Why isn't Bin Laden wanted for 9-11?

[rdean]

Why isn't Bin Laden wanted for 9-11?

Bin Laden has always been wanted by the Democrats.

By the Republicans, not so much. In fact, they gave him a 9 year "head start", so it's going to be very difficult to find him. Of course, they did find Saddam, only he didn't do anything to us.

Republicans, bass ackwards.

He harbored some of the very same terrorists that we sought. But that doesn't matter now does it?

Why do you say that? There was no al Qaeda in Iraq until we invaded. They would have been a threat to Saddam's regime. That is so obvious that what you said is ludicrous. Please don't repeat something so stupid again.

Saddam killed members of HIS OWN FAMILY to stay in power. To believe he would invite such a threat into his county is ridiculous beyond belief. Think about it.

 

[rdean]

Of course, they did find Saddam, only he didn't do anything to us.

are you a complete moron or just pretending to be?

he fired missiles at our aircraft on an almost daily basis. we foiled a plot he was behind to kill our ex-president.

"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry October 9th, 2002

Because the Bush administration told us that. Why do you think Colin Powell quit?

•Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11 (referring to American troops - where did they get such an idea?)

Zogby International

Besides, here is Bush is his own words talking about Saddam. If you can't believe him, who can you believe?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTstzb7qSI4[/ame]

 

[Fizz]

Because the Bush administration told us that. Why do you think Colin Powell quit?

•Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11 (referring to American troops - where did they get such an idea?)

Zogby International

Besides, here is Bush is his own words talking about Saddam. If you can't believe him, who can you believe?

YouTube - Bush protects Iraqi Christians

sorry moron, but Kerry said saddam was a threat before there even was a Bush administration. you cant blame them!!

 

[DiveCon]

Because the Bush administration told us that. Why do you think Colin Powell quit?

•Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11 (referring to American troops - where did they get such an idea?)

Zogby International

Besides, here is Bush is his own words talking about Saddam. If you can't believe him, who can you believe?

YouTube - Bush protects Iraqi Christians

sorry moron, but Kerry said saddam was a threat before there even was a Bush administration. you cant blame them!!

as Gov of TX GW Bush had quite a lot of power over a senator from Mass

 

[eots]

Because the Bush administration told us that. Why do you think Colin Powell quit?

•Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11 (referring to American troops - where did they get such an idea?)

Zogby International

Besides, here is Bush is his own words talking about Saddam. If you can't believe him, who can you believe?

YouTube - Bush protects Iraqi Christians

sorry moron, but Kerry said saddam was a threat before there even was a Bush administration. you cant blame them!!

lol....so skull and bones members lied twice

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPh7sUvhZ3E&feature=PlayList&p=D7EF8D43DCD849B1&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4]YouTube - George Bush and John Kerry Skull and Bones members[/ame]

 

[CMike]

What Democrats said about Weapons of Mass Destruction

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[eots]

the left/right shit is pointless..meaingless...you have been duped

 

[slackjawed]

the left/right shit is pointless..meaingless...you have been duped

Absolutely! Hear! Hear! Say it again brother! That is simply something that cannot be said too many times!
The two-party system is designed to promote a big tyrannical government!

 

[rdean]

You guys keep "selecting facts".

Clinton didn't attack Iraq. Because he "contained" Iraq. Of course, he had to give "reasons" for that containment. Bush Sr. didn't invade Iraq and Iraq had just invaded another country. Because he didn't want to "problems" associated with a regime change. Problems we're stuck with, and stuck good.

Iraq had no meaningful industry and no manufacturing. If you can't make it, then you have to buy it. When you are under sanctions, it's hard to do, build up a meaningful military, especially after an 8 year war with Iran that has pretty much decimated an entire generation.

We knew all this stuff before we invaded Iraq. It was known. It wasn't "secret". Iraq was no threat. Iran was the bigger threat.

The REAL REASON Bush invaded Iraq. Bush was convinced that he could make Iraq a "democratic" country. After all, the people were educated and they hated Saddam. Bush thought the people would support him and build statues to him for "liberating" them, perhaps throw a bit of hard candy. No one expected a "shoe".

