Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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..
-
(http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v299/thedudeDVant/dissent_warning.jpg)
-
You are a little confused, there, DY. The link is not AQ>SH>9/11/01, it is just AQ>SH.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Heil to the cheif!
-
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.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Maybe there is little difference.
GS, please say you're not calling GW a murdering tyrant.:eek:
-
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?
-
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.
(http://subvertise.org/img_med/629.jpg)
-
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?
-
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?
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
no here is what I said.
"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."
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
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.
Wait... They back the President's war policy and they are good little Americans. But when they find out they were lied to they are "ameerika hatin librals"? They DID scrub you too hard during brainwashing.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Wait... They back the President's war policy and they are good little Americans. But when they find out they were lied to they are "ameerika hatin librals"? They DID scrub you too hard during brainwashing.
WAIT They said the same thing bush did! That was the point. It wasnt just conservative leaders saying Iraq had WMDs So the whole point of Bush an CO knowing there were no weapons to begin with is dumb......try actually reading all the words in the post before responding with a "you're a conservative fascist brainwashed" reply
-
Originally posted by Pongo
no here is what I said.
"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."
Prove it. Prove to me that they KNEW there were no weapons.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
WAIT They said the same thing bush did! That was the point. It wasnt just conservative leaders saying Iraq had WMDs So the whole point of Bush an CO knowing there were no weapons to begin with is dumb......try actually reading all the words in the post before responding with a "you're a conservative fascist brainwashed" reply
Originally posted by RPM
Wait... They back the President's war policy and they are good little Americans. But when they find out they were lied to they are "ameerika hatin librals"?
Try actually reading all the words in the post before responding with a "you're a ameerika hatin libral" reply.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Prove it. Prove to me that they KNEW there were no weapons.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1136351,00.html
-
How do you get rebuff from this article? Please copy and paste.
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
-
Thats not proof, thats not even halfway decent sci-fi :eek:
-
Don't worry DoctorYO. Some of us Texans drink well water and have not been affected.
-
LoL
(http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v299/thedudeDVant/bush_obey.jpg)
-
(http://subvertise.org/img_med/537.jpg)
-
the "Panel" was a political witch hunt
I take their "findings" with a grain of salt..
-
To all the arse hats saying that Saddam was supporting Al Dumbarses
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.
Well then, aren't you special? How do you like your crow?
-
steve post the link with the article if your going to quote it..
Thank you..
I would like to read your sources..
DoctorYo
-
hell while were at it I bet the 9/11 commission would like to read your sources too.. Becuase now they are lying to the american public if your sources are correct..
Sorry for the machine gun post but your served crow.. any more..
DoctorYo
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Prove it. Prove to me that they KNEW there were no weapons.
Maybe he wasn't dishonest, just incompetent.
-
http://www.foxnews.com./story/0,2933,122820,00.html
-
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..
-
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
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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)
-
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.
-
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..
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
Do you honestly think a ranking member of Al-Qaeda would or even could walk into Hussein's Iraq without Saddam not knowing it?
Are you guys familiar with the term, the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
If SH stayed in power, developed or maintained and Chemical weapons, do you think he would have sold them to Al-Qaeda if propositioned?
Do you honestly thing the world is not a safer place without SH in power?
And of course, in this thread we have the usual liberal "If it's FOX it can't be true!!! WAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!"
-
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!
A terrorist state set up by the UN?
The same one attacked by the arab world the very next day?
You want to compare Israeli soldiers to PAL Suicide bombers?
Sure, the Israeli's kill innocents occiasionally....by mistake.
The palestinians kill Israeli women and children intentionally!
And when Israli children are killed, the palestinians dance in the streets while American left wingers defend these "Freedom Fighters".
When was the last time you read about an Jew blowing himself up in the middle of a palestinian marketplace in the name of Moses?
-
Happend alot while they were the "terrorists"
What the Palistinians are doing is borrrowed from the Jews in "palistine" and the Greeks in Cypress vs the Brits. Same play sheet.
You probably dont know that.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
When was the last time you read about an Jew blowing himself up in the middle of a palestinian marketplace in the name of Moses?
