Bushmustgo Posted September 18, 2003 Report Share Posted September 18, 2003 I knew there was never any evidence of this but, the President let people think through implications to gain support on the war against "terra," and especially Iraq. Well, he finally admitted it after Cheney was drawn into the question on Meet The Press Sunday and I hope these Bush supporters are listening and realize that they have been had. No WMD, no Saddam/9-11 link, no Uranium from Africa and no end in sight in this Vietnam-like financial and death entrenchment cause our eager president wanted to rush off to war...... He and his right with wing radicals shall be held responsible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whistler Posted September 18, 2003 Report Share Posted September 18, 2003 Make no mistake Saddam had biological weapons. We know that because he used them. He just dumped them with out documenting in hopes to make the Bush Administration look foolish again. It appears to have worked, just not before the invasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushmustgo Posted September 18, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2003 Whistler, Where do you think that Saddam got those bio/chem weapons from? I'll tell you, they got them from Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld under the Reagan administration back in the 80's, that's another reason they knew they had them. But if you're really hung up on them having WMD, what's the story with N.Korea threatening to use them on the U.S., sell them to anyone, etc..... The fact is, no WMD found (possibly destroyed 10 yrs ago), no Uranium from Africa, no Saddam/9-11 link.............NONE, and now we're sitting in a war with no end in sight, a Mecca for terrorist to meet and kill American occupation like sitting ducks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted September 21, 2003 Report Share Posted September 21, 2003 BMGo you truly are an idiot. Go away. Iraq and Al Qaeda had contacts stemming from 1993 in Sudan. In fact: -Iraq supplied AQ money funnelled through various AQ factions dating from 1993 [when the terrorists would meet in Sudan yearly at the Arab Congress] -Iraq supplied chemical materials to AQ -Iraq supplied fake documents and passports for AQ men -AQ operatives have been found in Iraq -Training facilities in Iraq [1 sw of Baghdad, 1 near Iran], have found AQ operating manuals -AQ documents have been found in Iraq on chemical weapons production [iraqi's are the world experts in producing Zyklon B [hydrogen-cyanide gas for the illiterate] -Hussein and Bin Laden in 1998 before the East African embassy bombings were both releasing the same threats to the US if sanctions were not lifted against Iraq -2 US embassies in East Africa were attacked on August 7th 1998 exactly 8 years to the day that US troops first went to Saudi Arabia [a huge issue for Bin Laden] -Israeli operatives firmly believe that Iraq help fund and sponsor the 9-11 attacks and that in 2001 many meetings were held between Iraqi officials and AQ -Atta who lead the 9-11 attacks met with Iraqi officials many times, the last in Prague [Czech authorities are adamant the meeting took place] -Only Iraq failed to condemn the 9-11 attacks, other Arab League members did condemn them The whole idea that Bin Laden, in a loose federation of terrorists, is able to launch 9-11 style attacks without a nation state helping him is ridiculous. Bin Laden has a net worth of $30 million more or less, he lost his shirt in the Sudan, when the contracts he built were not paid for. AQ needs the $. What more likely country to supply it than Iraq ? Or is of the above just a little too much for the left liberal apologists. We need to understand 'root causes'. Excuse me while i laugh my ass off. Sources [unlike the left liberal girls i prefer evidence], many sources are liberal ones. At least i am fair minded. -Forbes March 17 2003 -Daily Telegraph, April 17 2003 -UPI Sept 25 2002 -Knight Ridder, Feb 6 2003 -New York Sun, March 12 2003 -Guardian Weekly, Feb 14 1999 -Jane's Foreign Report, Sept 19 2001 -Time, Sept 24 2001 -AEI Press, 'Study of Revenge', 2001 -fas.org -Guardian, May 23 1998 -Journal of Counterterrorism, 2001, vol. 7 #4 -NY Times, Feb 6 2003 -Washington Times, Bill Gertz, Sept 21 2001 -CNN Sept 12 2001 -LA Times Dec 9 1996 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushmustgo Posted September 22, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 The Reagan Administration gave Osama Bin Laden weapons, aid and intelligence in the 80's as well.... The fact is that we attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 as finally admitted by Cheney and Bush (of all people) and we waged a war against them, entrenched our military there, costing us a fortune that could go to our own needs at home, killing American soldiers daily, approx. 2/day and there is no exit plan in sight at all. Let's get it straight again: No WMD No link betw. Saddam and 9-11 No Uranium from Africa No True International Coalition to burden costs and military. And we didn't defeat a tough country, we defeated an extremely 3rd world country and broke those people even further and now have turned it into a terrorist Mecca to kill American troops.... NOW TELL ME WHAT A GREAT JOB THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE FOR AMERICA AGAIN............... