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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is some sad tap dancing. You guys really think you can fool anyone with your silly strawmen? Below are quotes that prove your claim flat out wrong. I mean, you aren't so desperate you will try to say that since bush or cheney didn't use the word "direct" that it doesn't count, are you?
"Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."
CNN.com - Cheney blasts media on*al Qaeda-Iraq link - Jun 18, 2004
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting.
Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship (washingtonpost.com)
Iam also guessing you guys are not aware of how critical saddam was of alkida. Not only was there.......bah......let's not get too optimistic. We'll first see what kind of honesty is afforded to the info in this post.
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.
That is some sad tap dancing. You guys really think you can fool anyone with your silly strawmen? Below are quotes that prove your claim flat out wrong. I mean, you aren't so desperate you will try to say that since bush or cheney didn't use the word "direct" that it doesn't count, are you?
"Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."
CNN.com - Cheney blasts media on*al Qaeda-Iraq link - Jun 18, 2004
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting.
Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship (washingtonpost.com)
Iam also guessing you guys are not aware of how critical saddam was of alkida. Not only was there.......bah......let's not get too optimistic. We'll first see what kind of honesty is afforded to the info in this post.
Your ignorance and dishonesty is astounding.
What Vice President Cheney said was absolutely correct. We know, for example, that when one of the leaders of al qaeda (pre-9/11, that is) got ill, he went to Iraq for treatment.
The President, for similar reasons (and there were many such reasons) was also entirely corrrect in what he said.
It's not "alkida." It's al qaeda, the "base," you ignorant twit. And nobody cares what you are "guessing." As always, even your guesses are just stupid. Of course Saddam was critical of al qaeda. Saddam was not an Islamofascist, like the fucing terrorist vermin in al qaeda. Saddam was much more secular. There is little reason to doubt that had they formed any kind of more formal alliance, eventaully it would have crumbled anyway since it would have been insane of Saddam not to be fearful of what al qaeda might eventually plot AGAINST Saddam's secular regime.
But that doesn't mean that each didn't recognize something of value in the other for the short term. Good grief. To imbeciles likee you, bent tight, even the most familiar of basic concepts are distant, hazy unattainable things. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. For the short term, that was the real tie that bound (however loosely) Saddam's illicit regime and al qaeda.
That is some sad tap dancing. You guys really think you can fool anyone with your silly strawmen? Below are quotes that prove your claim flat out wrong. I mean, you aren't so desperate you will try to say that since bush or cheney didn't use the word "direct" that it doesn't count, are you?
"Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."
CNN.com - Cheney blasts media on*al Qaeda-Iraq link - Jun 18, 2004
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting.
Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship (washingtonpost.com)
Iam also guessing you guys are not aware of how critical saddam was of alkida. Not only was there.......bah......let's not get too optimistic. We'll first see what kind of honesty is afforded to the info in this post.
Your ignorance and dishonesty is astounding.
What Vice President Cheney said was absolutely correct. We know, for example, that when one of the leaders of al qaeda (pre-9/11, that is) got ill, he went to Iraq for treatment.
The President, for similar reasons (and there were many such reasons) was also entirely corrrect in what he said.
It's not "alkida." It's al qaeda, the "base," you ignorant twit. And nobody cares what you are "guessing." As always, even your guesses are just stupid. Of course Saddam was critical of al qaeda. Saddam was not an Islamofascist, like the fucing terrorist vermin in al qaeda. Saddam was much more secular. There is little reason to doubt that had they formed any kind of more formal alliance, eventaully it would have crumbled anyway since it would have been insane of Saddam not to be fearful of what al qaeda might eventually plot AGAINST Saddam's secular regime.
But that doesn't mean that each didn't recognize something of value in the other for the short term. Good grief. To imbeciles likee you, bent tight, even the most familiar of basic concepts are distant, hazy unattainable things. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. For the short term, that was the real tie that bound (however loosely) Saddam's illicit regime and al qaeda.
Now you are saying the bush admin claimed they had a relationship. Hmmm.....but two posts ago you said:
(liability)
"Nobody in the Bush Administration had argued that there WAS or had been a "direct relationship" between al qaeda and Saddam's government."
Is this flip flop going to continue or are you able to Kerry a position and see it through?
Your ignorance and dishonesty is astounding.
What Vice President Cheney said was absolutely correct. We know, for example, that when one of the leaders of al qaeda (pre-9/11, that is) got ill, he went to Iraq for treatment.
