# Pentagon find no evidence that Saddam tried to assasinate Poppy Bush



## DeadCanDance (Mar 24, 2008)

*Pentagon report finds no evidence of Saddam attempt to assassinate Bush*

Published: Monday March 24, 2008

In President Bush's view, former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was many things -- a developer of weapons of mass destruction, an ally of al Qaeda and "a guy that tried to kill my dad."

Recent intelligence reports have already shot down those first two notions. No WMD stockpiles were found in Iraq after the US invasion, and a just-released Pentagon assessment failed to find any "smoking gun" link between Saddam and the terror group that plotted the 9/11 attacks.

Now skepticism is newly enveloping allegations of an Iraqi plot to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush during a trip to Kuwait in 1993. Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports that the same Pentagon report that has essentially disproved an Iraq-al Qaeda link also calls into question the 1993 plot that spurred former President Bill Clinton to launch a Tomahawk cruise-missle strike against Saddam's Iraqi Intelligence.

The review, conducted for the Pentagon's Joint Forces Command, combed through 600,000 pages of Iraqi intelligence documents seized after the fall of Baghdad, as well as thousands of hours of audio- and videotapes of Saddam's conversations with his ministers and top aides. The study found that the IIS kept remarkably detailed records of virtually every operation it planned, including plots to assassinate Iraqi exiles and to supply explosives and booby-trapped suitcases to Iraqi embassies. But the Pentagon researchers found no documents that referred to a plan to kill Bush. The absence was conspicuous because researchers, aware of its potential significance, were looking for such evidence. "It was surprising," said one source familiar with the preparation of the report (who under Pentagon ground rules was not permitted to speak on the record). Given how much the Iraqis did document, "you would have thought there would have been some veiled reference to something about [the plot]."



http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Pentagon_report_finds_no_evidence_of_0324.html


----------



## jreeves (Mar 24, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> *Pentagon report finds no evidence of Saddam attempt to assassinate Bush*
> 
> Published: Monday March 24, 2008
> 
> ...



  One more liberal talking point eliminated....Bush didn't go to war with Saddam over his daddy...


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 24, 2008)

Perhaps Bush might like to present the evidence he has that Saddam tried to have his father murdered.  If he can't then yet another purported reason for invading Iraq is down the toilet, along with the others.  When all the purported reasons have been disposed of and there's nothing left, what then?  Was there no reason at all for the invasion?  Did BushCheney invade for nothing at all?


----------



## jreeves (Mar 24, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Perhaps Bush might like to present the evidence he has that Saddam tried to have his father murdered.  If he can't then yet another purported reason for invading Iraq is down the toilet, along with the others.  When all the purported reasons have been disposed of and there's nothing left, what then?  Was there no reason at all for the invasion?  Did BushCheney invade for nothing at all?



I don't think that Bush has ever said the reason he went to war against Saddam was because of the supposed plot. But nice try.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 24, 2008)

I seem to remember reading somewhere where Bush, in bolstering his view that Saddam was dangerous to the US somehow wrapped up in there, "he tried to kill my dad."  Of course that could have been part of his folksy presentation style back then and of course my memory could be faulty (which unfortunately is entirely possible).  Either way if it was a reason it appears it is now not so.  

Any idea which reasons for the invasion are still holding up?


----------



## DeadCanDance (Mar 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> One more liberal talking point eliminated....*Bush didn't go to war with Saddam over his daddy..*






> George Bush, 2002:   In discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: *"After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."*
> 
> http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/






> Text of Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq 2002
> 
> Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,* including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush* and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council


.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 24, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> I seem to remember reading somewhere where Bush, in bolstering his view that Saddam was dangerous to the US somehow wrapped up in there, "he tried to kill my dad."  Of course that could have been part of his folksy presentation style back then and of course my memory could be faulty (which unfortunately is entirely possible).  Either way if it was a reason it appears it is now not so.
> 
> Any idea which reasons for the invasion are still holding up?



Yes, we removed a butcher and man with ties to terrorism.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 24, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> .



Lol....Yeah I remember that too...UN SEC General the UN should authorize military force against the Saddam regime because he tried to hurt my daddy.
I never stated that Bush didn't say that Saddam had tried to kill Bush SR. ,but that the Bush Sr. plot was never the reason for war.

Your too funny really....are you a freaking comedian?


----------



## DeadCanDance (Mar 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Lol....Yeah I remember that too...UN SEC General the UN should authorize military force against the Saddam regime because he tried to hurt my daddy.
> I never stated that Bush didn't say that Saddam had tried to kill Bush SR. ,but that the Bush Sr. plot was never the reason for war.
> 
> Your too funny really....are you a freaking comedian?



It was cited as a "reason" in the War Authorization dumbass.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 24, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> It was cited as a "reason" in the War Authorization dumbass.



Give a link dumbass....for the war authorization....


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Give a link dumbass....for the war authorization....




*http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

"Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush..."*
dumbass


----------



## jreeves (Mar 24, 2008)

maineman said:


> *http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
> 
> "Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush..."*
> dumbass



Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; 

Why didn't you post the whole paragraph? Seems as though he was only using it as an example not as a reason....You liberals really believe this BS


----------



## Alpha1 (Mar 24, 2008)

the 1993 plot that spurred former President Bill Clinton to launch a Tomahawk cruise-missle strike against Saddam's Iraqi Intelligence.

Clinton shooting missiles for nothing.....?????
Killing people  for nothing.....????
Damn....


----------



## jreeves (Mar 24, 2008)

maineman said:


> *http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
> 
> "Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush..."*
> dumbass



 Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports that the same Pentagon report that has essentially disproved an Iraq-al Qaeda link also calls into question the 1993 plot that spurred former President Bill Clinton to launch a Tomahawk cruise-missle strike against Saddam's Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS). 

Damn it Bill....


----------



## DeadCanDance (Mar 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Yes, we removed a butcher and man with ties to terrorism.




Jesus, do you have a Shrine of Bush are your house that you worship every night?

If you had asked the american people in 2002, if they wanted to go to war at enormous cost of blood and treasure against saddam even though he didn't have WMD, didn't have ties to al qaeda, considered Bin Laden his enemy, and didn't try to kill Bush senior, you could have fit the total number of americans that supported your war in a toilet stall. 

The fact that you still think your war was a great idea just means you are in love with George Bush


----------



## maineman (Mar 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports that the same Pentagon report that has essentially disproved an Iraq-al Qaeda link also calls into question the 1993 plot that spurred former President Bill Clinton to launch a Tomahawk cruise-missle strike against Saddam's Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS).
> 
> Damn it Bill....



what a pussy....
call someone a dumbass and then run away when the proof is rammed down your throat.

pathetic


----------



## jreeves (Mar 24, 2008)

maineman said:


> what a pussy....
> call someone a dumbass and then run away when the proof is rammed down your throat.
> 
> pathetic



Didn't run away I'm still here jackass, that in no way proved that was the *reason* for war. It was listed as an example for a reason to go to war. Learn the difference


----------



## jreeves (Mar 24, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> Jesus, do you have a Shrine of Bush are your house that you worship every night?
> 
> If you had asked the american people in 2002, if they wanted to go to war at enormous cost of blood and treasure against saddam even though he didn't have WMD, didn't have ties to al qaeda, considered Bin Laden his enemy, and didn't try to kill Bush senior, you could have fit the total number of americans that supported your war in a toilet stall.
> 
> The fact that you still think your war was a great idea just means you are in love with George Bush



http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp

This ought to be big news. Throughout the early and mid-1990s, Saddam Hussein actively supported an influential terrorist group headed by the man who is now al Qaeda's second-in-command, according to an exhaustive study issued last week by the Pentagon. "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." According to the Pentagon study, Egyptian Islamic Jihad was one of many jihadist groups that Iraq's former dictator funded, trained, equipped, and armed.

The study was commissioned by the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, and produced by analysts at the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded military think tank. It is entitled "Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents." The study is based on a review of some 600,000 documents captured in postwar Iraq. Those "documents" include letters, memos, computer files, audiotapes, and videotapes produced by Saddam Hussein's regime, especially his intelligence services. The analysis section of the study covers 59 pages. The appendices, which include copies of some of the captured documents and translations, put the entire study at approximately 1,600 pages


In 1993, as Osama bin Laden's fighters battled Americans in Somalia, Saddam Hussein personally ordered the formation of an Iraqi terrorist group to join the battle there.

None of this means anything to you huh?? Of course not....


