|
Post by nab on Jul 14, 2004 1:29:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Jul 14, 2004 12:10:41 GMT -5
More propaganda from the left…
|
|
|
Post by BonPain on Jul 18, 2004 12:36:50 GMT -5
More propaganda from the left… NAB questioned and very quickly it was called propaganda by Bryan. Maybe the posrer shown by NAB is closer to the truth than we think.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Jul 19, 2004 11:51:38 GMT -5
no... not really...
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Jul 19, 2004 11:52:01 GMT -5
oh, and when did bush lie?
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jul 19, 2004 16:14:20 GMT -5
oh, and when did bush lie? If it isn't lying, it's just nonsense he's talking. Just listen to what he's telling about the 'connection' between Al-Qaeda and Iran.. I had to laugh about his poor argumentation. He's making a fool of himself, time to get a different job. ;D
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Jul 19, 2004 16:21:37 GMT -5
If it isn't lying, it's just nonsense he's talking. Just listen to what he's telling about the 'connection' between Al-Qaeda and Iran.. I had to laugh about his poor argumentation. He's making a fool of himself, time to get a different job. ;D I do not believe he is making a fool of himself... I believe he is a wonderful president and a strong leader... I hope and will pray that he has the opportunity to lead our country for another four years... Now, once again... .When did bush lie?
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jul 19, 2004 17:49:28 GMT -5
Now, once again... .When did bush lie? Bryan.. your question has been debated on this board for weeks on end. I have given my opinion about the never proven connections between 9/11 and Iraq and the WMDs in Iraq. You can read it back on this board. If you see it differently, that's fine. In the end, it's all about your president..
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Jul 19, 2004 18:11:37 GMT -5
Bryan.. your question has been debated on this board for weeks on end. I have given my opinion about the never proven connections between 9/11 and Iraq and the WMDs in Iraq. You can read it back on this board. If you see it differently, that's fine. In the end, it's all about your president.. And MY president is a very GOOD president... The 9-11 commission made it clear that bush did not lie… Too bad some still think he did…
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jul 19, 2004 18:15:07 GMT -5
You seem to overlook the fact that nearly the entire world including the UN, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, etc believed (correctly) that Saddam had WMDs. Now the press is trying to turn the tables in an election year. If Bush had not gone into Iraq they would be talking about how Bush Sr. didn't finish the job like he should have or that W was not protecting the country, etc, etc. You just can't win with the liberal press and a world who hates all that Bush is and stands for. So why try to? Bush would rather be right than popular and he has succeded.
Thankfully Bush is a man of conviction and action. He will certainly continue to be such a man while his detractors wimper and cry in their French wine.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by I agree on Jul 19, 2004 23:13:13 GMT -5
I do not believe he is making a fool of himself... Have to agree with Bryan on this one. I don't believe Bush even has the skills to make himself look like a fool.
|
|
|
Post by Not a vote on Jul 19, 2004 23:25:15 GMT -5
You seem to overlook the fact that nearly the entire world including the UN, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, etc believed (correctly) that Saddam had WMDs. Facts are not determined by popular vote. No one is contesting the fact that there once were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But they were not there when this administration claimed they were and that they knew where they were. Saying that you know the weapons exist and that you know where they are is a lie when you do not know if they exist or where they are. Of course it is easy to say Bush did not lie. He will never step up to the plate and take the blame. He has never taken the responsibility for anything he did for his whole life. He was informed of the possibility of an attack in August of 2001 but he and his cronies ignored the message and continued to focus on Iraq. It is not really worth discussing. Like his father he will be a short term president. He could not get the majority of the people to vote for him before they all knew what a poor leader he would be. I think it is long odds that he will be around after this term.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jul 19, 2004 23:30:36 GMT -5
You're right, Bryan. And the ties/links between Saddam and Al-Queda are there; the Senate report does confirm this.
This is becaue they either can't stand the man (didn't like him from the beginning) or they have been erroneously swayed by misleading media.
