hardly surprising...

The 9-11 hearings were nothing more than a joke. Just an opportunity for the likes of Dick-wad Ben-Veniste, Jamie Gore-Lick, and Bob-I-Dated-Debra-Winger-While-I-Was-Sen.-of-NE-Kerry to get some face time on camera and politicize the hearings.

There is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11.

'No convincing evidence'..... so there is evidence but it doesnt convince the 'independent' commission.

...report by commission staff said al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 and had explored the possibility of cooperation, but the plans apparently never came to fruition.

'Apparently'..... there was a meeting. What was it about?
Apparently, the commission isn't really sure.

Info below the fold:

The commission found that the plot originally called for hijacking 10 planes and attacking targets on the eastern and western coasts of the United States.....The commission said that al Qaeda was seeking to obtain nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.....The CIA estimates that al Qaeda spent $30 million each year on expenses including terrorist operations, salaries and maintenance on terrorist training camps.

Even Hillary knows what's going on:
"Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
 
Gonz said:
Why do you chastise us for conclusions drawn using logic & evidence when you do not follow the same course against those drawing conclusions using nothing more than emotion?

Upon further reflection, who cares if saddam & usama had a love affair. This is all the justification needed,


says who :rolleyes: you're avoiding the topic. i'm not questioning whether iraq should have attacked or not; that's not the topic here. thing is that bush used the relation between iraq and 9/11 attacks as a REASON to invade iraq. AS he used the WMD as a reason, which turned out a little bit dissapointing as well.
we're talking about the credibility of a government here, but for some reason that's just conveniently forgotten :rolleyes:
 
Shadowfax said:
bush used the relation between iraq and 9/11 attacks as a REASON to invade iraq.

Trying to twist the facts & re-write history? A link to a relevent quote please.
 
Link

Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam's weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans.
"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."
Officials now say they may not find hundreds of tons of mustard and nerve agents and maybe not thousands of liters of anthrax and other toxins. But U.S. forces will find some, they say. On Thursday, President Bush raised the possibility for the first time that any such Iraqi weapons were destroyed before or during the war.
If weapons of mass destruction were not the primary reason for war, what was? Here's the answer officials and advisers gave ABCNEWS.
The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks changed everything, including the Bush administration's thinking about the Middle East — and not just Saddam Hussein.
Senior officials decided that unless action was taken, the Middle East would continue to be a breeding ground for terrorists. Officials feared that young Arabs, angry about their lives and without hope, would always looking for someone to hate — and that someone would always be Israel and the United States.
Can you say, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman?" :rofl:
 
Irrelevent to the al qaida link.

Your story is politics. If there are weapons then it's not equal to Clinton's lie which was absolutely false. Again, assuming the notion that the weapons in Iraq aren't there but once were, where are they? He had them & he agreed to publically destroy them. Either way there is justification on the weapons side of the argument.
 
then it's not equal to Clinton's lie which was absolutely false.
So then there are shades of grey in lying. I thought everything was either right or wrong, Black or white? I guess I'm confused (or something).
 
I don't see that there are shades of grey in lying.
I don't see that bush lied at all.
I think he does the best he can (most of the time),
with what he knows, "and" what he's given to work with.
Whether I agree with his decisions of everything, is beside the point, and
irrelevant. At least I think "he" thinks hes doing the right things.
(which I don't think the prior pres did.)
 
Gonz said:
Trying to twist the facts & re-write history? A link to a relevent quote please.

too lazy to find any internet links. try to find a few after-9/11 speeches he gave. i'm pretty sure you'll remember it anyway. it just so happens to be that you don't WANT to remember, since that would prove you were wrong :blank:
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5215019/
In making the case for war in Iraq, Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam’s decade-long contacts with al-Qaida operatives.They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public.

He gave more than just an impression that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and only came out and said otherwise when it became obvious they weren't.

