|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/07/2004 12:26:21 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
US weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer (appointed by the Bush administration) released a 900 page report yesterday declaring that NO WMDs could be found in Iraq and that they had all been destroyed by 1992 yet again undermining the rationale for the invasion of Iraq.
DemocracyNow.org |
Well thats all great in retrospect... but just like in our legal system, you can't charge someone with a crime when the circumstances change with hindsight. Intelligence from EVERY single country capabile of it said he had them. This includes the French, Germans and Russians. Also, while he might not have had WMDs, He DID have illegal weapon systems, some of those were bought in recent years FROM the french and russians...
Saddam was breaking the law set down by other nations and we gave him his chances, over and over and over again. The stupid ass line from the democrats that we should have given inspectors more time would have been great if they would have been allowed in the country, but thats not the case, so it's a dumb ass comment...
Edit:
How can a group of people be so collectivly stupid that they can't figuer out that the war on terrorism is NOT simply retaliation for 9/11, but actualy a WAR ON TERRORISM...
Message edited by author 2004-10-07 12:29:01. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 12:26:45 PM · #77 |
Any Americans who can get CBC on satelite should really see this program. It airs again on Sunday.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 12:57:13 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
US weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer (appointed by the Bush administration) released a 900 page report yesterday declaring that NO WMDs could be found in Iraq and that they had all been destroyed by 1992 yet again undermining the rationale for the invasion of Iraq.
DemocracyNow.org |
...and the report also states that Iraq had every intention to reconstitute its weapons programs in the future. So would you have rather fought Hitler in 1936 or 1940?
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 01:05:17 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by orussell:
Any Americans who can get CBC on satelite should really see this program. It airs again on Sunday. |
And every American voter should see this. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 01:20:20 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
US weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer (appointed by the Bush administration) released a 900 page report yesterday declaring that NO WMDs could be found in Iraq and that they had all been destroyed by 1992 yet again undermining the rationale for the invasion of Iraq.
DemocracyNow.org |
...and the report also states that Iraq had every intention to reconstitute its weapons programs in the future. So would you have rather fought Hitler in 1936 or 1940? |
Thanks for the history lesson!
So many things to learn from the study of Hitler and Nazism, such as the numerous American industrialists who supported the fascists, including, Mussolini, Franco and Hitler from the 1920's through the 40's. People such as William Randolph Hurst, PRESCOTT BUSH (whose bank, Union Bank, was seized from him by the American government under the Trading with the Enemy Act for financing the Nazis), Henry Ford, Joseph Kennedy, Charles Lindburgh, John Rockerfeller, JP Morgan, Andrew Mellon and Allen Dulles. Companies such as GM, Ford, DuPont, Alcoa, Standard Oil and General Electric, and IBM just to name a few.
"what is critical to recognize is that American corporations and wealthy individuals played an important part in the construction of the Nazi Empire and the various fascist groups of Europe leading up to World War II. Without American support it is doubtful that the fascist powers of Europe would have ever achieved their positions of power and been able to develop the military institutions necessary to wage the Second World War."
So it could even be argued that had it not been for the American Industrialists WWII may never have happened. Sounds alot like today's scenario with Iraq. Saddam Hussein is armed to the hilt with WMD's by the same people who fight him in 1990 and 2003 and encourage him to use the weapons. VP George Herbert Walker Bush under Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld met with Hussein back in the 80's to arm him against Iran. At the same time, they also ran Iran-Contra.
Gee, thanks for the history lesson!Article here.
Message edited by author 2004-10-07 13:25:39. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 01:28:58 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
US weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer (appointed by the Bush administration) released a 900 page report yesterday declaring that NO WMDs could be found in Iraq and that they had all been destroyed by 1992 yet again undermining the rationale for the invasion of Iraq.