----------



## jreeves (Mar 24, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> Jesus, do you have a Shrine of Bush are your house that you worship every night?
> 
> If you had asked the american people in 2002, if they wanted to go to war at enormous cost of blood and treasure against saddam even though he didn't have WMD, didn't have ties to al qaeda, considered Bin Laden his enemy, and didn't try to kill Bush senior, you could have fit the total number of americans that supported your war in a toilet stall.
> 
> The fact that you still think your war was a great idea just means you are in love with George Bush



No shrine of Bush, I see BS, I call it BS when I see it.

Isikoff notes that the absence of evidence does not prove the Iraqis weren't planning to assassinate the former question (just as Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously said about Iraq WMD never found, that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"),


----------



## jreeves (Mar 24, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> Jesus, do you have a Shrine of Bush are your house that you worship every night?
> 
> If you had asked the american people in 2002, if they wanted to go to war at enormous cost of blood and treasure against saddam even though he didn't have WMD, didn't have ties to al qaeda, considered Bin Laden his enemy, and didn't try to kill Bush senior, you could have fit the total number of americans that supported your war in a toilet stall.
> 
> The fact that you still think your war was a great idea just means you are in love with George Bush



No shrine of Bush, I see BS, I call it BS when I see it.

Isikoff notes that *the absence of evidence does not prove the Iraqis weren't planning to assassinate the former question *(just as Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously said about Iraq WMD never found, that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"),

That's from your own post dumbass!


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Yes, we removed a butcher and man with ties to terrorism.




Why didn't you do it earlier?  Why did you help him become what he became?


----------



## jreeves (Mar 24, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Why didn't you do it earlier?  Why did you help him become what he became?



Well I wasn't feeling up to it before 2003.....LOL
I didn't help Saddam become anything....LOL


----------



## jreeves (Mar 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Well I wasn't feeling up to it before 2003.....LOL
> I didn't help Saddam become anything....LOL



No really, the reason we didn't do it before. Because for #1- we were actually trying negotiate a deal through the UN, #2- We were trying to build international support for the war, #3- 9/11 changed our perceptions, no longer were we willing to stand back and ignore imminent threats.

I really don't know what your speaking of as far as helping Saddam, maybe you could enlighten me with some information and links?
I think I know where your going with the Saddam stuff, but I want to be sure first.


----------



## Mr.Conley (Mar 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> One more liberal talking point eliminated....Bush didn't go to war with Saddam over his daddy...



Wow

No really, WOWOWOWOWOW

I bow before the might of your intellect.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Well I wasn't feeling up to it before 2003.....LOL
> I didn't help Saddam become anything....LOL



My apologies, I thought you were Rummy using jreeves' nick


----------



## jreeves (Mar 25, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> My apologies, I thought you were Rummy using jreeves' nick



That's ok, let me see those links on Saddam.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 25, 2008)

jreeves said:


> No really, the reason we didn't do it before. Because for #1- we were actually trying negotiate a deal through the UN, #2- We were trying to build international support for the war, #3- 9/11 changed our perceptions, no longer were we willing to stand back and ignore imminent threats.
> 
> I really don't know what your speaking of as far as helping Saddam, maybe you could enlighten me with some information and links?
> I think I know where your going with the Saddam stuff, but I want to be sure first.



I wish I could find the source but I remember quite some years ago reading an article in _The Australian _(this was before all the papers went online so it must have been in the mid-1980s I think) which was reproduced from a British newspaper, about Saddam.  The story was about the British expat colony in Iraq (could have been Baghdad but may have been Basra as well - I have to admit back then I didn't know much about Iraq except that here we had a real loonie lefty in a state parliament we called "Baghdad Bill").  Anyway the writer was describing a discrete cocktail party (ah it must have been Baghdad, it comes back to me now) at the British Embassy.  

The function was attended by foreigners but of course a sprinkling of Iraqis were present, no doubt some of Saddam's secret police.  The writer described a couple of urbane Brit types wandering about the party chattering about "Keith".  One phrase I distinctly remember went along these lines:

"I see Keith has another massive portrait of himself erected [in some location]"

There was general merrriment over the gin and tonic.  Apparently the Brit expat community used "Keith" as a nickname for Saddam so they could poke fun at him and not get dragged into a torture chamber.  The piece in the paper was accompanied by a reproduction of a poster of Saddam with his moustache and toothy grin.  Damnit if he didn't actually look like a used-car salesman who could well be called "Keith".

But my point is this.  The nations with oil interests who had people in Iraq were beholden to Saddam for Iraq's oil and they would do whatever was required to keep that oil flowing for them.

It wasn't just the US, plenty of western nations were involved.  

But I suppose eventually Keith's negotiating ability ran out.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 25, 2008)

jreeves said:


> That's ok, let me see those links on Saddam.



A link challenge!  Whatever happened to simple logic?


----------



## maineman (Mar 25, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Didn't run away I'm still here jackass, that in no way proved that was the *reason* for war. It was listed as an example for a reason to go to war. Learn the difference




do you also debate the meaning of "is"?  

no one said it was THE reason, but only A reason.  Go read post #9 again.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Mar 25, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Didn't run away I'm still here jackass, that in no way proved that was the *reason* for war. It was listed as an example for a reason to go to war. Learn the difference




I might as well debate a chimpanzee. 

You really aren't this stupid, are you?


----------



## Paulie (Mar 25, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Didn't run away I'm still here jackass, that in no way proved that was the *reason* for war. It was listed as an example for a reason to go to war. Learn the difference



For an incident that possibly could have never even happened, it seems awful fishy that it was even cited as *A* reason in the official authorization for a full scale invasion of a country.

No one's trying to say it was THE reason, only that to include a CERTAIN reason that may not have even happened, is dubious.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 25, 2008)

Bush Sr. should have invaded Iraq in 91 when he finished spanking them in Kuwait, now Bush Sr. is dealing with the jack-up from Bush Sr. And Bill. Just my opinion though.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Mar 25, 2008)

He gives  you the proof and you want other kind of proof.

What kool aid swilling folks you are.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Mar 25, 2008)

> And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."



I love the internet.


----------



## blunt (Mar 25, 2008)

oops


----------



## BrianH (Mar 25, 2008)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm


----------



## Gunny (Mar 25, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> *Pentagon report finds no evidence of Saddam attempt to assassinate Bush*
> 
> Published: Monday March 24, 2008
> 
> ...



What's your point?


----------



## jreeves (Mar 25, 2008)

maineman said:


> do you also debate the meaning of "is"?
> 
> no one said it was THE reason, but only A reason.  Go read post #9 again.



Isikoff notes that the absence of evidence does not prove the Iraqis weren't planning to assassinate the former....

Do you understand that part of the post genius?


----------



## jreeves (Mar 25, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> I might as well debate a chimpanzee.
> 
> You really aren't this stupid, are you?



You need a chimp I agree...that would match your intellect.


----------



## maineman (Mar 25, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Isikoff notes that the absence of evidence does not prove the Iraqis weren't planning to assassinate the former....
> 
> Do you understand that part of the post genius?



I understand that you claimed it was not a reason for the war and I showed you the resolution which showed that it was...and you tap danced like a girlie man.  I understand that part.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 25, 2008)

maineman said:


> I understand that you claimed it was not a reason for the war and I showed you the resolution which showed that it was...and you tap danced like a girlie man.  I understand that part.



I understand you don't read things that inconvinent to your point of view.


----------



## maineman (Mar 25, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I understand you don't read things that inconvinent to your point of view.




I read lots of stuff that is inconvenient.  

I understand that your point of view was completely destroyed by the link I posted and you tap danced away from your own words.

oh. and absence of evidence does not prove that Saddam had not made a pact with space aliens from the planet Zorgon to buy their magical death ray either!


----------



## jreeves (Mar 25, 2008)

maineman said:


> I read lots of stuff that is inconvenient.
> 
> I understand that your point of view was completely destroyed by the link I posted and you tap danced away from your own words.
> 
> oh. and absence of evidence does not prove that Saddam had not made a pact with space aliens from the planet Zorgon to buy their magical death ray either!



I'm not tap dancing at all, I stand by what I said, that was not a reason for war, it was an example of a reason to go to war. 

Also, absence of evidence I really believe you have mush for brians.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 25, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I'm not tap dancing at all, I stand by what I said, that was not a reason for war, it was an example of a reason to go to war.
> 
> Also, absence of evidence I really believe you have mush for brians.



Like I said just because they didn't find the documents in this report doesn't mean, it didn't happen. Thanks, Brian H for the post earlier that MM can't read.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm
Clinton relied heavily on evidence found by FBI bomb experts linking the Iraqi Intelligence Service to a 175-pound car bomb found April 14 in Kuwait City. According to senior intelligence and law enforcement officials, key pieces of the bomb -- including the remote-control detonator, the plastic explosives, the electronic circuitry and the wiring -- bore an overwhelming resemblance to components of bombs previously recovered from the Iraqis. 