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 The Iraqi conflict is going quite well we took out saddam. We Killed his sons, the ruling party is finished. This could be a lot worse you know! Remember a little conflict called Vietnam, do you? We failed there. We triumped here. What are you still complaining about, a mad man is out of power, all you Liberals are talking about money. Why don't you think about the people we saved instead of the money we use to support our troops. Yes I know money is a factor and we shouldn't just "throw it around," but the Iraqi people and our military need this money to set up a democracy. Thats what you should care about. Quit bitchin' Libs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chater Posted September 22, 2003 Report Share Posted September 22, 2003 Why are we going over the Presidents mistakes? Havent we done enough of that during the time of him as President. We still curse him and his actions..i don't see what difference this makes. Yes, they did aid Seddam, that was the US of A's fault, not his. He was not in power at that time and by knowing this information gives him a better reason to believe Seddam has weapons of mass destruction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirRiff Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 its funny when people say saddam had links to international terrorism because he delt with bad people. as if aiding a coup in Chile, arming and dealing with Osamas crew, and giving intelligence to Iraq so they could gas Iranians isnt international terrorism. and the whole linking saddam to 9/11 is insulting to every person who sympathized with the US post 9/11. it just shows some people are willing to pervery anything in a fanatical attempt to pull off some policy goals. SirRiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nova_satori Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 The Iraqi conflict is going quite well we took out saddam. We Killed his sons, the ruling party is finished. This could be a lot worse you know! Remember a little conflict called Vietnam, do you? We failed there. We triumped here. What are you still complaining about, a mad man is out of power, all you Liberals are talking about money. Why don't you think about the people we saved instead of the money we use to support our troops. Yes I know money is a factor and we shouldn't just "throw it around," but the Iraqi people and our military need this money to set up a democracy. Thats what you should care about. Quit bitchin' Libs. Quite well? Where quite well means horribly bad. Not only have we pissed off almost every moderate and Pro-US iraqi, we have incited them to ATTACK us. Anti-bathists, anti-al queada iraqis are ATTACKING US TROOPS. Not only are troops being killed on a daily basis, but Bus is asking for $87 BILLION to fix the mess he started. We've created the largest terrorist magnet on the face of the planet. It could be alot better. Bush is still in power...Saddam wasn't mad. He was a brutal, shrewed dictator, but hardly mad. The Iranian people are far more deserving. They'ved lived with the fanatical mullahs since the overthrow of the Shah. Their current protests, peaceful ones at that, are met with burtal force by Iranian authorties. Their student leaders are dragged off and never seen again. The univeristy of tehran has seen mutliple police and militray incrusions, often leaving the dorms destroyed. They WANT the Us to come. They WANT a democracy. They are willing to risk their lives for it. We KNOW they have Uranium accumulating in their storage facilties, the Russians recently terminted a pact which stated that all used fuel returns to Russia. Iran exports terror and acknowledges it. However, they have less OIL. *ponder* Listen to the facts before you write anyone off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 Not one of you brainless anti-American racists can refute any of the following. So I suggest you stop your ranting and address some real issues. -Iraq and Al Qaeda had contacts stemming from 1993 in Sudan. In fact: -Iraq supplied AQ money funnelled through various AQ factions dating from 1993 [when the terrorists would meet in Sudan yearly at the Arab Congress] -Iraq supplied chemical materials to AQ -Iraq supplied fake documents and passports for AQ men -AQ operatives have been found in Iraq -Training facilities in Iraq [1 sw of Baghdad, 1 near Iran], have found AQ operating manuals -AQ documents have been found in Iraq on chemical weapons production [iraqi's are the world experts in producing Zyklon B [hydrogen-cyanide gas for the illiterate] -Hussein and Bin Laden in 1998 before the East African embassy bombings were both releasing the same threats to the US if sanctions were not lifted against Iraq -2 US embassies in East Africa were attacked on August 7th 1998 exactly 8 years to the day that US troops first went to Saudi Arabia [a huge issue for Bin Laden] -Israeli operatives firmly believe that Iraq help fund and sponsor the 9-11 attacks and that in 2001 many meetings were held between Iraqi officials and AQ -Atta who lead the 9-11 attacks met with Iraqi officials many times, the last in Prague [Czech authorities are adamant the meeting took place] -Only Iraq failed to condemn the 9-11 attacks, other Arab League members did condemn them The whole idea that Bin Laden, in a loose federation of terrorists, is able to launch 9-11 style attacks without a nation state helping him is ridiculous. Bin Laden has a net worth of $30 million more or less, he lost his shirt in the Sudan, when the contracts he built were not paid for. AQ needs the $. What more likely country to supply it than Iraq ? Or is of the above just a little too much for the left liberal apologists. We need to understand 'root causes'. Excuse me while i laugh my ass off. Sources [unlike the left liberal girls i prefer evidence], many sources are liberal ones. At least i am fair minded. -Forbes March 17 2003 -Daily Telegraph, April 17 2003 -UPI Sept 25 2002 -Knight Ridder, Feb 6 2003 -New York Sun, March 12 2003 -Guardian Weekly, Feb 14 1999 -Jane's Foreign Report, Sept 19 2001 -Time, Sept 24 2001 -AEI Press, 'Study of Revenge', 2001 -fas.org -Guardian, May 23 1998 -Journal of Counterterrorism, 2001, vol. 7 #4 -NY Times, Feb 6 2003 -Washington Times, Bill Gertz, Sept 21 2001 -CNN Sept 12 2001 -LA Times Dec 9 1996 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushmustgo Posted September 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 Derek and Craig, You two would be great Fairy Tale Characters.