As far as this goes -- these warnings of the possibility of an attack have gone on for years, and years, and years. Nothing new.
|
|
|
Post by What on Jul 20, 2004 10:30:57 GMT -5
You're right, Bryan. And the ties/links between Saddam and Al-Queda are there; the Senate report does confirm this. What report are you reading? Bush still mentions it but probably because he has not yet found someone to read the senate report aloud to him. ___________________________________________ One of Mr. Bush's central charges against Saddam Hussein was his supposed link with Al Qaeda, which Mr. Bush still mentions even though the Senate report said there was no evidence of a link. On this point, the report said, the intelligence community's negative view was widely disseminated among top officials. Mr. Cheney likes to refer to a meeting between the hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi official that supposedly took place in Prague in April 2001. But the C.I.A. does not believe it happened. In a memo recently released by Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, Mr. Tenet said the agency did not have "any credible information that the April 2001 meeting occurred." _________________________________________ Show one other warning that is as specific as the one with the title: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S" You said they were out there for years and years. Just looking for one.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Jul 20, 2004 11:56:35 GMT -5
What report are you reading? Bush still mentions it but probably because he has not yet found someone to read the senate report aloud to him. ___________________________________________ One of Mr. Bush's central charges against Saddam Hussein was his supposed link with Al Qaeda, which Mr. Bush still mentions even though the Senate report said there was no evidence of a link. On this point, the report said, the intelligence community's negative view was widely disseminated among top officials. Mr. Cheney likes to refer to a meeting between the hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi official that supposedly took place in Prague in April 2001. But the C.I.A. does not believe it happened. In a memo recently released by Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, Mr. Tenet said the agency did not have "any credible information that the April 2001 meeting occurred." _________________________________________ Show one other warning that is as specific as the one with the title: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S" You said they were out there for years and years. Just looking for one. How’s the Kool-Aid?
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jul 20, 2004 12:15:17 GMT -5
You seem to overlook the fact that nearly the entire world including the UN, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, etc believed (correctly) that Saddam had WMDs. Now the press is trying to turn the tables in an election year. I wasn't overlooking anything. I myself did also believe Saddam had WMDs.. untill the UN couldn't find any. Since then there have been loads of proof that there were no extended programs, no stockpiles of WMDs.. Now you have to be real at a certain point, and accept the facts of life. Take your responsibilities. If you don't, you loose your credits. In my eyes, GWB is a little bit to much convinced of his own right.. Well Robb, just make sure you'll never book with an airline flying with Airbus, check you're phone isn't made by Alcatel, get rid of those Bic-pens. I'm really sorry to mention that you also have to sell your Salomon skis, your Cartier watch and your Beneteau yacht. Ow, and don't go to see a movie if it is distributed by Universal Studios, you might sponsor the French company Vivendi by doing that..
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Jul 20, 2004 12:38:49 GMT -5
I wasn't overlooking anything. I myself did also believe Saddam had WMDs.. untill the UN couldn't find any. Since then there have been loads of proof that there were no extended programs, no stockpiles of WMDs.. Now you have to be real at a certain point, and accept the facts of life. Take your responsibilities. If you don't, you loose your credits. In my eyes, GWB is a little bit to much convinced of his own right.. Well Robb, just make sure you'll never book with an airline flying with Airbus, check you're phone isn't made by Alcatel, get rid of those Bic-pens. I'm really sorry to mention that you also have to sell your Salomon skis, your Cartier watch and your Beneteau yacht. Ow, and don't go to see a movie if it is distributed by Universal Studios, you might sponsor the French company Vivendi by doing that.. So you knew ahead of everyone else that when "the UN couldn't find any" that SH really didn't have WMDs when everyone in the world still thought so? You must know alot more then EVERYONE else.... Oh, but wait.... Just because the UN couldn't find any meant he didn't have any? You put your trust in the UN that much? Oh but wait... Did we even have to find any to go into Iraq? OH, and thanks for the updated list of the people/places/things I should boycott...
