# Cheney again links Iraq invasion to 9/11 attacks as bombing victims are buried



## rayboyusmc (Mar 18, 2008)

> BAGHDAD  Amid tears and wails, mourners in the southern city of Najaf on Tuesday began burying victims from a suicide bombing that killed nearly 50 worshipers and injured dozens of others just before evening prayers Monday in nearby Karbala .
> 
> 
> In Baghdad , a long-anticipated Iraqi national reconciliation conference began with great fanfare, then quickly dissolved into the usual sectarian and political stalemates that have marred several similar gatherings in recent years.
> ...



Tuesday's roster of attacks included two roadside bombs in Baghdad  one targeting civilians at a market in Shaab, the other at a busy intersection in al Bunook that killed four Iraqis and wounded at least 13, authorities said. A car bomb outside an electronics store in Mosul killed three and wounded 40, the U.S. military said. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080318/wl_mcclatchy/2883358


----------



## JimH52 (Mar 18, 2008)

He is as delusional today as he was when he took off office.  He will always expand the BIG LIE that has made his friends rich.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 18, 2008)

I really do believe that there are two sociopaths in the White House.  That is the only way I can even begin to explain the two of them.  Only someone without a conscience could possibly say what Cheney did and keep a straight face.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 18, 2008)

Are you people sane? Do you have delusional conditions related to Bush and Cheney?

He PROPERLY linked the Iraq war to terrorism which is DIRECTLY related to the events of 9/11.

Now go ahead and QUOTE for me where he said Saddam Hussein had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. I will wait.

Again for you delusional people we invaded Iraq because of terrorism. The justification was among others, that Saddam Hussein was a direct threat to the region and would become a direct threat to us. That he was looking for terrorists to attack us and that he would eventually give those terrorists WMDs to do said attacks.

AND amazingly, the papers we captured PROVE that theory was correct.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 18, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> Tuesday's roster of attacks included two roadside bombs in Baghdad  one targeting civilians at a market in Shaab, the other at a busy intersection in al Bunook that killed four Iraqis and wounded at least 13, authorities said. A car bomb outside an electronics store in Mosul killed three and wounded 40, the U.S. military said.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080318/wl_mcclatchy/2883358



No sale.  If you aren't intelligent enough to break that simple statement down and comprehend its meaning, you're either dumb or you don't want to.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 18, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you people sane? Do you have delusional conditions related to Bush and Cheney?
> 
> He PROPERLY linked the Iraq war to terrorism which is DIRECTLY related to the events of 9/11.
> 
> ...




Slice it how you like, nuance it as you wish, fluff it, powder it, pump it up.  It still doesn't work.  Iraq was invaded for its oil.  Bush is showing how out of touch with reality he is at the moment, yukking it up as the US economy falls into recession.  Cheney is shlemping around like a wraith pronouncing how wonder the invasion went and how the occupation is just going along swimmingly.  Disconnected from reality, the pair of them.  

I hope Bush has room for Cheney in Uruguay, they might both need a bolthole when the full truth comes out.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 18, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Slice it how you like, nuance it as you wish, fluff it, powder it, pump it up.  It still doesn't work.  Iraq was invaded for its oil.  Bush is showing how out of touch with reality he is at the moment, yukking it up as the US economy falls into recession.  Cheney is shlemping around like a wraith pronouncing how wonder the invasion went and how the occupation is just going along swimmingly.  Disconnected from reality, the pair of them.
> 
> I hope Bush has room for Cheney in Uruguay, they might both need a bolthole when the full truth comes out.



Ahh that old lie. Yup we sure made out on the oil deal didn't we. YES it was about oil. About ensuring the oil is free to flow and not controlled by a madman. Remind me how much oil we stole from Iraq.

The US didn't even get oil FROM Iraq before the invasion and as far as I know we still don't get a lot from there.

You and the rest should see a shrink or therapist for those delusions you have.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 19, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh that old lie. Yup we sure made out on the oil deal didn't we. YES it was about oil. About ensuring the oil is free to flow and not controlled by a madman. Remind me how much oil we stole from Iraq.
> 
> The US didn't even get oil FROM Iraq before the invasion and as far as I know we still don't get a lot from there.
> 
> You and the rest should see a shrink or therapist for those delusions you have.



I could show you the evidence and you'd tell me I made it up.

It's not about you.  It's not about the US.  It's about the corporations.  They've got the oil locked up.  Iraq has the second largest oil fields in the world.  Think about it for a moment.  Does the phrase "supply and demand" ring a bell?  If that oil was let onto the world market, if there was a huge oil glut, that is there was a huge supply and just the usual demand, what happens?  Yes, that's right, the price goes down.  That means oil companies and associated corporations get lower profits and not the highest profits they've ever had - which somehow are aligned to the period of the invasion and occupation.  