DemocracyNow.org |
...and the report also states that Iraq had every intention to reconstitute its weapons programs in the future. So would you have rather fought Hitler in 1936 or 1940? |
So, who would you have rather fought, al Qaeda back when we had them on the run in Afghanistan and then let them get away when we invaded Iraq, or fight them now that they have proliferated in Iraq and all over the world. I think you, and the president, chose the latter. Very very bad judgement and misleading the American public and world as Saddam Hussein was NO threat to anyone at the time we invaded Iraq. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 01:36:48 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
"I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11."
- Dick Cheney [Vice Presidential Debates, 10/5/04]
---------------------------------------
"IRAQ/AL QUEDA CONNECTION" STATEMENTS MADE BY MR. CHENEY.
[Clipped for brevity. These quotes have been posted and referenced several times in the tread already.] |
I reiterate: There is nothing in these statements that suggest a link between Iraq and 9/11. The first discusses links with Al Queda and the '93 WTC bombing, the second discusses chemical production in Iraq by Al Queda. There is no connection stated, implied, suggested - 9/11 isn't even mentioned in either of those quotes.
Really bad choices. There are several other quotes on that site that at least mention 9/11. Go back and try again... |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 01:41:47 PM · #83 |
Good posts Olyuzi, it is a shame we donĂ¢€™t learn the true history of America in schools. Shit they still teach in public school that Christopher Columbus "discovered" America, as apposed to conquered.
Also as you mentioned John Rockefeller, probably the most powerful business man in America in the late 1800's and early 1900's. I suggest reading The Prize for a good lesson on why went from candle light and riding horses to nuclear bombs and rocket ships in only 100 years.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 01:46:07 PM · #84 |
Bush supporters conveniently brush this aside:
Originally posted by bdobe:
NOTE THAT MOST AMERICANS, post 9/11, when we hear Al Queda, we automatically conjure images of 9/11. Therefore, if an elected official, say a VP or a President, were to actively link Iraq with Al Queda, then most of us would have naturally concluded: since, Al Queda = 9/11, therefore 9/11 = Iraq.
Now, those that still defend the administration will bend and twist to negate that such a link was ever made; however, we all know better than that: all we have to do is follow Mr. Cheney's advise, Look at the record. |
Unfortunately for them, it's not that easy and the public knows this.
And, of course, there's this:
According to the State Department, these are the countries that Al Queda Operated in as of Nov 10, 2001. Note that Iraq was not on the list back in 2001 (before the war):
Albania
Algeria
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Australia
Austria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belgium
Bosnia
Egypt
Eritrea
France
Germany
India
Iran
Ireland
Italy
Jordan
Kenya
Kosovo
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Mauritania
Netherlands
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
Yemen
---------------------------------------
Official State Department page (published November 10, 2001):
//usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 01:46:19 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Good posts Olyuzi, it is a shame we donĂ¢€™t learn the true history of America in schools. Shit they still teach in public school that Christopher Columbus "discovered" America, as apposed to conquered.
Also as you mentioned John Rockefeller, probably the most powerful business man in America in the late 1800's and early 1900's. I suggest reading The Prize for a good lesson on why went from candle light and riding horses to nuclear bombs and rocket ships in only 100 years. |
You know, MadMordegon, what do they think, the American public is stupid? We know what we heard back when they were making the case to invade Iraq and it had to do with imminent danger of a terrorist attack from Saddam Hussein using nuclear war or biological or chemical WMDs. Now since there are no WMDs found they try to pass this off as somehow we're crazy. I had two people tell me this this week. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 01:49:36 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Bush supporters conveniently brush this aside:
Originally posted by bdobe:
NOTE THAT MOST AMERICANS, post 9/11, when we hear Al Queda, we automatically conjure images of 9/11. Therefore, if an elected official, say a VP or a President, were to actively link Iraq with Al Queda, then most of us would have naturally concluded: since, Al Queda = 9/11, therefore 9/11 = Iraq.
Now, those that still defend the administration will bend and twist to negate that such a link was ever made; however, we all know better than that: all we have to do is follow Mr. Cheney's advise, Look at the record. |
Unfortunately for them, it's not that easy and the public knows this.