Why? Because they have modern helicopters, tanks, and various US supplied advanced weaponry to murder Palestinians with. Strap on a bomb... oye!
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
The palestinians kill Israeli women and children intentionally!
the first suicide bomber wasnt until 1995...lets talk about the prior almost 30 years of occupation?
How about the 6 day war?
How many resolutions have been tabled by the UN against israel? I haven't checked, but I suspect more have been against israel than every other country put together.
Things are so bad now that your own government didn't veto the last one! That in itself has to say something to you?
-
Let me know when we go after Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Palestine.
Then MAYBE I could believe the reason we went after Saddam was terrorism.
Forest... tree... if you believe Iraq was a bigger threat than the above nations maybe you live under a rock?
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Let me know when we go after Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Palestine.
Then MAYBE I could believe the reason we went after Saddam was terrorism.
Forest... tree... if you believe Iraq was a bigger threat than the above nations maybe you live under a rock?
-SW
Be patient Wulfe. ;)
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Forest... tree... if you believe Iraq was a bigger threat than the above nations maybe you live under a rock?
-SW
nope just one we had a foot-in-the-door reason to start with
when Iraq settles out, it will be the new Israel, minus the Jews
bombers are already blowing up the populous (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040617/ts_nm/iraq_dc)
what a mindset they have over there eh?
Sadly, it will take generations to remove
-
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.
Funny...this is the argument one always receive when saying that there was no cooperation between A-Q and SH...And a pretty moronic one, btw: yes SH was gaving some money to families of suicide bombers. But if you keep it in perspective, it was only tokens regarding the amounts of money he could have injected into terrorist networks (it would be equivalent of calling you an 'illegal immigration supporter' because you gave pocket change to a couple of latin-americans homelesses...). I consider it as a political gesture towards hardcore muslims, his enemies within. Because if the US of A were his Nemesis from outside, islamists were even a greater threat from inside. SH's secular regime wasn't supported by islamists and was against a good part of their beliefs.
-
"when Iraq settles out, it will be the new Israel, minus the Jews "
thats a classic. I think you the best you can really hope for is Texas. Minus the texans.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
"when Iraq settles out, it will be the new Israel, minus the Jews "
thats a classic. I think you the best you can really hope for is Texas. Minus the texans.
Wow, Canada..otherwise known as "Europe-Lite" insulting a Texan...
This ought to be good.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Wow, Canada..otherwise known as "Europe-Lite"
hehehe...I like that Muckmaw- good one!
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
hehehe...I like that Muckmaw- good one!
I must have heard it somewhere...I'm not that clever.
hehe...
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Wow, Canada..otherwise known as "Europe-Lite" insulting a Texan...
This ought to be good.
At least we know when our Government has lied to us. Or is incompetent. Or both :D
-
Where did I insult texas or texans?
Ya thats an easy one MJ..Always.
-
(http://www.piefilling.net/pogo.gif)
-
"europe-lite" .... that's pretty good.
lazs
-
Europe thinks we are "America Lite"
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
At least we know when our Government has lied to us. Or is incompetent. Or both :D
it is just more familure to you guys us ;)
-
pongo.. you are both... left to yourselves you are euro lite but when you need to prosper or get decent health care of reasonably priced goods you cross the border and come here and become lithtweight Americans.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Pongo
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.
baaaaah ... its all conspiracy agains Bush :D
-
hmmmm, might wanna check out this thread: http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=120676&referrerid=2410
This panel seems to have had their heads up their proverbials.
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
"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
very nice post :cool:
-
The problem with getting good intelligence on these middle eastern countries is that who wants to be a spy where ya can't even drink a martini, shaken, not stirred of course.
-
Friday, June 18, 2004 9:21 a.m. EDT
9/11 Chair Hamilton Slams Media Distortions
Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Lee Hamilton blasted the mainstream press yesterday for distorting the Commission's findings on links between Iraq and al Qaida, saying those findings actually support Bush administration contentions.
"The sharp differences that the press has drawn [between the White House and the Commission] are not that apparent to me," Hamilton told the Associated Press, a day after insisting that his probe uncovered "all kinds" of connections between Osama bin Laden's terror network and Iraq.
