"9/11 Panel Says Iraq Rebuffed Bin Laden"

[AKIron]

Originally posted by DoctorYO
You can read right? I know you speak texican down there but wtf..

It doesn't say I get rebuff, read it again in english (not texican) this time...

to you zombies in texas ("insult the admin, former gov.., We must post a response... types) you sheep need to wise up..  one claims broken link the other claims I get rebuff from posting this..  you fellas are like starving shewolf with 9 starving pups.. desperate is an understatement.. You fellas should test your water for additives..

If you want I can post the transcripts before the Iraq conflict that clearly say Saddam supported(not contacted not rebuffed, not anything else.. he supported were the words) Al Dumbarse...  may take a day to dig them up but ill find em.. then what are you clowns going to say.. liberal media..  you only get so many liberal media excuses per day. and youve exhuasted yours already on some other posts..  Not only that at the rate you guys are claiming liberal media there won't be any legit news agencies left in about 3 weeks time, they will all be liberal as per your understanding..

You people are missing the point the problem here is transparency vs lies....

and if you choose lies then don't expect my republican vote..  Thats the issue for the non reading impaired..

This talk of how saddam doesn't support the palistinians or some crap like that I didn't say that..  your trying to either spin or discredit what I really did say.. which is in black and white..

The issue here is lies about Al Dumbarse being supported by Saddam; not terrorism, not is saddam a tyrant?, not wmd...  (even though there are lies about some of those things also.)

Nice try..  Sledgehammered again..


DoctorYo

Damn, all I asked for was a quote from the article posted that contains a "rebuff". You know, like the one claimed in this thread's subject. Sheesh.

[-MZ-]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Prove it.  Prove to me that they KNEW there were no weapons.

Maybe he wasn't dishonest, just incompetent.

[Steve]

http://www.foxnews.com./story/0,2933,122820,00.html

[DoctorYO]

Fauxnews.com


nuff said....


"Whats next when animals attack..." Forever Eden, Casino.." (actually the casino show gave me laugh when the gambler got hot and heavy with the transvestite, quality programming indeed)

dailyrotten.com and csmonitor.com have more credibility than faux..

Next thing you know we will have Bushcountry.com as a legitmate news site... (be shure to do the read on aussiebloke)(hope for our sake he's not right and if he is im eating crow meteorites..)


DoctorYo



PS: bet Faux claim writers flair when they get fact checked the next couple of days..

[-MZ-]

Just today, the war criminal Abu al-Zarqawi, an Al Qaeda leader, claimed responsibility for killing the 13 human beings you saw when they died yesterday in Iraq. Zarqawi fled to Iraq after he was wounded in Afghanistan and was given safe harbor and medical treatment by Saddam.

"Senior U.S. officials told CNN on Tuesday that they now believe fugitive terrorism suspect Abu Musab al-Zarqawi did not have a leg amputated in Iraq, as the Bush administration had previously said."

"Although the administration pointed to Iraq's medical assistance to al-Zarqawi as evidence of a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime, it's now believed that al-Zarqawi still has both legs."


LOL

[Westy]

"medical treatment by Saddam."

 Being in Iraq and going to a hospital for treatment is the proof and link that Hussein and the old Iraq regime had to AQ?

 If that is the case then using the same criteria arrest GWBush for wining, dining and sheltering the hijackers in the US the night of 9/10.

[Steve]

Being in Iraq and going to a hospital for treatment is the proof and link that Hussein and the old Iraq regime had to AQ?

Unless of course he was secreted away by Hussien's gang while he was recuperating.

[AKIron]

BTW Yo, I read the article promptly after you posted the link. Let me be clear, there is no mention of a rebuff anywhere in it. The only thing that even comes close is the quote which I pasted. That the panel found no evidence of a response by Saddam can hardly be classified a rebuff, unless you're really desperate for mud to sling.

[Westy]

"Unless of course he was secreted away by Hussien's gang while he was recuperating."

 Right!  In black helo's to boot.  




(MZ, tried to find that report but could not.   good job)

[MrLars]

Originally posted by DoctorYO



I would like to read your sources..



DoctorYo

He's quoting Bill O'Reilly, spun in a typicaly O'Reilly manner.

Where's his source for the info? Who knows, during his talking points memo it's pure Op Ed...and spin.

[DoctorYO]

Steve have a second serving...

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1239094,00.html

Heres a snippit:

"Ofcom said Fox had breached the programme code in three areas: failing to honour the "respect for truth" rule; failing to give the BBC an opportunity to respond; and failing to apply the rule that says, in a personal view section, "opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence".


Highly credible indeed...



To bad our country doesn't have broadcasting laws like that and if we do they should be enforced more often..

DoctorYo


PS:  "Your not going get any pudding if you don't finish your meat.."  



AKIron:

from dictionary.com  rebuffed -  To reject bluntly, often disdainfully; snub

Since they are rejecting the previous claims of the Admin.  I would say the constitutes a rebuff...   (texican again?..)

I got a whole feast of crow for all to be served, plenty for everyone..

[AKIron]

Originally posted by DoctorYO
Steve have a second serving...

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1239094,00.html

Heres a snippit:

"Ofcom said Fox had breached the programme code in three areas: failing to honour the "respect for truth" rule; failing to give the BBC an opportunity to respond; and failing to apply the rule that says, in a personal view section, "opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence".


Highly credible indeed...



To bad our country doesn't have broadcasting laws like that and if we do they should be enforced more often..

DoctorYo


PS:  "Your not going get any pudding if you don't finish your meat.."  



AKIron:

from dictionary.com  rebuffed -  To reject bluntly, often disdainfully; snub

Since they are rejecting the previous claims of the Admin.  I would say the constitutes a rebuff...   (texican again?..)

I got a whole feast of crow for all to be served, plenty for everyone..

So, this panel can't find evidence of Saddam's response in this instance and therefore there wasn't one or any other cooperation with Al Queda? Their inability to find evidence does not constitute a rebuff imo. However, their willingness to make such a conjecture most certainly deserves a rebuff.

[xrtoronto]

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.

the US has paid more than 100 Billion dollars to israel and they ARE the most hated and terroristic country in the world..therefore YOU support terrorism!

[AKIron]

Originally posted by xrtoronto
the US has paid more than 100 Billion dollars to israel and they ARE the most hated and terroristic country in the world..therefore YOU support terrorism!

Do you really mean that? Hard to believe anyone could be so blind.

[lazs2]

far as I am concerned... the sadman was a far worse terrorist threat than bin laughable.

the sadman had allready started chemical and nuclear weapons programs... the minute everyones back was turned he would do it again.

foolish to think otherwise.

lazs