And, of course, there's this:
According to the State Department, these are the countries that Al Queda Operated in as of Nov 10, 2001. Note that Iraq was not on the list back in 2001 (before the war):
Albania
Algeria
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Australia
Austria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belgium
Bosnia
Egypt
Eritrea
France
Germany
India
Iran
Ireland
Italy
Jordan
Kenya
Kosovo
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Mauritania
Netherlands
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
Yemen
---------------------------------------
Official State Department page (published November 10, 2001):
//usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm |
And it's a state dept web site no less. But don't worry, Bdobe, the Bush administration will probably have them remove that page from the web site like they've done with other government web sites where they didn't like the content. Thanks for posting it. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 01:55:16 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
US weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer (appointed by the Bush administration) released a 900 page report yesterday declaring that NO WMDs could be found in Iraq and that they had all been destroyed by 1992 yet again undermining the rationale for the invasion of Iraq.
DemocracyNow.org |
...and the report also states that Iraq had every intention to reconstitute its weapons programs in the future. So would you have rather fought Hitler in 1936 or 1940? |
So, who would you have rather fought, al Qaeda back when we had them on the run in Afghanistan and then let them get away when we invaded Iraq, or fight them now that they have proliferated in Iraq and all over the world. I think you, and the president, chose the latter. Very very bad judgement and misleading the American public and world as Saddam Hussein was NO threat to anyone at the time we invaded Iraq. |
Given just those two choices, and assuming that we did, in fact, have bin Laden on the run in Afghanistan ( that is, he had not already fled to Pakistan, or elsewhere ), probably the former. But, if we're going to entertain hindsight, how about an even more important choice - that is: would you have rather fought al Qaeda when we ( may have ) had bin Laden on the run in Afghanistan or taken bin Laden out of the picture completely back when he was offered to us ( that is , to Clinton ) by the Sudanese in July, 2000 for extradition on charges that he was involved in the bombings of the U.S. Embassys? |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 02:05:51 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
US weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer (appointed by the Bush administration) released a 900 page report yesterday declaring that NO WMDs could be found in Iraq and that they had all been destroyed by 1992 yet again undermining the rationale for the invasion of Iraq.
DemocracyNow.org |
...and the report also states that Iraq had every intention to reconstitute its weapons programs in the future. So would you have rather fought Hitler in 1936 or 1940? |
So, who would you have rather fought, al Qaeda back when we had them on the run in Afghanistan and then let them get away when we invaded Iraq, or fight them now that they have proliferated in Iraq and all over the world. I think you, and the president, chose the latter. Very very bad judgement and misleading the American public and world as Saddam Hussein was NO threat to anyone at the time we invaded Iraq. |
Thank you for bringing it back to the most salient point: what threat did Hussein pose?
The reporting on this has been classic "sound bite" journalism. Obviously, I haven't read the entire 1000 page report. However, last night I did catch most of Mr. Duelfer's statement during the hearing yesterday on CSPAN, and the overall message of his statement, and from the following intro to the report, is exactly the opposite of your claim that Hussein posed no threat.
Key Findings
Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
Hussein was playing the UN, the world, and all you in the "let's give sanctions more time" crowd for suckers, just waiting for them to be lifted. He maintained the technology, the knowledge, the expertise, and the capability to reconstitute his WMD efforts the second sanctions fell apart. And its Mr. Duelfer's contention that the sanctions were eroding and would have fallen apart or been lifted very soon, had it not been for our efforts to remove Hussein from power.
Weapons Report Key Findings
(edit: forgot to include link to report)
Message edited by author 2004-10-07 14:08:48. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 02:18:47 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Bush supporters conveniently brush this aside:
Originally posted by bdobe:
NOTE THAT MOST AMERICANS, post 9/11, when we hear Al Queda, we automatically conjure images of 9/11. Therefore, if an elected official, say a VP or a President, were to actively link Iraq with Al Queda, then most of us would have naturally concluded: since, Al Queda = 9/11, therefore 9/11 = Iraq.
