New GOP Commercial On "Bush Lies"

[shuamort]

1. The president has said over and over again that there was no connection between 9/11/01 and Iraq...Only dumb liberals believe that....

From the Christian Science Monitor:

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

 

[Navy Pride]

From the Christian Science Monitor:

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

We have been over this a hundred times.....Anyone that thinks Iraq had direct involvement with 9/11/01 has no clue.......I don't know why that surprises you........If you asked the same people who the Vice President of the U.S. the percentage that did not know would be about the same..........

 

[libertarian_knight]

From Colin Powell's speech to the UN...February 6th, 2003...

Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb.

He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed.

These tubes are controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group precisely because they can be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium. By now, just about everyone has heard of these tubes, and we all know that there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about what these tubes are for.

Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher.

Let me tell you what is not controversial about these tubes.

First, all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use. Second, Iraq had no business buying them for any purpose. They are banned for Iraq.

I am no expert on centrifuge tubes, but just as an old Army trooper, I can tell you a couple of things: First, it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets.

Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so.

Second, we actually have examined tubes from several different batches that were seized clandestinely before they reached Baghdad. What we notice in these different batches is a progression to higher and higher levels of specification, including, in the latest batch, an anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces. Why would they continue refining the specifications, go to all that trouble for something that, if it was a rocket, would soon be blown into shrapnel when it went off?

The high tolerance aluminum tubes are only part of the story. We also have intelligence from multiple sources that Iraq is attempting to acquire magnets and high-speed balancing machines; both items can be used in a gas centrifuge program to enrich uranium.

In 1999 and 2000, Iraqi officials negotiated with firms in Romania, India, Russia and Slovenia for the purchase of a magnet production plant. Iraq wanted the plant to produce magnets weighing 20 to 30 grams. That's the same weight as the magnets used in Iraq's gas centrifuge program before the Gulf War. This incident linked with the tubes is another indicator of Iraq's attempt to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.07/index.html

You wanna take a guess on what I think you should do with your "!0 year old intelligence" comment?...:2wave:

So many poeple love talking about how fancy and special the anodized tubes are, and rather than how anodization typically interferes with uranium enrichment. Anodizing centrefuge tubes, it generally something not done, and scraping it off, is something the defeats having the high tolerances.

 

[shuamort]

We have been over this a hundred times.....Anyone that thinks Iraq had direct involvement with 9/11/01 has no clue.......I don't know why that surprises you........If you asked the same people who the Vice President of the U.S. the percentage that did not know would be about the same..........

The big problem is... that the administration (Cheney, Powell, and Bush) were a bit ambiguous saying that there is quite possibly ties between a-Q and Iraq and Saddam. There were attempts to possibly tie them together. After investigations have been done (9/11 Commission, etc), it would be foolish to believe that there were any tie-ins between the two. The problem is, that the administration left the barn door open that it could be a possibility and that any misinformed person just listening to sound bites would surmise that there's a connection.

 

[Hoot]

We have been over this a hundred times.....Anyone that thinks Iraq had direct involvement with 9/11/01 has no clue....

At last...you finally admit Bush has no clue.

Thank you for being so honest.

 

[KCConservative]

At last...you finally admit Bush has no clue.

Thank you for being so honest.

Once again, Hoot, you missed the posters point. Are you sure you're old enough to come on this forum?

The point is, our president (yours too ) told us on September 12th of 2001 that we would fight terror wherever it is. We are doing exactly that. In Afghanistan, in Iraq, even here at home. Whether there is a link to the WTC center attack or not, terror is terror and I am proud to live in the nation who has taken the lead to eradicate it - even if you're not. You can thank us later.

Now, got anymore sarcastic quips that you think are funny or do you want to respond with an intelligent post?

 

[hipsterdufus]

1. The president has said over and over again that there was no connection between 9/11/01 and Iraq...Only dumb liberals believe that....

NP, did you know that Fox News viewers were more likely to think there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq? Bush is careful to never flat out say the connection, but he and Cheney and the rest imply it ad nauseum.

I guess a lot of dumb liberals must be Fox viewers. :roll:

When people were asked where they get most of their news, 19 percent said newspapers and 80 per cent said radio and TV. The primary source of radio and TV news was: two or more networks, 30 percent; Fox, 18 percent; CNN, 16 percent; NBC, 14 percent, ABC, 11 percent; CBS, 9 percent; PBS-NPR, 3 percent. The degree of misperception varied according to the source of news. To quote the UM study: "Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR and PBS are less likely to have misperceptions."

