Dick Cheney should really stop playing the blame game.

[Meister]

You are simply one stupid mother fucker. Even the 9/11 Commission pointed out there was no relationship between iraq and alkida. My guess is you will now reference the Bush admin invented term of "alkida in iraq." They made up that term just to fool dumbasses like you into believing alkida was in iraq. The groups was made up mostly of iraqis. What the fuck else you got? Oh yeah. Yo punk ass wants to hide behind the "collateral damage" phrase. Fuck your dishonesty. Fuck your punk pussy ass for pretending to care about the US. You don't give a fuck about america. The only difference between pussies like you and alkida terrorists is they follow up on their rhetoric. You're nothing but a self induced ignorant fuckwad and you don't have the first fucking clue about what is happening. You stupid ****. When you purposefully drop bombs you are purposefully killing everyone with the range.

Do you have any idea how fucking sick and stupid it is to try and defend our actions of killing civilians with a stupid fucking phrase? Do you? I don't think you do. You're just another ignorant **** that wants to justify all the sick shit we do. Fuck off you hypocrite. Let me know when you are capable of being honest.

Wow, you sure can tell when the ignorant ones start to post. If you don't have the facts....you don't resort to lying as you have, then back it up with a post like this. Stick your tail between your legs and just wait for the next ass whooping.

Looks like curv...I mean lightweight had a meltdown.
When confronted with facts all he had was a post like this. my, my. Mommy should soap out a mouth like that.

Figures a **** like you would focus on the petty shit and whine about that

Your ignorance knows no bounds, Francis. All you have is the name calling, huh?
Once you clean up your mouth, you might want to go over to the Romper Room Messageboard. I think it's more in line with your intellect.

 

[CMike]

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed (washingtonpost.com)


Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com


BBC NEWS | Americas | Iraq war justifications laid bare


[prior to March 2003, Saddam Hussein] ''did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward [Abu Musab al Zarqawi] and his associates.'' Instead, he "attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al Zarqawi."

"No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al Qaeda or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom."
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Your first link in the washington post misquoted the 911 commission report. Not suprising.

Your article said

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."


That's not what the report said. I quoted directly from the report and gave the link to it.

It said they didn't have evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship". Meaning that they didn't have evidence that they worked on specific attacks together.

This is from the military report quoted from CNN

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/14/saddam.terrorism.pentagon.pdf

Unfortunately, since it's PDF it wouldn't let me copy and paste it. But if you go to the above link on page 5 it says that Hussein's sponsorship and training of terrorist groups was routine, including giving certifications for car bombs and suicide vests
This is why if you want the truth you don't rely on far left sources like the Washington Post and CNN and you go directly to the source, which in this case is the actual published reports.


Thank you for backing up what I said Curvelight. I appreciate it.

Lol...so when proven you are fucking clueless you change claims and pretend everything is ok. You're fucking sad.

Eta: just saw "far left sources" bullshit. CNN is a far left source? Rotfl. Holy shit this is a waste of my time. You're truly fucking dumb.

Look at how dishonest the left wing sources are.

The washington post headline

"url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html]Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed "

And then the Washington Post cites the 911 commission report. However, the report never said that.

What it said was there no evidence of "collaborative operational relationship". It never said any link was dismissed.

So why the "error"?

Could it be that Washington Post lied to further their far left wing political agenda?

The the CNN headline Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com


Once again, that's not what the Pentagon report said. In fact, according to the actual exercpts of the report, Saddam Hussin trained terrorists routinely and even gave certifications in car bombing and suicide vests.

Yet, CNN neglected to add that part in? Why? To further their left wing political agenda.

They know what the majority people are guillible, they will not go to the actual reports and check it out for themselves. They will be deceived by the Washington Post and CNN into thinking they are getting accurate information, and not lies to further a political agenda.

There is no difference between the Washington Post and CNN, and the Obama campaign office.

 

[CurveLight]

Wow, you sure can tell when the ignorant ones start to post. If you don't have the facts....you don't resort to lying as you have, then back it up with a post like this. Stick your tail between your legs and just wait for the next ass whooping.

Looks like curv...I mean lightweight had a meltdown.
When confronted with facts all he had was a post like this. my, my. Mommy should soap out a mouth like that.

Figures a **** like you would focus on the petty shit and whine about that

Your ignorance knows no bounds, Francis. All you have is the name calling, huh?
Once you clean up your mouth, you might want to go over to the Romper Room Messageboard. I think it's more in line with your intellect.

Stop whining like a little bitch. You squeal about intellectualism but you don't have a chance in a half hearted debate because you lack the ability so you try to hide by whining. Get your diaper changed and let us know when you hit puberty. Naw, you'll probably just continue to cry.

