What was that sound I heard...?

[Bullypulpit]

...Could it have been a <b>Flip-Flop</b>?

Just heard on the BBC world service, Donald Rumsfeld, today, stated that he had seen no strong evidence linking Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

<blockquote> "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two,"</blockquote> - Donald Rumsfeld

Source: <a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3715396.stm>BBC World Service</a>

This in stark contrast to his, and the Administration's, previous statements to the contrary.

Another of the Bush administration's rationales for war with Iraq bites the dust.

 

[insein]

Actually its kind of what you morons have been whining about. Saddam had meetings with Bin Laden but we have no "strong evidence" he did anything with him. There were funds transfered by Saddam to terrorists before. Bin Laden contacted top Iraqi officials about amnesty within IRaq borders but we dont have pieces of paper showing that this is solid fact.

Is there very credible circumstancial evidence? You better bet your ass there is.

Are you willing to bet your life on there being no connection? Bush apparently wasnt even ready to bet your pathetic life Bully on that gamble.

 

[nakedemperor]

Actually its kind of what you morons have been whining about. Saddam had meetings with Bin Laden but we have no "strong evidence" he did anything with him. There were funds transfered by Saddam to terrorists before. Bin Laden contacted top Iraqi officials about amnesty within IRaq borders but we dont have pieces of paper showing that this is solid fact.

Is there very credible circumstancial evidence? You better bet your ass there is.

Are you willing to bet your life on there being no connection? Bush apparently wasnt even ready to bet your pathetic life Bully on that gamble.

You're assuming a false proposition-- that if we had assumed there was no connection we would be dead. Um, yeah.

The flip flop occurs here:

Cheney, June: "There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming."

Rumsfeld, October: "I've seen no hard evidence."

It doesn't get much clearer than that.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Actually its kind of what you morons have been whining about. Saddam had meetings with Bin Laden but we have no "strong evidence" he did anything with him. There were funds transfered by Saddam to terrorists before. Bin Laden contacted top Iraqi officials about amnesty within IRaq borders but we dont have pieces of paper showing that this is solid fact.

Is there very credible circumstancial evidence? You better bet your ass there is.

Are you willing to bet your life on there being no connection? Bush apparently wasnt even ready to bet your pathetic life Bully on that gamble.

Actually, there's no credible evidence of any of your assertion. In the absence of solid evidence, your "facts" are nothing more than conjecture. And Bush is, apparently, willing to sacrifice the lives of our men and women in uniform on the basis of less than credible intel.

 

[nakedemperor]

Actually, there's no credible evidence of any of your assertion. In the absence of solid evidence, your "facts" are nothing more than conjecture. And Bush is, apparently, willing to sacrifice the lives of our men and women in uniform on the basis of less than credible intel.

Bully, I've tried to appeal to this logic before-- most conservatives here are such stalwart defends of Dubya's policies that 'less than credible' and 'circumstantial' evidence is evidence enough to go to war, even though there were no WMDs.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

It's all part of the unraveling of this Administration. One can only last for so long when wrong.

This board is unusually quiet too!

:baby4:

 

[insein]

Actually, there's no credible evidence of any of your assertion. In the absence of solid evidence, your "facts" are nothing more than conjecture. And Bush is, apparently, willing to sacrifice the lives of our men and women in uniform on the basis of less than credible intel.

To defend the lives of the men and women here at home, yes he does. Here's the evidence he was presented from countries like France, Germany and Russia as well as our own CIA at the time in 2002.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=482
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm


Plus all of our fellow Democrats telling us the obvious.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11428

So when Bush is being told by all credible sources that Al Queda has some ties with saddam, and it was a consensus that Al queda killed 3000 americans on 9/11 as well as hundreds of others throughout the 90's on US soil, US embassies and US military craft, is he supposed to form a "summitt" to talk about how to stop this?

NO! You say enough is enough and you work to take the fight to the enemy. You goto the UN for help if they are willing to give it (which we did). You ask them to make an ultimatum against Iraq since we have 17 resolutions against them for multiple reasons that they have been breaking for 12 years.(which we did) You work to bring as many nations to your side that are willing to fight to free the world from a small group of animals that wish to rule the world through fear. (which we did)

That is what you do. Everything you guys whine about, Bush has done. But he didnt do it fast enough or slow enough or perfect enough. Well guess what? The world isnt perfect. You have to improvise and make TOUGH decisions. You can't go by polls to make your decisions and change your mind based on which way they sway. You need a leader.

Its easy for people to play monday morning QB because we know that some of the intelligence has been shoddy. We know that some of our Allies had other motives backing their decisions. We know 3000% more info than they knew 2 years ago just as they knew 3000% more than Clinton knew 2 years before that. Being president is a tough job and thats why i thank God that a man like GWB is in there to make the tough decisions when they are needed.

 

[nakedemperor]

And then, when all the credible intelligence that we needed to go to war on the basis of turns out not to be true (not pointing any fingers), you admit that its not true and you move on. Instead you say there was overwhelming intelligence (that i'm not going to share with you) that you "probably know more" than the 9/11 commision, but you're not going to share with them either, that you're directly contradicting the 9/11 commision (no collaborative relationship)....LET IT GO, DICK.

 

[Avatar4321]

And then, when all the credible intelligence that we needed to go to war on the basis of turns out not to be true (not pointing any fingers), you admit that its not true and you move on. Instead you say there was overwhelming intelligence (that i'm not going to share with you) that you "probably know more" than the 9/11 commision, but you're not going to share with them either, that you're directly contradicting the 9/11 commision (no collaborative relationship)....LET IT GO, DICK.

