That's an important last line. Also there have Al Qaeda operatives or alleged ones arrested here in the U.S. it wouldn't be unthinkable to presume that one or more of them has been to the doctor and received treatment here in the U.S. Of course there are documents tying the U.S. to funding of the Taliban, and even members of Al Qaeda back during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Before anyone jumps on me for being anti-US with that point, that's incorrect. I dont' think the U.S. currently supports Al Qaeda, and that's why I bring the point up. Documents and evidence can twisted to fit all kinds of scenarios even if they aren't true.
Thats fine. I'm in no position to tell you to ignore parts of the article and cite a line to make a point. Clearly the administration is being cautious about this one and I'm glad they are. But clearly the regime was made aware of this operation twice by Mr. Powell and nothing happened. Baghdad hospitals treated this man and Iraq chose to harbor him and his Al Qaeda cronies. But FranchiseBlade you cite Al Qaeda members being arrested in the United States in your defense. Thats fine. But the fact remains. Powell warned Saddam of this man and I ask why. Why was this man not kicked out of Iraq even though this country played benefactor and gave this country information to apprehend this person? You can cite current adversaries as past friends. Links or no links to such claims. Its irrelevant. When I see Al Qaeda members given hospital care in Iraq of all regimes in the middle-east and sanctuary to continue operations it boggles the mind how one could be so blind and just ignore it. I have to tell you after rimrocker started that last thread of the administration now downplaying their WMD rhetoric I was stunned. I am still upset. I clearly exerted my ill feelings toward this administration and questioned their justification for the war. I have tried to stay consistent without ignoring the obvious. I have to tell you when those fabricated documents on a nuclear program turned up it was upsetting . But I have to hand it to those who continue to ignore the obvious. I have tried to understand both sides. When people cite a greater Saudi connection to 9-11 I ask for links I hear nothing. I don't care what side you are on. You are indeed bold.
First of all I cited that stuff, but I didn't say the article proved or didn't prove anything. I stated what I did to point out that taking a look at the bigger picture may or may not change how much weight we give to what evidence. I did give some credit, as well as acknowledging some bias in the initial piece written here. But especially with all the spin put on certain pieces of existing and non-existing evidence I'm going to look carefully at the whole thing. I'm just arguing other possiblities and the way that evidence might be viewed as conclusive when it actually isn't. Again I used the past U.S. association with members of Al-Qaeda assuming that it's a given that the U.S. isn't currently supporting or harboring Al-Qaeda despite the fact that the U.S. is listed in nations that have active Al-Qaeda terrorist cells. I only mentioned that because I could post that information and claim that we were harboring terrorists and anyone invading us would be justified. The evidence wouldn't be valid in that evidence, but it might look very damning. As far as why Saddam didn't kick out the guy after Powell showed that he was in Iraq, it might have been that he was too busy trying to prepare for a U.S. invasion, and destroy the Al Samoud missles. But even giving that he didn't hunt the guy down, find him, and then kick him out, it doesn't prove that he was a guest of Saddams or that the operative had any real or meaningful connection with the govt. I'm not ignoring anything in the article. I just posted one part of the article which helps make the point I'm getting at.
Uhhhhh. I think I'm having an out of body experience right now because I agree with your post and apologize for mistaken assertion on my part.
I know the feeling. I was shocked to find myself agreeing with John Heath about it being good to move our troops out of Saudi Arabia. The strangest things happen on this board.
It's refreshing to see an balanced poster assert their balance, as opposed to following much of the board's tendency to polarize. Good job, FB.
I said he started a lot of pro-war threads in this forum and he got angry and said he didn't. He's here talking about people's integrity for judging information in a balanced manner and then denies his history in this subject area when truthfully he'd started 33 pro-war threads in less than two months.
I don't care what you post and never denied that I posted in these threads. You said you didn't start these threads and I showed that you did. You brought up the issue of integrity concerning balanced views and heath seized on it when in fact you both have probably started more pro-war threads than any combination of posters I can think of and that's why I listed your name. We're not in a pissing match but maybe I can get away with blaming everything on the zionist Halliburton mafia. That's probably a civil way to go or something.
Seems to me the problem here is that you charged that MadMax didn't have integrity because he posted pro-War threads. You imply that he doesn't have integrity because he is pro-war. He made a wonderful salute to FranchiseBlade and you bust him for it. I just don't get it.
exactly...you just said it much clearer than i did. still not sure how posting threads and having an opinion on a topic means i don't have integrity. oh, well...apparently i'm not the only who thinks highly of franchise blade's approach here...so i should have just shut up and let other pat him on the back, i guess.
No the problem is that we have people here talking about the integrity of balanced views when they don't have balanced views themselves. If disagreeing with their un-balanced views indicates a lack of integrity then none of us have any. And then we're back to square one which is dealing with the topic at hand. I didn't respond to Max's post, but rather johnheath's. Max's hissy fit really has nothing to do with this thread and everything to do with what's been said in the past. But I'm sure he thanks you for coming out of the woodwork to try to defend an old pal from absolutely nothing. Nice work.
Here is <b>your</b> post from near the bottom of page 1: "Yeah I can't hang with a lawyer and a propaganda artist. You both combined have posted more threads on supporting this war than any 20 other people combined. That takes real integrity." It is a well-known fact that MadMax is a lawyer; I've never heard that from or about johnheath.
Good man MadMax. I must admit, I went back and reread the entire thread. Some of these...dare I say...attacks on you remind me of grade school arguments...always good for a laugh.
