subscriptions.

Why don't you tell us what your new position is?

Don't have a new position since mine has always been the same. Is this your attempt to deflect from being proven wrong?

 

[CurveLight]

and there was a relationship between the 2....but it didn't amount to anything OPERATIONAL...you got that?

I think you got accidentally dropped on your ******* head...only an idiot can't see that there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraqi intel services...it's CLEARLY STATED IN THE REPORT...so...what's your next excuse for being a complete and utter failure at anything you've ever attempted?

The Pentagon report stated point blank there were no "direct connections" between iraq and alkida. But it's interesting to see you flip flop several times. Also seems pretty convenient to ignore the fact both bush and cheney stated there was a relationship between the two. You just said they never made that claim. It looks like you really have no idea what you are talking about so every time someone provides you with facts your response is to alter your claims but you fail to avoid self contradiction, denial, and hypocrisy.

The Institutue For Defense Analysis said that they didn't find a "smoking gun (i.e. direct connection") That is very ambiguious. Direct connection between Al Qaida and Hussein planning 911, training, financies, what?

In any case what do we have?

We have the CIA Director Tenet who testified that Al Qaida and Hussein had ties that went back a decade.

We had a CIA declassified memo that said the same thing

We have a DOD memo that gave at least 50 contacts between Al Qaida & Hussein.

Also, we don't necessarily know how deep it truely was.

Just because there wasn't evidence that Hussein didn't participate in 911, doesn't mean he didn't. It just means that they didn't find evidence of it. I would imagine finding evidence of something so secret would be very difficult. So I don't know if he did or he didn't. He certainly was capabable of it, and had the motivation.

Holy shit. The Pent report said there was no "direct connection" between iraq and alkida and you want to claim that is "very ambiguous."

HOLY ****!