Reuters: Iran and Qaeda benefit from US in Iraq: congressman

[GostHacked]

But but but..."connections" could mean anything.

And it's insignificant

Exactly. Fact is, there is no proof of any real ties, just your assumptions. We all know if there was any real evidence of Al Qaeda/Iraq cooperation, the U.S. would be trumpeting from the mountaintops. But they've done nohing but backpedal away from their earlier claims of ties between the regime and AQ. Why do you suppose that is? Why the hell would the Bush administration sit on information that would benefit them imensely? I've asked that many times before (in relaton to this, the WMD issues etc.) and you've never once answered why that is, which leads me to beleive you know very well you're claims are unsupportable, yet you cling to them anyway in a staggering display of intellectual dishonesty and partisan blindness.

How pathetic can you get? Seriously. What do you want? Photographic evidence?

Bush has spoken numerous times about Al Qaeda links to Saddam's terrorist haven.

What the hell? Do you think Bush should have daily addresses to the nation, or daily press conferences? Read a book about Bush. He doesn't think the press speaks for the country. I agree. Also, he's got work to do instead of playing immature political games. Like Harper, he knows that the press is hostile to conservatives.

Only the most stubborn pigheaded partisan would deny that Al Qaeda had numerous ties with Saddam's Iraq. They've even found documents in Iraq proving this.

The 2 chairmen of the 9-11 commission said that there was numerous links between Iraq and Al Qaeda; they just couldn't find enough proof that Saddam collaborated with Al Qaeda in 9-11. But Bush never said Saddam was involved in 9-11 (although a federal judge made a legal ruling that Iraq was involved in 9-11).

It's difficult to take you seriously...

And even Bush himself after some time said there were no links between Iraq and Al-Queada

The 9\11 report said there were no links.

Difficult to take you seriously when you keep managing to refute everything that is going on and still give evidence to support the other side.

Saddam was linked to 9\11, then not linked.

Saddam harboured terrorists, but not enough proof to show any clear links.

A single federal judge does not represent the reality that is out there.

He has a metric shit tonne of WMDS, but we are really tired of looking for them, so we gave up the search.

NOW we know why we cannot find them, it was all moved to Syria.

We will be in and out in 6 months and the Iraqis will welcome us as liberators.

Monty is a Bush YES MAN, and supports him without question.

I think it is about time we liberate the U.S of A. They have been an oppressed people for so long by the Industrial Military Complex. Propaganda from the war machine to keep the economy going. ect. I think GWB is a terrorists and is harbouring WMDs, and has the ability to use them. He must be removed from office. I think the American people will welcome us as liberators.

[gerryhatrick]

Have you been living in a cave?

Don't you remember Bush saying "we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them?"

What's your reaction to the argument made by Congressman Murtha about resource depletion?

There's no question Iraq was a mistake now. The quesiton is how wise is the continuation of a US presence.

[Montgomery Burns]

Question: Has Jack Murtha gone off the deep end?

The reason I ask is that I saw him on one of the Sunday morning political talk shows (I forget which one) a few weeks ago where he made outrageous comments and, of course, the host refused to challenge his outlandish claims. You can bet he would've been challenged if he had spewed such idiocy on the Fox News Channel (which is why the left hates the FNC so much).

Then on April 8, 2006, Murtha offered up this bizarre gem regarding the US troops in Iraq:

"Troops are undermanned, underequipped and dying at rates higher than during World War II and the Vietnam War."

Answer: Yes, yes he has gone off the deep end. Perhaps he should hook up with Cindy Sheehan. They'd make a good pair.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Don't you remember Bush saying "we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them?"

So if lets say the US was to oh, I don't know, supply weapons to a terrorist organization which leads to the worst single atrocity of the Bosnian war then I guess it would be fair to say that the US (and other Western countries) would be in the same boat as "those who harbor them[terrorists]?"

[gerryhatrick]

Answer: Yes, yes he has gone off the deep end. Perhaps he should hook up with Cindy Sheehan. They'd make a good pair.

