Bush administration shows no Iraq/Al Qaeda connection

The washington times, fox news, national review, newswmax?

Yeah, that's enough for me.

 

I really do not believe that to support your position that all you have is sematics.

My original statement was to illistrate that Osama wanted one thing and Saddam wanted another but they both hated the Us and western civilization. So they would put their diferences aside to combat the bigger threat.

But of course, you knew what I meant, you are just being difficult.

 

Come on...I included the Houston Chronicle in there too. They always tell the true.

 

This is what Bush had to say about the relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq-


For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 8, 2003

President's Radio Address


One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases


Now maybe it's just me, but that sounds like he's describing a collaborative relationship. So pick your poison-

Bush was lying.

Bush appointed a commission that was so incompetent it overlooked the evidence behind the above statement.

But can we PLEASE stop the nonsense about there being no contradiction between statements made by the White House and the findings of the 9/11 commission?

 

Well if Bush is lying about the relationship then so was alot of other people. Check out this article from Investors.com:

 

So you pick option # 2.

 

Well all Bush did was sign the legislation to create the comission. Congress was the entity that formed the comission so they are the ones that compiled the incompetent group.

 

A lot of people were lying, and we found that out. It boggles my mind that this article can cite this stuff still:

Have these guys been hiding under a rock? So much of this has turned out to be bogus so recently it's not even funny.

Let's just take one example:

These guys were supplied by Chalabi.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040607fa_fact1

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0316-02.htm

http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/A/Ahmed-Chalabi.htm

 

So everyone is lying just to support Bush. Think about what you are saying. It is almost a state of delirium. "Everybody is lying but I am right!"

come on, Chalabi may have had some hand in a little of this but there is mounting proof that Saddam and Osama were working together in some fashion.

 

Delirium?

Where have you been the last month? In a spider hole?

Chalabi wasn't lying to support Bush. Chalabi was lying to support himself. This is a known fact. I'm not the only one who believes this; the CIA, DIA the State Department, etc all agree.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...17jun17,1,126799.story?coll=la-home-headlines

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3749867.stm

Which is why he is being investigated for selling classified info to Iran.

"Mounting proof?" Wrong. There is evaporating proof. I just cited the Salman Pak stupidity by way of example. The other crap that is in that article is equally dubious and has been discredited, another example:

This was one of treeman's favorite things. A journalist from the Telegraph mysteriously "found" documents in the rubble that the CIA and Army missed -- where Osama's name is covered with liquid paper (how absurd -- is that a good way to destroy documents?). This same journalist also "found" some documents in that same rubble regarding British MP George Galloway, which started a scandal in which a bunch of "found" documents were found to be obvious forgeries and he ended up suing them for libel. For whatever reason, neither the CIA nor MI6 has commented on these "found" documents, nor did they even appear in Feith's memo -- which contained all sorts of dubious information. I wonder why Perhaps because it would e ludicrous for Iraqi intelligence agents to try to destroy documents by using liquid paper over the bad parts?

Salman Pak was a scam, the Czech intel story was a scam, all of Chalabis defectors are scams, the liquid paper documents scam --- this has all been divulged in the last year or so.

"Mounting"? You need a dictionary, old boy. This thing is falling into the toilet, as the Commission rightly recognized.

The fact that Bush & Co. cherrypicked and otherwise knowingly used evidence from sources that was not credible is public knowlege at this point. Why do you think we have a WMD commission?

 

Intellectual dishonesty is afoot here. Saddam had the means, the motive and the opportunity to strike against the USA from 1991 to 2003, but never did. To characterize Saddam as anything but contained is dellusional.