Hamilton's comments followed a deluge of mainstream reports falsely claiming that the 9/11 Commission had discredited the Bush administration's claim of longstanding links between Baghdad and bin Laden.
But the Indiana Democrat said the press accounts were flat-out wrong.
"There are all kinds of ties," he told PBS's "The News Hour" late Wednesday, in comments that establishment journalists have refused to report.
"There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein's lieutenants."
Hamilton said that while his probe had failed to uncover any direct operational link between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden's terror network in attacks on the U.S., there's no question that "they had contacts."
-
Ahhh, guess it was the press with their heads in the no shine zone.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
pongo.. you are both... left to yourselves you are euro lite but when you need to prosper or get decent health care of reasonably priced goods you cross the border and come here and become lithtweight Americans.
lazs
Dont know what gave you the idea that you have better health care. You have more expensive, less accessable, less effective health care the Canada by any measure.
The occasional east indian going to the states to get a late trimester abortion doesnt give you good health care.
-
Well after a brief thread Hijack Im surprised this thread is still going..
In regards to Eaglers comments.. You can see the damage control going on in full swing... Three ring circus is what I call it..
Did you know Russia makes plans to attack our interests just as we make plans to attack theirs.. (war planning is done by every major country in the world) How bout china think they don't have war plans drawn up for us if the crap ever hits the fan in Taiwan.. Of course.. Now given our Axis of Evil sabre rattling what leader in the right mind would not take precautions to ensure their sovereignty or at least be able to retaliate if attacked.. (of course Saddam plotted against us.. That's a given like a triangle having 180 degrees.)
Again the issue is the sexing up (that's catchy Brits) or misleading when saying that Saddam was in bed with Al Dumbarse... That's the issue here.. Not is Saddam a tyrant.. Not if Saddam wanted to get at Bush Senior for what he considered as betrayal for Gulf War 1.. These are known facts for anyone willing to take the time to research the issue..
No the issue here is saying that saddam had a direct link to 9/11 and was in cahoots with al Dumbarse to carry out such attacks..
Watch in the next few days when even the recent statements of our President are fact checked and rebuffed ... (not to mention our Vice Presidents comments either..)
That is a weak argument.. I watched with my own eyes what chairman Kean / Hamilton had to say on PBS.. What that was doctored (no pun intended heh) too... Liberal bias? What the libs CGI - ed Chairman Kean/Hamilton and used their own voices to boot.. Open you eyes...
Bush did allure that Saddam was at least partly responsible for the 9/11 attacks because I remember seeing him say it with my own eyes during his chest thumping war mongering speeches...
Now the commission clearly said different. And note Mr. Hamilton's complaints he's right some agencies did blow it out of proportion.. (he trying to maintain integrity of the commission from the talking heads; I dont blame him..) The original AP article I posted did not... (though AKIRON wanted me to take responsibility for some AP writers Title of the article in question.. I thought the title is still accurate to this day..)
I must give you people credit your great at bending and misleading putting words in peoples mouths in other crapola; But your tactics while effective on some of the low intelligence people of America are not effective on me or anyone with half a brain.
Its funny how people take a spymasters word and jailer of the Richest man in Russia (Khodorkovsky - Yukos) over the 9/11 commission..
Using his tactics we should jail every Rockefeller, Heinz, Kennedy, and anyone else who made money during the rise of democracy in any nation of the world.. (this story is a great one because Putin left him alone until his money started going to a alternative political candidate of Putin's.. Then next thing you know tax fraud and mattress label manipulation you name it.. Do your homework on his case even a blind man like you can come to the same conclusion as I that he's getting 8-balled unfairly...)
But yet Putin word is more credible..
You people keep living in Bizarro world..
2 cents..
DoctorYO
PS: Kerry's a putz too.. but hey his views of re-establishing ties with Europe is a good start IMO as opposed to New Europe Old Europe Rhetoric..
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
No the issue here is saying that saddam had a direct link to 9/11 and was in cahoots with al Dumbarse to carry out such attacks..
