Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Moronic drivel , but hey to be expected from anyone that can chant " I hate Bush" over and over for years with no EVIDENCE he ever did anything wrong. I bet you loved Clinton and we have plenty of evidence he broke the law, he even admitted it.
Prove any one of those stupid accusations. Or lose cred.Hey, if Bush is your hero, more power to you. I don't hate Bush. I just don't think he is competent. I thought Clinton was intelligent, articulate, and oversexed. Give me a guy who's intelligent and likes to bonk like a rabbit over a born-again cokehead who probably has trouble tying his shoelaces together. Hell, he can hardly string a sentence together...
There are many people who happen to believe that conflating Saddam and Al Qaeda was "doing something wrong". There is certainly plenty of evidence of that!Moronic drivel , but hey to be expected from anyone that can chant " I hate Bush" over and over for years with no EVIDENCE he ever did anything wrong.
Moronic drivel , but hey to be expected from anyone that can chant " I hate Bush" over and over for years with no EVIDENCE he ever did anything wrong. I bet you loved Clinton and we have plenty of evidence he broke the law, he even admitted it.
GEORGE BUSH, 2003: "you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. ..."
DICK CHENEY, 2002: "Its been pretty well confirmed that Muhammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague"
DICK CHENY, 2003: "By attacking iraq, we will be attacking the geographic base, if you will, of those who attacked us on 9/11"
GEORGE BUSH, 2003: "By removing saddam, we've removed an ally of Al Qaeda".
*CIA/Senate Bipartisan Report on Iraq Intelligence, September 2006:
-Conclusion 5: Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi
-Conclusion 1: "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support."
-Conclusion 4: "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."
-Conclusion 6: Prewar interactions between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda affiliate group Ansar al-Islam were attempts by Saddam to spy on the group rather than to support or work with them.. "Postwar information reveals that Baghdad viewed Ansar al-Islam as a threat to the regime and that the IIS attempted to collect intelligence on the group."
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
and one can hear the sounds of crickets chirping ...
What one can hear is the continued lies, misstatements and fabrications by the left. I am STILL waiting for some evidence Bush lied. Bush implied anything. He stated on more than one occasion TO include his State of the Union that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
Did he say Saddam wanted a working relationship with AQ, sure did and the evidence at the time indicated that. The intelligence was not just American it was from numerous sources outside the US and it is Bolstered by the documents captured after the invasion, where in there are meetings and attempted meetings between the Saddam Government Intelligence services and the AQ operatives in an attempt to come to common grounds.
But just like the lie that Bush told any lies, we have now the claim he just mislead everyone. Also completely unproven. Or are you now going to do what you couldn't do earlier when you insisted it was just your opinion and actually provide proof of the claim?
I am a little drunk, so I may not be as polite as I normally am.
The statements already provided indicate more than that Saddam wanted a working relationship with AQ (which would have been false in any event). The implications contained therein cannot be proved precisely because they are implications (suggestions, not explicitly stated). That you can't see the implication when most of the public, and the rabid left-wing media could merely substantiates what I have believed for a very long time - you are a stupid fucking person. Sorry, I could have tried to argue more articulately, but there is no getting around the fact that you are a fucking moron.
The only moron here is the one that can hear a man say over and over Saddam Hussein has no link to 9/11 and then claim he secretly says he does. A President that CLEARLY stated OFFICIALLY more than once that NO LINK existed, yet we are to believe he really wants us to believe one does. Sure thing.
As for using alcohol as an excuse for your behavior, it does not make you act contrary to what you want, it just removes inhibitions that you may have been applying to your actions. In other words your real feelings are displayed by your previous post.
What one can hear is the continued lies, misstatements and fabrications by the left. I am STILL waiting for some evidence Bush lied. Bush implied anything. He stated on more than one occasion TO include his State of the Union that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
Did he say Saddam wanted a working relationship with AQ, sure did and the evidence at the time indicated that. The intelligence was not just American it was from numerous sources outside the US and it is Bolstered by the documents captured after the invasion, where in there are meetings and attempted meetings between the Saddam Government Intelligence services and the AQ operatives in an attempt to come to common grounds.
But just like the lie that Bush told any lies, we have now the claim he just mislead everyone. Also completely unproven. Or are you now going to do what you couldn't do earlier when you insisted it was just your opinion and actually provide proof of the claim?
are you capable of reading post 485?
Question for ya Maineman? Did you believe or support any of the findings by the Congress in regards activities by Clinton during his Presidency? Am I to assume just because a Congressional panel makes a statement or finding it is gospel? If so I am waiting for your support of the ones that found before 2006 just the opposite. I won't hold my breath waiting though.
You talking about the bogus impeachment? Er... the Senate found him not guilty and Starr had nothing but a blue dress.
The difference is that in addressing the issues surrounding 9/11, Congress tried very hard to be bi-partisan and non-political, almost to a fault, actually. I don't think anyone is seriously questioning the findings regarding Saddam and 9/11.
So, your point? Other than being contentious, I mean.
And we are still waiting to see if you read post 485.
Question for ya Maineman? Did you believe or support any of the findings by the Congress in regards activities by Clinton during his Presidency? Am I to assume just because a Congressional panel makes a statement or finding it is gospel? If so I am waiting for your support of the ones that found before 2006 just the opposite. I won't hold my breath waiting though.
Obviously I read it or I could not have written my question. You libs think if you play enough word games you win. Doesn't work except on the sheep that follow you around.
Clinton couldn't keep his dick in his pants and lied about it to protect his marriage. I have never suggested otherwise.
Now....did you read that post or what? did you read the quotes by the president and vice president?
Are we now going to have a 10 page spree of you asking them same question I already answered over and over causeyou are to STUPID to understand plain english?
Here lets try ONE MORE time for the Naval Officer that is either to stupid or to blind to read english.
I READ THE POST. It has nothing to do with 2002 or 2003. It has nothing to do with the President repeatedly saying "Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with 9/11" You ask why people in late 2003 thought that. The answer is simple, they thought it because you, the left, the press and democrats in Congress said it over and over for 9 months.
This is fascinating to me. You think the American public believed there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11 because the "democrats in Congress said it over and over for 9 months?" Please tell me that I am misunderstanding you.
BTW, how do the posts not have anything to do with 2002-2003 when the quotes are all from 2002-2003?