 

[Meister]

Figures a **** like you would focus on the petty shit and whine about that

Your ignorance knows no bounds, Francis. All you have is the name calling, huh?
Once you clean up your mouth, you might want to go over to the Romper Room Messageboard. I think it's more in line with your intellect.

Stop whining like a little bitch. You squeal about intellectualism but you don't have a chance in a half hearted debate because you lack the ability so you try to hide by whining. Get your diaper changed and let us know when you hit puberty. Naw, you'll probably just continue to cry.

Francis, earlier in this thread you were posting everything we shouldn't do, and I asked a simple question "what would you do?" All I got were the crickets chirp. So don't tell me who the baby is around here. All you are is name calling low life on this board. I don't, and most people don't take you serious here. You want a debate? Stop the name calling...just because people don't agree with you, doesn't call for a meltdown on your behalf. Who's wearing the diapers?

 

[CurveLight]

Your first link in the washington post misquoted the 911 commission report. Not suprising.

Your article said

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."


That's not what the report said. I quoted directly from the report and gave the link to it.

It said they didn't have evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship". Meaning that they didn't have evidence that they worked on specific attacks together.

This is from the military report quoted from CNN

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/14/saddam.terrorism.pentagon.pdf

Unfortunately, since it's PDF it wouldn't let me copy and paste it. But if you go to the above link on page 5 it says that Hussein's sponsorship and training of terrorist groups was routine, including giving certifications for car bombs and suicide vests
This is why if you want the truth you don't rely on far left sources like the Washington Post and CNN and you go directly to the source, which in this case is the actual published reports.


Thank you for backing up what I said Curvelight. I appreciate it.

Lol...so when proven you are fucking clueless you change claims and pretend everything is ok. You're fucking sad.

Eta: just saw "far left sources" bullshit. CNN is a far left source? Rotfl. Holy shit this is a waste of my time. You're truly fucking dumb.

Look at how dishonest the left wing sources are.

The washington post headline

"url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html]Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed "

And then the Washington Post cites the 911 commission report. However, the report never said that.

What it said was there no evidence of "collaborative operational relationship". It never said any link was dismissed.

So why the "error"?

Could it be that Washington Post lied to further their far left wing political agenda?

The the CNN headline Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com


Once again, that's not what the Pentagon report said. In fact, according to the actual exercpts of the report, Saddam Hussin trained terrorists routinely and even gave certifications in car bombing and suicide vests.

Yet, CNN neglected to add that part in? Why? To further their left wing political agenda.

They know what the majority people are guillible, they will not go to the actual reports and check it out for themselves. They will be deceived by the Washington Post and CNN into thinking they are getting accurate information, and not lies to further a political agenda.

There is no difference between the Washington Post and CNN, and the Obama campaign office.

Lol! Is this how you dumbasses do it? You ignore certain facts then create strawmen to reach your preconceived conclusions. It's fucking funny to see you cling to that word "operational." You sooper dooper dumbass! The bush admin claimed there was a working relationship......fuck it. You're too far gone and have proven to be a dishonest asswipe.

For those capable of being honest:

"Joint Forces Command report: No link between Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda"
Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com

Keep in mind this is a few years after the 9ECR and they had access to much more information and they still concluded no link.

 

[CurveLight]

Your ignorance knows no bounds, Francis. All you have is the name calling, huh?
Once you clean up your mouth, you might want to go over to the Romper Room Messageboard. I think it's more in line with your intellect.

Stop whining like a little bitch. You squeal about intellectualism but you don't have a chance in a half hearted debate because you lack the ability so you try to hide by whining. Get your diaper changed and let us know when you hit puberty. Naw, you'll probably just continue to cry.

Francis, earlier in this thread you were posting everything we shouldn't do, and I asked a simple question "what would you do?" All I got were the crickets chirp. So don't tell me who the baby is around here. All you are is name calling low life on this board. I don't, and most people don't take you serious here. You want a debate? Stop the name calling...just because people don't agree with you, doesn't call for a meltdown on your behalf. Who's wearing the diapers?

You still squealing? Stop crying like a little bitch. You think I give a rat's ass if a punk like you takes me seriously? How fucking arrogant do you have to be to assume if you say you don't take me seriously that it should be a concern? Wake the fuck up and respond to the topic. Have you considered the possibility I didn't answer your question is because I knew it would be a waste of time? You keep proving that correct with your freaking squealing whining. If you got anymore crying to do please don't waste it here. Thanks.