In fact, Fox News watchers were three times more likely to hold all three misperceptions than those watching the next most watched network. In the NPR-PBS audience, an overwhelming majority had none of the three misperceptions. If one looks at each of the categories, the differences are dramatic. Sixty-seven percent of Fox viewers had a wrong perception about links between Iraq and al-Qaeda (16 percent for the PBS-NPR audience). On the existence of weapons of mass destruction, 33 percent of Fox viewers had the wrong perception (11 percent for PBS-NPR). On world opinion, 35 percent of Fox viewers had misperceptions (5 percent of PBS-NPR viewers). In all three cases, the misperception percentages decreased when moving from Fox to CBS to NBC to CNN to ABC, to print media, to PBS-NPR

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2920

2. In a war things don't always go as planned....

The government was clueless as to how the war would go. They misjudged on almost every account, from initial intelligence, to being greeted as liberators, to required troop strenghth, to length of war, to cost of Iraqi rebuilding. That's not just "things not going as planned" that's gross imcompetence.

3. 2 wars, 9/11/01 and the biggest natural disaster in the history of this country cost money...........Seend back your tax rebate if you want to give the government more money........

So more tax cuts for the rich, FEMA kicking people out of their homes just in time for the holidays, decreasing funding for LI-HEAP, Medicare, Food stamps and college education are the cuts you want to make!

I almost hope these ridiculous bills the Republicans have put up pass. They are so un-American that they will ensure a Democratic victory in 2006.

 

[Cremaster77]

1. The president has said over and over again that there was no connection between 9/11/01 and Iraq...Only dumb liberals believe that....

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on. We've removed an ally of al-Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding. " - George Bush

"If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11 . . . " - Dick Chene (Sept 14, 2003)

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes." - George Bush (Jan 28, 2003)

Did Bush and Cheney say "Saddam Hussein personally flew the planes into the WTC"? No. But they have repeatedly drawn the link. When Cheney was asked about a the 9/11 commision's conclusion that a meeting between Mohommed Atta and Saddam before 9/11 was unlikely to have occured, Cheney's response was "''That's never been proven. It's never been refuted.''

I'm not a liberal by any means, but your response is typical of the right. Attack anyone who presents facts that contradict your view. You may call me "dumb" if you want, but if you can't see the direct link that the Bush administration has been drawing between 9/11 and Iraq through inuendo as well as direct statements as above...then your name calling is like Wilt Chamberlain accusing Bill Rusell of being tall.

 

[Cremaster77]

The point is, our president (yours too ) told us on September 12th of 2001 that we would fight terror wherever it is. We are doing exactly that. In Afghanistan, in Iraq, even here at home. Whether there is a link to the WTC center attack or not, terror is terror and I am proud to live in the nation who has taken the lead to eradicate it - even if you're not. You can thank us later.

So where are the troops lining up to invade N. Korea? Or Sudan? Or Cuba? Or Iran? Or Syria?

Wasn't the president going to "fight terror wherever it is"?

Whether you believe it or not, there is credible evidence that the Bush administration was already talking about invading Iraq prior to 9/11. How could the Iraqi invasion be responding on September 12th of 2001 to fight terror if they were planning an invasion even before this, in the face of numerous other dictators and terrorist states that the Bush administration has largely ignored?

 

[ShullsM]

We will probably never know for sure if Saddam had WOMD when we went in to Iraq but at this point that does not matter...........We are their dammit and we need to finish the job and under this president we will do just that no matter how much the left whines, does not have the stomach to finish the job and want to cut and run..........

I hear you, I do. I'm not completely for pulling out of Iraq because I don't know exactly what that would do and for what good. However, what exactly has to be done to "finish the job?" What is the "job" at this point? The very specific reasons that were given have not turned out to be nearly 100% credible. So what do we do about that?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

We have been over this a hundred times.....Anyone that thinks Iraq had direct involvement with 9/11/01 has no clue.......I don't know why that surprises you........If you asked the same people who the Vice President of the U.S. the percentage that did not know would be about the same..........

