0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 11:07 am
Why are you guys having such a hard time grasping the idea that even though Saddam had numerous contacts with al Qaeda, he had no part in the events of 9/11?

They can be mutually exclusive.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 11:10 am
Seems Bush and cohorts are the ones having trouble with that one - probably, indictment No. 1!

It's just the final proof that it is time for regime change...

The newpapers and bipartsian people of all walks of life are starting to be heard. It reminds me of the beginning of the end of Nixon.....
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 11:19 am
McGentrix wrote:
So far all responses have shied away from addressing any of the points I have that CLEARLY shows that there is indeed a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Why is that you guys can't defend the statements that your side keeps making?


I like you...not in the sense that my heart goes pitter-pat whenever I see a post from you...but in that I expect we'd get on just fine in any number of circustances.

But you are in trouble on this one. The commission was bi-partisan and it had access to much more information than we no matter how much reading we do.

Steadfast refusal to come to grips with a portrayal of events and facts which demonstrate that the administration was either really wrong, or deceitful, or both, goes beyond the pale when you propose that the commission gets it wrong and you get it right, or when Ican suggests that the commission must necessarily not be bi-partisan at all because it concluded at odds with the administration.

For any of us to rehash now the claims you advance again seems a bit like having to argue once more that phlogistan or the creation of the world in six days are not viable theses.

I invite you to vote for whomever you wish, but please drop this one.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 11:23 am
After all, Bush hasn't Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 11:43 am
blatham wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
So far all responses have shied away from addressing any of the points I have that CLEARLY shows that there is indeed a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Why is that you guys can't defend the statements that your side keeps making?


I like you...not in the sense that my heart goes pitter-pat whenever I see a post from you...but in that I expect we'd get on just fine in any number of circustances.

But you are in trouble on this one. The commission was bi-partisan and it had access to much more information than we no matter how much reading we do.

Steadfast refusal to come to grips with a portrayal of events and facts which demonstrate that the administration was either really wrong, or deceitful, or both, goes beyond the pale when you propose that the commission gets it wrong and you get it right, or when Ican suggests that the commission must necessarily not be bi-partisan at all because it concluded at odds with the administration.

For any of us to rehash now the claims you advance again seems a bit like having to argue once more that phlogistan or the creation of the world in six days are not viable theses.

I invite you to vote for whomever you wish, but please drop this one.


I wasn't saying the commission got it wrong. I was saying that joefromchicago got wrong with his statement "clearly that there never was a connection between Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime. " That's NOT what the leaked commission report says. It says what the administration has been saying from the get go. That Saddam had no involvement in the events of 9/11. Far too much evidence shows that there IS a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. To argue that there isn't and has never been is absurd.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 11:53 am
Quote:
"There is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11 -- other than limited support provided by the Taliban after bin Laden first arrived in Afghanistan (news - web sites),"


Basically, you are saying that you know better than the investigators do, McG, which I plain don't believe to be true.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 11:54 am
BillW wrote:
Thank goodness the choice is between dumb and a return to intelligence, the choice is easy Exclamation Then again, you guys don't like choice - only being told what to do........


a return to intelligence?

Who do you have in mind? Kerry? Laughing

It looks more and more like it is "you guys" who "don't like choice - only being told what to do"!



Quote:
The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
[boldface added]

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 11:59 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
"There is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11 -- other than limited support provided by the Taliban after bin Laden first arrived in Afghanistan (news - web sites),"


Basically, you are saying that you know better than the investigators do, McG, which I plain don't believe to be true.

Cycloptichorn


Is that the quote you want to use? Are you sure? Be sure that that is the quote that want to use, because when I refute it, I don't want you to come back and change it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 12:08 pm
Go ahead. I'm just copying what the commission said, verbatim.

When you refute it, please be aware of the following:

unnamed governement sources do not count as acceptable support for your position.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 12:25 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Basically, you are saying that you know better than the investigators do


Yes! I in particular, know better than what the so-called non-partisan commission alleges they know. I trust the evidence I have encountered and have reported here several times.

I do not trust the competence of a commission that refuses to investigate the consequences of Jamie Gorelick's directive (Jamie Gorelick is a member of the commission, and she served in the Clinton Administration pre-9/11/2001). Her directive explicitly prohibited intelligence sharing among the FBI, CIA, and NSA.