The White House press office distributed photographs of circuit boards and detonators taken from earlier Iraqi bombs, alongside photos of the same elements from the bomb meant for Bush. Even to the untrained eye, there were clear similarities. 

"Certain aspects of these devices have been found only in devices linked to Iraq," an intelligence official said. 

Clinton also had the confessions of the two alleged leaders of the 16 suspects arrested by Kuwait when the plot was uncovered. Both are Iraqi nationals. Ra'ad Asadi and Wali Abdelhadi Ghazali told FBI investigators detailed to Kuwait that they met in Basra, Iraq, on April 12 with "individuals they believed to be associated with the Iraqi Intelligence Service," according to a senior U.S. intelligence official. 

They were given a vehicle loaded with hidden explosives. Ghazali told the FBI he was recruited specifically to kill Bush. Asadi also told the FBI he was to guide the car bomb, driven by his partner, to Kuwait University, where Bush was to be honored by the Emir of Kuwait for his leadership in the gulf war. 

Administration officials said the suspects told the FBI that the bomb was to be parked near the motorcade route. From a vantage point 300 to 500 yards away, Ghazali would set off the bomb using a remote control. FBI bomb specialists estimated the bomb would have been lethal for nearly a quarter-mile. 

FBI agents were told if the remote control device failed, the bomb was to be detonated by a timing device on a street in Kuwait City named for Bush. They were also told that Ghazali had a "bomb belt" he would use if all else failed; he was to wear it, approach Bush and blow them both up. 

There have been reports that the suspects held in Kuwait have been tortured by Kuwaiti officials, but a senior law enforcement official said last night that FBI agents "believe they were not." Nevertheless, the official said, confessions are often unreliable, which is why the investigators placed "an especially great emphasis" on the conclusions of the bomb experts. 

The CIA recalled that, after the gulf war, Saddam was heard on official Iraq media promising to hunt down and punish Bush, even after he left office. A senior intelligence official said the CIA also had classified evidence proving that the car bomb was meant for Bush, from Saddam. 

"We could not and have not let such action against our nation go unanswered," Clinton said in his televised address. "From the first days of our revolution, America's security has depended on the clarity of this message: Don't tread on us." 

Now is your argument that Clinton lied about this?


----------



## maineman (Mar 26, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I'm not tap dancing at all, I stand by what I said, that was not a reason for war, it was an example of a reason to go to war.



it was an example of a reason.... but it somehow wasn't a reason.   

what the fuck was it an example of, then?

that is a distinction invented by you with no meaning.

the black volkswagen in my driveway is an example of a black volkswagen.... but it isn't really a black volkswagen!


----------



## Alpha1 (Mar 26, 2008)

Good post jreeves .....

So what now mm.....cat got your tongue?


----------



## jreeves (Mar 26, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> Good post jreeves .....
> 
> So what now mm.....cat got your tongue?



It cracks me up with MM he presents something as a source, then doesn't even read his own source. It clearly states in his post that *Iraq demonstrated hostitlity and willingness to attack *as part of the reasons to go to war, in the paragraphed he's referencing. Then it goes on to say as examples of those reasons, there is the plot against Bush Sr. and firing on U.S. and coalition forces thousands of times. 

Then not only that but the dumbass thinks, that the shit was cooked up by Bush Jr. for a reason to go to war. But there was evidence presented by the hacks(MM) own party's(democrats) President(Clinton) that the plot really happened.


----------



## maineman (Mar 26, 2008)

jreeves said:


> It cracks me up with MM he presents something as a source, then doesn't even read his own source. It clearly states in his post that *Iraq demonstrated hostitlity and willingness to attack *as part of the reasons to go to war, in the paragraphed he's referencing. Then it goes on to say as examples of those reasons, there is the plot against Bush Sr. and firing on U.S. and coalition forces thousands of times.
> 
> Then not only that but the dumbass thinks, that the shit was cooked up by Bush Jr. for a reason to go to war. But there was evidence presented by the hacks(MM) own party's(democrats) President(Clinton) that the plot really happened.




I have never said anything about anyone cooking up the assassination attempt on Bush Sr.  I just took issue - and rightfully so - with your suggestion that that assassination attempt was not one of the reasons we cited for going to war against Iraq.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 26, 2008)

maineman said:


> I have never said anything about anyone cooking up the assassination attempt on Bush Sr.  I just took issue - and rightfully so - with your suggestion that that assassination attempt was not one of the reasons we cited for going to war against Iraq.



It was listed as an example as was firing on coalition and US forces thousands of times. The reason was Iraq's hostility and willingness to attack, look at your own post.


----------



## maineman (Mar 26, 2008)

jreeves said:


> It was listed as an example as was firing on coalition and US forces thousands of times. The reason was Iraq's hostility and willingness to attack, look at your own post.



my own post says it was A reason....not THE reason.


There was NOT one single reason, but a multitude of them, and they were all listed in the resolution.... you asked for a link that showed that the assassination attempt was a reason for going to war.  I gave it to you.


----------



## maineman (Mar 26, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> It was cited as *a** "reason"* in the War Authorization dumbass.





jreeves said:


> Give a link dumbass....for the war authorization....





maineman said:


> *http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
> 
> "Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush..."*
> dumbass




DCD made a true statement....you asked for a link... I gave it to you.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 26, 2008)

maineman said:


> my own post says it was A reason....not THE reason.
> 
> 
> There was NOT one single reason, but a multitude of them, and they were all listed in the resolution.... you asked for a link that showed that the assassination attempt was a reason for going to war.  I gave it to you.



I agree that the assassination plot was mentioned in the resolution. But just cause it was mentioned in the resolution doesn't mean it was listed as a reason. 

Regardless, the article that was posted in this thread is BS because there was evidence that was previously presented by Clinton that would scoff at this report. Like the article that was originally posted in this thread said just cause they didn't find the documents linking Saddam to the plot doesn't mean it didn't happen.


----------



## maineman (Mar 26, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I agree that the assassination plot was mentioned in the resolution. But just cause it was mentioned in the resolution doesn't mean it was listed as a reason.
> 
> Regardless, the article that was posted in this thread is BS because there was evidence that was previously presented by Clinton that would scoff at this report. Like the article that was originally posted in this thread said just cause they didn't find the documents linking Saddam to the plot doesn't mean it didn't happen.




post 51. That was my only point.  go back and look. 

and your wiggling about an example of a reason not being a reason is fucking ridiculous.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 26, 2008)

maineman said:


> post 51. That was my only point.  go back and look.
> 
> and your wiggling about an example of a reason not being a reason is fucking ridiculous.



I'm done with you, Mr. I can't read Saddam collaberated with AQ, Mr. I can't understand the difference between a reason and supporting examples. But that's fine, keep living in your life of partisian hackmanship.


----------



## maineman (Mar 26, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I'm done with you, Mr. I can't read Saddam collaberated with AQ, Mr. I can't understand the difference between a reason and supporting examples. But that's fine, keep living in your life of partisian hackmanship.



"an example of a reason is not a reason."   

again..is my volkswagen in my driveway actually a volkswagen in my driveway or is it only an example of a volkswagen in my driveway.

DCD said it was a reason - one of many.  you asked for a link and I gave it to you.  suck it up little boy.

And Saddam would have been suicidal to collaborate with AQ...and nobody has shown ANY proof of him doing so.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 26, 2008)

maineman said:


> "an example of a reason is not a reason."
> 
> again..is my volkswagen in my driveway actually a volkswagen in my driveway or is it only an example of a volkswagen in my driveway.
> 
> ...



  The substance of your argument is reduced to you repeating your own stupid ass statements. 

Great angle...


----------



## maineman (Mar 26, 2008)

jreeves said:


> The substance of your argument is reduced to you repeating your own stupid ass statements.
> 
> Great angle...



No...the substance of my argument is that I made one simple point here:  DCD said that the assassination attempt was A reason for invasion as listed in the Use of Force resolution.  you qouted that post, asked him for a link, and called him a dumbass.  I provided a link which proved his point and called YOU a dumbass.  Everything else is just you trying to change the argument from it being "a reason" to "the reason" and "a reason" to an "example of a reason".