Now, those that still defend the administration will bend and twist to negate that such a link was ever made; however, we all know better than that: all we have to do is follow Mr. Cheney's advise, Look at the record. |
Unfortunately for them, it's not that easy and the public knows this.
|
Gee, I didn't know that if you said it, it must be so.
What is actually the case here is that you want the American people to make that connection, and the left does all it can to impose that supposed intent on the administration's words, because it is the only way to support your arguement. But, I'm sorry, just because you say it, doesn't make it true. Dbode, you've gotten mad in the past (and, on occasion, rightfully so) because people have imposed on you thoughts and intentions that weren't yours (such as that you hate America or the military). You are doing the very same thing here. Cheney's words don't support your allegation, so you impose on him thoughts and intentions (i.e. he really means 9/11 when he says Al Queda, or is real intent is to mislead people into making that association) that are not only in the half quotes referenced, but specifically stated as not his intention in the full context of his statements. Please extend the courtesies to him and to us which you have demanded (again, rightfully so) for yourself.
Message edited by author 2004-10-07 14:19:28. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 02:31:45 PM · #90 |
And now, back to our topic:
"Cheney Didn't Help Bush" is still undetermined, but according to a poll conducted by Survey USA (one of the sources referenced at Electoral-Vote.com), Cheney did win the debate.
I find it odd they don't have an overall total ranking, but Cheney won in 8 states compared to 5 for Edwards (and a tie in California, which is pretty startling), and in 17 cities compared to 4 for Edwards. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 02:44:15 PM · #91 |
ScottK,
Once again, you're conveniently forgetting the second part of the post and ignoring the context that was provided. I contend that by actively linking Iraq to Al Queda, the Bush administration exploited the tacit connection that most Americans make between Al Queda and 9/11. You, for partisan reasons, may argue that people should disbelieve their own hears and eyes and their immediate experiences; however, I believe that most Americans will not do so -- and that, ultimately, this is what will do in the Bush administration. I'm reminded of a key moment during the first presidential debate, where Mr. Kerry reminded Mr. Bush that on 9/11 we had been attacked by Osama Bin Ladin and not Saddam Hussein. At that moment, a collective haze lifted from the mind's eye of the American people and the Iraq war was instantly re-framed. The American people are just awakening from a long stupor, and they don't like what the Bush administration has done to our country in the meanwhile.
For reference, let me post it again:
Originally posted by bdobe:
NOTE THAT MOST AMERICANS, post 9/11, when we hear Al Queda, we automatically conjure images of 9/11. Therefore, if an elected official, say a VP or a President, were to actively link Iraq with Al Queda, then most of us would have naturally concluded: since, Al Queda = 9/11, therefore 9/11 = Iraq.
Now, those that still defend the administration will bend and twist to negate that such a link was ever made; however, we all know better than that: all we have to do is follow Mr. Cheney's advise, Look at the record. |
However, I'm sure that you, and those that still support the administration, will continue to argue, "But Cheney never said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11." Nonetheless, Mr. Cheney has said repeatedly that Al Queda and Iraq were somehow linked (as posted earlier in an earlier entry). Well, then, it seems that the Bush administration's own State Department would take issue with that. Since, as posted before, as of November 10, 2001, Al Queda did not have an operation inside of Iraq:
Originally posted by bdobe:
According to the State Department, these are the countries that Al Queda Operated in as of Nov 10, 2001. Note that Iraq was not on the list back in 2001 (before the war):
Albania
Algeria
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Australia
Austria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belgium
Bosnia
Egypt
Eritrea
France
Germany
India
Iran
Ireland
Italy
Jordan
Kenya
Kosovo
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Mauritania
Netherlands
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
Yemen
---------------------------------------
Official State Department page (published November 10, 2001):
//usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm |
-------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ScottK:
Gee, I didn't know that if you said it, it must be so.