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jul 20, 2004 13:33:43 GMT -5
So you knew ahead of everyone else that when "the UN couldn't find any" that SH really didn't have WMDs when everyone in the world still thought so? No, I did say I used to believe there were WMDs, untill Hans Blix and his team reported that they couldn't find anything... that was something everyone could hear, but refused to listen to. Probably more then you do.. You're welcome.. someone was so kind to post a (more complete) list on p221.ezboard.com/fcommonground73662frm1.showMessage?topicID=1251.topic
|
|
|
Post by Old News on Jul 20, 2004 13:47:28 GMT -5
So you knew ahead of everyone else that when "the UN couldn't find any" that SH really didn't have WMDs when everyone in the world still thought so? You must know alot more then EVERYONE else.... You are clinging to the fact thain the 1990s everyone knew that there were WMDs in Iraq. When GWB started the invasion talk everyone kew there were no WMDs in the country and the US was not in any real danger. It was also a well known fact that Iraq was not the worst of the bunch to support terrorists. Let's see. Bush said they were there and they are not. The UN inspectors said they were no longer there and there are none to be found. How would you trust? The organization that was correct or the administration that has misled it's citizens? No it is clear that the US placed itself above the law and invaded at will. "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges!" Add these to your list: Uniroyal Car & Driver Magazine BF Goodrich Jerry Springer talk show Parents Magazine Culligan Spencer Gifts First Hawaiian Bank Sundance Channel Technicolor Road & Track Magazine Motel 6 Roquefort Cheese Red Roof Inns RCA Michelin Sierra Software & Computer Games ProScan Nissan Motown Records A French compay was awarded a $700 million plus contract to operated the 55 mess halls of our US Marine facilities.
|
|
|
Post by Poster on Jul 20, 2004 14:22:11 GMT -5
OH, and thanks for the updated list of the people/places/things I should boycott... Hahahaha.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jul 20, 2004 20:04:58 GMT -5
What report are you reading? The 500+ page report that was put out by the Senate Intelligence Committee in early July. Actually, the Senate report does not say there was no evidence of a link. Just the opposite. A few excerpts from the document include: - The Central Intelligence Agency's examination of contacts, training, safehaven and operational cooperation as indicators of a possible Iraq-al-Qaida relationship was a reasonable and objective approach to the question.
- The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.
- The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably and objectively assessed in Iraqi Support/or Terrorism that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons.
- The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment on safehaven - that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control - was reasonable.
- The Central Intelligence Agency's judgment that Saddam Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, might employ terrorists with a global reach - al-Qaida - to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, was reasonable. No information has emerged thus far to suggest that Saddam did try to employ al-Qaida in conducting terrorist attacks.
Wow. That’s . . . . such a profound comment. "Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack U.S. Aircraft and other attacks,"Clinton Administration PDB -- Dec. 4, 1998 It is a fact that threats in some form are received every day. This has long been known. Bush has been criticized for his supposed inability to "connect the dots" before 9/11. Now he's being criticized for attempting to "connect the dots" (and rightly so) in relation to the dangers posed by Iraq (and Saddam's long established history of links with Militant Islamic terror groups). Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 21, 2004 16:51:30 GMT -5
The 500+ page report that was put out by the Senate Intelligence Committee in early July. Actually, the Senate report does not say there was no evidence of a link. Just the opposite. A few excerpts from the document include: No, they did not say just the opposite. They said there was no credible evidence. [/li][li]The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.[/quote]As you have pointed out - the contacts were not worth noting. [/li][li]The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably and objectively assessed in Iraqi Support/or Terrorism that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons[/quote]The veracity of these reports has been shown to be very questionable. [/li][li]The Central Intelligence Agency's judgment that Saddam Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, might employ terrorists with a global reach - al-Qaida - to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, was reasonable. No information has emerged thus far to suggest that Saddam did try to employ al-Qaida in conducting terrorist attacks.[/list][/quote]A paragraph filled with weasel words "if", "might", "suggest". Odd Bush would act on these but not on the August 6 memo that stated OBL was going to attack. As pointed out - there was no information to support the supposition. It is a well known fact that Bush is not much of a reader. Compare the response given to the informationby the Clinton vs the Bush Whitehouse. The Earlier response was termed an "energetic response" to the hijack threat information. So it was just ignored. The only dots he was interested in connecting were ones that he could convince the citizens of the US led to Iraq. When the dots were not actually there they were created. If the real reason for going to Iraq was to eliminate terrorism why was the hunt for the terrorists in Afghanistan cut back? Why not invade Saudi Arabia or Iran, two countries that were much more involved in terrorism? What was the reason to invade Iraq?
