Clinton lies again

[Squawker]

Bush and practically his whole administration led us to believe there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11! It was all over the news...in every speech they were giving!

It's called "bait and switch." Use the events of 9/11 to justify war with Iraq.

I dare say if you polled every citizen of these United States, a great many of them would still believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

On October 7th, 2002, just days before Congress would give Bush the authorization to go to war, Bush said this in a speech in Cincinnati...

"Some citizens wonder after 11 years of living with this problem, ( Iraq's pursuit of WMD) why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September 11th."

This is a direct, and deliberate attempt to link Saddam with 9/11.

Talk about Saddam's WMD...talk about Al Queda and the links to Saddam...talk about 9/11 in the same breath...and people will make the connection...this was part of the Bush plan to justify war.

If people believe that they have to be pretty stupid, but I don't think are. I watch a lot of political information and I never heard President Bush or anyone else say they is a direct link from Saddam to 911. The Liberals seem to be the ones floating that boat.

 

[ShamMol]

If people believe that they have to be pretty stupid, but I don't think are. I watch a lot of political information and I never heard President Bush or anyone else say they is a direct link from Saddam to 911. The Liberals seem to be the ones floating that boat.

Alright, this one I want to hear more about. It's the liberals fault as usual. Provide me one link where a government rep who is liberal is saying that.

 

[Squawker]

Provide me one link where a government rep who is liberal is saying that.

Why does it need to be in the government? Hoot is the one who made the claim. That is how the word gets passed, is it not?

 

[SixStringHero]

First off,
I'm an independent. I'm not particularly fond of republicans social views, but that goes for democrats as well. I do believe however that terrorism is a world wide problem and detrimental to any countries interests.

Most people are aware that ties between Al Quadia(sic?) and Saddam were tenuous at best, but that doesn't change the simple fact that Saddam has harbored and funded terrorists in the past. I also don't understand the argument that America is more hated in the world now post the Iraqi invasion. 9/11 happened did it not? If we were so loved in the world then why did this attack occur in the first place? Why did the failed first attempt on the Trade Center happen? Fact is, Islamic fanatics are indoctrinated at a young age to hate America. If you were told at a young age that a super power was the plight and plague of all your problems, then you too would end up hating that country.

Terrorism in the world is a problem; 9/11, The USS Cole, the train bombings in Madrid, the bombings in Bali and the massacre of some 300 school children in Beslan, Russia. I was ambivalent about this war, but I support what America is doing, and contrary to what a bunch of left-wing wackos say,our troops try to minimize civilian casualties, not incur them.

This brings me to another point. It seems that the vast majority of liberal democrats are nothing more than sycophantic Clinton kool-aid drinkers. Clinton did in fact invade Yugoslavia, Somalia, Bosnia and even bombed the hell out of Baghdad. Of course, I'm willing to go as far and say from reading some of your dispositions on Clinton that you didn't have any problems with those military actions did you? And while the casualty numbers aren't nearly as high, military and civilians did in fact die during his years 8 years in office. Of course you never saw or heard Ted Kennedy, George Byrd, Kerry, Edwards, Barbara Boxer, Pearl Jam, Bruce Springsteen, Julia Roberts, Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn or all the other Politician/Hollywood celebrity types have any criticism of this either.

It's sad really, that there lies this double standard with politicians and the Hollywood elite. I for one had no problem with Clinton's military actions, and I wouldn't stoop so low as to compare him to Hitler or a Nazi like so many other credible sources :roll: IE. Move on.org did with Bush.

It's a fact that can't be denied; Clinton, Kerry, Putin and Chirac all made a strong case and believed that Saddam had WMDS. I for one believed it as well. It's faulty intelligence, not a concocted lie to perpetuate the war machine or to make a grab for the middle east oil such as morons like Michael Moore would have you believe. Give me some empirical evidence instead of churning out a fallacious "documentary" based entirely on speculation and conjecture which is rife with deceits, falsehoods and flat out lies.

 

[Stinger]

Are you kidding me?