From an oct 2002 speech.
Bush, in his speech in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, made his case that Iraq had ties with al Qaeda, by mentioning several items such as high-level contacts that "go back a decade." He said "we've learned" that Iraq trained al Qaeda members "in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." Although the president offered essentially circumstantial evidence, his remarks contained none of the caveats about the reliability of this information as contained in the national intelligence document, sources said.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122956,00.html
The president added that he did not infer that the two had a "collaborative relationship" on the attacks, a conclusion rejected by the commission investigating the intelligence failures that prevented the United States from warding off the attacks.

Of course he neglets to point out that if you look at all Osamas past associates ,the US also had meetings and dealings with him when the Russians were in Afghanistan.
 
I told you GWB was behind 9-11
It was all a ploy to get re-elected
and invade Iraq! Impeach Bushy!
 
A.B.Normal said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5215019/


He gave more than just an impression that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and only came out and said otherwise when it became obvious they weren't.

From an oct 2002 speech.

They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public.

what more did he give? :confused:
 
They are all easily surprised...

Of course he bent the truth WHAT? if he'd come right out and said the real reasons why it was in the best interests of the United States and the world for us to invade Iraq?
 
chcr said:
So then there are shades of grey in lying. I thought everything was either right or wrong, Black or white? I guess I'm confused (or something).

There was no lie. There were (and still are) weapons.
 
Well, AB, you proved what I didn't recall. Although, looking at the date of the speech (Oct 7, '02) I believe it's one of the few times he used al qaeda as a scare tactic. Live & learn.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
 
for posterity
Bush Says Iraq Posed Threat Because of Terror Link (Update1)
June 17 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said ``numerous contacts'' between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network justified the U.S.-led war on Saddam Hussein's regime.

``There was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al- Qaeda,'' Bush told reporters after meeting with his Cabinet at the White House. ``This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda.''

A panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks reported yesterday that meetings or contacts between the former Iraqi dictator and al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden didn't lead to a collaborative relationship. There's ``no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States,'' the panel said.

``Saddam Hussein was a threat,'' Bush said when asked about the report. ``He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy of the United States of America, just like al- Qaeda. He was a threat because he had terrorist connections.''

``The world is better off and America is more secure without Saddam Hussein in power,'' the president said.

Continuing Violence

The U.S.-led coalition is preparing to transfer power to a caretaker Iraqi government on June 30. Bush yesterday predicted violence would increase as the handoff draws near.

At least 833 U.S. soldiers have been killed since the war began in March 2003, with 693 deaths since May 1 of that year, when Bush declared major hostilities over, Pentagon figures show.

The violence continued today. At least 41 people were killed and 142 injured when car bombs exploded near an Iraqi army recruitment center in Baghdad and outside a government building in Yethrib, north of the capital, U.S. and Iraqi officials said.

The Iraq war, with its mounting casualties, increased bombings and prison abuse, is hurting Bush in public opinion polls. A Los Angeles Times poll June 5-8 found 53 percent of those surveyed said going to war wasn't worth the cost, while 43 percent said it was. The poll surveyed 1,230 registered voters.

In polls taken in November and March, a majority of those asked said the war was worth the cost, the Times said.

Kerry's Reaction

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, a four-term U.S. senator from Massachusetts, said the report by the Sept. 11 commission, a 10-member bipartisan panel, challenges Bush's justification for war and suggests the president misled the nation.

``This president failed the test in Iraq,'' Kerry, 60, said while campaigning in Ohio yesterday. ``When it comes to war and peace, I will tell the truth to the American people.''

In Congress, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California urged Bush to ``clear the air'' about his motivations for going to war with Iraq.

``The president has a responsibility to the American people to speak the truth on this subject,'' Pelosi said.

The commission is holding its final public hearing today in Washington. After 18 months of work, the panel plans to deliver its final report to Congress and the White House by July 26, the opening day of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.



To contact the reporter on this story:
Roger Runningen in Washington [email protected]

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Glenn Hall at [email protected]
 
Easily surprised...

Heya Gonz can you imagine how these folks will squeal when the terrorists hit us again and GWB takes decisive action?
Of course guys like us will prolly just punch em' in the schnozzle then!
 
chcr said:
I give up. The exaggerated the "existing" threat in your mind. Fuck it.

Do you deny that Iraq had illegal weapons between & including the years 1991 & 2003?
 
Back
Top