 

[Meister]

Stop whining like a little bitch. You squeal about intellectualism but you don't have a chance in a half hearted debate because you lack the ability so you try to hide by whining. Get your diaper changed and let us know when you hit puberty. Naw, you'll probably just continue to cry.

Francis, earlier in this thread you were posting everything we shouldn't do, and I asked a simple question "what would you do?" All I got were the crickets chirp. So don't tell me who the baby is around here. All you are is name calling low life on this board. I don't, and most people don't take you serious here. You want a debate? Stop the name calling...just because people don't agree with you, doesn't call for a meltdown on your behalf. Who's wearing the diapers?

You still squealing? Stop crying like a little bitch. You think I give a rat's ass if a punk like you takes me seriously? How fucking arrogant do you have to be to assume if you say you don't take me seriously that it should be a concern? Wake the fuck up and respond to the topic. Have you considered the possibility I didn't answer your question is because I knew it would be a waste of time? You keep proving that correct with your freaking squealing whining. If you got anymore crying to do please don't waste it here. Thanks.

grow up, sonny. Do you really think I'm the only one who doesn't take you seriously? Even your own left side doesn't take you seriously.

I responded to the topic as I said before, and YOU ARE THE ONE THAT DIDN'T RESPOND.

 

[CurveLight]

Francis, earlier in this thread you were posting everything we shouldn't do, and I asked a simple question "what would you do?" All I got were the crickets chirp. So don't tell me who the baby is around here. All you are is name calling low life on this board. I don't, and most people don't take you serious here. You want a debate? Stop the name calling...just because people don't agree with you, doesn't call for a meltdown on your behalf. Who's wearing the diapers?

You still squealing? Stop crying like a little bitch. You think I give a rat's ass if a punk like you takes me seriously? How fucking arrogant do you have to be to assume if you say you don't take me seriously that it should be a concern? Wake the fuck up and respond to the topic. Have you considered the possibility I didn't answer your question is because I knew it would be a waste of time? You keep proving that correct with your freaking squealing whining. If you got anymore crying to do please don't waste it here. Thanks.

grow up, sonny. Do you really think I'm the only one who doesn't take you seriously? Even your own left side doesn't take you seriously.

I responded to the topic as I said before, and YOU ARE THE ONE THAT DIDN'T RESPOND.

Not only do you not stop whining like a little **** but you further show your ignorance. Keep up your whiny bullshit here or with the rep button or probably you will use both because you don't know how to do anything but cry.

 

[Meister]

You still squealing? Stop crying like a little bitch. You think I give a rat's ass if a punk like you takes me seriously? How fucking arrogant do you have to be to assume if you say you don't take me seriously that it should be a concern? Wake the fuck up and respond to the topic. Have you considered the possibility I didn't answer your question is because I knew it would be a waste of time? You keep proving that correct with your freaking squealing whining. If you got anymore crying to do please don't waste it here. Thanks.

grow up, sonny. Do you really think I'm the only one who doesn't take you seriously? Even your own left side doesn't take you seriously.

I responded to the topic as I said before, and YOU ARE THE ONE THAT DIDN'T RESPOND.

Not only do you not stop whining like a little **** but you further show your ignorance. Keep up your whiny bullshit here or with the rep button or probably you will use both because you don't know how to do anything but cry.

Now that is just rich.

 

[CurveLight]

grow up, sonny. Do you really think I'm the only one who doesn't take you seriously? Even your own left side doesn't take you seriously.

I responded to the topic as I said before, and YOU ARE THE ONE THAT DIDN'T RESPOND.

Not only do you not stop whining like a little **** but you further show your ignorance. Keep up your whiny bullshit here or with the rep button or probably you will use both because you don't know how to do anything but cry.

Now that is just rich.

Kleenex® Tissues: Facial Tissues That Match Your Lifestyle

 

[CMike]

Lol...so when proven you are fucking clueless you change claims and pretend everything is ok. You're fucking sad.

Eta: just saw "far left sources" bullshit. CNN is a far left source? Rotfl. Holy shit this is a waste of my time. You're truly fucking dumb.

Look at how dishonest the left wing sources are.

The washington post headline

"url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html]Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed "

And then the Washington Post cites the 911 commission report. However, the report never said that.

What it said was there no evidence of "collaborative operational relationship". It never said any link was dismissed.

So why the "error"?

Could it be that Washington Post lied to further their far left wing political agenda?

The the CNN headline Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com


Once again, that's not what the Pentagon report said. In fact, according to the actual exercpts of the report, Saddam Hussin trained terrorists routinely and even gave certifications in car bombing and suicide vests.

Yet, CNN neglected to add that part in? Why? To further their left wing political agenda.