Just admitting you fucked up when I posted the link would have saved us both a lot of time.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 26, 2008)

maineman said:


> No...the substance of my argument is that I made one simple point here:  DCD said that the assassination attempt was A reason for invasion as listed in the Use of Force resolution.  you qouted that post, asked him for a link, and called him a dumbass.  I provided a link which proved his point and called YOU a dumbass.  Everything else is just you trying to change the argument from it being "a reason" to "the reason" and "a reason" to an "example of a reason".
> 
> Just admitting you fucked up when I posted the link would have saved us both a lot of time.



Your hopeless... 
Read the post, would you, the reason listed was hostility and a willingness to attack.
The supporting examples for those reasons were attacks on coalition and US forces and the plot to kill Bush Sr.
What is so freaking complicated with that? Dude you keep repeating yourself, everytime you do, your IQ keeps dropping. For godsake, your IQ wasn't that high to begin with. Is it possible for a person that types on a computer to have a negative IQ, guess will find out, huh?


----------



## Gunny (Mar 26, 2008)

I can't help but LMAO at this thread.  Just like the rest.  Nothing too stupid for you leftwingnuts to try.

Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of the ceasefire.  That's unquestionable fact.  That alone was sufficient reason to resume hostilities against Iraq.  

The rest is gravy.  You want to keep Monday Morning QBing every little thing?  Be my guest.  It STILL won't change the fact above one iota.

That's called legal justification.  Hope it tastes good.


----------



## maineman (Mar 26, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Your hopeless...
> Read the post, would you, *the reason listed was hostility and a willingness to attack.*




you need to read the resolution, hostility and a willingness to attack was one of the rationalizations listed in the plethora of "whereas" paragraphs that started that resolution.  to state that it was THE reason is patently false.  The resolutions contains many such reasons.

And you really have no reason to insult my intelligence.  I have made my point and continue to make it.  And the resolution clearly bears it out.

:


----------



## jreeves (Mar 26, 2008)

maineman said:


> you need to read the resolution, hostility and a willingness to attack was one of the rationalizations listed in the plethora of "whereas" paragraphs that started that resolution.  to state that it was THE reason is patently false.  The resolutions contains many such reasons.
> 
> And you really have no reason to insult my intelligence.  I have made my point and continue to make it.  And the resolution clearly bears it out.
> 
> :



The resolution clearly bears what you see through your obvious blinders. 
The whole purpose of this thread was that there was no evidence that Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr., Clinton proved DCD wrong. So if you want to keep arguing in circles go right on ahead. I shouldn't have insulted your intelligence, only the absurdity of your argument.


----------



## maineman (Mar 26, 2008)

jreeves said:


> The resolution clearly bears what you see through your obvious blinders.
> The whole purpose of this thread was that there was no evidence that Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr., Clinton proved DCD wrong. So if you want to keep arguing in circles go right on ahead. I shouldn't have insulted your intelligence, only the absurdity of your argument.



I took issue with you calling him a dumbass and asking for the resolution.... so I gave you the link you requested.  And threads may start out with a "purpose", but often take side trips.  this was one such trip.  my argument is not absurd, it is just not directly on topic for this thread....but then, neither was your post to which I initially responded.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 26, 2008)

maineman said:


> I took issue with you calling him a dumbass and asking for the resolution.... so I gave you the link you requested.  And threads may start out with a "purpose", but often take side trips.  this was one such trip.  my argument is not absurd, it is just not directly on topic for this thread....but then, neither was your post to which I initially responded.


 

Hmm...never called anyone a dumbass huh? Are you serious, the absurdity of your argument is now getting borderline insane. Well I made my points in this thread. I think any person who can read and comprehend what they read, would know that Bush SR's. assassination plot played very little to do with Bush Jr's decision to go to war against Saddam.


----------



## maineman (Mar 26, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Hmm...never called anyone a dumbass huh? Are you serious, the absurdity of your argument is now getting borderline insane. Well I made my points in this thread. I think any person who can read and comprehend what they read, would know that Bush SR's. assassination plot played very little to do with Bush Jr's decision to go to war against Saddam.


I have called people a dumbass before.  I have called them goat fucking perverts before.  that does not mean that I cannot respond when someone is called a dumbass without justification.  I agree completely that the assassination was not high up on Dubya's list of kitchensink rationale for invasion.  It was on the list, however...along with: "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq" which was bullshit.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 26, 2008)

maineman said:


> I have called people a dumbass before.  I have called them goat fucking perverts before.  that does not mean that I cannot respond when someone is called a dumbass without justification.  I agree completely that the assassination was not high up on Dubya's list of kitchensink rationale for invasion.  It was on the list, however...along with: "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq" which was bullshit.



Yep, negative IQs are possible. Well AQ was collaberating with Saddam so that is entirely possible they were in Iraq before the war started. But Bush never stated that AQ in was responsible for 9/11. Deja vu.


----------



## maineman (Mar 26, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Yep, negative IQs are possible. Well AQ was collaberating with Saddam so that is entirely possible they were in Iraq before the war started. But Bush never stated that AQ in was responsible for 9/11. Deja vu.




no.  AQ was NOT collab*o*rating with Saddam.

and please.... I will try to avoid catty little insults to your intelligence going forward, why don't you do the same.  you seem like a fairly intelligent guy.... smart enough to know that I am a fairly intelligent guy as well, so negative IQ trash talking is really not called for.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 26, 2008)

maineman said:


> no.  AQ was NOT collab*o*rating with Saddam.
> 
> and please.... I will try to avoid catty little insults to your intelligence going forward, why don't you do the same.  you seem like a fairly intelligent guy.... smart enough to know that I am a fairly intelligent guy as well, so negative IQ trash talking is really not called for.



I don't know, you can't read plain English and not come up with ignorant connotations of what someone said. For example... I said no one believes we are not in a warming trend but it is stupid to claim there is proof man caused it and man can fix it. To which you asked if I meant it was ok to spew pollutants in the air.


----------



## maineman (Mar 26, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I don't know, you can't read plain English and not come up with ignorant connotations of what someone said. For example... I said no one believes we are not in a warming trend but it is stupid to claim there is proof man caused it and man can fix it. To which you asked if I meant it was ok to spew pollutants in the air.




and do you think that spewing tons of pollutants into the air has absolutely ZERO impact on our climate?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 26, 2008)

maineman said:


> and do you think that spewing tons of pollutants into the air has absolutely ZERO impact on our climate?



Irrelevant to the point I made and irrelevant to the discussion. It is just your attempt to twist what WAS said into something else.


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Irrelevant to the point I made and irrelevant to the discussion. It is just your attempt to twist what WAS said into something else.



if it is irrelevant to the discussion, why did YOU bring it up?   
moron.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 27, 2008)

Number Five on the list of why Iraq should be invaded.

"He tried to kill my dad".

What a terrible condemnation of foreign policy for a nation.  I'd frigging well curl up in a catatonic state if my PM mewled that crap.  

I'll bet even the Bushistas are secretly pleased he's only allowed two terms.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 27, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Number Five on the list of why Iraq should be invaded.
> 
> "He tried to kill my dad".
> 
> ...



  I don't think either you or MM can read something objectively. That wasn't a reason to invade, it was an example of.....damn I'm not even going to repeat it again.

Both of you, when Powell testified before the UN did you hear him pounding into the world's forum that Saddam tried to kill his dad? Come on, think objectively. 

MM I see how long your pledge to not insult other people's intelligence lasted, what like one post? Moron


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I don't think either you or MM can read something objectively. That wasn't a reason to invade, it was an example of.....damn I'm not even going to repeat it again.
> 
> Both of you, when Powell testified before the UN did you hear him pounding into the world's forum that Saddam tried to kill his dad? Come on, think objectively.
> 
> MM I see how long your pledge to not insult other people's intelligence lasted, what like one post? Moron



my pledge was to you.  RGS and I have a whole different dynamic.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 3, 2008)

Looks like ole Bill even believed there was a plot to kill Bush Sr.  He actually attacked with tomahawk missles directly for this purpose.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ine/062793.htm

I'm sure it was no a bonified reason to go to war.  He may have said it, but who wouldn't if they honestly believed that.  It's like a bonus.  I'd want to kill the ass that tried to murder my family member (if that's what I was lead to believe).


----------



## Warner (Apr 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Yes, we removed a butcher and man with ties to terrorism.



That's the biggest joke you've told yet!

First off, we had no problems with Saddam's butchering of his own people prior to the invasion Kuwait.  In fact we gave him the gas and when he used it on the  Kurds we (the Bush 1 admin) barely made a squeak. 

As for his ties to terrorism, they were almost non-existent.  Saddam did not like terrorists because they posed as much of a threat to his regime as to those he did not like.  This whole argument has to do with one meeting between Iraqi security and and an AQ leader, and one AQ leader who took refuge in Iraq but did not conduct any type of terrorist activities while there.

