Author Topic: "9/11 Panel Says Iraq Rebuffed Bin Laden" (Read 1884 times)

DoctorYO · « **on:** June 16, 2004, 11:03:48 AM »

To all the arse hats saying that Saddam was supporting Al Dumbarses.

Enjoy some crow for lunch and dinner..

I thought there were laws against Our Govt. using propaganda against people of the United States but under this admin thats a moot point... You can't blatantly lie to me and expect my vote...

"9/11 Panel Says Iraq Rebuffed Bin Laden"

"WASHINGTON - Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) helped al-Qaida target the United States."

"The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq"

For the rest enjoy...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040616/ap_on_re_us/sept_11_commission_28

I approve this message...

2 cents

DoctorYo

PS: I see no problems with the link more disinformation ? from texas well that explains it..

TheDudeDVant · « **Reply #1 on:** June 16, 2004, 11:07:57 AM »

Lizking · « **Reply #2 on:** June 16, 2004, 11:10:53 AM »

You are a little confused, there, DY. The link is not AQ>SH>9/11/01, it is just AQ>SH.

Pongo · « **Reply #3 on:** June 16, 2004, 11:29:48 AM »

The al quida guys denying it is meaningless. They know that the absense of a link is powerful anti Bush and anti Invasion material.
So we would expect them to deny a link.
The absense of any evidence of a link and the knowledge of that BEFORE the invasion and Bush convincing the vast majority of the US people there was a link is the real issue.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #4 on:** June 16, 2004, 11:48:40 AM »

Yup saw this comin

This is the librals saying that Al Queda are the ONLY terrorist and the ONLY enemy of the US.

It is a proven fact that Sadam paid money to the familys of suicide bombers in palestine.

Suicide bombers = terrorists

therfore Sadam supported terrorists.

funny how librals would rather support a murdering tirant than they're own president.

SirLoin · « **Reply #5 on:** June 16, 2004, 11:55:00 AM »

Heil to the cheif!

AKIron · « **Reply #6 on:** June 16, 2004, 11:58:35 AM »

How do you get rebuff from this article? Please copy and paste.

"Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded," the report said. "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred" after bin Laden moved his operations to Afghanistan in 1996, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," it said.

slimm50 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 16, 2004, 12:00:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Maybe there is little difference.

GS, please say you're not calling GW a murdering tyrant.

Pongo · « **Reply #8 on:** June 16, 2004, 12:03:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yup saw this comin

This is the librals saying that Al Queda are the ONLY terrorist and the ONLY enemy of the US.

It is a proven fact that Sadam paid money to the familys of suicide bombers in palestine.

Suicide bombers = terrorists

therfore Sadam supported terrorists.

funny how librals would rather support a murdering tirant than they're own president.

Are the palistinians terrorsts again then? Why hasnt the US invaded them then? At the time your talking about the US wasnt calling the palistinians terrorists. Bush was trying to get the Isrealis to negotiate with them and grant them conssesions on his road map to peace..so how could they be terrorists?

I think your confused. Or maybe dishonest.
Your saying then the the US invaded Iraq to stop the palistinians from blowing up Isreali busses? Seems pretty indirect. Are you sure your not desperate?

rpm · « **Reply #9 on:** June 16, 2004, 12:23:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yup saw this comin

This is the librals saying that Al Queda are the ONLY terrorist and the ONLY enemy of the US.

It is a proven fact that Sadam paid money to the familys of suicide bombers in palestine.

Suicide bombers = terrorists

therfore Sadam supported terrorists.

funny how librals would rather support a murdering tirant than they're own president.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #10 on:** June 16, 2004, 12:24:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
Are the palistinians terrorsts again then? Why hasnt the US invaded them then? At the time your talking about the US wasnt calling the palistinians terrorists. Bush was trying to get the Isrealis to negotiate with them and grant them conssesions on his road map to peace..so how could they be terrorists?

I think your confused. Or maybe dishonest.
Your saying then the the US invaded Iraq to stop the palistinians from blowing up Isreali busses? Seems pretty indirect. Are you sure your not desperate?

and you are saying that we need to invade everyone??????

what works for one country does not work for the other.