Bush and the Republicans, in their arrogance, didn't know anything about Iraq. Only that we beat it once before, why not again? Only this time, we will finish the job and make Iraq a democracy.

Now take a look at that Democracy. Christian population from 1.4 million to 0.4 million (that's one million LESS), gays murdered (Republicans don't really have a problem with that), woman back in bags, a man throwing a shoe at our president becoming a national hero, the country wanting our country to die. The one good thing, they got a "public option" for health care (Article 31 in their constitution).

Iraq is a mess. Bleeding our treasury, we have created a "theocratic Islamic hard core" country that will be our enemy worse than Iran. Believe it. They are already telling us that. IT'S NOT NEWS.

 

[Fizz]

good thing we stole all their oil, eh?

 

[rdean]

good thing we stole all their oil, eh?

We stole all their oil? What does that mean?

Iraq has tens of billions, maybe more than a hundred billion (no one knows the exact amount) sitting in our banks. Why? Because Republicans have locked us into rebuilding Iraq. Why should they spend their own money when we can borrow on our children's future to rebuild Iraq?

Republcians say, "Why doesn't Obama just stop?"

Because contracts and treaties have been signed by Bush. Contracts and treaties that will be screwing us anally for years to come. You can't just "void" them. It's not how it works.

The Iraq debacle has decades of fun to go before it's finally over.

 

[CMike]

You guys keep "selecting facts".

Clinton didn't attack Iraq. Because he "contained" Iraq. Of course, he had to give "reasons" for that containment. Bush Sr. didn't invade Iraq and Iraq had just invaded another country. Because he didn't want to "problems" associated with a regime change. Problems we're stuck with, and stuck good.

Iraq had no meaningful industry and no manufacturing. If you can't make it, then you have to buy it. When you are under sanctions, it's hard to do, build up a meaningful military, especially after an 8 year war with Iran that has pretty much decimated an entire generation.

We knew all this stuff before we invaded Iraq. It was known. It wasn't "secret". Iraq was no threat. Iran was the bigger threat.

The REAL REASON Bush invaded Iraq. Bush was convinced that he could make Iraq a "democratic" country. After all, the people were educated and they hated Saddam. Bush thought the people would support him and build statues to him for "liberating" them, perhaps throw a bit of hard candy. No one expected a "shoe".

Bush and the Republicans, in their arrogance, didn't know anything about Iraq. Only that we beat it once before, why not again? Only this time, we will finish the job and make Iraq a democracy.

Now take a look at that Democracy. Christian population from 1.4 million to 0.4 million (that's one million LESS), gays murdered (Republicans don't really have a problem with that), woman back in bags, a man throwing a shoe at our president becoming a national hero, the country wanting our country to die. The one good thing, they got a "public option" for health care (Article 31 in their constitution).

Iraq is a mess. Bleeding our treasury, we have created a "theocratic Islamic hard core" country that will be our enemy worse than Iran. Believe it. They are already telling us that. IT'S NOT NEWS.

You should write fiction books.

 

[rdean]

You guys keep "selecting facts".

Clinton didn't attack Iraq. Because he "contained" Iraq. Of course, he had to give "reasons" for that containment. Bush Sr. didn't invade Iraq and Iraq had just invaded another country. Because he didn't want to "problems" associated with a regime change. Problems we're stuck with, and stuck good.

Iraq had no meaningful industry and no manufacturing. If you can't make it, then you have to buy it. When you are under sanctions, it's hard to do, build up a meaningful military, especially after an 8 year war with Iran that has pretty much decimated an entire generation.

We knew all this stuff before we invaded Iraq. It was known. It wasn't "secret". Iraq was no threat. Iran was the bigger threat.

The REAL REASON Bush invaded Iraq. Bush was convinced that he could make Iraq a "democratic" country. After all, the people were educated and they hated Saddam. Bush thought the people would support him and build statues to him for "liberating" them, perhaps throw a bit of hard candy. No one expected a "shoe".