The President, for similar reasons (and there were many such reasons) was also entirely corrrect in what he said.
It's not "alkida." It's al qaeda, the "base," you ignorant twit. And nobody cares what you are "guessing." As always, even your guesses are just stupid. Of course Saddam was critical of al qaeda. Saddam was not an Islamofascist, like the fucing terrorist vermin in al qaeda. Saddam was much more secular. There is little reason to doubt that had they formed any kind of more formal alliance, eventaully it would have crumbled anyway since it would have been insane of Saddam not to be fearful of what al qaeda might eventually plot AGAINST Saddam's secular regime.
But that doesn't mean that each didn't recognize something of value in the other for the short term. Good grief. To imbeciles likee you, bent tight, even the most familiar of basic concepts are distant, hazy unattainable things. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. For the short term, that was the real tie that bound (however loosely) Saddam's illicit regime and al qaeda.
Now you are saying the bush admin claimed they had a relationship. Hmmm.....but two posts ago you said:
(liability)
"Nobody in the Bush Administration had argued that there WAS or had been a "direct relationship" between al qaeda and Saddam's government."
Is this flip flop going to continue or are you able to Kerry a position and see it through?
You probably don't see it, because you are retarded, but your post highlights what a liar and/or what an ignoramus you are.
There is no contradiction at all -- none -- between declaring that the Bush Administration never said that there was a "direct relationship" between al qaeda and Saddam's regime, on the one hand, and acknowledging that the Bush Adminsitration was aware of "a relationship" between the two, on the other hand.
Adjectives modify nouns.
A relationship may exist other than a direct relationship.
I'd find other ways to try to bring that lesson home for your benefit, but your pinhead is way too small to accomodate what the rest of us can easily discern.
You are a liar and a dope.
Now you are saying the bush admin claimed they had a relationship. Hmmm.....but two posts ago you said:
(liability)
"Nobody in the Bush Administration had argued that there WAS or had been a "direct relationship" between al qaeda and Saddam's government."
Is this flip flop going to continue or are you able to Kerry a position and see it through?
You probably don't see it, because you are retarded, but your post highlights what a liar and/or what an ignoramus you are.
There is no contradiction at all -- none -- between declaring that the Bush Administration never said that there was a "direct relationship" between al qaeda and Saddam's regime, on the one hand, and acknowledging that the Bush Adminsitration was aware of "a relationship" between the two, on the other hand.
Adjectives modify nouns.
A relationship may exist other than a direct relationship.
I'd find other ways to try to bring that lesson home for your benefit, but your pinhead is way too small to accomodate what the rest of us can easily discern.
You are a liar and a dope.
So you ignore the Bush admin's repeated claims of a long relationship between saddam and alkida by pointing out they didn't use the word "direct?" hahaha.....you guys are pure comedy.
You probably don't see it, because you are retarded, but your post highlights what a liar and/or what an ignoramus you are.
There is no contradiction at all -- none -- between declaring that the Bush Administration never said that there was a "direct relationship" between al qaeda and Saddam's regime, on the one hand, and acknowledging that the Bush Adminsitration was aware of "a relationship" between the two, on the other hand.
Adjectives modify nouns.
A relationship may exist other than a direct relationship.
I'd find other ways to try to bring that lesson home for your benefit, but your pinhead is way too small to accomodate what the rest of us can easily discern.
You are a liar and a dope.
So you ignore the Bush admin's repeated claims of a long relationship between saddam and alkida by pointing out they didn't use the word "direct?" hahaha.....you guys are pure comedy.
I didn't ignore anything. That's just your reliance on dishonesty again.
I have steadfstly maintained that it is true that there was no DIRECT relationship between al qaeda and Saddam's illicit government but I have steadfastly also maintained that there was, all the same, some relationship between the two. And there was.
This stuff isn't even particualrly nuanced. You look like even more of an imbecile, now, for arguing your present pointless.
Because there was no direct relationship, it would have been invalid for the Bush Administration to attempt to assign blame for the 9/11/2001 attacks on Saddam's illicit government. Fortunately, the Bush Administration never made any such claim.
However, because Saddam did have some relationship with al qaeda (a known fact at the time) and because Saddam was known to have some WMDs (like the gas he purportedly used on the Kurds), and because Saddam was a financial backer of terrorists and terrorism, it was perfectly fair and valid to take that indirect relationship into account.