So when Dick Cheney was out and about pimping the Atta/Prague connection to whoever would listen, he had no clue?

 

[hipsterdufus]

BTW - For those with the "Bush lied" painted backwards on their foreheads to remind themselves of their mantra when the look in the mirror, ponder this from the same article about Wilkerson's comment about what Colin Powell said...

Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says....

...After searching Iraq for several months across the summer of 2003, Kay began e-mailing Tenet to tell him the WMD evidence was falling apart. At one point, Wilkerson says, Tenet called Powell to tell him the claims about mobile bioweapons labs were apparently not true.

"George actually did call the Secretary, and said, 'I'm really sorry to have to tell you. We don't believe there were any mobile labs for making biological weapons,'" Wilkerson says in the documentary. "This was the third or fourth telephone call. And I think it's fair to say the Secretary and Mr. Tenet, at that point, ceased being close. I mean, you can be sincere and you can be honest and you can believe what you're telling the Secretary. But three or four times on substantive issues like that? It's difficult to maintain any warm feelings."

Lookie here!...No signs of Bush manipulation, is there?...Looks like Tenet...Mr. CIA himself, after spending ALL THAT TIME with Powell to insure accuracy in the speech, was the one that flubbed...

All along I, and others, have been saying that Bush didn't manipulate anything...he was only going by what the CIA told him...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/

Looks like the CIA head honcho confirms it...

The problem with that statement is that the buck has to stop with Bush. Unfortunately, the man doesn't read. He prefers oral, short briefs from his advisers.

There were no conversations akin to "Give me 10 reasons to go to war in Iraq" "Give me 10 reasons NOT to go to war in Iraq" The decision was made, and the small cabal of decision makers manipulated and cherry picked the intelligence to reach the desired outcome. Bush didn't even consult his father, but relied on god for guidance. And here we sit.....

 

[RightinNYC]

Be glad to, and I'll use your own words from this very same thread...

"The president and Congress got the same ( or nearly identical).."

"Congress only got a summary of the NIE"

"Information was almost identical.."

Thanks for proving my point that NO WAY did Congress and the White House have access to the same intelligence.

Seriously, with all the news out there, is there anyone that still believes this lie from Bush...."Congress had the same intelligence." ?

Um, maybe you're misunderstanding the differences between the two intelligence reports. The difference between the two was not in the material that was shared, it was simply minor details such as phrasing, sentance structure, etc, and a commission reviewed ALL the information, and determined that it was not manipulated in any way to prove anything, and that the differences were so negligible that it made no difference.

So, Congress would have made the exact same decision if they had seen the PDB, which they as a matter of course, don't. In no situation where we have attacked another country did the President share his PDB with Congress, because they get effectively the same report.

Your argument is a nonstarter.

 

[RightinNYC]

Once again, Hoot, you missed the posters point. Are you sure you're old enough to come on this forum?

The point is, our president (yours too ) told us on September 12th of 2001 that we would fight terror wherever it is. We are doing exactly that. In Afghanistan, in Iraq, even here at home. Whether there is a link to the WTC center attack or not, terror is terror and I am proud to live in the nation who has taken the lead to eradicate it - even if you're not. You can thank us later.

Now, got anymore sarcastic quips that you think are funny or do you want to respond with an intelligent post?

Well put. I don't think there is a definitive link between Saddam and Osama. But at the same time, terror is terror, which begets terror. Attacking one will hurt the other.

 

[RightinNYC]

So where are the troops lining up to invade N. Korea? Or Sudan? Or Cuba? Or Iran? Or Syria?

Wasn't the president going to "fight terror wherever it is"?

Whether you believe it or not, there is credible evidence that the Bush administration was already talking about invading Iraq prior to 9/11. How could the Iraqi invasion be responding on September 12th of 2001 to fight terror if they were planning an invasion even before this, in the face of numerous other dictators and terrorist states that the Bush administration has largely ignored?

There is credible evidence that the Clinton Administration was talking about invading Iraq prior to 9/11 too. What's your point?

 

[Iriemon]

Well put. I don't think there is a definitive link between Saddam and Osama. But at the same time, terror is terror, which begets terror. Attacking one will hurt the other.

What is the relevance of this proposition to Iraq?

 

[RightinNYC]

What is the relevance of this proposition to Iraq?