Uh, no, that was never the "issue", except perhaps in the minds of those too rabid to actually listen to or read what has been said.
-
please post quotes where bush stated Saddam had a direct hand in 9/11
I remember a speech about a war on terrorism, saddam fit the bill
I just want to know when we are going to move on to the other members of the axis- times a wasting
-
Well Considering your chicken hawk mentality when I asked you post your re-up papers; I find your hypocrisy a laughable matter in regards to thumping your chest for more war..
Since you want war goto DRPK.. Im shure your enjoy the trenchwarfare, million + army (note the terrain supports infantry warfare not airpower/tankpower..) and fermented cabbage... dog farms, bunker/trenches every mountain top, and bitter cold from hell..... you been there? I have.. and I say modern trench warfare there would be the worst war ever.. (thats why USA clammed up imo.. It would have been bloody and it may still go to that level we'll have to see what happens.)(don't get me wrong we would win.. but it would be a pyrric victory)
And the funny thing is that were struggling with Iraq, Our volunteer army is taxed and you want to slave drive them into another conflict.. You sound like Hitler pushing into Russsia.. Lets be realistic, IMO were stretched too thin as is..
Note I said allure (again more twisting lies words in my mouth bs tactics by Bush Cronies.. save that for the stupid impaired)
Dictionary.com - allure : To attract with something desirable; entice
Entice(for the Eagler impaired.) : To attract by arousing hope or desire; lure
Now to the point of digging thru transcipts so that you can then post more comical simian based thought process, don't waste my time.. (Make a good argument as opposed to talking smack and you might "entice/allure" me to do more research..")
Got any more lies disinformation today Eagler..?
How bout them re-up papers..? Clam up?. ah thought so... Be all you can be..
DoctorYO
PS : In regards to Iran we would roll over them even more so than Iraq in IMO; but again our army is taxed so I'd wait a few years to see how they pan out.. Hardliners are loosing power to the youth; do your homework they will implode without our military muscle..
-
my battle would not involve the deployment of ground soldiers ..
ur service docYo - just don't let it cloud the facts...
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The problem with getting good intelligence on these middle eastern countries is that who wants to be a spy where ya can't even drink a martini, shaken, not stirred of course.
Ashcroft, Bush, and Cheney don't drink, why should their operatives? :rolleyes: Should be like heaven to them, minus the 72 virgins :lol
-
pongo... we don't have better health care... until you need something important done. Just like we don't have a better economy untill you want to buy something or exchange your money.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
pongo... we don't have better health care... until you need something important done. Just like we don't have a better economy untill you want to buy something or exchange your money.
lazs
and what percentage of your population have no access when they "need something important done" ????
:rolleyes:
-
I would say... oh.... zero. All they got to do is get their fat butt to the emergency ward.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I would say... oh.... zero. All they got to do is get their fat butt to the emergency ward.
lazs
That's not exactly true. Proof of insurance determines how much, if any, services that can be provided to you.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
That's not exactly true. Proof of insurance determines how much, if any, services that can be provided to you.
BS
ppl everyday without insurance, some without even a green card, pass through, read - crowd up, emergency rooms as they know they can not be refused medical treatment
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
When was the last time you read about an Jew blowing himself up in the middle of a palestinian marketplace in the name of Moses?
WHAT? A Palestinian Jew Blew a man named Moses in the middle of an Israeli marketplace? OH THE HORROR :lol
-
Originally posted by Eagler
BS
ppl everyday without insurance, some without even a green card, pass through, read - crowd up, emergency rooms as they know they can not be refused medical treatment
They are given the bare minimum...no prescription medication, no overnight hospital stay unless in a life threatening condition. It's unethical to not assist someone in a near death condition, but they won't get a single room on the 8th floor.
period.
-
That's not what Russia says...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saddam.terror/index.html
-
wow redtail
must be a terrible country you live in - LOL
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
and what percentage of your population have no access when they "need something important done" ????
:rolleyes:
There is always Monsanto's Milk. ;)
-
Originally posted by rpm371
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1136351,00.html
Check the dates as the when they "learnt" (lol) this information.
(learnt? When did the hicks invade the U.K.?)