They know what the majority people are guillible, they will not go to the actual reports and check it out for themselves. They will be deceived by the Washington Post and CNN into thinking they are getting accurate information, and not lies to further a political agenda.

There is no difference between the Washington Post and CNN, and the Obama campaign office.

Lol! Is this how you dumbasses do it? You ignore certain facts then create strawmen to reach your preconceived conclusions. It's fucking funny to see you cling to that word "operational." You sooper dooper dumbass! The bush admin claimed there was a working relationship......fuck it. You're too far gone and have proven to be a dishonest asswipe.

For those capable of being honest:

"Joint Forces Command report: No link between Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda"
Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com

Keep in mind this is a few years after the 9ECR and they had access to much more information and they still concluded no link.

That is a CNN headline. I actually went into the report, and didn't say that.

If you read the excepts that the CNN supposedly basis this information on it says that

Hussen routinely supported terrorism. In fact, he, even gave certifications in car bombing and suicide vests.

If you click on your on the link, go to excerpts of the report, it's on page 5.

 

[CurveLight]

Look at how dishonest the left wing sources are.

The washington post headline

"url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html]Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed "

And then the Washington Post cites the 911 commission report. However, the report never said that.

What it said was there no evidence of "collaborative operational relationship". It never said any link was dismissed.

So why the "error"?

Could it be that Washington Post lied to further their far left wing political agenda?

The the CNN headline Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com


Once again, that's not what the Pentagon report said. In fact, according to the actual exercpts of the report, Saddam Hussin trained terrorists routinely and even gave certifications in car bombing and suicide vests.

Yet, CNN neglected to add that part in? Why? To further their left wing political agenda.

They know what the majority people are guillible, they will not go to the actual reports and check it out for themselves. They will be deceived by the Washington Post and CNN into thinking they are getting accurate information, and not lies to further a political agenda.

There is no difference between the Washington Post and CNN, and the Obama campaign office.

Lol! Is this how you dumbasses do it? You ignore certain facts then create strawmen to reach your preconceived conclusions. It's fucking funny to see you cling to that word "operational." You sooper dooper dumbass! The bush admin claimed there was a working relationship......fuck it. You're too far gone and have proven to be a dishonest asswipe.

For those capable of being honest:

"Joint Forces Command report: No link between Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda"
Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says - CNN.com

Keep in mind this is a few years after the 9ECR and they had access to much more information and they still concluded no link.

That is a CNN headline. I actually went into the report, and didn't say that.

If you read the excepts that the CNN supposedly basis this information on it says that

Hussen routinely supported terrorism. In fact, he, even gave certifications in car bombing and suicide vests.

If you click on your on the link, go to excerpts of the report, it's on page 5.

Omgoodness you stupid runt. The claim is there was no relationship between iraq and al qaeda. That is not the same as saying saddam never supported terrorism. Why can't you keep up with simple shit? The Pentagon report clearly shows no relationship betwe......ugh.....can't even type it anymore.

 

[CMike]

That's not what it says, that's what you wish it says.

Quote where it says exactly that there were no ties between Hussein and Al Qaida.

 

[CurveLight]

That's not what it says, that's what you wish it says.

Quote where it says exactly that there were no ties between Hussein and Al Qaida.

You're so fucking pathetic. I've provided the 9ECR, Senate Intel report, and the Pentagon report all showing there was no relationship between iraq and alkida. Now we all know you created this little hoop game so you could make more false claims. My not being dumb enough to play your pitiful game does not equate to whatever conclusion you wish to draw. Yes you are a useless **** and you will help prove that once again by ignoring the mountains of evidence showing no relationship between iraq and alkida. Hell, I even quoted directly from the Senate report that Saddam tried to capture and kill zarqwai and you flat out ignored that you dumbass.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

"Blame BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSH" Liberal Loons whining about "Blame Games?" The Liberal Loons just hit an all-time low in dishonest hypocrisy. Yikes!

 

[CMike]

That's not what it says, that's what you wish it says.

Quote where it says exactly that there were no ties between Hussein and Al Qaida.

You're so fucking pathetic. I've provided the 9ECR, Senate Intel report, and the Pentagon report all showing there was no relationship between iraq and alkida. Now we all know you created this little hoop game so you could make more false claims. My not being dumb enough to play your pitiful game does not equate to whatever conclusion you wish to draw. Yes you are a useless **** and you will help prove that once again by ignoring the mountains of evidence showing no relationship between iraq and alkida. Hell, I even quoted directly from the Senate report that Saddam tried to capture and kill zarqwai and you flat out ignored that you dumbass.

Read the reports yourself.