Bush and practically his whole administration led us to believe there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11! It was all over the news...in every speech they were giving!

Post it. It was never the contention of the administration that there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11. Never in a speech never in a press release.

It's called "bait and switch." Use the events of 9/11 to justify war with Iraq.

It's called a phoney statement on your part.

I dare say if you polled every citizen of these United States, a great many of them would still believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

Well after the attempt for the liberal media and people like you to protray it as such I wouldn't be surprised, but it was never a reason given by the administration to remove Saddam.

On October 7th, 2002, just days before Congress would give Bush the authorization to go to war, Bush said this in a speech in Cincinnati...

"Some citizens wonder after 11 years of living with this problem, ( Iraq's pursuit of WMD) why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September 11th."

Which was not a claim of a direct link between Saddam and the 9/11 attack. But certainly if Saddam supplied chemical or biological weapons to Alqaeda and used them against us you would have been calling for Bush's head for not doing something about him. And that was where Saddam was headed.

This is a direct, and deliberate attempt to link Saddam with 9/11.

No it is not.

Talk about Saddam's WMD...talk about Al Queda and the links to Saddam...talk about 9/11 in the same breath...and people will make the connection...this was part of the Bush plan to justify war.

Which does not claim that Saddam had anything to do with that attack.

We were bombarded with info like this by Rumsfield, Cheney, Rice, Powell and Bush in the days preceding our attack on Iraq.

Post the statement you claim exist stating there was a direct link between Saddam and the 9/11 attack/

The quote above would be like Truman saying..."Some people wonder why we need to attack Canada now...and there's a reason...we've experienced the horrors of Pearl Harbor." It makes as much sense now that we know the truth.

No it is nothing like that by any stretch.

Go back and look at some of those war photos that 26Yankee posted and tell me this war is justified.

I don't need to I have read the findings of Kay, Duelfer, the 9/11 commission, the Senate hearings and lived through the 12 years of phony sanctions against Saddam and his regime. He needed to be removed and Bush and the will to do so. Be glad he did.

 

[Fantasea]

Wrong, AGAIN! Had our ahole President simply allowed the inspections to continue instead of rushing into a war that is a international disgrace we would not have 1700 dead Americans.

It is evident that, by your standards, twelve years of inspections wasn't enough.

I asked, a while back, whether you were aware of the duties of the inspectors, and the resonsibility of Iraq in connection with the inspections. I don't recall ever having received a response to that. Would you be kind enough to respond to that inqiry now? (For obvious reasons, I don't think you will.)

The BS that you try to come up with to justify the killing of these fine Americans is sickening. You'll go to the wall to protect a frozen embryo headed to the garbage but you won't stand up to the dirtbag in the White House killing our soldiers.

I see that you haven't changed. You still seem to be unable to conduct a polite discussion. Your continued dependence on coarse language and insult instead of factual argument simply confirms that your position is bankrupt.

You know what I believe? If Bush used a Nuke people like you would find some sick way to rationalize and make it sound like it was good!

Simce I am aware of some of your other beliefs, I'm not surprised at this one.

Everytime you think the war is good, or justified, think about this:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/gallery.htm

http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/

The last link is extremely graphic, and extremely real. Look at these pictures closely. It's time we all look at pictures like these everyday to remind ourselves how horrible war is, and how horrible this war is.

I've always agreed with General P. T. Sherman, of Civil War fame, who said, "War is hell."

It slays me when morons write that in this war we've had fewer casualties than in other wars! That is one sick statement. Tell that to any of the families of the people in these pictures.

That you consider the truth to be 'sick' reveals much about you.

It sickens me to read the posts from the war mongers on this site. Shame on all of you! Some of you pretend to be "God fearing Christians" yet you condone war and violence. Shame on all of you! Show me in the Bible where God says it's OK to preemptively attack another nation?

Careful now; you're treading on thin ice. Remember -- separation of church and state.

Do you know what this word spells? H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S

Yes, I do. It spells Socialist-Liberal-Democrats.

To further show how insane you all are, you write crap about how much safer we are in the USA since 9-11! You cite the fact that we've not been attacked since so we must be safer! That is pure genius!

