Who has proof.

Im not buying into this crap,no proof was ever found linking Saddam to AQ and Bin-laden,it has been totally discredidted,you say the Clinton admin knew about it,not enough to invade the country ! The British intel,was not about a link between Saddam and AQ,it was about WMDs,which we all know was complete crap,the UN intel was not about a link between Saddam and AQ either,but the Weapons of Mass Deception.

Well I'm sorry if you're mad that bit of knowledge doesn't fit your predetermined conclusions about the situation but hey, I was there when it happened. In fact, I was briefed twice about it under Clinton. When information challenges your perception you change your perception, you don't discard the info. Anything less would place you as working the facts to get the desired outcome, which seems to be what you're mad about to begin with... ironic no?

as for WMD's, while we did not find anything on the scale that the intel suggested we did find over 500 WMD's and two mobile labs which again violated the 1991 treaty which was enforceable by invasion. Even the missiles Iraq launched into Kuwait in 2003 traveled some 120 miles, the 91 resolution that Saddam agreed upon stated Iraq would have no missiles with a range over 90 miles

the angle of your argument is off course, I never said that the intel wasn't bad or that the WMD we did find were on the level of what the Intel told us. You are preaching to the choir. My main two points were:

1. Bush & his posse didn't fabricate or conspire information to get us into Iraq, it was gross intel failure on a multinational level

and

2. Iraq was in fact in violation of the 91 treaty on several levels and therefor subject to invasion. I agree that what we thought we would find and what we did find are way different.

My point was that Bush's conspiracy theories (as perpetrated by yourself and others) are false. Worse then that they actually help to cover what he actually has done that is hurtful to our country and the world (the fact that he took advantage of the situation to increase oil profits and expand haliburton which just happen to be where he and his vice president's fortune's cam from)

I suppose if you believe that you will believe anything,as i pointed out on the other thread,Rice and powell was no threat !

the angle of your argument is off course, I never said that the intel wasn't bad or that the WMD we did find were on the level of what the Intel told us. You are preaching to the choir. My main two points were:

1. Bush & his posse didn't fabricate or conspire information to get us into Iraq, it was gross intel failure on a multinational level

and

2. Iraq was in fact in violation of the 91 treaty on several levels and therefor subject to invasion. I agree that what we thought we would find and what we did find are way different.

My point was that Bush's conspiracy theories (as perpetrated by yourself and others) are false. Worse then that they actually help to cover what he actually has done that is hurtful to our country and the world (the fact that he took advantage of the situation to increase oil profits and expand haliburton which just happen to be where he and his vice president's fortune's cam from)

So who exactly is responsible for this unsurpassed level of f**k-up?

Easy enough. Anyone should be able to tell you what happens if you put a member of Al-Q and a member of the Ba'ath in the same room.

They kill each other.

Those two weren't exactly friends.

But if you want debunking...

FOXNews.com - Pentagon Study of 600,000 Iraqi Documents Finds No Link Between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

AND ITS EVEN FOX NEWS SO ITS GOTTA BE TRUE.

I've posted this several times before, I'm surprised you haven't read it by now

I was in the military during the Clinton Administration, I received annual terrorism briefings which claimed a link between Bin Laden and Iraq well before Bush was in office. I don't really fault you because it's not like you were in the room. You have however come to endorse the ignorant belief that everything was concocted by Bush; the fact is not only did Bush have bad intel, Clinton had bad intel, the English had bad independent intel, even the UN had the wrong info. This could have been avoided had Saddam kept to his agreement and not kicked inspectors out, that act alone warranted military action as per the 1991 agreement which ended the Kuwait conflict.

The reality is less popular because it doesn't have a singular bad guy, it's more of a collection of poorly made observations and decisions over a 12 year period (91-03). But that's hardly entertaining enough, Michael Mooooooooore could never make a movie about that.

Yhe Bush admin has had to backtrack,no link was ever found.

Well I'm sorry if you're mad that bit of knowledge doesn't fit your predetermined conclusions about the situation but hey, I was there when it happened. In fact, I was briefed twice about it under Clinton. When information challenges your perception you change your perception, you don't discard the info. Anything less would place you as working the facts to get the desired outcome, which seems to be what you're mad about to begin with... ironic no?

as for WMD's, while we did not find anything on the scale that the intel suggested we did find over 500 WMD's and two mobile labs which again violated the 1991 treaty which was enforceable by invasion. Even the missiles Iraq launched into Kuwait in 2003 traveled some 120 miles, the 91 resolution that Saddam agreed upon stated Iraq would have no missiles with a range over 90 miles

When information challenges your perception you change your perception, you don't discard the info.

So who exactly is responsible for this unsurpassed level of f**k-up?

Who Did start the war? Please answer in layman terms. You lost me . Thanks Grump

The American people, which means you.

The same offer goes to you, debunk the linked story? That's a study, not a court of law. The two are not comparable in my opinion. One is legally binding the other doesn't set any precedent upon it's conclusion.

I wish they hadn't used that song. I used to love it. I'd zone out to it, driving from Atlanta to Columbus, every other weekend, to pick up my son, back in the day. Good memories. :thumbup:

Hmm, that's funny... *I* don't remember sending us to war over blatant falsehoods.