What does the "liberation" invasion of Iraq have to do with the war on terror, again?
Cheney said on Meet the Press this week that although he had told Tim Russet (host) in a previous interview two years ago, two days after 9/11, that Hussein was not involved in the attacks,
"Subsequent to that, we've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization."
But, Bush has reiterated, "we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11."
What's more, according to Timothy J. Burger and John F. Dickerson of TIME Magazine, Democratic Congressman Sylvestre Reyes told the House Intellegence Committee, "that in closed-door testimony over the previous year, intelligence witnesses, when asked if there was any evidence of such links [to al-Qaeda], had consistently said there was 'none, or very little if we stretch it.'"
Cheney is fabricating tall-tales, and the question still remains, what does the war in Iraq have to do with 9/11 and terrorism?
Quote:Josh Marshall: So, setting aside why we're in Iraq, how we got there, whether we should have gone in in the first place, where are we now? Where do you see our position right now?
Amb. Joseph Wilson: Well, I think we're fucked.
That would be former Iraq ambassador Joseph Wilson (whose wife, a CIA operative, was outed by columnist Robert Novak on an administration leak) speaking frankly as always at
Joshua Marshall's Talking Points Memo
I used to think I was pretty sophisticated on knowing how many ways one can get fucked, but I was wrong.
CI, no .... you were right, it's just that there is a lot of sex going on in this administration .... mostly with the taxpayer.
No wonder it hurts to sit down.
Bob, you left out phhttttp
Italgato and Walter, I was enjoying your dialogue. It existed outside of the frustrations and peculiarites of internecine US stuff.
Go here .... I can't post them all.....
http://www.ucomics.com/
Thank you, Kara. I find Mr. Hinteler to be well informed, witty and a good researcher.
Mr. Hinteler is not afraid to debate and to mix it up.
Apparently his self-esteem is good enough that he is not worried that he will be bested.
I look forward to more interaction with Mr. Hinteler.
I sincerely hope that we can live up to your expectations, Kara. I know that I will try. I am sure that Mr. Hinteler, who does not shy away from commenting, will try.
May I respectfully suggest that you may wish to comment on anything we offered with suggestions or an objection?
Gels, That's one of the best cartoons yet!
I'm still wiping the tears.... go to the site
Italgato wrote:You see, Mr. Hinteler-You prove my point. As a non-native you do not understand US nuances.
Please be informed that Woodrow Wilson was one of the "patron saints" of the Democrat Party.
I am amazed that you don't know that!
Nuances????
You got to know this from what/whom/where?
Dear Mr. Hinteler:
I hope you remember our exchange in which you suggested that I could not understand Max Weber completely since I did not read German. You may remember that I agreed with you by telling you the story about Thomas Mann.
I believe that a person who has not grown up and been educated in a country will not understand the nuances of a country's customs, traditions and, indeed, politics.
Here, I assume that you were not born, raised and educated in the United States.If you were, accept my humble apologies. If you were not, you must understand that you will never comprehend the Nuances just as I will never comprehend the Nuances of the German Nation.
Thanks, Italgato, although you didn't answer my question.
I'm sure, however, that you always follow your own advice.
I understand nuances like bombing foreign countries who do not represent a "clear and present danger", like disregarding international law, and like acting internationally without agreement of the United Nations.
I understand irony like "waging a war against terrorism" which will increase terrorist activity, for every western nation.
And I understand hypocrisy.
What I cannot understand is how a semi-literate draft dodger becomes President of the USA and after all he has done to ruin the country's wealth and reputation, some people still support him.
What nuances were these again?