Just because a terrorist inst Al Queda does not meen they are not terrorists.

I think you are confused

I'm not saying at all that we invaded Iraq for that reason. I'm saying that just because Iraq had "rebuffed Al Queda" does not meen he isnt linked w/ terrorism.

If by invading Iraq we stopped chem weapons from falling into terrist hands would that make the invasion justifiable?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #11 on:** June 16, 2004, 12:31:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Maybe there is little difference.

is that the pink lure w/ the stink bait......or is that the black troller for large mouth bass?

Pongo · « **Reply #12 on:** June 16, 2004, 12:44:16 PM »

"If by invading Iraq we stopped chem weapons from falling into terrist hands would that make the invasion justifiable?"

If by invading Iraq you stopped chemical weapons from getting into a strawmans hands I would approve it. lol

There was no evidence of any such risk. And you are saying in this thread since Sadam supported the palistinian uprising he supported terrorism. Well since Bush negotiated with the same people and tried to leaverage Isreal to grant them some of their demands then he supported terrorism too.
You cant have it both ways.

Read plan of attack. Bush and co knew there was no evidence of Iraqi WMD. They may well of believed in there heart of hearts that the weapons existed somewhere. But they had no evidence to support the belief. The war happend only because a few people wanted it to happen. None of the justifications other then regime change are real. You have to accept that and move on. Its not the end of the world its just honesty. Regime change and oil supply are as good a reason to fight a war as most but dont try to add to the list. Iraq was not harbouring terrorists or WMD. The blockade and sanctions had worked and the country was crippled militarily and cowed diplomatically.

Now SH is in chains and the US is trying to give the Iraqis some kind of new start. Barring some other blow up like just ended maybe they have a chance. Good news today I think. But dont fabricate or buy into the fabrications of why the invasion happend. If there has to be WMD or ties to terrorism or a threat to the US to make you feel good about the war then get used to not feeling good about it.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #13 on:** June 16, 2004, 12:47:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
"If by invading Iraq we stopped chem weapons from falling into terrist hands would that make the invasion justifiable?"

If by invading Iraq you stopped chemical weapons from getting into a strawmans hands I would approve it. lol

There was no evidence of any such risk. And you are saying in this thread since Sadam supported the palistinian uprising he supported terrorism. Well since Bush negotiated with the same people and tried to leaverage Isreal to grant them some of their demands then he supported terrorism too.
You cant have it both ways.

Read plan of attack. Bush and co knew there was no evidence of Iraqi WMD. They may well of believed in there heart of hearts that the weapons existed somewhere. But they had no evidence to support the belief. The war happend only because a few people wanted it to happen. None of the justifications other then regime change are real. You have to accept that and move on. Its not the end of the world its just honesty. Regime change and oil supply are as good a reason to fight a war as most but dont try to add to the list. Iraq was not harbouring terrorists or WMD. The blockade and sanctions had worked and the country was crippled militarily and cowed diplomatically.

Now SH is in chains and the US is trying to give the Iraqis some kind of new start. Barring some other blow up like just ended maybe they have a chance. Good news today I think. But dont fabricate or buy into the fabrications of why the invasion happend. If there has to be WMD or ties to terrorism or a threat to the US to make you feel good about the war then get used to not feeling good about it.

so now you are saying that they KNEW there were no WMD in iraq before the invasion.....CMON dont make me break out the quotes of every libral in a position of power saying the exact same thing bush did before the war.

Pongo · « **Reply #14 on:** June 16, 2004, 01:09:14 PM »

What is so difficult. Making me explain that there was no evidence when no actuall WMD have been found is just silly.
Obviosly as there were no WMD found the onlus is on believers in this evidence to present it.

They had no evidence and they acknolledged it to each other. They were sure that a few weeks on the ground would show lots of WMD and thats what they said in thier press briefings pre war.. But they knew they had no evidence of them. Or they would have presented it.

They had no evidence of WMD. They had no evidence of ties to terrorism. The presented what they knew to be silly attempts at evidence and they presented evidence that they knew to be false. They started looking for evidence to support the invasion way after they decided to invade.
Read Plan of Attack. Its not secret or anything.