Discussion in 'The Real World' started by MrBishop, Feb 9, 2007.
For the one billionth time...
Iraq was not necessarily linked to alqaeda. Saddam was absolutely linked to terrorism.
I see just what you mean.
The denial is strong in him.
If Saddam was not linked to al-Qaeda, then he was not linked to terrorism?
what speech was that?
So was the British intel skewed also? They said almost the same things.
actually i think it was that others had to beat that into your head about a billion times, and now it seems, maybe, that it's sunk in.
I clearly recall the debates leading up to it. Alqaeda being tied to Iraq was not a major point (in fact, it hardly constitutes a minor one).
Iraq being tied to terrorism, in general, was a major point.
It's from the original speech, Gonz. Right before the invasion.
I remember the same debates that you do except that I clearly remember ties to al-Qaeda being a major issue (kinda like he refers to in the speech).
Here's a summary of the ties:
And the official report by the Select Committee on Intelligence:
these always were and continue to be the desperate rationalizations of folks that understand next to nothing about the middle east.
and did you even READ the gubmint report? check out pages 63-67 or thereaboutes.
Please, fill us in. You seem to know so much more.
He implied there is more to the ME than we're all privy to. I was just curious what his inside man has to offer that hasn't already been talked about, ad nauseum.
I didn't think so. He said that despite the obvious failure of the current policy the administration (and supporters thereof) continue to rationalize the current policy via information that has been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate. He never implies any more knowledge than is available to anyone else.
i've stated elsewhere that i have what i believe to be a moderate level of knowledge about the middle east. yes, i know the difference between seveners and twelvers, but i ain't no fuckin' lawrence of arabia.
as chcr sez, nowhere in the post that is referred to above did i suggest that i was something special as far as knowledge aboot the middle east. i've merely pointed toward what all but the most desperate understand as a preponderance of evidence showing the long-tired "significant iraq-al quada relationship" assertion as bull-huckey. again, kinda what chcr said.
Please reveal what you understand as the "REAL" reason the United States went to Iraq; after all, I know the Left is fond of calling it "Bush's War."
Maybe the "reason" contains the letters w-a-r-f-o-r-o-i-l or h-e-t-r-i-e-d-t-o-k-i-l-l-m-y-d-a-d-d-y or c-o-w-b-o-y-p-o-l-i-t-i-c-s?
nice assumptions. you have no idea if i'm left. i could be so far off the scale to the right that i could call you a fucking pinko commie pussy. maybe i'm just embarrassed by how dumb and short-sighted the right has become. or maybe i am a commie.
when something salient arises in your posts, i may reply. until then... try holding your breath.
Separate names with a comma.