The 911 said that there was no "collorabative operational relationship.

The pentagon report said that there was "no smoking gun" whatever that means.

Neither said that there were no ties between Al Qaida and Hussein.

To prove me wrong all you have to do is go into the reports and quote what they said.

The pentagon report also said that Hussein's terrorist training was so rountine that he offered certifications in car bombing and suicide vests.

 

[CMike]

That's not what it says, that's what you wish it says.

Quote where it says exactly that there were no ties between Hussein and Al Qaida.

You're so fucking pathetic. I've provided the 9ECR, Senate Intel report, and the Pentagon report all showing there was no relationship between iraq and alkida. Now we all know you created this little hoop game so you could make more false claims. My not being dumb enough to play your pitiful game does not equate to whatever conclusion you wish to draw. Yes you are a useless **** and you will help prove that once again by ignoring the mountains of evidence showing no relationship between iraq and alkida. Hell, I even quoted directly from the Senate report that Saddam tried to capture and kill zarqwai and you flat out ignored that you dumbass.

You are an idiot.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

 

[CurveLight]

That's not what it says, that's what you wish it says.

Quote where it says exactly that there were no ties between Hussein and Al Qaida.

You're so fucking pathetic. I've provided the 9ECR, Senate Intel report, and the Pentagon report all showing there was no relationship between iraq and alkida. Now we all know you created this little hoop game so you could make more false claims. My not being dumb enough to play your pitiful game does not equate to whatever conclusion you wish to draw. Yes you are a useless **** and you will help prove that once again by ignoring the mountains of evidence showing no relationship between iraq and alkida. Hell, I even quoted directly from the Senate report that Saddam tried to capture and kill zarqwai and you flat out ignored that you dumbass.

Read the reports yourself.

The 911 said that there was no "collorabative operational relationship.

The pentagon report said that there was "no smoking gun" whatever that means.

Neither said that there were no ties between Al Qaida and Hussein.

To prove me wrong all you have to do is go into the reports and quote what they said.

The pentagon report also said that Hussein's terrorist training was so rountine that he offered certifications in car bombing and suicide vests.

What good would it do to quote from the reports past the evidence that's already been presented? You are claiming the CR's conclusion there was no operational relationship doesn't prove there was no relationship. That's just too bizarre for words. All you keep doing is throwing out silly attempts like the "no ties" term. Believe it or not, none of the reports were written tailored to your personal taste.

Out of a plea for insanity another way to explain this is to ask what kind of relationship existed between iraq and alkida since it obviously was not an operational one? No operational relationship means citing the claimed connection is a moot point. Without an operational relationship there is no justification to use for the invasion of iraq.

 

[CurveLight]

CMike, it's interesting how often you preach about reading the reports themselves. You admitted the Pentagon report said there was no "smoking gun" but you also said "whatever that means." Why did you ask that when the report clearly stated what it means?

"This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda."


What's next in your Arsenal of Denial? It will be entertaining because even when I cite the exact words from the report showing it concluded no direct connections I have a feeling you will still tap dance.

The report also stated the predominant targets of iraq's terrorism were on Iraqis who opposed Saddam's rule. You ignored media reports based on the silly librul media conspiracy theory so I am curious how you will charge Fox news for being a liberal rag? They also stated there was no link.
Pentagon Study of 600,000 Iraqi Documents Finds No Link Between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

 

[Liability]

CMike, it's interesting how often you preach about reading the reports themselves. You admitted the Pentagon report said there was no "smoking gun" but you also said "whatever that means." Why did you ask that when the report clearly stated what it means?

"This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda."


What's next in your Arsenal of Denial? It will be entertaining because even when I cite the exact words from the report showing it concluded no direct connections I have a feeling you will still tap dance.

The report also stated the predominant targets of iraq's terrorism were on Iraqis who opposed Saddam's rule. You ignored media reports based on the silly librul media conspiracy theory so I am curious how you will charge Fox news for being a liberal rag? They also stated there was no link.
Pentagon Study of 600,000 Iraqi Documents Finds No Link Between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

Nobody in the Bush Administration had argued that there WAS or had been a "direct relationship" between al qaeda and Saddam's government.

So why they say there's no "smoking gun" is open to some analysis. They were implicitly suggesting that, in their "finding," they were undercutting something that the Administration had said. Such was never the case.

Accordingly, it is not necessary to delve into that trivial and essentially irrelevant point any further.

Mike, also, is not suggesting that there was a DIRECT relationship. He has merely observed that noting the fact that there is no evidence of a "direct relationship" is not at all the same as establishing that there was no relationship at all. And that's entirely correct. We know there had been some relationship.