The commision's incompetence to judge what was or was not known pre 9/11/2001 is thereby demonstrated. It really ought not require that you possess extraordinary intelligence to understand that.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 12:35 pm
Wow! Next, they'll change the coins to "In ican711nm we trust".
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 12:37 pm
....tomorrow belongs to me......
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 12:38 pm
Quote:
I do not trust the competence of a commission that refuses to investigate the consequences of Jamie Gorelick's directive (Jamie Gorelick is a member of the commission, and she served in the Clinton Administration pre-9/11/2001). Her directive explicitly prohibited intelligence sharing among the FBI, CIA, and NSA.

And within two days of Ashcroft advancing this claim against Gorelick, it came to light that Ashcroft's office had reviewed and approved Gorelick's directive.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 12:47 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
"There is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11 -- other than limited support provided by the Taliban after bin Laden first arrived in Afghanistan (news - web sites),"


Basically, you are saying that you know better than the investigators do, McG, which I plain don't believe to be true.

Cycloptichorn


So far, the United States, Pakistan and Sudan governments have all supported al Qaeda before 9/11. I think further research will also demonstrate the Somali government also provided assisstance.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 12:55 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Why are you guys having such a hard time grasping the idea that even though Saddam had numerous contacts with al Qaeda, he had no part in the events of 9/11?

They can be mutually exclusive.


Fair enough.

That is to say, I dunno about Saddam's "numerous contacts with al Qaeda" - the few bits of alleged evidence that keep on being posted about that each have their significant problems.

But if what the 9/11 Commission says is merely that Saddam had no hand in preparing or collaborating on the 9/11 attacks (someone help me out here about whether that's really all it says), then you're right - that would not in and by itself prove that there was never any co-operation between Saddam and al Qaeda.

What do you think, Blatham?
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 12:59 pm
Another thing that is pointed out is that despite bin Laden's contempt for Saddam, he requested help from him and was spurned.......

Quote:
In a report released today, the commission found that Osama bin Laden considered cooperating with Saddam even though he opposed the Iraqi leader's secular regime. A senior Iraqi intelligence official reportedly met with Bin Laden in 1994 in Sudan, the panel found, and Bin Laden "is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded".
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 01:12 pm
The commission found that there was 'no credible evidence' supporting claims that Sadaam collaborated with al Qaeda on the Sept 11 attacks or any other attacks on America.

As Richard Clarke said in his testimony, it is both understandable and predictable that Iraq might provide sleep-over facilities to individuals who had the same enemy (if for different reasons).

The relevance of McG's argument (and the White House's argument) of 'connections' outside of collaboration is what is at question. It's obvious why the White House continues this deception (and it is that, a continued attempt to link the two) but less obvious why McG bothers.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 01:42 pm
blatham, McG bothers, because he knows how most Americans will interpret what Bush says about the "relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda." Don't forget, most Americans already believe Saddam had something to do with 9-11, and that he would share WMDs with terrorists.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 02:05 pm
Terrorist activities have definitely dropped since our war in Iraq.
********************


Bombers Kill 41 in Strikes on Iraqi Forces

3 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Michael Georgy

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Bombers killed 41 people in two strikes on Iraq (news - web sites)'s fledgling security forces on Thursday, stepping up a bloody drive to sabotage plans for U.S.-led occupation to give way to Iraqi rule on June 30.

Police Killed In Iraqi Violence

Latest headlines:
· Bombers Kill 41 in Strikes on Iraqi Forces
Reuters - 3 minutes ago
· Car Bombs Kill 41 in Iraq
AP - 4 minutes ago

A suicide bomber blew up his white four-wheel-drive car at an army recruiting base in Baghdad, killing 35 people and wounding 138, in Iraq's deadliest single bombing since a suicide attack on the same target killed 47 in February.


Later on Thursday a car bomb killed six paramilitary civil defense guards and wounded four near the town of Balad, north of the Iraqi capital, the U.S. military said.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2004 02:13 pm
Why don't the Iraqi's understand that it is not the US that blowing them up?

I read a quote the other day that basically stated that the guy thought it was the US setting off those bombs because we didn't want to leave Iraq. That it couldn't possibly be Iraqi's, because "Iraqi's don't kill other Iraqi's"

what the hell kind of reasoning is that and how do we get through to people like that?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 12:47:32