Thank you for the compliment. But I must demur. Genius is a bit much. Highly intelligent would suffice. However, I don't ever recall commenting on "how much safer we are in the USA......."

One of my favorite sicko lines of thinking is that we can fight the terrorists "over there" instead of here! More real genius!

Would you prefer to be doing it "over here"?

I'm sure that our terrorists friends aren't plotting to blow us up again over here because they're having so much fun "over there."

So long as they're being kept busy over there, they have their hands full. These birds are struggling to recapture the prestige and power they had while Saddam Hussein was in the driver's seat. The problem they face is that, every day, the new government in Iraq grows a bit stronger. Eventually it will reach the 'tipping point' and it will be impossible for the terrorists to shake the government loose.

The truly sad thing about that line of thinking is that when the day comes that we're attacked again and you're all proven wrong all of us will lose, and we'll lose because the war in Iraq will be one of the great motivators that are enemy will use to enlist terrorists to come here and get us.

OK. So what do you want us to do? Bend over and grab our ankles?

Shame on you! Shame on Bush! H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S

No facts. Same ranting. Same name calling. What a waste.

 

[Pacridge]

If people believe that they have to be pretty stupid, but I don't think are. I watch a lot of political information and I never heard President Bush or anyone else say they is a direct link from Saddam to 911. The Liberals seem to be the ones floating that boat.

What? Bush and Co. basically went on a national tour prior to the war claiming Saddam not only had WMD's but had ties to al Qaeda. Cheney said it practically non-stop for a while. Even after the war he was saying it. Here's a article from June 2004 where he's still saying it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-15-cheney-alqaeda_x.htm

 

[Squawker]

What? Bush and Co. basically went on a national tour prior to the war claiming Saddam not only had WMD's but had ties to al Qaeda.

This is the word game the liberals are promoting. President Bush said Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, which he did. Liberals say Bush ties Saddam to 911. That is two different things. The left wants people to think Bush lied, so they present the Saddam/Al Qaeda as a 911 issue, not as a terrorist support issue. You think it is related because of the lefts propaganda, not by what the Administration actually said.

 

[Pacridge]

This is the word game the liberals are promoting. President Bush said Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, which he did. Liberals say Bush ties Saddam to 911. That is two different things. The left wants people to think Bush lied, so they present the Saddam/Al Qaeda as a 911 issue, not as a terrorist support issue. You think it is related because of the lefts propaganda, not by what the Administration actually said.

So the Administration said he had ties to al Qaeda, but never said he had ties to 9-11? Didn't al Qaeda do 9-11?

 

[Fantasea]

And yes, Saddam was a world leader in that he was a head of state, therefore, we are bound to our end of the deal by Geneva standards.

Neither Iraq, Al Quaida, Taliban, or free lance terrorists are 'High Contracting Parties' to the Geneva Convention and, therefore not entitled to any of its protections, which are intended to be reciprocal. Below appears the section of the Geneva Convention which describes who is a prisoner entitled to protections as prisoners of war.

Where do the gang of thugs currently operating in Iraq fit in?

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Post it. It was never the contention of the administration that there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11. Never in a speech never in a press release.

Post the statement you claim exist stating there was a direct link between Saddam and the 9/11 attack/

“After the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, we will not allow grave threats to go unopposed. We are now working to locate and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This is a historic moment. Just over a month ago, not all that long ago, a cruel dictator ruled a country, ruled Iraq by torture and fear. His regime was allied with terrorists, and the regime was armed with weapons of mass destruction. Today, that regime is no more.”
— President Bush, Speech to workers at Abrams tank plant in Lima, Ohio, April 24, 2003.

“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.”
— President Bush, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003.

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?


VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.
—Vice President **** Cheney, Interview with NBC’s Tim Russert, Sunday, Sept. 14, 2003.

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

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.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States...."

Source of complete Post story:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Posted 9/6/2003 8:10 AM

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Post it. It was never the contention of the administration that there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11. Never in a speech never in a press release.