Huh? I'm not sure what proposition you're referring to, or what you mean.

 

[Iriemon]

Huh? I'm not sure what proposition you're referring to, or what you mean.

You wrote: Well put. I don't think there is a definitive link between Saddam and Osama. But at the same time, terror is terror, which begets terror. Attacking one will hurt the other.

I had assumed that this statement somehow applied to or related to the war in Iraq. If I was wrong, sorry.

 

[RightinNYC]

You wrote: Well put. I don't think there is a definitive link between Saddam and Osama. But at the same time, terror is terror, which begets terror. Attacking one will hurt the other.

I had assumed that this statement somehow applied to or related to the war in Iraq. If I was wrong, sorry.

It applies for many reasons. Saddam paid suicide bombers who killed Israeli's and Americans. His government committed terrorist acts on their own people over and over again. By removing him from power and helping Iraq to become a freer, democratic nation, we are striking directly against the source of most terror: political oppression.

 

[Iriemon]

It applies for many reasons. Saddam paid suicide bombers who killed Israeli's and Americans. His government committed terrorist acts on their own people over and over again. By removing him from power and helping Iraq to become a freer, democratic nation, we are striking directly against the source of most terror: political oppression.

Which Americans were killed by suicide bombers Hussein paid? I have researched this issue a lot, have have never heard anyone make this claim.

Which terrorist attacks against either Isrealis or Americans involved suicide bombers who were paid by Hussien? I have researched this issue a lot, have have never heard anyone make this claim.


If Saddam was brutal to his own people -- as a result of this political oppression, how many Iraqis have been implicated in terrorist attacks against the US? Or anyone for that matter?

 

[RightinNYC]

Which Americans were killed by suicide bombers Hussein paid? I have researched this issue a lot, have have never heard anyone make this claim.

Which terrorist attacks against either Isrealis or Americans involved suicide bombers who were paid by Hussien? I have researched this issue a lot, have have never heard anyone make this claim.


If Saddam was brutal to his own people -- as a result of this political oppression, how many Iraqis have been implicated in terrorist attacks against the US? Or anyone for that matter?

"At a minimum, we know that Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government’s underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel."

“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002

"Between the time Saddam Hussein boosted his bonus payments to the families of Palestinian terrorists and the March 20, 2003 launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 homicide bombers injured 1,209 people and killed 223 more, including at least eight Americans. These bonus checks were handed out at ceremonies where banners proclaimed the friendship of the PLO’s Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein."

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

If you have "researched the issue a lot" as you claim, I'm surprised that you didn't know this.

I'm not sure what you're asking in the second part of your question. Are you asking how many captured terrorists are of Iraqi origin? Or are you asking for proof that Saddam's political oppression resulted in the creation of terrorists?

 

[Iriemon]

"At a minimum, we know that Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government’s underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel."

“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002

"Between the time Saddam Hussein boosted his bonus payments to the families of Palestinian terrorists and the March 20, 2003 launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 homicide bombers injured 1,209 people and killed 223 more, including at least eight Americans. These bonus checks were handed out at ceremonies where banners proclaimed the friendship of the PLO’s Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein."

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

If you have "researched the issue a lot" as you claim, I'm surprised that you didn't know this.

I'm not sure what you're asking in the second part of your question. Are you asking how many captured terrorists are of Iraqi origin? Or are you asking for proof that Saddam's political oppression resulted in the creation of terrorists?

Where does this say that Hussein gave money to suicide bombers as you asserted?

In your research, you rely on undocumented websites like "Hussein and terror" to make your conclusions? Can't you site a more reliable source than what is obvious anti-Palestine pro-Isreal propoganda?

In any event, even this article doesnt' say Hussein gave money to suicide bombers. It said it was given to surving family members. In fact, Hussein gave $25k to all survivors of Palestinians who died fighting Israel. Hussein did not distribute these funds, the money was distributed through the PALF (Palestinian Arab Liberation Front) the organization headed by Abbas, another one of the terrorists Iraq “sheltered,” whom the Israelis let roam freely throughout the middle east in the 1990s because he was involved in peace negotiations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

That is a lot different than saying Hussein gave money to suicide bombers who killed Americans, as you asserted.

And if you want to be accurate, the Saudis have given a lot more money to Palestinian organizations than Hussein ever dreamed of.