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jul 22, 2004 23:35:15 GMT -5
Yes, they did say the opposite. What was headlined by many papers and TV media was that there was "no credible evidence of a link". Period. Which erroneously leaves the viewer/reader with the incorrect impression that there was NO link between Iraq/Al-Queda, which is not true. There was a link, there have definitely been connections, but the only thing there was no "credible" evidence about was a constant, unbroken, working connection between the two. Not only did Iraq/Saddam have ties with Al-Queda, but they also had ties with other terror groups. No surprise there.
Nope. I never pointed out the contacts were not "worth noting".
The quotation from the report says: The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s . . . It doesn't say the contacts were not "worth noting", but that those contacts didn't appear to add up to an established formal relationship (which, btw, does not mean they never had connections).
I don't think so -- the quotation stated that the most problematic area of contact were the reports of Al-Queda receiving training in the use of non-conventional weapons. It doesn't say those reports were questionable.
You're forgetting that August 6 was pre-911; there's more awareness now than there was before. And the August 6 memo was not specific in nature, but offered general info -- nothing that wasn't already known.
Saddam's whole history is enough to support the supposition.
It's not accurate to imply that Bush doesn't know how to read.
How was Clinton's response "energetic"? It was not so different from Bush. Incidentally, there were plans to deal more aggressively with Al-Queda before 9/11; those plans were set to be finalized on/around 9/11, I believe. I don't think the argument can successfully be made that Bush had a "non-energetic" response to terrorism in comparison with Clinton. In fact, the final 9/11 report confirms my point.
No, it wasn't -- but to ask those who sift through the info to be able to successfully ferret out the exact plan in motion is pretty impossible. The intelligence community has thousands of pieces they need to put together like a jigsaw puzzle. The terrorists don't come out and say: "We're going to attack place x on date y at exactly z o'clock."
And couldn't you just see the outrage if Bush never did anything about Iraq, and we ended up being attacked by terrorists funded by Saddam . . . . . the war with Iraq was pre-emptive; the best defense is a good offense.
We've gone over this countless times. I don't think it really matters to you how many times it is explained -- you've made up your mind Saddam was no threat and thus will never be convinced.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 23, 2004 9:12:35 GMT -5
Yes, they did say the opposite. What was headlined by many papers and TV media was that there was "no credible evidence of a link". Period. Which erroneously leaves the viewer/reader with the incorrect impression that there was NO link between Iraq/Al-Queda, which is not true. There was a link, there have definitely been connections, but the only thing there was no "credible" evidence about was a constant, unbroken, working connection between the two. Not only did Iraq/Saddam have ties with Al-Queda, but they also had ties with other terror groups. No surprise there. Perhaps we have read different 9/11 reports. The one I have downloaded contains phrases like "... that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda." and "...there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons." Perhaps you have a more up to date version. "...no confirmed reporting ..." does not seem like hard facts to me. I didn't say he could not read. I said he is not known to be someone who reads a lot. He sent cruise missiles and the CIA tokill OBL. Bush did not. Bush was going to but never did. Clinton did. That makes the response equal? Again, you could have a different report. But there was nothing to pre-empt. We chose to believe the wrong people. The UN inspectors had said there were no WMDs. As it turns out he was not a threat. He had no weapons and no way to deliver them.
|
|