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 Then refute one item i mentioned. You can't - typical liberal, sneer, libel, slander. Billy Clinton is your God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushmustgo Posted September 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 Your biased thoughts are funneling it through Iraq and not Aphganistan and mainly, Saudi Arabia. To start a war with Iraq is now finally dawing on the rest of America that this was "made up in Texas" as Sen. Kennedy has referred..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 Bill Clinton may be the liberal, leftist god, but which one of these is your god? Nixon - thug, who hired people to take out anti-Vietnam activists, and who tried to bribe a judge in the Pentagon Papers case; Ford - clumsy doughhead whose only smart act was to pull out of Vietnam; Reagan - need I say more? Bush Sr - do nothing President; "can you repeat the question? I don't understand." Bush Jr - Can Republicans get any lower? Yes, they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 Not one of you brainless anti-American racists can refute any of the following.BLAH BLAH BLAH I have an e-mail you should send those to: [email protected] Because, apparently, your Boy George isn't privy to the same information as you. Most of you allegations are loosey-goosey (the presence of AQ operatives in Iiraq is not evidence of any official connection between Sadam and AQ) to downright false (the Prague meeting between AQ and Iraqi officials has been roundly debunked, even by the CIA). You're hilarious. Most days, you'd eat shit if Bush told you it was chocolate, except when it conflicts with your own religious dogma. (ohya: "anti-American racisits"? That's a good one Americans are a "race" now?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 You are an idiot. On the topic at hand Bush's speech was a great challenge to the relevancy of the UNO. Here is some context - regimes that sponsor terror will meet the same fate. Amen to that. This deeply offends the Lie-berals, the ninnies, the Gay Rights Activists and those who believe that only Socialised Health Care matters in life. "The former regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq knew these alternatives and made their choices. The Taliban was a sponsor and servant of terrorism. When confronted, that regime chose defiance, and that regime is no more. Afghanistan's president, who is here today, now represents a free people who are building a decent and just society. They're building a nation fully joined in the war against terror. The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder and refused to account for them when confronted by the world. The Security Council was right to be alarmed. The Security Council was right to demand that Iraq destroy its illegal weapons and prove that it had done so. The Security Council was right to vow serious consequences if Iraq refused to comply. And because there were consequences, because a coalition of nations acted to defend the peace and the credibility of the United Nations, Iraq is free. And today we are joined by representatives of a liberated country. Saddam Hussein's monuments have been removed and not only his statues. The true monuments of his rule and his character--the torture chambers and the rape rooms and the prison cells for innocent children - are closed. And as we discover the killing fields and mass graves of Iraq, the true scale of Saddam's cruelty is being revealed. The Iraqi people are meeting hardships and challenges, like every nation that has set out on the path of democracy, yet their future promises lives of dignity and freedom. And that is a world away from the squalid, vicious tyranny they have known. Across Iraq, life is being improved by liberty. Across the Middle East, people are safer because an unstable aggressor has been removed from power. Across the world, nations are more secure because an ally of terror has fallen. " Read that last sentence again - for the Lie-berals who have difficulty connecting the dots - it means that states who actively support terror in any way, will meet their fates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushmustgo Posted September 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 I'm the idiot but, your right wing administration has admitted that there has been no ties between Saddam and 9-11.......NONE!! There is speculation between Al Qaeda and Saddam. But, wasn't THIS type of speculation by THIS administration what got us in THIS problem in the 1st place??? Speculation and intelligence on WMD. Speculation and intelligence on Uranium. Speculation and intelligence on Saddam and 9-11. Speculation that U.S. would be greeted with flowers... Speculation that Iraqi oil would immediately put Iraq back into business... Speculation that a new Iraqi govt. would be installed within a matter of weeks... Some of us are sick of the speculations by this administration...............Credibility is LOST!