Post the statement you claim exist stating there was a direct link between Saddam and the 9/11 attack/


x26

Quote:

“After the attacks of September the 11th, 2001,..........

Try again, in not one of you quotes is a claim that Saddam had a connection with the 9/11 attacks. And no one ever claimed that Saddam and Alqaeda 'cooroborated' any other attack, but there is ample evidence that they had a relationship and that both wanted to further that relationship.

 

[flip2]

I love how this has turned into a Bush thread, rather than a Clinton thread. Can't defend Clinton, so let's destroy Bush.

 

[Pacridge]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Post it. It was never the contention of the administration that there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11. Never in a speech never in a press release.

Post the statement you claim exist stating there was a direct link between Saddam and the 9/11 attack/


x26

Try again, in not one of you quotes is a claim that Saddam had a connection with the 9/11 attacks. And no one ever claimed that Saddam and Alqaeda 'cooroborated' any other attack, but there is ample evidence that they had a relationship and that both wanted to further that relationship.

Maybe not but they constantly made the claim that Saddam had direct "long established" ties with al Qaeda. Just like the statement Cheney made in June 2004. Everyone knew that al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11. So they may not have made that direct statement but they certainly pushed that idea. I remember seeing Cheney being interviewed and the interviewer asked what he thought about people making the contention between Saddam and the 9-11 attacks and he said something to the effect of he didn't think it was odd at all that people would make that connection.

 

[Stinger]

Maybe not but they constantly made the claim that Saddam had direct "long established" ties with al Qaeda. Just like the statement Cheney made in June 2004. ..................

Not "maybe not" simply "not", the administration never claimed Saddan had any direct connection with 9/11. Why is it that the left keeps trying to make that claim?

And yes every commission has estabished that there was communication, there were ties between Saddam and terrorist groups including Alqaeda. And as far as Cheney's statement, well DUH, as much as the leftist anti-American media keeps making the claim that the administration did make the claim no wonder the less informed believe it.

So they may not have made that direct statement but they certainly pushed that idea.

No they did not they repeatedly stated they had no evidence Saddam was tied to 9/11. But there is ample evidence that Saddam supported terrorist and terrorism and wanted to increase that support as soon, in not before, he got the sanctions lifted. Just some of the public record

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003. [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man. [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]* As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'"[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network. [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq."[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam's regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine. [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by "Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad."[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]* After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam's strongholds inside northern Iraq.
[/font]





The Iraq -- Al Qaeda Connections
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Richard Miniter[/font] [font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Duelfer in his report stated that his investigators had uncovered labs which Saddam's secret intelligence agency ran where they were producing vials and spray bottles that looked like perfume bottles which were to be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons. These were not designed for an army to use they were designed for terrorist to use in a department store or on a sub-way or some other public place.
[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]This folly the left engages in in order to deny what Saddam was up to, what has been fully documented, in order to discredit bush is not only incredibly phony but highly dangerous to our national security.
[/font]

 

[Stinger]

I love how this has turned into a Bush thread, rather than a Clinton thread. Can't defend Clinton, so let's destroy Bush.

typical isn't it.

 

[Hoot]

I never said Bush was stupid...I have called him a liar.

Bush would never be so stupid to come out and say..."Saddam attacked us on 9/11," because he knows that wouldn't hold water.

The Bush administration is very adept at muddying the waters...saying something to imply what they want to imply, and later claiming that's not what they meant.

It's the conservatives, not the liberals, who are great at playing with words.

Here's what Cheney said right after that Bush speech in Cincinnatti on 'Meet the Press'

"Success in Iraq means we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assualt now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

What else can one infer from a statement like this?

What does Cheney say in that statement?

1) Iraq is the heart of the base of terrorism

2) Iraq is the geographic base of the terrorists who assaulted us for many years, but especially on 9/11.

What other conclusion can you come to with a statement like that?

I admit I'm completely dumbfounded that you conservatives can't see the "spin"...that's right the "spin," in a statement like this to the American people?