The moral argument is bunk.  The terrorist argument is bunk.  The WMD's argument is bunk.

The Iraq war was/is about Mid-East oil and Bush/Cheney huberis.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 4, 2008)

maineman said:


> if it is irrelevant to the discussion, why did YOU bring it up?
> moron.



This is the crap I can't stand.

His point, genius, was that YOUR comment as to the above was irrelevant. You brought it up. He was just referring to it as evidence that you aren't all that smart.

Don't let your own thinker trip you up.


----------



## jreeves (Apr 4, 2008)

Warner said:


> That's the biggest joke you've told yet!
> 
> First off, we had no problems with Saddam's butchering of his own people prior to the invasion Kuwait.  In fact we gave him the gas and when he used it on the  Kurds we (the Bush 1 admin) barely made a squeak.
> 
> ...



Guess you didn't see the latest report, that directly tied Saddam to terrorism...but do keep up your delusionary denials its quite funny.


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Guess you didn't see the latest report, that directly tied Saddam to terrorism...but do keep up your delusionary denials its quite funny.





Saddam being tied to palestinian nationalist terror organizations was no reason for us to invade him in response to 9/11.


----------



## jreeves (Apr 4, 2008)

maineman said:


> Saddam being tied to palestinian nationalist terror organizations was no reason for us to invade him in response to 9/11.



Colaberating with AQ? Don't you remember, oh that's right you can't read.


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Colaberating with AQ? Don't you remember, oh that's right you can't read.




Saddam had no collaboration with Al Qaeda.  that is a fact.


----------



## jreeves (Apr 4, 2008)

maineman said:


> Saddam had no collaboration with Al Qaeda.  that is a fact.



Like I said you chose not to read the article I posted that said Saddam collaberated with AQ.


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Like I said you chose not to read the article I posted that said Saddam collaberated with AQ.




the article did not say that Saddam collaborated with AQ.


YOU are mistaken.


----------



## jreeves (Apr 4, 2008)

maineman said:


> the article did not say that Saddam collaborated with AQ.
> 
> 
> YOU are mistaken.



Here you go again, just so everyone can see you for the hack you are.

http://www2.nysun.com/article/72906

But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Here you go again, just so everyone can see you for the hack you are.
> 
> http://www2.nysun.com/article/72906
> 
> But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.






"affiliates"!!!   

I am "affiliated" with the Boston Red Sox, but I hardly am a major leaguer!


what else ya go?  LOL


----------



## jreeves (Apr 4, 2008)

maineman said:


> "affiliates"!!!
> 
> I am "affiliated" with the Boston Red Sox, but I hardly am a major leaguer!
> 
> ...



You said Saddam didn't collaberate with AQ, I proved you wrong, face it.


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> You said Saddam didn't collaberate with AQ, I proved you wrong, face it.



no.  you didn't.  "affiliates" of Al Qaeda are not Al Qaeda.... or else they wouldn't call them affiliates, but would call them "Al Qaeda".

face THAT.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 4, 2008)

maineman said:


> no.  you didn't.  "affiliates" of Al Qaeda are not Al Qaeda.... or else they wouldn't call them affiliates, but would call them "Al Qaeda".
> 
> face THAT.



As far as the technical part goes, I agree...however, he was still willing to use terrorism as a tool.  (I'm not justifying the war, but since we're talking about Saddam....)  And really, is an accomplice to murder any better than the murderer?(unfortunately the law says so, but we all no it's BS)


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2008)

BrianH said:


> As far as the technical part goes, I agree...however, he was still willing to use terrorism as a tool.  (I'm not justifying the war, but since we're talking about Saddam....)  And really, is an accomplice to murder any better than the murderer?(unfortunately the law says so, but we all no it's BS)




he was willing to fund terrorism against Israel and against Iran.  

That is not a valid rationale for shifting our focus from the guys who attacked us onto a gay and his country that had ZERO to do with the attacks of 9/11 and that had ZERO ability to project power beyond its own border.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 4, 2008)

maineman said:


> he was willing to fund terrorism against Israel and against Iran.
> 
> That is not a valid rationale for shifting our focus from the guys who attacked us onto a gay and his country that had ZERO to do with the attacks of 9/11 and that had ZERO ability to project power beyond its own border.



Take a chill pill dude...here's a quote from my previous post:

*"(I'm not justifying the war, but since we're talking about Saddam....)"*

That means I agree with you...but we're talking about Saddam and his ties to terrorism.


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Take a chill pill dude...here's a quote from my previous post:
> 
> *"(I'm not justifying the war, but since we're talking about Saddam....)"*
> 
> That means I agree with you...but we're talking about Saddam and his ties to terrorism.



if terrorism were one homogenous enemy, your discussion about such ties would have merit.  alas, it is not.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 4, 2008)

maineman said:


> if terrorism were one homogenous enemy, your discussion about such ties would have merit.  alas, it is not.



if your argument wasn't so homosexual, we'd all be better off, but we're not.

Does it matter who the terrorist is?  WWI started over a frickin terrorist faction in Serbia that had nothing to do with the U.S., or France, or Great Britain, yet, we all seemed to have gotten involved in that one.  

Just because Terrorist are not one unified faction of "homogenous enemy." Doesn't mean that they don't pose a threat to us or don't have the potential to throw the world into a world war.  (Once again, I'm not justifying the war, but the fact that he had ties to terrorism.)  Terrorism against a country that we are strongly allied with, imagine that.


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2008)

BrianH said:


> if your argument wasn't so homosexual, we'd all be better off, but we're not.
> 
> Does it matter who the terrorist is?  WWI started over a frickin terrorist faction in Serbia that had nothing to do with the U.S., or France, or Great Britain, yet, we all seemed to have gotten involved in that one.
> 
> Just because Terrorist are not one unified faction of "homogenous enemy." Doesn't mean that they don't pose a threat to us or don't have the potential to throw the world into a world war.  (Once again, I'm not justifying the war, but the fact that he had ties to terrorism.)  Terrorism against a country that we are strongly allied with, imagine that.




again...using your rationale, let's go bomb South Boston, Massachusetts back to the stone age because of their long running support for the IRA, one of the worst terrorist organizations on the planet.


----------



## jreeves (Apr 4, 2008)

maineman said:


> if terrorism were one homogenous enemy, your discussion about such ties would have merit.  alas, it is not.



24. In their February 23,1998 Fatwah, Bin Laden, and Al Qaeda expressly referenced the United States continuing aggression towards Iraq as one of their reasons for calling on all Muslims to kill Americans wherever and whenever the are found: 
The best proof of this is the Americans continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the [Arabian] Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless.

Bin Ladens and Al Qaedas Fatwah also cited the alleged great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the United States, as well as the United States alleged eagerness to destroy Iraq.

25. Bin Laden reportedly visited Baghdad for consultations in March 1998. Giovanni De Stefano, an international lawyer visiting Baghdad on business, had a chance encounter with Bin Laden in the lobby of the Al-Rashid Hotel, during which the two men introduced themselves and engaged in polite conversation. De Stefano did not, at the time, recognize Bin Ladens name. Five months after the chance encounter, agents of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda attacked the American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.

26. Between April 25 and May 1, 1998, two of Bin Ladens senior military commanders, Muhammad Abu-Islam and Abdallah Qassim, reportedly visited Baghdad for discussions with Saddam Husseins son -- Qusay Hussein -- the czar of Iraqi intelligence matters. Qusay Husseins participation in the meetings highlights the importance of the talks in both symbolic and practical terms. As a direct result of these meetings, Iraq reportedly made commitments to provide training, intelligence, clandestine Saudi border crossings, and weapons and explosives to support Al Qaeda.

27. By mid-June, 1998, operatives of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda reportedly were at the al-Nasiriyah training camp in Iraq receiving instruction and training from Iraqi intelligence and military officials on reconnaissance and targeting American facilities and installations for terrorist attacks. Another group of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda operatives from Saudi Arabia reportedly were trained by intelligence officials in Iraq to smuggle weapons and explosives into Saudi Arabia, and, upon returning to Saudi Arabia, successfully smuggled weapons and explosives into that country. A third group of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda operatives reportedly received a month of sophisticated guerrilla operations training from Iraqi intelligence officials later in the Summer of 1998.