The 911 commission confirmed a connection between Saddam and Al Queda. one of these days you guys ought to read what you are citing.

 

[nakedemperor]

The 911 commission confirmed a connection between Saddam and Al Queda. one of these days you guys ought to read what you are citing.

We did read it, you're just SPINNING it. They established there were connections, about a decade ago, but, AND I QUOTE: "NO COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP"

Rumsfeld: "NO HARD EVIDENCE"

STOP BEATING THE HORSE THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ALREADY SHOT

 

[insein]

Here's a tidbit of that shoddy evidence from the holy doctrine of the "9/11 commission".

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

page 61

"To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Laden would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Laden apparently honered this agreement at least for a time, although he continued to aide a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990's, these extremists groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Laden's help they reformed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications by then that the Iraqi regime tolerated and may have even helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin laden is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procurring weapons, but there is no eveidence that Iraq responded to this request."

So because we dont have the receipts and attendance records of these meetings or transactions, we take the word of a couple of mass murderers that they were good little boys.

 

[nakedemperor]

Here's a tidbit of that shoddy evidence from the holy doctrine of the "9/11 commission".

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf



So because we dont have the receipts and attendance records of these meetings or transactions, we take the word of a couple of mass murderers that they were good little boys.

No, because they asked but were denied help we take their word. That's why there are "connections" but no "collaboration". Its easy? See? Connections, denial, no collaboration.

Oh dear, they agreed not to blow each other to shit? That sounds like a dangerous relationship.

Oh my, bin Laden asked for space to build training camps but didn't get it? That's a dangerous relationship.

 

[Gem]

Naked Emperor,

So, what evidence, who's lines, are we supposed to believe in the future?

Because we know that the US, UK, Israel, Australia, France, Germany, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, others, and the UN believed that Saddam had WMD....but you think that we should have believed him...not the world's intelligence sources....

So...now we have an Iraqi physicist, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, The Iraqi physicist who ran his country's uranium enrichment program, and he says that Saddam Hussein continued to fund efforts to develop nuclear weapons right up until the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

He says in his book, "Bomb in My Garden," that Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 ... until the war in 2003"


Ok...I'm trying to follow your logic here: We shouldn't have believed the world, we should have believed Saddam....so we shouldn't believe the world now when it says Saddam WASN'T doing this...we should believe Saddam's employee...right? Oh, wait...no...now we SHOULD believe the world and ignore the Saddam employee....right? :huh:

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

No, because they asked but were denied help we take their word. That's why there are "connections" but no "collaboration". Its easy? See? Connections, denial, no collaboration.

Oh dear, they agreed not to blow each other to shit? That sounds like a dangerous relationship.

Oh my, bin Laden asked for space to build training camps but didn't get it? That's a dangerous relationship.

The 9/11 Commission said there was no collaborative effort on the 9/11 attack. That doesn't mean there wasn't some kind of financial support, that doesn't mean there wasn't help with training, that doesn't mean terrorists weren't given a safe haven pertaining to other things. The commission said there was no evidense that Iraq responded to their request for training camps and procurring weapons. I have no evidense that the sun came up in China yesterday, but I'm pretty sure it did.

As far as Rumsfeld, I'd like to know what the question was. They give his answer and let us know what the question genrally pertained to, but don't actually give the question.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Naked Emperor,

So, what evidence, who's lines, are we supposed to believe in the future?

Because we know that the US, UK, Israel, Australia, France, Germany, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, others, and the UN believed that Saddam had WMD....but you think that we should have believed him...not the world's intelligence sources....

So...now we have an Iraqi physicist, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, The Iraqi physicist who ran his country's uranium enrichment program, and he says that Saddam Hussein continued to fund efforts to develop nuclear weapons right up until the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

He says in his book, "Bomb in My Garden," that Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 ... until the war in 2003"


Ok...I'm trying to follow your logic here: We shouldn't have believed the world, we should have believed Saddam....so we shouldn't believe the world now when it says Saddam WASN'T doing this...we should believe Saddam's employee...right? Oh, wait...no...now we SHOULD believe the world and ignore the Saddam employee....right? :huh:

Woulda, coulda, shoulda...It's all stagnant water under the bridge. The facts are that the Bush administration sexed-up the intel used to justify the war with Iraq...Much of that intel came from the now wholly dis credited Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress.

As for Dr. Obeidi, he did say that Iraqs nuclear weapon's program was dormant...as in inactive...as in not functioning...as in "...Saddam never had nuclear weapons at his disposal..." - Dr. Obeidi.

Get over it, Bush lied...Thousands have died...and hundreds contiue to die.

 

[jimnyc]

Get over it, Bush lied.

You've spouted this crap countless times and have not once backed it up with facts. Do you have any bonafide proof yet that Bush lied, or are you going to continue spinning the liberal myths without merit?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Bully, I've tried to appeal to this logic before-- most conservatives here are such stalwart defends of Dubya's policies that 'less than credible' and 'circumstantial' evidence is evidence enough to go to war, even though there were no WMDs.

Don't forget about the many violated U.N. resolutions which alone were enough to go to war. You always conveniently leave this part out. Why are you so intellectually dishonest?

 

[Democrat4Bush]

Don't count your chickens before they hatch bully. Wait and see how this one plays out.

Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

full story

 

[nakedemperor]

I've had bad experiences trusting CNS.com before... and milk that was 1 day past the 'sell-by' date.

 

[no1tovote4]

I've had bad experiences trusting CNS.com before... and milk that was 1 day past the 'sell-by' date.

Yeah, they and ABC seem to have issues.