The war wasn't about the US, it was Bush and Cheney using the US military to make sure that Iraq's oil was locked up through a puppet government and held for the use of US oil corporations.  Bad lack for them,  the planned puppet government plan went awry and a Shi'ite government sympathetic to Iran - hello President Ahmadinejad, how about you drop in for a coffee - are in place.

People have been killed so that US oil corporations could make sure the reserves were held for them and that those reserves didn't get onto the world oil market.  Did you think of that?  Did you think it was possible that Saddam may have been about to sell a lot of oil and sell it in Euros?

As Smedley Butler put it, war is a racket and this one is the biggest racket of all.  The Mafia are looking on in pure envy.

And since you see fit to use the term "the old lie" - do you remember Wilfred Owen?  The old lie - _dulce et decorum est_ - except it should be updated to -_ 'tis a sweet and noble thing to do, to die for Exxon.

_


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 19, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> I could show you the evidence and you'd tell me I made it up.
> 
> It's not about you.  It's not about the US.  It's about the corporations.  They've got the oil locked up.  Iraq has the second largest oil fields in the world.  Think about it for a moment.  Does the phrase "supply and demand" ring a bell?  If that oil was let onto the world market, if there was a huge oil glut, that is there was a huge supply and just the usual demand, what happens?  Yes, that's right, the price goes down.  That means oil companies and associated corporations get lower profits and not the highest profits they've ever had - which somehow are aligned to the period of the invasion and occupation.
> 
> ...



You need to post this delusional crap in the conspiracy thread where it belongs.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Mar 19, 2008)

_He PROPERLY linked the Iraq war to terrorism which is DIRECTLY related to the events of 9/11._

Al Qaeda wasn't in iraq when you invaded, and Saddam wasn't supporting them.  In fact, he considered them his enemy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 19, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> _He PROPERLY linked the Iraq war to terrorism which is DIRECTLY related to the events of 9/11._
> 
> Al Qaeda wasn't in iraq when you invaded, and Saddam wasn't supporting them.  In fact, he considered them his enemy.



Are you retarded? The war on terror was never JUST about one group. I realize your to STUPID to grasp that concept but try, it may shake your world view up.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Mar 19, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you retarded? The war on terror was never JUST about one group. I realize your to STUPID to grasp that concept but try, it may shake your world view up.



Why would we care if he supported anti-iranian MEK rebels and terrorists?  That's iran's problem. 

As for palastinain Hamas - Hamas has never attacked the US, and has never threatened to do so.  Their grevience is with israel.  Most arab countries give money to hamas and other palestinian nationalists. 

What kind of moron starts a war over iraqi support of anti-iranian MEK and Hamas?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 19, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> Why would we care if he supported anti-iranian MEK rebels and terrorists?  That's iran's problem.
> 
> As for palastinain Hamas - Hamas has never attacked the US, and has never threatened to do so.  Their grevience is with israel.  Most arab countries give money to hamas and other palestinian nationalists.
> 
> What kind of moron starts a war over iraqi support of anti-iranian MEK and Hamas?



What kind of moron ignores reality even when we have the documents to prove the lie they keep spouting? Ohh wait, I know the answer, retards so obsessed with Bush they would condemn him if he did every thing they demanded.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Mar 19, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> What kind of moron ignores reality even when we have the documents to prove the lie they keep spouting? Ohh wait, I know the answer, retards so obsessed with Bush they would condemn him if he did every thing they demanded.




Answer the question please. 

Why would we start a trillion dollar war, because saddam gave support to anti-iranian terrorists, and (like most all other arab countries) to palestinian Hamas.  A group which has never attacked the U.S. ?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 19, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> Answer the question please.
> 
> Why would we start a trillion dollar war, because saddam gave support to anti-iranian terrorists, and (like most all other arab countries) to palestinian Hamas.  A group which has never attacked the U.S. ?



Your question is not correct moron. So why would I answer it? It is like asking some one something like " Have you quit beating your wife yet?"  It assumes things that are simply NOT true. Things we have proof are NOT true, Things our intelligence told us before the war were NOT true.

Get a new line retard.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Mar 19, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your question is not correct moron. So why would I answer it? It is like asking some one something like " Have you quit beating your wife yet?"  It assumes things that are simply NOT true. Things we have proof are NOT true, Things our intelligence told us before the war were NOT true.
> 
> Get a new line retard.




CIA report on Iraq support for terrorism 2004:

_Iraq provides bases, equipment, training, force protection, and probably funding to the *MEK* . . . *The group is by far the most active of Iraq's terrorist partners *. . . The MEK maintains bases in east-central Iraq near the Iranian border and periodically trains with the Iraqi armed forces, according to a variety of reporting. . . MEK forces perform some internal security functions for the Iraqi regime . . . 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter12-i.htm._

So, YOU wanted to spend a trillion dollars to invade iraq, because Saddam was MOSTLY supporting anti-iranian terrorism???

Who's side are you on?  Iran's?  Why would we go to war to protect Iran?