28. Bin Laden reportedly sought to strengthen and reinforce the support he and Al Qaeda received from Iraq. In mid-July 1998, Bin Laden reportedly sent Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian co-founder of Al Qaeda, to Iraq to meet with senior Iraqi officials, including Iraqi vice president Taha Yassin Ramadan. The reported purpose of this meeting was to discuss and plan a joint strategy for a terrorist campaign against the United States. Iraqi officials reportedly pledged Iraqs full support and cooperation on the condition that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda not incite the Iraqi Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic organization, against the regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Zawahiri reportedly toured a potential site for a new headquarters for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda near al-Fallujah in Iraq and observed training by Iraqi intelligence officials of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda operatives at al-Nasiriyah. In recognition of Bin Ladens and Al Qaedas leadership role in the terrorist war against the United States, Iraqi officials allowed Zawahiri to assume formal command over the al-Nasiriyah training camp in the name of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
http://www.conservativenewswarriors.com/al-queda-iraq-connection.html


----------



## BrianH (Apr 4, 2008)

maineman said:


> again...using your rationale, let's go bomb South Boston, Massachusetts back to the stone age because of their long running support for the IRA, one of the worst terrorist organizations on the planet.



*ONCE AGAIN:
QUOTED FROM EARLIER POST:*
*"(I'm not justifying the war, but since we're talking about Saddam....)"*

Damn...do you have a problem with New Times Roman Font.  A little lysdexic are we?

What exactly are you arguing about...The justification of the war? OR the fact the Saddam had ties to terrorism.  Because if it's justification of the war....like I've said a few times already, I agree with you....But if it's the fact Saddam had ties to terrorism...he did, and you were wrong.


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2008)

BrianH said:


> *ONCE AGAIN:
> QUOTED FROM EARLIER POST:*
> *"(I'm not justifying the war, but since we're talking about Saddam....)"*
> 
> ...



I never said he didn't have ties to terrorists...but every islamic government in the middle east had ties to terrorists.    big deal.


----------



## maineman (Apr 4, 2008)

conservative news warriors.

Now THERE is a non-partisan news site if I ever saw one!  [/sarcasm off]


----------



## BrianH (Apr 4, 2008)

maineman said:


> I never said he didn't have ties to terrorists...but every islamic government in the middle east had ties to terrorists.    big deal.



Ok...agreed. I'm not justifying a war over that, and I'm not saying we bomb every place that has ties to terrorism. But....Saddam had ties to AQ through AQ affiliates...would Osama be so bold as to show up in Iraq after 9-11?...hell know, he headed for the hills, and needed all the fighters he could get.   AQ is smart enough not to send top-ranking AQ members to a place that the U.S. had a microscope on.


----------



## Taomon (Apr 5, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> *Pentagon report finds no evidence of Saddam attempt to assassinate Bush*
> 
> Published: Monday March 24, 2008
> 
> ...



This leaves only one reason for invading and occupying Iraq...oil.


----------



## Taomon (Apr 5, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Ok...agreed. I'm not justifying a war over that, and I'm not saying we bomb every place that has ties to terrorism. But....Saddam had ties to AQ through AQ affiliates...would Osama be so bold as to show up in Iraq after 9-11?...hell know, he headed for the hills, and needed all the fighters he could get.   AQ is smart enough not to send top-ranking AQ members to a place that the U.S. had a microscope on.



Actually, the Pentagon proved that Saddam did not have ties to al Qaeda, or did you not read the first post?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Actually, the Pentagon proved that Saddam did not have ties to al Qaeda, or did you not read the first post?



http://www2.nysun.com/article/72906

Quote from article:

"WASHINGTON &#8212; A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to *Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.*

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq *operationally* to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known *Al Qaeda affiliates *and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups"

I read it, did you?


----------



## maineman (Apr 5, 2008)

BrianH said:


> http://www2.nysun.com/article/72906
> 
> Quote from article:
> 
> ...


the "affiliates", however, were all arab nationalist organizations.  Different entirely from Al Qaeda.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 5, 2008)

maineman said:


> the "affiliates", however, were all arab nationalist organizations.  Different entirely from Al Qaeda.



Fair enough...but if you were hanging out with a group of guys that belonged to the Russian Mafia, you'd be associated with them whether you wanted to or not.  Just because they're "affiliates" doesn't make it any less bad.


----------



## jreeves (Apr 5, 2008)

maineman said:


> conservative news warriors.
> 
> Now THERE is a non-partisan news site if I ever saw one!  [/sarcasm off]



Refute the evidence with facts, or can you?


----------



## Taomon (Apr 5, 2008)

BrianH said:


> http://www2.nysun.com/article/72906
> 
> Quote from article:
> 
> ...


Yes, and what is your opinion on our own culpability with known al Qaeda operatives and their allies, like Saudi Arabia & Pakistan?


----------



## Taomon (Apr 5, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Fair enough...but if you were hanging out with a group of guys that belonged to the Russian Mafia, you'd be associated with them whether you wanted to or not.  Just because they're "affiliates" doesn't make it any less bad.



So you are arguing semantics? The fact is that we are just as culpable about 9/11 & the whole al Qaeda organization.


----------



## Swamp Fox (Apr 5, 2008)

maineman said:


> the "affiliates", however, were all arab nationalist organizations.  Different entirely from Al Qaeda.



Where did it say that or are you inventing that "fact" to bolster your case?


----------



## Swamp Fox (Apr 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> So you are arguing semantics? The fact is that we are just as culpable about 9/11 & the whole al Qaeda organization.



Wow, you really are an idiot..........


----------



## Taomon (Apr 5, 2008)

Swamp Fox said:


> Wow, you really are an idiot..........


Based on what? The fact that you disagree? That does not make me an idiot, it makes you wrong.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Yes, and what is your opinion on our own culpability with known al Qaeda operatives and their allies, like Saudi Arabia & Pakistan?



Irrelevant to the topic.  

We're talking about Saddam's ties to AQ or so called, "Affiliates."  Us having allied relations with Pakistan or Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with Saddam having or not having ties with AQ.  

You guys refuse to admit that your wrong...don't know why though...
You also try to derail by talking about the U.S. and ties to countries with ties to AQ.  Like I've said several times, I'm not justifying action based upon his ties with AQ...however, if you're going to argue that Saddam had no ties to AQ or terrorism, then you're sadly mistaken.


----------



## Taomon (Apr 5, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Irrelevant to the topic.
> 
> We're talking about Saddam's ties to AQ or so called, "Affiliates."  Us having allied relations with Pakistan or Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with Saddam having or not having ties with AQ.
> 
> ...


Not irrelevant at all. You are avoiding the glaring truth that whether or not Saddam had any ties or affiliations to al Qaeda, we definitely did...but somehow, that is forgotten.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Not irrelevant at all. You are avoiding the glaring truth that whether or not Saddam had any ties or affiliations to al Qaeda, we definitely did...but somehow, that is forgotten.



Have you read what this argument is about??? It is not about whether we or anyone else has had ties to terrorism... It's not even about the war being justified over Saddam's ties to terrorism.  IT is about whether or not Saddam had ties to AQ...and he did, end of story.


----------



## Taomon (Apr 5, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Have you read what this argument is about??? It is not about whether we or anyone else has had ties to terrorism... It's not even about the war being justified over Saddam's ties to terrorism.  IT is about whether or not Saddam had ties to AQ...and he did, end of story.


Actually, no he did not. And if you blindly believe our military or our intelligence agencies...then you are more foolsih than I thought.

al Qaeda is made up of Fundamentalists. To them Saddam was an infidel. To Saddam, they were a threat.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Actually, no he did not. And if you blindly believe our military or our intelligence agencies...then you are more foolsih than I thought.
> 
> al Qaeda is made up of Fundamentalists. To them Saddam was an infidel. To Saddam, they were a threat.



Ok...dude.  We're discussing the article about whether or not Saddam had ties to terrorist based on Pentagon reports.  The article states that he (according to Pentagon reports) was collaborating with AQ affiliates (which is not much better).  He did, end of story.

SO there's no way a country (or group of people) would collaborate with another country they viewed an enemy??  HMM...That's never happened in history....but sure it did.
The U.S. and Russia allied in WWII.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 5, 2008)

Once again....

"WASHINGTON  A *Pentagon review *of about *600,000 documents *captured in the Iraq war attests to *Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East*.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found *no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda*. *But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups"*

Here's the article again:  http://www2.nysun.com/article/72906 


What are you not understanding???


----------



## maineman (Apr 5, 2008)

Swamp Fox said:


> Where did it say that or are you inventing that "fact" to bolster your case?



Egyptian Islamic Jihad  *arab nationalist organization*.

Saddam's intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat.

*nationalist organizations*


----------



## maineman (Apr 5, 2008)

Swamp Fox said:


> Where did it say that or are you inventing that "fact" to bolster your case?



