Arnold Schwarzenegger Hiding Behind His Goons From Nurses

[Trinity]

Stay with me, now - this gets a little complicated.

Go to the section of this board titled, "War on Terrorism".

Trace your finger slowly and carefully down the screen until you come to the thread called, "Russia Moved Iraqi WMD."

Access that thread.

Read the article.

Follow the linky.

Peruse the responses.

Mull all this information over carefully. Take time to really let it sink in.

Get back to us.

That's ok MM I already posted it for him, I thought he may have difficulty navigating through the board!

 

[Annie]

MM and KLee one must understand to be all about 'Itsthetruth' one must ignore anything that doesn't fit within the given parameters. It's not easy being him...

 

[musicman]

MM and KLee one must understand to be all about 'Itsthetruth' one must ignore anything that doesn't fit within the given parameters. It's not easy being him...

LOL! I'm awaiting the next response with 'bated breath!

 

[Trinity]

LOL! I'm awaiting the next response with 'bated breath!

Well you'll have a long wait..............

I guess he couldn't take the heat, he bailed! :teeth:

 

[Annie]

LOL! I'm awaiting the next response with 'bated breath!

Me too! Pearls of wisdom MM, pearls of wisdom...

 

[no1tovote4]

George Bush never said that once, much less many times! Bush and other White House representative did just the opposite many times. They strongly suggested, without proving it, that there was some kind of connection between Iraq and the WTC attack. That's why millions of people believed that the invasion of Iraq was in retaliation for the 9/11 attack! People got that idea from the White House.

Here's just a few examples of statements from Bush/Cheney that promoted that idea. I can find many more if you'd like.

On March 3, 2003 Bush said: "The attacks of September the 11, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force."

That's hardly disconnecting Iraq from the 9/11 attack.

It also never says that Iraq was associated to the attack. There is nothing in this statement that says that Iraq was associated to the attack, it clearly implies that they think he is capable of the same type of attack but does not blame him for the attack.

And on March 19, 2003 Bush said: " The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime [Iraq] that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities. [Repeat Of The 9/11 WTC Attack]

Once again, there is no mention in this statement that Saddam is connected to 9/11. It merely mentions that all Terrorist attacks threaten the peace and we are preempting so that we will not pay with the lives of the Police, etc later. There is nothing in this statement that says that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

And on March 31, 2003 Bush declared: "After our nation was attacked on September the 11th, 2001, America made a decision: We're not going to permit terrorists and terror states to plot and plan and grow in strength while we do nothing. And the actions we're taking abroad against a terror network and against the regime in Iraq are removing a grave danger to all free nations."

Notice, the actions are mentioned separately, the action we are taking against a terror network AND the action we are taking against Iraq. There is nothing in this statement that says that Saddam was to blame for 9/11. You attempt to read too much between the lines in the hope you will find that they said that.

Would you describe the above comments as two more examples of an effort by Bush to disconnect Iraq from the 9/11 attack?

No I would not, for the reasons expressed above.

How about this .......

Cheney Link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged
By Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender
Boston Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent
9/16/2003

Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most [some did?] Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.

"Even before the war in Iraq, most [some did?] Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago."

This article proves my statement that they have never mentioned that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq. Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney's "willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding."

Nonetheless, 69 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States, according to a recent Washington Post poll. And Democratic senators have charged that the White House is fanning the misperception by mentioning Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks in ways that suggest a link.

Connections to terrorist cell does not mean the same thing as responsible for an attack.

Let me give an example. You are a bank robber, and also rob people on the street occasionally we work together when you rob people in the street. I personally do not rob banks. You go and rob a bank on 9/11 and I am not with you on that time. We are still associated together but I did not help you rob that bank. We can therefore have connections but I would not be responsible for the robbery that occured on 9/11.

Nonetheless, Cheney, in the "Meet the Press" interview Sunday, insisted that the United States is learning more about the links between Al Qaeda and Hussein.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

Millions of Americans still believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack. Who on this board still believes that myth and the old "Sadam has weapons of mass destruction" b.s.?

Once again, there is nothing in any of the previous statements that claims Saddam was responsible or even part of 9/11. Associated to Al Qaeda still doesn't mean that he took part in that particular attack. Only in the limited mind of some people could those equate to each other. That and those who pretend to believe that Bush stated that. It WAS NEVER STATED. Even according to one of the stories that you posted IT WAS NEVER STATED.

 

[Itsthetruth]

According to a former top Bush administration official, Russian special forces teams moved weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq to Syria.

"I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMD out of Iraq before the war," stated John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security.

Sorry. No cigar!

A "former" administration official not speaking in any official capacity for the Bush government just won't cut it. And this lower ranking FORMER Bush government appointee fails to provide any evidence to back up his claim, just rampant speculation.

Now search again and see if you can find any official speaking on behalf of the Bush government making that claim. I would expect the big guy himself, George Bush, to annouce such momentous findings. Don't ya think that at least C. Rice or perhaps Rumsfeld would publicly endorse that claim and call a big news conference to announce they back Mr. Shaw's claim?

Back to your google! Try again.

 

[Trinity]

Sorry. No cigar!

A "former" administration official not speaking in any official capacity for the Bush government just won't cut it. And this lower ranking FORMER Bush government appointee fails to provide any evidence to back up his claim, just rampant speculation.