If you're still not convinced...there's many others....many statements where Bush & Co. used the following words in one sentence to indirectly create a "link" in the listeners mind and muddy the waters...words like...."terrorism, 9/11, Saddam, Osama, Al Queda, WMD...etc...etc.

Of course you realize that before the Iraq war, pollsters found that the majority of Americans believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

Where do you think Americans got this misconception?

From the "liberal" news media?

Or from the deliberate distortions of the Bush camp in an effort to justify war with Iraq?

I know this is a Clinton thread, and yes, Bill lied under oath about an affair...a stupid thing for him to do, but also a position NO PRESIDENT should ever be placed in.

Bush lied about the need to invade Iraq, and yet, to you right wingers, Clinton is a disgrace and Bush is a good 'ol boy.

Go figure?

 

[Stinger]

I never said Bush was stupid...I have called him a liar.

And what specific statement did he make that he knew was a lie? Be specific, what did he know to be truth but he lied about and cite your source.

Bush would never be so stupid to come out and say..."Saddam attacked us on 9/11," because he knows that wouldn't hold water.

ROFL maybe because he knew it wasn't true and he told the truth. You can't have it both ways, on the one hand saying he is a liar and acts nefariously and then saying he tells the truth and THAT proves how bad he is.

The Bush administration is very adept at muddying the waters...saying something to imply what they want to imply, and later claiming that's not what they meant.

No they were very good at saying what they believed, you just don't like it. They were very clear in what they said YOU are the one who is trying to misrepresent it and then claim THEY weren't saying what they REALLY meant but YOU KNOW what they meant and it was a lie. Your arguements are specious.

It's the conservatives, not the liberals, who are great at playing with words.

A point you so far have provided no evidence for.

Here's what Cheney said right after that Bush speech in Cincinnatti on 'Meet the Press'

"Success in Iraq means we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assualt now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Yes and that was a true statement. When you hurt those who support and aid terrorist it hurts the terrorist.

What else can one infer from a statement like this?

You don't need to "infer" anything, they were very clear in what they said. Quit trying to "infer" and simply listen to what they said.

What does Cheney say in that statement?

1) Iraq is the heart of the base of terrorism

Know he said that by striking in Iraq we have made a major strike "at" the heart. That was true. Now where it that statement does it say Saddam was tied to 9/11 as you claim?

2) Iraq is the geographic base of the terrorists who assaulted us for many years, but especially on 9/11.

It is "a" base just as Afghanistan was and Indonesia and Syria and others. But where does that he say Saddam was tied to 9/11?

What other conclusion can you come to with a statement like that?

I agree, what other conclusion can you come up with other than Saddam supported terrorist and terrorism, which WAS TRUE. But nowhere does Chaney say Saddam was responsible for or had an active part in 9/11 as you claim.

I admit I'm completely dumbfounded that you conservatives can't see the "spin"...that's right the "spin," in a statement like this to the American people?

Perhaps because you desperate attempts to spin what the Bush administration actually said into what you want them to have said have completely dumbfounded you. Just take them at exactly what they said and then you might not be so dumbfounded.

If you're still not convinced...there's many others....many statements where Bush & Co. used the following words in one sentence to indirectly create a "link"

Oh now you gone from a direct link to an indirect link...........hmmmmm

in the listeners mind and muddy the waters...words like...."terrorism, 9/11, Saddam, Osama, Al Queda, WMD...etc...etc.

Sorry but your arguements remain specious. The administration was perfectly clear and consistent in thier position. Saddam had no active role in 9/11. He support terrorist and terrorism, he had ties to Alqaeda and wanted to enhance and increase those ties. All factual, no need to spin, no need to misrepresent it.

Of course you realize that before the Iraq war, pollsters found that the majority of Americans believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

Well with people like you making that claim no wonder.

Where do you think Americans got this misconception?

From the "liberal" news media?

ROFl YES and people like you who keep claiming they did say that when in fact they did not.

Post it, where is the specific claim from the administration that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

Or from the deliberate distortions of the Bush camp in an effort to justify war with Iraq?

Once again baseless claims.