What is actually the case here is that you want the American people to make that connection, and the left does all it can to impose that supposed intent on the administration's words, because it is the only way to support your arguement. But, I'm sorry, just because you say it, doesn't make it true. Dbode, you've gotten mad in the past (and, on occasion, rightfully so) because people have imposed on you thoughts and intentions that weren't yours (such as that you hate America or the military). You are doing the very same thing here. Cheney's words don't support your allegation, so you impose on him thoughts and intentions (i.e. he really means 9/11 when he says Al Queda, or is real intent is to mislead people into making that association) that are not only in the half quotes referenced, but specifically stated as not his intention in the full context of his statements. Please extend the courtesies to him and to us which you have demanded (again, rightfully so) for yourself. |
Message edited by author 2004-10-07 14:44:42.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 02:59:36 PM · #92 |
*sigh* Guess I just need the thought police to tell me what it is I really think and mean. I'm sure you'd be glad to oblige...
Be back later... |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:43:27 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
ScottK,
Once again, you're conveniently forgetting the second part of the post and ignoring the context that was provided. I contend that by actively linking Iraq to Al Queda, the Bush administration exploited the tacit connection that most Americans make between Al Queda and 9/11. You, for partisan reasons, may argue that people should disbelieve their own hears and eyes and their immediate experiences; however, I believe that most Americans will not do so -- and that, ultimately, this is what will do in the Bush administration. |
Oh. You mean much the same way that by actively linking Halliburton to Dick Cheney, the Kerry/Edwards consortioum exploits the tacit connection most Americans make between the Vice-President's former position at Halliburton and the Pentagon's cost overrun charges against them. Or how by actively linking the Saudi Royal Family to Bush, the Kerry/Edwards consortium exploits the tacit connection most Americans make between Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 hijacker/terrorists. Kinda like that. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 05:01:03 PM · #94 |
Guys, as enlightening as this thread is, and as wonderful as your posts are, you are starting to duplicate about three other threads in existence. Let's keep this one different, or we'd all be better off just going to one of the others.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 05:03:39 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by bdobe:
ScottK,
Once again, you're conveniently forgetting the second part of the post and ignoring the context that was provided. I contend that by actively linking Iraq to Al Queda, the Bush administration exploited the tacit connection that most Americans make between Al Queda and 9/11. You, for partisan reasons, may argue that people should disbelieve their own hears and eyes and their immediate experiences; however, I believe that most Americans will not do so -- and that, ultimately, this is what will do in the Bush administration. |
Oh. You mean much the same way that by actively linking Halliburton to Dick Cheney, the Kerry/Edwards consortioum exploits the tacit connection most Americans make between the Vice-President's former position at Halliburton and the Pentagon's cost overrun charges against them. Or how by actively linking the Saudi Royal Family to Bush, the Kerry/Edwards consortium exploits the tacit connection most Americans make between Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 hijacker/terrorists. Kinda like that. |
There's one big difference: Bush's and Cheney's exploitations lead us to an unnecessary war, that's already cost thousands of lives (i.e., Coalition forces, Iraqi civilians and others); and no rationalization will change this fact. Bush's lies and exploitations have costs thousands of lives...
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 05:25:34 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
"I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11."
- Dick Cheney [Vice Presidential Debates, 10/5/04]
---------------------------------------
"IRAQ/AL QUEDA CONNECTION" STATEMENTS MADE BY MR. CHENEY.
"I continue to believe. I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. We've discovered since documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was a part of the team that attacked the World Trade Center in '93, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary. That's public information now. So Saddam Hussein had an established track record of providing safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists. . . . I mean, this is a guy who was an advocate and a supporter of terrorism whenever it suited his purpose, and I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there."
Source: Morning Edition, NPR (1/22/2004).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.
*
"Al Qaida had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces."
Source: Richard B. Cheney Delivers Remarks at a Bush-Cheney 2004 Fund-Raiser, White House (10/5/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship. The statement also refers to al Qaeda in Northeastern Iraq without acknowledging that this area was not controlled by Saddam Hussein.
---------------------------------------
NOTE THAT MOST AMERICANS, post 9/11, when we hear Al Queda, we automatically conjure images of 9/11. Therefore, if an elected official, say a VP or a President, were to actively link Iraq with Al Queda, then most of us would have naturally concluded: since, Al Queda = 9/11, therefore 9/11 = Iraq.