"Egyptian Islamic Jihad"  *arab nationalist organization*.

"Saddam's intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat."

*nationalist organizations*

"The report finds that Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is wanted by the FBI for mixing the chemicals for the 1993 World Center Attack, *was a prisoner, and not a guest,* in Iraq."


----------



## Alpha1 (Apr 5, 2008)

"This is the beginning of the process of exposing Saddam's involvement in Islamic terror. But it is only the beginning. Time and declassification I'm sure will reveal yet more," he said. 

*"Even so, this report is damning to those who doubted Saddam Hussein's involvement with Jihadist terrorist groups. It devastates one of the central myths plaguing our government prior to 9-11, that a Jihadist group would not cooperate with a secular regime and vice versa."*

Really now...who woulda "thunk" that...
Who would have been dumb enough to believe that a Jihadist group would not cooperate with a secular regime... and vice versa

I recall someone making that uninformed claim for years,  but can't remember who....


----------



## Paulie (Apr 6, 2008)

Someone let me know as soon as we intervene in the _known_ AQ-sympathizer/collaborative countries that _DON'T_ have an affect on the US Dollar in trade.


----------



## jreeves (Apr 6, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> Someone let me know as soon as we intervene in the _known_ AQ-sympathizer/collaborative countries that _DON'T_ have an affect on the US Dollar in trade.



We do it quite often actually, blocking financial transfers and the such.


----------



## Paulie (Apr 6, 2008)

jreeves said:


> We do it quite often actually, blocking financial transfers and the such.



Right, and even though in many of those countries there are oppresive regimes violating human rights and threatening our security via collaboration with AQ, we refrain from large scale military action, regime changes, and nation building, because the potential economic benefits aren't worth the effort.

Don't you ever question, for example, why we let N. Korea lob missiles at their pleasure?  Could it be that they just don't threaten the Dollar on the same level as, say, Iraq or Iran trading oil for something other than US Dollars?  If anyone could provide terrorists with nuclear weapons RIGHT NOW, it's Korea.

The double-standards within our foreign policy these days is ridiculous.  Luckily though, there's a media that is highly efficient at keeping people from thinking outside the box.


----------



## Care4all (Apr 6, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I agree that the assassination plot was mentioned in the resolution. But just cause it was mentioned in the resolution doesn't mean it was listed as a reason.
> 
> Regardless, the article that was posted in this thread is BS because there was evidence that was previously presented by Clinton that would scoff at this report. Like the article that was originally posted in this thread said just cause they didn't find the documents linking Saddam to the plot doesn't mean it didn't happen.





> Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's ruling Revolution Command Council denounced the raid as "cowardly aggression" and said Washington's reason for launching it was "fabricated by the vile Kuwaiti rulers in coordination with agencies in the U.S. administration."



Wellllll, it turns out that Saddam WAS TELLING THE TRUTH back in 1993 and he did NOT plan the attack on Bush 1...

Tell me something ......

YOU are okay with our governmjent using intelligence information, (and faulty at that) from a DECADE beforehand as intelligence good enough to attack a country and dictator now?


What WAS the *imminent threat* that President Bush used to make HIS DECISION to send us to war...DO YOU KNOW?

or are you one of those people that think the military are just people that we can use to do any kind of military action we want with...or just people to use and allow to get killed for any reason the administration wants to give and an IMMINENT threat to the usa is not necessary to send these guys and gals off to die?

Sounds like it....?

I don't think any soldier should be sent to their possible DEATH...unless it is for an imminent threat to us...unless we are in immediate danger or we have been attacked....

care


----------



## Care4all (Apr 6, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Once again....
> 
> "WASHINGTON &#8212; A *Pentagon review *of about *600,000 documents *captured in the Iraq war attests to *Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East*.
> 
> ...



what is it that YOU are not understanding?



> *The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda*.



Alqaeda is the terrorist group that the administration was telling us that Saddam had ties too...thus a relation to the 911 attack....

saddam involved in 1993 with a few terrorists IS not our concern.....  him trying to kill the saudi royals IS NONE of our concern....we do NOT send our men to be killed for the Saudi Royals or for the Israelis....IT IS IMMORAL to do that to our military....

care


----------



## Gunny (Apr 6, 2008)

Care4all said:


> Wellllll, it turns out that Saddam WAS TELLING THE TRUTH back in 1993 and he did NOT plan the attack on Bush 1...
> 
> Tell me something ......
> 
> ...



Judging an action taken on intelligence believed to be true at the time the action was taken using contradictory intellegence that comes to light AFTER THE FACT is intellectual dishonesty.

Also, the fact the Pentagon can find no evidence to support the allegation does NOT mean Saddam was telling the truth.  It means the Pentagon cannot find evidence to support the allegation.  I used to wonder sometimes if those bureaucrats could find the Potomac from the Pentagon.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 6, 2008)

Care4all said:


> what is it that YOU are not understanding?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




LOL, I love it when people respons with bias without reading the entire thread.

First, read the thread, and you'll see that my argument (IS NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR ACTION....I'm not justifying the war because Saddam had ties to terrorist....

Other numnuts on the thread seem to think that Saddam did not have ties to AQ "but AQ affialiates."  Same damn thing...  THe argument was over whether or not Saddam had ties to Terrorism....and he did.  

http://www2.nysun.com/article/72906

READ SLOWLY


----------



## jreeves (Apr 6, 2008)

Care4all said:


> Wellllll, it turns out that Saddam WAS TELLING THE TRUTH back in 1993 and he did NOT plan the attack on Bush 1...
> 
> Tell me something ......
> 
> ...



There was justification for the war, yes it was faulty intelligence, but nonetheless it was compelling faulty intelligence. What part of Bush doesn't control intelligence flow do you not comprehend?


----------



## jreeves (Apr 6, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> Right, and even though in many of those countries there are oppresive regimes violating human rights and threatening our security via collaboration with AQ, we refrain from large scale military action, regime changes, and nation building, because the potential economic benefits aren't worth the effort.
> 
> Don't you ever question, for example, why we let N. Korea lob missiles at their pleasure?  Could it be that they just don't threaten the Dollar on the same level as, say, Iraq or Iran trading oil for something other than US Dollars?  If anyone could provide terrorists with nuclear weapons RIGHT NOW, it's Korea.
> 
> The double-standards within our foreign policy these days is ridiculous.  Luckily though, there's a media that is highly efficient at keeping people from thinking outside the box.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/03/wkorea203.xml

Pyongyang shut down its sole operating reactor at its main nuclear complex in July after the US reversed its hard-line policy against the regime, the first tangible progress from years of talks that also include China, Japan, Russia and South Korea.

The shutdown followed a February deal under which the North agreed to give up its nuclear weapons programme, and the South committed itself to providing aid, particularly in the form of energy.
Is this the North Korea you are referring to?


----------



## Dr Grump (Apr 6, 2008)

jreeves said:


> What part of Bush doesn't control intelligence flow do you not comprehend?




The part where he cherrypicks....:O)


----------



## jreeves (Apr 6, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> The part where he cherrypicks....:O)



 Proof please?


----------



## Warner (Apr 6, 2008)

BrianH said:


> As far as the technical part goes, I agree...however, he was still willing to use terrorism as a tool.  (I'm not justifying the war, but since we're talking about Saddam....)  And really, is an accomplice to murder any better than the murderer?(unfortunately the law says so, but we all no it's BS)



You really take what this article says much to literally.  All of this is supposition based upon 2nd and 3rd hand accounts of what is in these documents as reported by extremely bias sources.

But none of this justifies invading Iraq.  If it did, we'd have to invade about a dozen or more countries.


----------



## Warner (Apr 6, 2008)

jreeves said:


> There was justification for the war, yes it was faulty intelligence, but nonetheless it was compelling faulty intelligence. What part of Bush* doesn't* control intelligence flow do you not comprehend?



You really are joking are you not Jreeves?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2008)

Warner said:


> You really take what this article says much to literally.  All of this is supposition based upon 2nd and 3rd hand accounts of what is in these documents as reported by extremely bias sources.
> 
> *But none of this justifies invading Iraq.*  If it did, we'd have to invade about a dozen or more countries.



Many of you have problems reading...

I am going to post a quote from my post (that you responded to): READ:

Quoted by BrianH
"LOL, I love it when people respons with bias without reading the entire thread.

First, read the thread, and you'll see that my argument *(IS NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR ACTION*....*I'm not justifying the war because Saddam had ties to terrorist*....

Other numnuts on the thread seem to think that Saddam did not have ties to AQ "but AQ affialiates." Same damn thing... THe argument was over whether or not Saddam had ties to Terrorism....and he did." 