I know this is a Clinton thread, and yes, Bill lied under oath about an affair...a stupid thing for him to do, but also a position NO PRESIDENT should ever be placed in.

Oh? Presidents should be allowed to commit perjury and obstruction of justice in a federal court? Or perhaps Presidents and govenors should be allowed to sexually harass and make make sexual advances on their subordinate employees while working?

Bush lied about the need to invade Iraq, and yet, to you right wingers, Clinton is a disgrace and Bush is a good 'ol boy.

What was the lie and prove he knew it was a lie.

 

[Squawker]

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation.

I hope you all understand this once and for all. Link did not equal envolvement in attacks on the US. A link could involve money, "emotional" support (don't ya love that one) encouragement, etc. Try this ------> :think:

 

[Hoot]

And what specific statement did he make that he knew was a lie? Be specific, what did he know to be truth but he lied about and cite your source.



ROFL maybe because he knew it wasn't true and he told the truth. You can't have it both ways, on the one hand saying he is a liar and acts nefariously and then saying he tells the truth and THAT proves how bad he is.



No they were very good at saying what they believed, you just don't like it. They were very clear in what they said YOU are the one who is trying to misrepresent it and then claim THEY weren't saying what they REALLY meant but YOU KNOW what they meant and it was a lie. Your arguements are specious.



A point you so far have provided no evidence for.



Yes and that was a true statement. When you hurt those who support and aid terrorist it hurts the terrorist.



You don't need to "infer" anything, they were very clear in what they said. Quit trying to "infer" and simply listen to what they said.



Know he said that by striking in Iraq we have made a major strike "at" the heart. That was true. Now where it that statement does it say Saddam was tied to 9/11 as you claim?





It is "a" base just as Afghanistan was and Indonesia and Syria and others. But where does that he say Saddam was tied to 9/11?



I agree, what other conclusion can you come up with other than Saddam supported terrorist and terrorism, which WAS TRUE. But nowhere does Chaney say Saddam was responsible for or had an active part in 9/11 as you claim.



Perhaps because you desperate attempts to spin what the Bush administration actually said into what you want them to have said have completely dumbfounded you. Just take them at exactly what they said and then you might not be so dumbfounded.



Oh now you gone from a direct link to an indirect link...........hmmmmm



Sorry but your arguements remain specious. The administration was perfectly clear and consistent in thier position. Saddam had no active role in 9/11. He support terrorist and terrorism, he had ties to Alqaeda and wanted to enhance and increase those ties. All factual, no need to spin, no need to misrepresent it.



Well with people like you making that claim no wonder.



ROFl YES and people like you who keep claiming they did say that when in fact they did not.

Post it, where is the specific claim from the administration that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.



Once again baseless claims.



Oh? Presidents should be allowed to commit perjury and obstruction of justice in a federal court? Or perhaps Presidents and govenors should be allowed to sexually harass and make make sexual advances on their subordinate employees while working?



What was the lie and prove he knew it was a lie.

I'm afraid you're hopeless...go back and re-read some of my posts...I've proven Bush's lies over and over again in this forum. Why should I further waste my time on someone who wouldn't know the truth if it kicked him in the head?

As far as your last statement about Clinton lying....sigh...here we go again....

Pay attention this time....

Paula Jones V Clinton

This was a CIVIL trial. Not a criminal trial...not a felony, but a CIVIL trial.

Still with me? I can wait until you look up the difference?

1960 Soldier and Sailors Civil Relief Act....not even a grunt private has to face a civil trial while he is involved in the sworn duty of serving his country.

The civil trial can be delayed until after his service to his country.

Why? Because we feel it's more important to have this grunt private concentrating on protecting our nation rather then spending precious time in court, giving depositions, meeting with attorneys...etc...etc.

Still with me? Is that so hard of a concept to grasp?

Do you think it's better for our nation to allow a plaintiff to have a speedy trial, or to have our soldiers doing their job? Which is more important to you?

Remember...this does not mean the grunt private is above the law, as you right wing wackos loved to scream with orgasmic glee...it merely means for the "greater good," our nation needs our soldiers doing their job and not tied up in court with civil proceedings!