Bush and the Republicans, in their arrogance, didn't know anything about Iraq. Only that we beat it once before, why not again? Only this time, we will finish the job and make Iraq a democracy.

Now take a look at that Democracy. Christian population from 1.4 million to 0.4 million (that's one million LESS), gays murdered (Republicans don't really have a problem with that), woman back in bags, a man throwing a shoe at our president becoming a national hero, the country wanting our country to die. The one good thing, they got a "public option" for health care (Article 31 in their constitution).

Iraq is a mess. Bleeding our treasury, we have created a "theocratic Islamic hard core" country that will be our enemy worse than Iran. Believe it. They are already telling us that. IT'S NOT NEWS.

You should write fiction books.

What parts not true? It hurts when you see the truth, but you want that truth to be something else entirely. So sad.

 

[DiveCon]

You guys keep "selecting facts".

Clinton didn't attack Iraq. Because he "contained" Iraq. Of course, he had to give "reasons" for that containment. Bush Sr. didn't invade Iraq and Iraq had just invaded another country. Because he didn't want to "problems" associated with a regime change. Problems we're stuck with, and stuck good.

Iraq had no meaningful industry and no manufacturing. If you can't make it, then you have to buy it. When you are under sanctions, it's hard to do, build up a meaningful military, especially after an 8 year war with Iran that has pretty much decimated an entire generation.

We knew all this stuff before we invaded Iraq. It was known. It wasn't "secret". Iraq was no threat. Iran was the bigger threat.

The REAL REASON Bush invaded Iraq. Bush was convinced that he could make Iraq a "democratic" country. After all, the people were educated and they hated Saddam. Bush thought the people would support him and build statues to him for "liberating" them, perhaps throw a bit of hard candy. No one expected a "shoe".

Bush and the Republicans, in their arrogance, didn't know anything about Iraq. Only that we beat it once before, why not again? Only this time, we will finish the job and make Iraq a democracy.

Now take a look at that Democracy. Christian population from 1.4 million to 0.4 million (that's one million LESS), gays murdered (Republicans don't really have a problem with that), woman back in bags, a man throwing a shoe at our president becoming a national hero, the country wanting our country to die. The one good thing, they got a "public option" for health care (Article 31 in their constitution).

Iraq is a mess. Bleeding our treasury, we have created a "theocratic Islamic hard core" country that will be our enemy worse than Iran. Believe it. They are already telling us that. IT'S NOT NEWS.

You should write fiction books.

What parts not true? It hurts when you see the truth, but you want that truth to be something else entirely. So sad.

you are fucking delusional if you think what you posted is all true

 

[Toro]

You dodged the question yet again. That means you don't know if the lease was transferable. Not surprising since you didn't know he was not awarded the lease by outbidding others as you claimed.

As for the rest of your post, it proves you people are so fucking blinded by your agenda you cannot see what others post. I never accused silverstein of any type of conspiracy and in fact, I helped prove the accusations against him are not that strong considering he never outbid the highest bid on the Towers. What else you got besides more dodging and failing to admit you really screwed up?

I realize that your ego is wrapped up by what you write on a message board. That's why you nitpick rather than avoid the issue at hand so you can "win" on semantics.

You either did not read your own link or you did not comprehend it. The negotiations with Vornado broke down so he offered more money than Vornado. The Observer link is from before the negotiations were completed. What's that prove? It's hardly surprising in large real estate deals that negotiations break down. So he offered more money than Vornado. Posting that link merely means you don't understand what happened.

Oh, and you flip the lease. The question was rhetorical. I don't know of any 99-year lease on a commercial building that is nontransferable. Of course, you didn't know that.

Sorry that your ego is so wrapped up in message boards. Sux2bu

 

[CurveLight]

You dodged the question yet again. That means you don't know if the lease was transferable. Not surprising since you didn't know he was not awarded the lease by outbidding others as you claimed.

As for the rest of your post, it proves you people are so fucking blinded by your agenda you cannot see what others post. I never accused silverstein of any type of conspiracy and in fact, I helped prove the accusations against him are not that strong considering he never outbid the highest bid on the Towers. What else you got besides more dodging and failing to admit you really screwed up?