Now search again and see if you can find any official speaking on behalf of the Bush government making that claim. I would expect the big guy himself, George Bush, to annouce such momentous findings. Don't ya think that at least C. Rice or perhaps Rumsfeld would publicly endorse that claim and call a big news conference to announce they back Mr. Shaw's claim?

Back to your google! Try again.

How bout you put your tiny little brain to work, and go do your own damn searching, what do you think I am your bitch!

 

[Trinity]

He already has one in Alex Cockburn!

:rotflmao:

 

[Itsthetruth]

So why did "69 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States, according to a recent Washington Post poll."?

You going to blame the anti-war "left-wing" press, Ralph Nader or Senator Byrd for that mistaken notion? Certainly not Mr. Bush. Oh no. Not him.

This ought to be good! Your turn!

 

[Trinity]

Polls are not reliable at all, they also claimed that Kerry had pretty much won the election! Kind of like the one you have been sitting on, has you saying stupid things.

:teeth:

 

[musicman]

Sorry. No cigar!

A "former" administration official not speaking in any official capacity for the Bush government just won't cut it. And this lower ranking FORMER Bush government appointee fails to provide any evidence to back up his claim, just rampant speculation.

Now search again and see if you can find any official speaking on behalf of the Bush government making that claim. I would expect the big guy himself, George Bush, to annouce such momentous findings. Don't ya think that at least C. Rice or perhaps Rumsfeld would publicly endorse that claim and call a big news conference to announce they back Mr. Shaw's claim?

Back to your google! Try again.

Well, then, if the findings of this lowly former appointee are so preposterous, let's see some refutation. Surely, the Democrats, the Eurolibs, and the LMM, who all need so desperately to discredit President Bush, have knocked this one down. Let's see the proof - otherwise, the story stands unchallenged.

(Hint: Don't look under "Walter Cronkite" - as he actually broke the story right before the election - stupidly thinking he was harming the President. This story died a QUICK death in the LMM.)

The ball's in your court, Skippy!

 

[Annie]

Polls are not reliable at all, they also claimed that Kerry had pretty much won the election! Kind of like the one you have been sitting on, has you saying stupid things.

Not to mention that when searching for polls regarding Iraq and 9/11, the highest 'possibilty' comes out in the high 40's, and that was a few months before the war. Can't find current data, other than anecdotal from whacko sites.

 

[Merlin1047]

So why did "69 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States, according to a recent Washington Post poll."?

You going to blame the anti-war "left-wing" press, Ralph Nader or Senator Byrd for that mistaken notion? Certainly not Mr. Bush. Oh no. Not him.

This ought to be good! Your turn!

Oh toss me another marshmallow, please. Do some math - if "69 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States" as you claim, then there is an easy explanation for that.

Given the 51 - 49 percent voter ratio in the last election, one has to assume that if 69% believe that Hussein had a role in the 9-11 attack, then AT LEAST 18% HAD TO BE DEMOCRATS.

Now, as a matter of personal opinion, given the penchant many of you DU types have for conspiracy theories, I would conclude that the number of granola-crunchers who believed in a Hussein connection would probably bring that total percentage up to around 75.

 

[Itsthetruth]

How bout you put your tiny little brain to work, and go do your own damn searching, what do you think I am your bitch!

Sorry. I won't do your work for you. If you can't find any statements backing up your claim about the Russkies from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc., that's not my fault. Keep searching!

 

[Itsthetruth]

Oh toss me another marshmallow, please. Do some math - if "69 percent of Americans believe that Hussein probably had a part in attacking the United States" as you claim, then there is an easy explanation for that.

Given the 51 - 49 percent voter ratio in the last election, one has to assume that if 69% believe that Hussein had a role in the 9-11 attack, then AT LEAST 18% HAD TO BE DEMOCRATS.

Now you seem to be having a problem with simple math. You conveniently left out the 45% of the eligible people who didn't vote!!!!!

I bet a substantial majority of them also were led by the Bush government into believing Iraq was behind 9/11. Or do you still believe that Bush had absolutely nothing to do with that impression and that either Senator Byrd or the tooth fairy were responsible for 69% thinking that Iraq plotted the 9/11 attack on the WTC?

I suppose you could continue to insist that the Bush government had nothing to do with encouraging and feeding that false idea but I don't think you can sell that snake oil here.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why is it that anyone who seems to have truth or intelligent or some derivative of the two in their screen name, they never have anything to say that reflects their screen names?

 

[Trinity]

Why is it that anyone who seems to have truth or intelligent or some derivative of the two in their screen name, they never have anything to say that reflects their screen names?

Noticed that too huh!!

 

[musicman]

Sorry. I won't do your work for you. If you can't find any statements backing up your claim about the Russkies from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc., that's not my fault. Keep searching!

It is you who are challenging the assertion. Provide refutation of the story beyond "That just doesn't sound right to me", or concede that it's true.

Haven't you noticed that the hoary old line, "Bush lied about WMD" has done a subtle disappearing act from liberal discourse? None of the high-profile leftist lights even bothers to bring it up anymore - only the dim ones like you. Why do you think that is?

 

[Itsthetruth]

Let's see the proof - otherwise, the story stands unchallenged.

Sorry. That's not the way debates and discussions work. It's not up to me to prove that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attack. You should know that a person can't prove a negative. For example, if I claim you beat up your wife, you don't have to prove that you don't beat up your wife. If I make that charge against you I must back it up with evidence.

So it's up to the Bush government to prove that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack. Where's the evidence to back up that claim?

Your turn boy!