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 I don't believe Craig said that there were ties to 9-11, merely that there were ties to terror, and if you doubt that, perhaps you missed Saddam's public pledge of $8000 to the family of any suicide bomber that died attacking the USA or Israel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushmustgo Posted September 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 merely that there were ties to terror, Did you feel like talking about Saudi Arabia and their ties??? Now can you say, "Retaliation." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 Do you notice a pattern here? Afghanistan sponsors terror. Afghanistan falls. Iraq sponsors terror. Iraq falls. I don't think that Saudi Arabia will be allowed to continue as it has, really. I apologise if George W Bush disappointed you by failing to take on the whole Middle East at once, but perhaps he's taking this one step at a time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushmustgo Posted September 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 Yeah Hugo, "one step at a time." To bad we'll be broke after Iraq! May as well give the rest of our money to N. Korea....... Did you ever think that if our foreign policies in the Mid East weren't what they've been, these people wouldn't have a passion to become terrorists and that would save the world a lot more money and lives but, we're now tyring to defend our Foreign Policy........ You still got Syria, Iran, N. Korea, Algeria, etc...... We still don't even have an exit plan out of Iraq there Tiger! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 You are an idiot. Wooo! You sure showed me, there Einstein. This deeply offends the Lie-berals, the ninnies, the Gay Rights Activists and those who believe that only Socialised Health Care matters in life. My goodness, but what do any of these things have to dow with terror? You're just a foaming-at-the-mouth idealogue without an original thought or, indeed, a coherent bone in your body. I'd feel sorry for you if you weren't such an obvious asshole. Anyway.... The Taliban was a sponsor and servant of terrorism. When confronted, that regime chose defiance, and that regime is no more. The Taliban said they would offer up Osama assoon as the U.S gave them proof of his involvement. The U.S refused. Powell promised a detailed report that would demonstrated OBL and Al Q'aeda's involvement. The report never happened. Afghanistan's president, who is here today, now represents a free people who are building a decent and just society. They're building a nation fully joined in the war against terror. I guess Gee Dub is of the school of thought that if you say something enough times ("Afghanistan's fine...") it'll become true. The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder and refused to account for them when confronted by the world. What WMD? Show me. The Security Council was right to be alarmed. The Security Council was right to demand that Iraq destroy its illegal weapons and prove that it had done so.The Security Council was right to vow serious consequences if Iraq refused to comply. And because there were consequences, because a coalition of nations acted to defend the peace and the credibility of the United Nations, Iraq is free. And today we are joined by representatives of a liberated country. The SC is also right to be alarmed by the spirit of reckless unilateralism that spurred the invasion and the tacet precedent it sets for other nations to engage in preemptive warfare. As for Iraq's ruling council being "representetives of a liberated country", well, I guess if you consider a group of hand-picked quislings to be representative.... Saddam Hussein's monuments have been removed and not only his statues. The true monuments of his rule and his character--the torture chambers and the rape rooms and the prison cells for innocent children - are closed. And as we discover the killing fields and mass graves of Iraq, the true scale of Saddam's cruelty is being revealed. M,ass graves, it can't be stressed enough, that were filled while Rummy was pressing the flesh with Saddam, or while George I was abandoning Iraqis who rose up in '91 to the tender mercies of the regime. Graves that were filled even higher during a period of sanctions that crippled a people while allowing the regime to close it's grip on the throats of Iraqis even tighter. Do you notice a pattern here? Afghanistan sponsors terror. Afghanistan falls. Iraq sponsors terror. Iraq falls. I don't think that Saudi Arabia will be allowed to continue as it has, really. I apologise if George W Bush disappointed you by failing to take on the whole Middle East at once, but perhaps he's taking this one step at a time Is this the same George W. Bush that allowed members of teh House of saud and bin Laden families flee for their homeland in the immidiate aftermath of 9-11? The same bush whose father, through his holdings in the Carlyle group, has massive financial ties with the ruling family? If you think the Shrub will shit in his own nest (not to mention that of his dad and many wealthy campaign contributers) by going after the Number One terrorist state in the region you are living in a dream world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.