I realize that your ego is wrapped up by what you write on a message board. That's why you nitpick rather than avoid the issue at hand so you can "win" on semantics.

You either did not read your own link or you did not comprehend it. The negotiations with Vornado broke down so he offered more money than Vornado. The Observer link is from before the negotiations were completed. What's that prove? It's hardly surprising in large real estate deals that negotiations break down. So he offered more money than Vornado. Posting that link merely means you don't understand what happened.

Oh, and you flip the lease. The question was rhetorical. I don't know of any 99-year lease on a commercial building that is nontransferable. Of course, you didn't know that.

Sorry that your ego is so wrapped up in message boards. Sux2bu

You kind of ignored the fact you accused me of claiming
Silverstein was in on a conspiracy when i never made the accusation.

Now back to the rest of your stoopdity. Silverstein did not win by outbidding. Here is the WTC site:

"The Port announced in February 2001 that Vornado Realty Trust won the lease by outbidding Silverstein Properties by $50 million. When Vornado later withdrew, Silverstein ’s bid was accepted on July 24th, 2001. The $3.25 billion deal for the 99-year lease was the largest real estate transaction in New York City ’s history."
Http://www.wtc.com/about/silverstein-properties-as-wtc-leaseholder

How could Silverstein outbid a bid that was no longer there you dumbfuck? You ever going to prove how he could have flipped the lease or, like the bid thing, continue to prove yourself fucking ignorant?


Eta: the reason Vornado withdrew their bid is because they wanted a 39 year lease but the Port Authority would not reduce the 99 year lease. If the lease was transferable why would Vornado care to the point of withdrawing their bid? Also, Silverstein tried to make the insurance companies pay double the amount he had the WTC properties insured for.

 

[CurveLight]

Because he is not part of the criminal justice justem.

He is an unlawful combatant.

You don't know what you are talking about. He was indicted in Federal courts about 12 years ago. Now that we have the "unlawful combatant" shit out of the way, how about attempting an informed answer?

It's is not 12 years ago. After 911 we are now in a war.

Oh really? You just keep proving how fucking dumb you are. Since you want to use the technical term of "War" then show us where Congress made a Declaration of War? Also, even if that were true you dumbass do you think bin laden would not have charges brought against him? You do realize "unlawful combatants" do get charged with crimes don't you? Or are you too stoopid to know that as well?

 

[CurveLight]

Why isn't Bin Laden wanted for 9-11?

Bin Laden has always been wanted by the Democrats.

By the Republicans, not so much. In fact, they gave him a 9 year "head start", so it's going to be very difficult to find him. Of course, they did find Saddam, only he didn't do anything to us.

Republicans, bass ackwards.

He harbored some of the very same terrorists that we sought. But that doesn't matter now does it?

There was never an operational link between iraq and alkida....but you go ahead and keep repeating those dumbass talking points because apparently you care more about bullshit than facts if it helps justify what you want to support.

 

[CurveLight]

Of course, they did find Saddam, only he didn't do anything to us.

are you a complete moron or just pretending to be?

he fired missiles at our aircraft on an almost daily basis. we foiled a plot he was behind to kill our ex-president.

"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry October 9th, 2002

You ignorant bitches still repeat that bullshit eh? The No Fly Zones were not legal. By invading Iraq's sovereign airspace he had the legal right to fire on foreign military aircraft you dumbfuck.

 

[CurveLight]

Why isn't Bin Laden wanted for 9-11?

Bin Laden has always been wanted by the Democrats.

By the Republicans, not so much. In fact, they gave him a 9 year "head start", so it's going to be very difficult to find him. Of course, they did find Saddam, only he didn't do anything to us.

Republicans, bass ackwards.

As a matter of fact, Sudan offered to arrest and extradite OBL and hand him over him to the US twice, -- Clinton refused.

More fucking dumb shit. What the fuck is wrong with you ignorant assholes? Sudan never offered bin laden to the US and when those rumors were flying the US had no charges filed against bin laden. So tell us you genius level dumbass, how can you extradite someone you don't have charges against?