So you ignore the Bush admin's repeated claims of a long relationship between saddam and alkida by pointing out they didn't use the word "direct?" hahaha.....you guys are pure comedy.
I didn't ignore anything. That's just your reliance on dishonesty again.
I have steadfstly maintained that it is true that there was no DIRECT relationship between al qaeda and Saddam's illicit government but I have steadfastly also maintained that there was, all the same, some relationship between the two. And there was.
This stuff isn't even particualrly nuanced. You look like even more of an imbecile, now, for arguing your present pointless.
Because there was no direct relationship, it would have been invalid for the Bush Administration to attempt to assign blame for the 9/11/2001 attacks on Saddam's illicit government. Fortunately, the Bush Administration never made any such claim.
However, because Saddam did have some relationship with al qaeda (a known fact at the time) and because Saddam was known to have some WMDs (like the gas he purportedly used on the Kurds), and because Saddam was a financial backer of terrorists and terrorism, it was perfectly fair and valid to take that indirect relationship into account.
So you are hoping the strawman of the word "direct" will be sufficient? Don't think so. See, the bush admin never claimed there was an "indirect relationship" between saddam and alkida. In order for your argument to have any merit at all you need to show where the bush admin claimed there was an "indirect" relationship. Got those links?
Dickless Cheney needs to put up or hush up..Meaning if he's so sure that Americans are on his retarded side, Why don't he run for office??..Instead of trashing an Administration tasked with the job of cleaning up the mess him and GWB got us into..
Isn't it your nap time?Why don't he run for office??..
Why don't he run for office??..
You think it might have something to do with his age, health or maybe that he has been in public office for decades? Are you suggesting that he cannot speak his mind as an American citizen?
At least prove not to be a hypocrite and criticize Al Gore and Jimmy Carter for bad mouthing administrations they disagree with after they left office.
-TSO
I didn't ignore anything. That's just your reliance on dishonesty again.
I have steadfstly maintained that it is true that there was no DIRECT relationship between al qaeda and Saddam's illicit government but I have steadfastly also maintained that there was, all the same, some relationship between the two. And there was.
This stuff isn't even particualrly nuanced. You look like even more of an imbecile, now, for arguing your present pointless.
Because there was no direct relationship, it would have been invalid for the Bush Administration to attempt to assign blame for the 9/11/2001 attacks on Saddam's illicit government. Fortunately, the Bush Administration never made any such claim.
However, because Saddam did have some relationship with al qaeda (a known fact at the time) and because Saddam was known to have some WMDs (like the gas he purportedly used on the Kurds), and because Saddam was a financial backer of terrorists and terrorism, it was perfectly fair and valid to take that indirect relationship into account.
So you are hoping the strawman of the word "direct" will be sufficient? Don't think so. See, the bush admin never claimed there was an "indirect relationship" between saddam and alkida. In order for your argument to have any merit at all you need to show where the bush admin claimed there was an "indirect" relationship. Got those links?
Now you are just doing the Clinton parsing words game.
We know that according to the DOD declassified memo Al Qaida and Hussein met over 50 times. What do you think they discussed?
So you are hoping the strawman of the word "direct" will be sufficient? Don't think so. See, the bush admin never claimed there was an "indirect relationship" between saddam and alkida. In order for your argument to have any merit at all you need to show where the bush admin claimed there was an "indirect" relationship. Got those links?
Now you are just doing the Clinton parsing words game.
We know that according to the DOD declassified memo Al Qaida and Hussein met over 50 times. What do you think they discussed?
They discussed their religious and philosophical opposition to the use of violence.
Curve light is a liar. When shown to have been wrong, he lacks the balls and he lacks the integrity to just admit that he made an error. Instead, he pretends (again and again, and each time futilely) that the proof that he was wrong is a "strawman." HE doesn't even employ that term in a meaningful manner.
Curve Not-too-bright is quite thoroughly dishonest.
Now you are just doing the Clinton parsing words game.
We know that according to the DOD declassified memo Al Qaida and Hussein met over 50 times. What do you think they discussed?
They discussed their religious and philosophical opposition to the use of violence.
Curve light is a liar. When shown to have been wrong, he lacks the balls and he lacks the integrity to just admit that he made an error. Instead, he pretends (again and again, and each time futilely) that the proof that he was wrong is a "strawman." HE doesn't even employ that term in a meaningful manner.
Curve Not-too-bright is quite thoroughly dishonest.
You mean like Jillian and Rdean and the other "liberals never do anything wrong" liars on this forum?
