More whining...

Nice source. An opinion piece at the Weekly Standard :laugh:

Hell not even Gonz believes Iraq was connected with Al Queada. You really have to be a delusional fanatic to cling to that one.
 
What would that have to do with Iraq?

Has Iraq been invaded by a group of people who would like Iraq to accept their view of the world or something?
 
backed up by substantiated facts
Click to expand...

"Facts" which have already been debunked.

``The intelligence community never found an operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda,'' Levin said. ``The report specifically states that `the CIA and DIA disavowed any `mature, symbiotic' relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.''
Click to expand...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auxUqPTmsuAs&refer=home

So why grasp at straws for an Al Qaeda link in Iraq when it's so much easier to find links to Saudi Arabia? Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi, none from Iraq. The bin Laden (remember him?) connection is clear.

Pretty clear heading to Iraq for a "War on Terror" was a joke isn't it?
 
spike said:
What would that have to do with Iraq?
Click to expand...

Connect the Dots
http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/SH040923.html
Click to expand...

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S8526&position=all

In one editorial, two months before the attack, al-Nasiriyah -- a state-run newspaper for the Saddam regime -- managed to name all three attack targets for 9/11. They said that bin Laden had spent his time trying to work out how to bomb the White House, which would happen shortly before destroying the Pentagon. Then, in typically flowery Arabic fashion, the author claims that Americans will "curse the memory of Frank Sinatra", an odd reference -- unless one remembers that "New York, New York" remains Sinatra's signature song. In the event, the attack followed precisely this plan, except in reverse order: the World Trade Center went first, then the Pentagon, and the White House would likely have followed if the heroes of Flight 93 had not caused the terrorists to down the plane in Pennsylvania.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S8525&position=all
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S8526&position=all
Click to expand...



Has Iraq been invaded by a group of people who would like Iraq to accept their view of the world or something?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you'd be happy if we just got rid of our military forces, right?
If this country would only adopt the liberal viewpoint of appeasement and surrender then we wouldn't need them?
 
spike said:
.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auxUqPTmsuAs&refer=home
Click to expand...


Ahem

The inspector general determined that Feith's shop did nothing illegal, but still maintained that his office's analyses were "inappropriate." Why? According to the inspector general, Feith & Co. did not sufficiently explain that their conclusions were at odds with the CIA's (and the DIA's) judgments. That was enough for Levin to go on the attack once again.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/510ixmdf.asp?pg=1
Click to expand...


The purpose of intell assessments is to present a variety of possible interpretations of the available data.
 
Connect the Dots? Not really any dots to connect there are there?

Now what about all those dots connected to Saudi Arabia? You going to answer that one?


Cerise said:
I'm guessing you'd be happy if we just got rid of our military forces, right?
If this country would only adopt the liberal viewpoint of appeasement and surrender then we wouldn't need them?
Click to expand...

Appeasement and surrender? Where'd you get that?

I'm against the republican viewpoint of appeasement of the people responsible for 9/11, wasting our military resources in the Iraq farce, and making our country generally less safe.
 
Cerise said:
spike said:
Cerise said:
You don't believe that we have been attacked by a group of people who would like us to accept their view of the world?
Click to expand...

What would that have to do with Iraq?

Has Iraq been invaded by a group of people who would like Iraq to accept their view of the world or something?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you'd be happy if we just got rid of our military forces, right?
Click to expand...

So it's still a little unclear, were you for or against groups of people trying to get others to accept their view of the world through violence?
 
spike said:
Connect the Dots? Not really any dots to connect there are there?

Now what about all those dots connected to Saudi Arabia? You going to answer that one?
Click to expand...

You brought "all those dots" up---you go first.


So it's still a little unclear, were you for or against groups of people trying to get others to accept their view of the world through violence?
Click to expand...


Are you calling America a terrorist state?
 
Cerise said:
You brought "all those dots" up---you go first.
Click to expand...

Go first how? I gave info on Saudi and asked you a question about it.


Are you calling America a terrorist state?
Click to expand...

No, I was asking you to clarify your position. Just read the question->

were you for or against groups of people trying to get others to accept their view of the world through violence?
 
spike said:
Go first how? I gave info on Saudi and asked you a question about it.
Click to expand...


I guess I didn't know that "all those dots" was considered "information on Saudi" Can you be more specific?

No, I was asking you to clarify your position. Just read the question->

were you for or against groups of people trying to get others to accept their view of the world through violence?
Click to expand...

Isn't this your real question?

Has Iraq been invaded by a group of people who would like Iraq to accept their view of the world or something?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do believe you've summarized the liberal viewpoint of the war in Iraq correctly.
 
this is truly hilarious.

"isn't this your real question?"

golly cerise you should sign up as another user and just debate yourself. yer already kinda 'bating yerslef anyway.
 
Gonz said:
You think Saddam was opposed to terrorism. I'm not so sure.
Click to expand...

See, this is what I mean when I say that you don't read what is written, you read what you want it to say. I have never, ever said that Saddam was opposed to terrorism. In fact, it's pretty clear that he was very supportive of certain terrorist organizations. What I have said in the past is that muslim fundamentalists (and let's be clear, not all muslim terrorist groups are fundamentalists) hated Saddam because he was trying to westernize Iraq (by force and intimidation, sound familiar?). That's all I ever said on the subject. This is why I usually walk away from these discussions with you Gonz. You start putting words in my mouth that I haven't and wouldn't say thinking it will bolster your position. Now I'm walking away from this one. Thanks for playing.
 
Bullshit. For several years now, you've said, in one form or another, that the Hussein regime did not support terrorism, because it was as likely to attack him as anyone. The words may not be specific but the message is clear.
 
okay gonz, not "support" WHAT terrorism or terrorists?

certainly not "support" for anyone with ambitions such as those manifest into 9/11.
 
2minkey said:
okay gonz, not "support" WHAT terrorism or terrorists?
Click to expand...

Ask cranky...he's the one that's been saying it.

Why not support anyone with ambitions such as those manifest into 9/11? We were the leaders of the pack that put him in his bind, We were the ones that kept him there. The package may have read UN but it was enforced by US. Why wouldn't he want to see a major catastrophe befall us? If he could be a part of that show (and still keep his comfy seat), I see no reason he wouldn't.
 
Gonz said:
Bullshit. For several years now, you've said, in one form or another, that the Hussein regime did not support terrorism, because it was as likely to attack him as anyone. The words may not be specific but the message is clear.
Click to expand...

Okay, find one. :rolleyes:
 
2minkey said:
sure. it's not that i don't like it. i think it's super dandy. but i don't think it's 'scripture' and i think it should be questioned and re-framed to be consistent with the world we live in.
Click to expand...

Actually it is the ultimate law unless changed by amendment, appeal, or found 'unconstitutional' by the Supreme Court. If those changes, which you referred to and I spelled out, do not occur, then, guess what, its 'scripture'.
 
a much belated...
Gato_Solo said:
Actually it is the ultimate law unless changed by amendment, appeal, or found 'unconstitutional' by the Supreme Court. If those changes, which you referred to and I spelled out, do not occur, then, guess what, its 'scripture'.
Click to expand...

hmmm. i didn't realize it was a product of divine inspiration. thanks for setting me straight. next time i'll be sure not to mix up jebus and jefferson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top