----------



## DeadCanDance (Mar 19, 2008)

On the fifth anniversary of Bush's War, let's pay homage to the contrasting wisdom and judgement of two titans of american politics:



> DICK CHENEY March 2003, _Asked if Americans are prepared for a long, costly and bloody battle in Iraq,_  Cheney replied:  "Well, *I don't think it's likely to unfold that way*....The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein, and *they will welcome as liberators* the United States when we come to do that."






> BARACK OBAMA, 2002:  "I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
> 
> But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
> 
> ...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 19, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> On the fifth anniversary of Bush's War, let's pay homage to the contrasting wisdom and judgement of two titans of american politics:



And yet Obama ADMITTED if he had been privy to the intel the Congress got he might have voted FOR the war. Shocking, just shocking.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Mar 20, 2008)

> Get a new line retard.



You really should.  You sound like one more every post.



> WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.





> [WASHINGTON -- President Bush yesterday defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion this week that Saddam Hussein had longstanding ties with Al Qaeda, even as critics charged that the White House had no new proof of a connection./QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JimH52 (Mar 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you people sane? Do you have delusional conditions related to Bush and Cheney?
> 
> He PROPERLY linked the Iraq war to terrorism which is DIRECTLY related to the events of 9/11.
> 
> ...



Yo would follow bush and DICK over a clift....wait...we hae already done that in Iraq haven't we?  Saddam was secular and hated the radicals.  If we had not invaded Iraq he would still be sitting there and we would still have his country devided into three sectors.  We would not be spending billions to prop up a a government that cannot govern and 4,000 young Americans would still be alive.

Please take the ring out of your nose.  The thieves will soon be leaving the White House.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 21, 2008)

JimH52 said:


> Yo would follow bush and DICK over a clift....wait...we hae already done that in Iraq haven't we?  Saddam was secular and hated the radicals.  If we had not invaded Iraq he would still be sitting there and we would still have his country devided into three sectors.  We would not be spending billions to prop up a a government that cannot govern and 4,000 young Americans would still be alive.
> 
> Please take the ring out of your nose.  The thieves will soon be leaving the White House.



You mean you don't believe we are gonna invade Iran and Bush will be declared Emperor of the US?


----------



## AllieBaba (Mar 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you people sane? Do you have delusional conditions related to Bush and Cheney?
> 
> He PROPERLY linked the Iraq war to terrorism which is DIRECTLY related to the events of 9/11.
> 
> ...



Yes, they are delusional, and yes, they are insane.
Which is why there's really no point in arguing with them. The work we have is to convince non-delusional people who listen to this crap and, being good and essentially honest people, believe it because they can't imagine anyone lying about such things.

But you ignore the loons. Except to poke fun of them. Make them look foolish, and others stop listening to them.


----------



## Paulie (Mar 21, 2008)

It's not just about "oil".  It's about the petro-dollar.  It's about the agreement we have with OPEC countries that they will sell oil in US Dollars, and a few of them starting to step out of line.  Iraq being one who _had_.

They were starting to sell their oil in Euro, and now they are back to selling it in USD once again.  Good thing we killed half a million people to make sure that happened.

Our presence in the middle east has a lot to do with our agreement to protect Saudi Arabia from any outside aggression, in exchange for selling their oil in USD.

Terrorism, while admittedly not JUST a blank excuse, cetainly does serve for a convenient purpose to use to get the masses to accept more war for Dollars.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 21, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Yes, they are delusional, and yes, they are insane.
> Which is why there's really no point in arguing with them. The work we have is to convince non-delusional people who listen to this crap and, being good and essentially honest people, believe it because they can't imagine anyone lying about such things.
> 
> But you ignore the loons. Except to poke fun of them. Make them look foolish, and others stop listening to them.



If someone from another planet came to Earth and examined the evidence of what has happened in Iraq then the only conclusion they could reach is that it was an invasion and occupation for oil.  The varied excuses put forward by the Bush Administration have fallen over.  There is evidence that the US public had to be lied to in order to support the invasion and occupation.  That was done.  It worked for a while, but we all know what Lincoln said.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 22, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> If someone from another planet came to Earth and examined the evidence of what has happened in Iraq then the only conclusion they could reach is that it was an invasion and occupation for oil.  The varied excuses put forward by the Bush Administration have fallen over.  There is evidence that the US public had to be lied to in order to support the invasion and occupation.  That was done.  It worked for a while, but we all know what Lincoln said.



Your opinion is not fact and pretending it is by " aliens" is hilarious.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Mar 22, 2008)

> Yes, they are delusional, and yes, they are insane.
> Which is why there's really no point in arguing with them.



Great self insight, Ali.


----------



## trobinett (Mar 22, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> Tuesday's roster of attacks included two roadside bombs in Baghdad  one targeting civilians at a market in Shaab, the other at a busy intersection in al Bunook that killed four Iraqis and wounded at least 13, authorities said. A car bomb outside an electronics store in Mosul killed three and wounded 40, the U.S. military said.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080318/wl_mcclatchy/2883358



More conspiracy BS.


----------