This basic right was DENIED the Commander in Chief of the entire military!

This basic right was denied to the most powerful man in the world!

Do you understand the implications of this?

Can you even begin to fathom how dangerous a precedent the right wing wackos created by allowing this to happen?

If there was no Civil suit...no Paula Jones...no Monica....no forcing Clinton to commit perjury to protect himself and his family to deny an affair.

By the way...self-defense perjury is almost never prosecuted in court. Perjury is only prosecuted when someone lies and says something like..."John Doe killed that guy, not me." It's perjury when you try to implicate someone else. Self defense perjury, which is what Clinton was forced to do, was simply denying the incident happened. This type of perjury is never prosecuted... it happens in every county, of every state, on every work day of the calender year! Why even have court rooms or trials...just have every defendent say "guilty," instead of "not guilty" and be done with it.

The bottom line...a civil trial was allowed to proceed against a sitting, duly elected president. This could quite possibly be the most dangerous event to ever befall our nation and threaten the freedoms we hold so dear.

Paula could've had her day in court...after the man holding the single most important job in the world...a job that even the fates of other nations depend on, has served his "greater good" to our nation.

No Paula...no civil trial...no perjury.

Get it?

Or suppose I sue Bush on the day after 9/11 and tie him up with depositions, and court appearences, and attorney meetings in a civil trial?

That ok with you?

And God Bless America.

What's left of it, anyway.

 

[flip2]

You could, but at least Bush wouldn't lie UNDER OATH IN THE PRESENCE OF A JUDGE. Again, you miss the whole point of committing perjury under oath, no matter the purpose. You seem to once again go astray from the whole basis of that argument.

Perhaps you should take your pompous attitude and dictate it towards yourself.

 

[Stinger]

I'm afraid you're hopeless...go back and re-read some of my posts...I've proven Bush's lies over and over again in this forum. Why should I further waste my time on someone who wouldn't know the truth if it kicked him in the head?

I'll take that as your admittence that you are hopelessly unable to rebut the facts I posted, so be it. I don't need to reread anything YOU need to rebut my points.

As far as your last statement about Clinton lying....sigh...here we go again....

Pay attention this time....

Since there was not a time before your specious statement is noted.

Paula Jones V Clinton

This was a CIVIL trial. Not a criminal trial...not a felony, but a CIVIL trial.

Still with me? I can wait until you look up the difference?

No need to wait and another specious point on your part.

1960 Soldier and Sailors Civil Relief Act....not even a grunt private has to face a civil trial while he is involved in the sworn duty of serving his country.

The civil trial can be delayed until after his service to his country.

Why? Because we feel it's more important to have this grunt private concentrating on protecting our nation rather then spending precious time in court, giving depositions, meeting with attorneys...etc...etc.

Still with me? Is that so hard of a concept to grasp?

The SCOTUS said otherwise didn't it. Still with me, your point is again specious. Suggest you read up on the facts of the matter before you post such nonsense. Clinton tried to get the case delayed, all the way up to the Supreme Court he tried. He lost at every level. Also suggest you not try being a lawyer. Clinton is not a member of the military, he is the CIVILIAN leader of the military and is not subject to the SSCRA.

Still with me?

This basic right was DENIED the Commander in Chief of the entire military!

He has no such right as ruled by the courts, get your facts straight.

If there was no Civil suit...no Paula Jones...no Monica....no forcing Clinton to commit perjury to protect himself and his family to deny an affair.

But alas there was and we don't allow members of organized crime to commit perjury and obstruct justice to "protect their families" do we. I even bet that if you tried to use that silly little line in a courtroom the judge would not take kindly to it.

By the way...self-defense perjury is almost never prosecuted in court.

By the way that's not true, most perjury is for self-defense and it is prsecuted.

Perjury is only prosecuted when someone lies and says something like..."John Doe killed that guy, not me." It's perjury when you try to implicate someone else.