First look at your quote, I embolded a sentence that you posted.
If you'll notice the embolded letters, words, and sentences in my post.  What do they say?  I'll let you deal with your reading problems.  
So Saddam had no ties to terrorism?  No at all?  Even the people saying that he did are saying that he had ties to AQ affiliates (like it's so much better).  Saddam had ties to terrorists...


----------



## jillian (Apr 7, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Many of you have problems reading...
> 
> I am going to post a quote from my post (that you responded to): READ:
> 
> ...



Saddam Hussein HAD NO TIES TO AQ... OR ANY OTHER RADICAL FUNDIE MUSLIM GROUP. HE GAVE MONEY TO PALS BECAUSE ALL ARABS IN THE MID-EAST (BUSH'S BUDDIES THE SAUDI'S INCLUDED) GAVE/GIVE MONEY TO THE PALS TO BLOW UP ISRAELIS.

Jeeze.... 

Sorry for raising my voice, but I'm so bored of hearing that tune. (Nothing personal!)


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2008)

jillian said:


> Saddam Hussein HAD NO TIES TO AQ... OR ANY OTHER RADICAL FUNDIE MUSLIM GROUP. HE GAVE MONEY TO PALS BECAUSE ALL ARABS IN THE MID-EAST (BUSH'S BUDDIES THE SAUDI'S INCLUDED) GAVE/GIVE MONEY TO THE PALS TO BLOW UP ISRAELIS.
> 
> Jeeze....
> 
> Sorry for raising my voice, but I'm so bored of hearing that tune. (Nothing personal!)



Man my ears hurt now...You yell too loud.   

I'll agree that there was no "smoking gun". Then again, there wasn't one in the OJ trial.   But Saddam did have ties to terrorism.  And I also know that AQ isn't really known for keeping records. Like I said, I'm not justifying it as means to go to war.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2008)

This is what Saddam was planning for us...

http://www.strategypage.com/humor/articles/military_jokes_20081131.asp

No ties to terrorism....plz.....


----------



## Care4all (Apr 7, 2008)

jreeves said:


> There was justification for the war, yes it was faulty intelligence, but nonetheless it was compelling faulty intelligence. What part of Bush doesn't control intelligence flow do you not comprehend?



It was Vice President Cheney and HIS NEW TEAM of supposed intelligence gathering/monitoring people that helped with the manipulation of intelligence information....CHERRY PICKED....where they presented all the information regarding saddam being a POSSIBLE threat  from their UNRELIABLE SOURCES, due to wmd's, yellowcake, etc was put UPFRONT, while the dissenting intelligence views were put in fine print....and to the back burner....

I don't need to post a link for this...a simple GOOGLE will do you good ...that is, IF you really want to expand your own mind to accomodate REALITY. 

Seriously reeves....the info is out there....

Care

And at what point does *10-15 year old intelligence that still could not be confirmed, NOT BE valid "INTELLIGENCE" anymore?*


----------



## Warner (Apr 7, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Many of you have problems reading...
> 
> I am going to post a quote from my post (that you responded to): READ:
> 
> ...



Dude you need to learn how to write so I can read it.  Your structure is so bad it's hard to grasp what the hell your point is.

As for affiliates = AQ, that's just silly.  I'd bet we could find many cases where the USA had dealings with AQ affiliates.  It's how the business of intelligence gets done.

Also, check again - the post you've quoted was NOT the one I replied to.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2008)

Warner said:


> Dude you need to learn how to write so I can read it.  Your structure is so bad it's hard to grasp what the hell your point is.
> 
> As for affiliates = AQ, that's just silly.  I'd bet we could find many cases where the USA had dealings with AQ affiliates.  It's how the business of intelligence gets done.



My structure may not be up to APA or MLA format, but it's certainly understandable.  Sorry you can't keep up...dude.  

My point, is that some posters are throwing out all kinds of little snipitz of personally biased comments in regards to the war in Iraq.

For example, you stated:  *"I'd bet we could find many cases where the USA had dealings with AQ affiliates.  It's how the business of intelligence gets done."*

What the hell does this have to do with whether or not Saddam had ties to terrorism?  

LIke I've said, I'm not justifying our actions in Iraq.  I'm not saying that the U.S. intelligence community does not have confedential informants involved in AQ, but those two things have nothing to do with whether or not Saddam had ties to terrorism.

Sure, actions were taken on that premise.  However, if no action was taken, it wouldn't matter.  Because Saddam would have still had ties to terrorism.


----------



## jillian (Apr 7, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Man my ears hurt now...You yell too loud.
> 
> I'll agree that there was no "smoking gun". Then again, there wasn't one in the OJ trial.   But Saddam did have ties to terrorism.  And I also know that AQ isn't really known for keeping records. Like I said, I'm not justifying it as means to go to war.



No no no no no no no no no.... Saddam hated Muslim fundies... his was a secular state and all they could possibly do was muck it up for him. You have to understand the dynamic in the mid-east. Fundies try to overthrow leaders like Saddam (see: Iran) b/c they think people like Saddam are heathans who are probably even worse than western heathens because theoretically, he was muslim.

It isn't aobut a smoking gun... it's about reality.

Saddam was what stood between Iraq and the fundies... for better or for worse. And the sad part.... any leader who keeps the factions from blowing each others' heads off probably has to be as disgusting and heavy-handed as he was... so gee willikers, we really accomplished... 

um... nada.

Sorry for hurting your ears before, babe... you know we like ya.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2008)

jillian said:


> No no no no no no no no no.... Saddam hated Muslim fundies... his was a secular state and all they could possibly do was muck it up for him. You have to understand the dynamic in the mid-east. Fundies try to overthrow leaders like Saddam (see: Iran) b/c they think people like Saddam are heathans who are probably even worse than western heathens because theoretically, he was muslim.
> 
> It isn't aobut a smoking gun... it's about reality.
> 
> ...



Did you say something??? I couldn't hear you?  

After some research...I concede that he was not directly linked to AQ, because it cannot be proven based on the evidence.  

I also agree with your synopsis about the Middle East and it's organization/operation.

The Pentagon report/summary said that Saddam did use terrorist frequently on his own people.  They may have not been AQ or inernational terrorist. But were terrorist none-the-less.  Probably equivalent to our NSA....lol.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080313/wl_mideast_afp/usattacksiraqqaedamilitary

"The Iraqi Perspective Project review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism," said a summary of the Pentagon study to which ABC News provided a link on its website Wednesday.

State terrorism became a routine tool of State power" but "the predominant target of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens," the summary said."

Just going off what I read...so I'm not willing to get into a discussion about the logisitcs of the Pentagon and it's agendas.


----------



## maineman (Apr 7, 2008)

BrianH said:


> My structure may not be up to APA or MLA format, but it's certainly understandable.  Sorry you can't keep up...dude.
> 
> My point, is that some posters are throwing out all kinds of little snipitz of personally biased comments in regards to the war in Iraq.
> 
> ...



"ties to terrorism" and "ties to terrorists who attacked us" are two completely different things.

If "ties to terrorism" were all it took to get a place invaded, conquered and occupied by the US military, South Boston, Massachusetts would have been under martial law a long time ago for their continued support for IRA terror.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2008)

maineman said:


> "ties to terrorism" and "ties to terrorists who attacked us" are two completely different things.
> 
> If "ties to terrorism" were all it took to get a place invaded, conquered and occupied by the US military, South Boston, Massachusetts would have been under martial law a long time ago for their continued support for IRA terror.



????? 

I'm not justifying action.  And I know that Iraq had nothing to do with 
9-11. Thanks for clarifying the differences in terrorism.... And I agree about South Boston and Mass.


----------



## Warner (Apr 7, 2008)

BrianH said:


> My structure may not be up to APA or MLA format, but it's certainly understandable.  Sorry you can't keep up...dude.
> 
> My point, is that some posters are throwing out all kinds of little snipitz of personally biased comments in regards to the war in Iraq.
> 
> ...



Because by the same criteria of proof, you could say the Reagan, Sr. Bush, Clinton, and Jr. Bush adminstrations all had/have ties to terrorism.

If our operatives should meet with their operatives, or in this case their proxies, does that really constitute a "tie"?  Don't be silly.  One of the best way's to find out what one faction of the enemy is up to is to meet with another and see what they will divulge about their rivals.  That's how intel is gathered.

So far there has been no evidence that Saddam provided support of any kind to AQ.  All the other "ties to terrorists" arguments are just a bunch of bull shit being fed to the naive.


----------