Now, those that still defend the administration will bend and twist to negate that such a link was ever made; however, we all know better than that: all we have to do is follow Mr. Cheney's advise, Look at the record. |
Is this the post you were referring to when you said that Scott was "conveniently forgetting the second part" and "ignoring the context that was provided"? If so, then in your rebuttal to me saying that Bush's and Cheney's exploitations led us to an unnecessary war tells me that you need to do a better job of trying to make your case. The quotes you provide were all made AFTER the war in Iraq had already commenced, hence could not possibly have been used to lead us to that war. Were you speaking of, perhaps, a war of which the rest of us are yet unaware? |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 05:29:29 PM · #97 |
I was referring to this... and for you to continue attempting to rationalize and excuse is an utter waste of energy...
Originally posted by bdobe:
According to the State Department, these are the countries that Al Queda Operated in as of Nov 10, 2001. Note that Iraq was not on the list back in 2001 (before the war):
Albania
Algeria
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Australia
Austria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belgium
Bosnia
Egypt
Eritrea
France
Germany
India
Iran
Ireland
Italy
Jordan
Kenya
Kosovo
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Mauritania
Netherlands
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
Yemen
---------------------------------------
Official State Department page (published November 10, 2001):
//usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm |
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 05:56:36 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
I was referring to this... and for you to continue attempting to rationalize and excuse is an utter waste of energy... |
I am attempting to do neither, but then, how could you be expected to recognize that? |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 06:02:07 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Nonetheless, Mr. Cheney has said repeatedly that Al Queda and Iraq were somehow linked (as posted earlier in an earlier entry). Well, then, it seems that the Bush administration's own State Department would take issue with that. Since, as posted before, as of November 10, 2001, Al Queda did not have an operation inside of Iraq:
According to the State Department, these are the countries that Al Queda Operated in as of Nov 10, 2001. Note that Iraq was not on the list back in 2001 (before the war):
Albania, Algeria, etc....
|
Dude, you've presented a pretty asinine argument. You're proving that Al Queda didn't have a connection to Iraq by presenting data that was compiled a year before anyone even started talking about Iraq. That's like showing me a map proving Germany didn't occupy Poland a year before WWII. Not to mention the State Department data shows where Al Queda "operated". If you like, I can prove Japan had various connection to Germany but didn't "operate" on German soil. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 06:32:20 PM · #100 |
Clearly there's a staunch pro-Bush camp that will not recognize nor acknowledge the deceit that this administration has perpetrated on us all. However, fortunately for the rest of us, more and more people are recognizing the falsehoods that the Bush administration has told us regarding Iraq. And, unfortunately for the Bush administration and his supporters, more and more people are recognizing the falsehoods that the Bush administration used to go into Iraq. Again, all one has to do is view the latest CIA report regarding Iraq and the non-existence of WMDs.
Now, before our friend Karmat decides to shut this thread down, let me turn back to the subject line: Cheney Did Not Help Bush. Just look at the trend lines in the latest electoral college report:
And look at these poll numbers:
ZOGBY INTERACTIVE
Kerry 50.6
Bush 48.1
LAKE-SNELL-PERRY-(DEMOCRATIC POLL)
Kerry 48
Bush 44
MOORE-(REPUBLICAN POLL)
Bush 47
Kerry 45
AP-Ipsos Public Affairs poll
Among likely voters
Kerry-Edwards: 50
Bush-Cheney: 46
Among registered voters
Kerry-Edwards: 47
Bush-Cheney: 47
---------------------------------------
The key factor among these poll numbers is that since the 1st presidential debate the trend line has favored Mr. Kerry. Again, remember that after the RNC convention Mr. Bush had generally held the lead. Moreover, since the VP debate Mr. Bush's drop in support has continued -- specially among "independent" voters.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 03:14:17 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 03:14:17 PM EDT.
|