You know what? He is a respected man. Why do you think you're not hearing an anti-Murtha drumbeat? Because it's political suicide. He is the real deal, and you make yourself look stupid making a comment like "he has gone off the deep end".

You want to challange what Murtha says, do it. You want to insult him then you lose.

[GostHacked]

But but but..."connections" could mean anything.

And it's insignificant

Exactly. Fact is, there is no proof of any real ties, just your assumptions. We all know if there was any real evidence of Al Qaeda/Iraq cooperation, the U.S. would be trumpeting from the mountaintops. But they've done nohing but backpedal away from their earlier claims of ties between the regime and AQ. Why do you suppose that is? Why the hell would the Bush administration sit on information that would benefit them imensely? I've asked that many times before (in relaton to this, the WMD issues etc.) and you've never once answered why that is, which leads me to beleive you know very well you're claims are unsupportable, yet you cling to them anyway in a staggering display of intellectual dishonesty and partisan blindness.

How pathetic can you get? Seriously. What do you want? Photographic evidence?

Bush has spoken numerous times about Al Qaeda links to Saddam's terrorist haven.

What the hell? Do you think Bush should have daily addresses to the nation, or daily press conferences? Read a book about Bush. He doesn't think the press speaks for the country. I agree. Also, he's got work to do instead of playing immature political games. Like Harper, he knows that the press is hostile to conservatives.

Only the most stubborn pigheaded partisan would deny that Al Qaeda had numerous ties with Saddam's Iraq. They've even found documents in Iraq proving this.

The 2 chairmen of the 9-11 commission said that there was numerous links between Iraq and Al Qaeda; they just couldn't find enough proof that Saddam collaborated with Al Qaeda in 9-11. But Bush never said Saddam was involved in 9-11 (although a federal judge made a legal ruling that Iraq was involved in 9-11).

It's difficult to take you seriously...

And now they art saying there were no ties between Al-Queada and Iraq. Why the about face? Why? For the reason there was not enough proof? Well dude, you do need the proof if you are going to back anything up. Why create bullshit reasons for war when those articles never existed in the first place?

If there was real solid ties between the two, we would have seen it.

[Montgomery Burns]

Despite Iraqi documents being released on a near weekly basis (and being virtually ignored by the MSM) showing the numerous links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the left stubbornly refuses to admit the ties the two had. It's so bloody frustrating debating the left. They just blithely deny anything that does not fit their worldview.

[Montgomery Burns]

Answer: Yes, yes he has gone off the deep end. Perhaps he should hook up with Cindy Sheehan. They'd make a good pair.

You know what? He is a respected man. Why do you think you're not hearing an anti-Murtha drumbeat? Because it's political suicide. He is the real deal, and you make yourself look stupid making a comment like "he has gone off the deep end".

You want to challange what Murtha says, do it. You want to insult him then you lose.

This guy is the real deal? A respected man?

Murtha: "Troops are undermanned, underequipped and dying at rates higher than during World War II and the Vietnam War."

[Black Dog]

Despite Iraqi documents being released on a near weekly basis (and being virtually ignored by the MSM) showing the numerous links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the left stubbornly refuses to admit the ties the two had. It's so bloody frustrating debating the left. They just blithely deny anything that does not fit their worldview

Ignored by the MSM, the left and the very govenment which released the documents (and declined to vouch for the authenticity of any of them): it's hard out there for a right-wing internet troll.

[betsy]

Just in case anyone's interested with this:

"Murtha's Views on the 2003 Iraq war

Murtha voted for the October 10, 2002 resolution that authorized the use of force against Iraq. However, he later began expressing doubts about the war. On March 17, 2004, when Republicans offered a "War in Iraq Anniversary Resolution" that "affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq," Murtha called for a recorded vote and then voted against it.

Still, in early 2005 Murtha argued against the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. "A premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable could rapidly devolve into a civil war which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but also its perseverance," he stated [2].

In May 2005, he said that the problems that the military had in Iraq were due to a "lack of planning" by Pentagon chiefs and "the direction has got to be changed or it is unwinnable."