I have never heard of Hussein giving funds to the Nidal organization. Or these other organizations. I know that for a while Nidal was in Baghdad, and that he was found with three bullets in his head, probably complements of Hussein. There's real support for terrorism for you.

 

[RightinNYC]

Where does this say that Hussein gave money to suicide bombers as you asserted?

In your research, you rely on undocumented websites like "Hussein and terror" to make your conclusions? Can't you site a more reliable source than what is obvious anti-Palestine pro-Isreal propoganda?

In any event, even this article doesnt' say Hussein gave money to suicide bombers. It said it was given to surving family members. In fact, Hussein gave $25k to all survivors of Palestinians who died fighting Israel. Hussein did not distribute these funds, the money was distributed through the PALF (Palestinian Arab Liberation Front) the organization headed by Abbas, another one of the terrorists Iraq “sheltered,” whom the Israelis let roam freely throughout the middle east in the 1990s because he was involved in peace negotiations.

Are you kidding me? So, he didn't support terror, he just announced that if anyone blew themselves up and killed Israeli's and American's he would give their families a check for $25,000. Sort of like how Osama isn't a terrorist, he just told other people to go blow up the World Trade.

And you doubt the veracity of the site? Say what you will about the tenor with which it was written, it's a bit difficult to refute the pictures, evidences offered, and statements directly from Saddam's aides. Not to mention that the article sources dozens of documents, from Christian Science Monitor to cnn to reuters. Are they all lying too?

I honestly can't understand how you are able to separate in your mind the announcement that Saddam will give a reward to the families of those who blow themselves up and support for terror. You don't see the connection?

That is a lot different than saying Hussein gave money to suicide bombers who killed Americans, as you asserted.

No it's not. Not at all.

And if you want to be accurate, the Saudis have given a lot more money to Palestinian organizations than Hussein ever dreamed of.

Did I say they hadn't?

I have never heard of Hussein giving funds to the Nidal organization. Or these other organizations. I know that for a while Nidal was in Baghdad, and that he was found with three bullets in his head, probably complements of Hussein. There's real support for terrorism for you.

He lived there for years safely, and then was eventually executed. Somehow that proves that Saddam was cracking down on terror? Right.

 

[Iriemon]

Are you kidding me? So, he didn't support terror, he just announced that if anyone blew themselves up and killed Israeli's and American's he would give their families a check for $25,000. Sort of like how Osama isn't a terrorist, he just told other people to go blow up the World Trade.

Where did Hussein tell anyone to commit a terrorist attack?

And you doubt the veracity of the site? Say what you will about the tenor with which it was written, it's a bit difficult to refute the pictures, evidences offered, and statements directly from Saddam's aides. Not to mention that the article sources dozens of documents, from Christian Science Monitor to cnn to reuters. Are they all lying too?

I don't doubt the pictures. Just the conclusions and the presentation of facts. Didn't seem a "fair and balanced" presentation of the facts to me. I'm sure I can find a "Israelisareterrorists" type site with pictures for you if you want.

I honestly can't understand how you are able to separate in your mind the announcement that Saddam will give a reward to the families of those who blow themselves up and support for terror. You don't see the connection?

He didn't give money just to suicide bombers. He gave money to an organization in Palestine that distributed it to every family that lost a member fighting against Isreal for whatever reason. I agree that some money probably went to some families whose member died in a suicide attack. But to me, that is a different level of supporting terrorists than directly supporting or planning a terrorist attack. Like Quaddafi did. Like bin Laden did. That act alone doesn't put Iraq on the number one terrorist target list. It certainly doesn't put it on higher priority that bin Laden and the Al-Qeuda terrorist organization.

Plus, this support is clearly aimed against Israel. I do not support America's policy to be fighting Israel's wars. Ddo you?

He lived there for years safely, and then was eventually executed. Somehow that proves that Saddam was cracking down on terror? Right.

Sure doesn't support the contention he supported terror! We should have had more terrorists move to Iraq when Hussein was there if that was the way he supported them; it would have solved a lot of the problem.

 

[Navy Pride]

Where did Hussein tell anyone to commit a terrorist attack?

You just don't have a clue.You are blinded for your love for Saddam.......Damn he gave $25, 000 to all the families of suicide bombers in Israel.......