No that's not true either, it is perjury when a boss is asked if they engage in sexual activity with subordinate workers and rewarded them for it and they lie. It is perjury when someone enters a false affidavit. It is obstruction of justice in both cases. Clinton was held in contempt for both and plea bargined the criminal charge.

Self defense perjury, which is what Clinton was forced to do,

Clinton was not forced to do anything he had a choice, tell the truth or lie. The federal rules of evidence, ever hear of the Molinari law which Clinton himself signed into law, required he give truthful testimony and Judge Wright over-ruled the specific objections of his attorney's and demand he give truthful testimony with regards to any sexual acitivity with Lewinsky and other subordinate employees. He choose not to. He paid the price for it. He should have been removed from office for it.

The bottom line...a civil trial was allowed to proceed against a sitting, duly elected president.

Yes just as the Supreme Court ruled.

This could quite possibly be the most dangerous event to ever befall our nation and threaten the freedoms we hold so dear.

ROFL your dramatics are not impressive nor convincing.

Paula could've had her day in court...after the man holding the single most important job in the world...a job that even the fates of other nations depend on, has served his "greater good" to our nation.

You can stop harping on the point. You lost, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

No Paula...no civil trial...no perjury.

Get it?

Hey I agree Clinton should never have had her brought to his hotelroom so he could sexually assualt her, he should never have used the Oval Office, the most important office in this country to which the voters gave him the privlage of sitting it, for his sexual daliences and then he shouldn't have lied about it in a federal courtoom.

Then there would have been no Paula...no civil trial..no perjury.

Get it?

Or suppose I sue Bush on the day after 9/11 and tie him up with depositions, and court appearences, and attorney meetings in a civil trial?

That ok with you?

Depends. If he sexually assaulted you or ripped you off for all your money then you should have your day in court. But then for some reason I doubt he will do that to you, but if you are a female I'd watch that Clinton fellow, doesn't have a very good reputation when it comes to his treatment of women and I definitely wouldn't advise you working for him.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

You could, but at least Bush wouldn't lie UNDER OATH IN THE PRESENCE OF A JUDGE. Again, you miss the whole point of committing perjury under oath, no matter the purpose. You seem to once again go astray from the whole basis of that argument.

Perhaps you should take your pompous attitude and dictate it towards yourself.

But do you think he would lie into the television for the American people. Because to me, that is a much larger wrong than to lie in a Court room. In a court room he is under trial before judges. In the case of being in front of a television, he is speaking to everyone in the country. Far greater crime, in my own opinion to lie for the sake of votes as opposed to the sake of criminal prosecution.

 

[flip2]

But do you think he would lie into the television for the American people. Because to me, that is a much larger wrong than to lie in a Court room. In a court room he is under trial before judges. In the case of being in front of a television, he is speaking to everyone in the country. Far greater crime, in my own opinion to lie for the sake of votes as opposed to the sake of criminal prosecution.

No, because if Bush knowingly lied on camera, I'm sure that can be used in court to be used to hammer at his credibility.

I don't think Bush would commit a lie like that.

I suppose I'm not as cynical as most when it comes to politicians--republican and democrat.

 

[Stinger]

But do you think he would lie into the television for the American people. Because to me, that is a much larger wrong than to lie in a Court room. In a court room he is under trial before judges. In the case of being in front of a television, he is speaking to everyone in the country.

No you have them confused. It is a CRIME to lie under oath in a courtroom. Our courtrooms are public courtrooms, they are where the public sees to it that laws are enforce. Each citizen has a right to their day in court, as the SCOTUS ruled in this particular case, and the right to truthful testimony, especially when specifically ruled in thier favor as in this case.

It is not necessarily a crime to go on TV and tell a lie. Although Clinton did preciesly that, along with his lies in court, there is no evidence Bush knowingly lied about anything pertaining to the war in Iraq or Saddam Hussien.

Far greater crime, in my own opinion to lie for the sake of votes as opposed to the sake of criminal prosecution.

Then you should probably be calling for the prosectution of most politicians. However lying under oath in a courtroom is a far more serious crime. If we allow such to happen then we may as well close the courts.