On November 17, 2005, he created a firestorm when he called for the immediate redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq, [3] saying, "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home." Murtha later characterized what he was calling for as "redeployment" rather than "withdrawal," noting that he supported the establishment of an "over-the-horizon" presence of Marines within the region.

He has also said that terrorists want an American military presence in Iraq. "I think they’re trying to get this administration to stay. I think they want us there. Because we have united the Iraqis against us. We’re spending all this money and diverting our resources away from the war on terrorism because we’re involved in a civil war in Iraq," says Murtha.

Notwithstanding Murtha's actual resolution, however, his own website's press release for November 17th, 2005, included a call "To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces." And during his press conference announcing the resolution, Rep. Murtha said:

The United States will immediately redeploy — immediately redeploy. No schedule which can be changed, nothing that’s controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target.

Thus, a good argument can be made either way about the similarity of the Republican resolution and the resolution proposed by Rep. Murtha."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murtha

[BubberMiley]

When faced with the truth, go for the ad hominem attack. It works every time.

[Rue]

When faced with the truth, go for the ad hominem attack. It works every time.

Give me a break with the word "truth". Your truth is an opinion just like the other side's. Say by any chance do you have a beard and like to climb mountains or perform miracles?

[BHS]

When faced with the truth, go for the ad hominem attack. It works every time.

So, an accurate and well-sourced accounting Murtha's own words and actions now counts as a personal attack against him? Is that how lowly we are to view him, as if he has he become a parody of himself? And this is the guy you're arguing we should view as the unvarnished, unpartisan flag-bearer of truth?

[Darth Buddha]

Answer: Yes, yes he has gone off the deep end. Perhaps he should hook up with Cindy Sheehan. They'd make a good pair.

You know what? He is a respected man. Why do you think you're not hearing an anti-Murtha drumbeat? Because it's political suicide. He is the real deal, and you make yourself look stupid making a comment like "he has gone off the deep end".

You want to challange what Murtha says, do it. You want to insult him then you lose.

This guy is the real deal? A respected man?

Murtha: "Troops are undermanned, underequipped and dying at rates higher than during World War II and the Vietnam War."

Alas, poor Burnsy, he didn't even understand the implications of the word "rate". What was the daily deathcount per day in WWII amongst U.S. troops? What was the rate per man in the field? The AVERAGE rates over the entire period at war. Gotta answer those to prove him wrong - and I note he didn't provide and references to back him up, either. Dumb and clueless is no way to be: dumb is forever.

Despite Iraqi documents being released on a near weekly basis (and being virtually ignored by the MSM) showing the numerous links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the left stubbornly refuses to admit the ties the two had. It's so bloody frustrating debating the left. They just blithely deny anything that does not fit their worldview.

Alas, poor Burnsy, he seemed to get all his facts bassackwards. How DOES he manage to get things wrong even after the administration has admitted the facts of the matter. Was he missing an entire hemisphere of his brain.

When faced with the truth, go for the ad hominem attack. It works every time.

So, an accurate and well-sourced accounting Murtha's own words and actions now counts as a personal attack against him? Is that how lowly we are to view him, as if he has he become a parody of himself? And this is the guy you're arguing we should view as the unvarnished, unpartisan flag-bearer of truth?

Gee, an aging man misspeaks now and again and you feel it's sufficient to discredit him globally?

You don't hold Bush to that standard, do you? Oh, wait, everyone KNOWS Bush is an idiot. I hate Murtha as one of the worst pork-barrel politicians going. But I have to give Murtha credit where he is right: U.S. troops have been buying flak jackets on their own because the U.S. can't equip them adequately. That's underequipped by any definition I know.

But then, neocons use a different kind of dictionay, sort of like Stalin's: they call occupation freedom, they call invasion liberation, they call illegal spytapping of U.S. citizens legal wiretaps on foreign calls. Who KNOWS what sort of definitions BHS is using if he's a neocon supporter.