Senate Reports No Saddam-al-Qaida Ties

This report is very curious:

http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm

Anyways. Read the whole thing. I've copied some pertinent paragraphs. But this senate report is highly doubtful. Given that the CIA is woefully inadequate in foreign intelligence anymore, how anyone say its even accurate at all?

 

lorien two things

1) you were more entertaining when I thought you were a girl

2) you should quote real news sites not hack political websites, if you want to be taken seriously

 

Everything is sourced; Ferret. I know you try hard to defend Saddam and all, but at least give thinking a shot

 

So you going to vote for your rep if they apply?

No, the development of 16th amendment (with the federal reserve) is responsible for far more destruction than Iraq can ever do...maybe. But I suppose that's supported by mostly everyone. There's some people that want to eliminate direct taxation altogether and others to a point, but now-a-days it's a huge majority that support the status-quo of tax/monetary controls.

I believe Iraq costs about 429 billion or something, now. Medicare will be a very dangerous thing for the future, if it's not worked-on now. Unfortunately neither side wants to deal with that now. Deficits on medicare will reach 10's of trillions very quickly. It will make Iraq's costs look like a joke...but I'm sure the infeasibility of such will make dramatic shifts which will hurt a lot of people.

I tend to think our presence in world war I, led to world war II. So fairly old democrat actions did have dire effects on us, and will in the future. But I understand your feelings on this. I think it's a matter method. I don't support your dems as-is. I think they have the potential of being an excellent alternative party, but they have to LEADERS and they have to change some of their platform.

I'd say few if any of their programs are meant temporary.

The latter of coarse.

Although on a different topic, I love music, but I think a lot of musician bring a culture that's moral degrading....through modern history.

Being pragmatic? Not really morally against death, just as long as it doesn't hurt us?

A big part, but not all. I'm sure you don't purely believe that....deep down.

Bush would have had loads of power had he not entered Iraq. That's the first domino falling in his reputation.

Must of what I already spoke of is part of it. Read above and former posts.
But...

Currently, not much will compare...because they have no power. Everything is a matter of the past and their hold on their platform. Historically they've had a much bigger impact on America...mostly in negative ways. Much bigger than Iraq. But I'd say it's a bit hard to not say that both parties have absorbed those fallacies or are permissible of them. I'm not one-side, Ferret,...you should know that.

Here's my perception of Repubs and Liberals.

Both are corrupt, although at times Repubs appear more so.

I believe, generally, liberals are a bit more impractical and idealistic; while I think repubs speak of practicalities and good principles, but they don't always follow through or do it the right way. Overall, I say there's a handful of good democrats (that I might disagree with but I generally like), and there's probably around 40 fairly good repubs...

So the comparison is fairly negative (to me) on both sides.

 

Its going to kill 100,000 people and basically flush a trillion dollars down the toilet?

You don't thinking supplying munitions to the Allies and bombing of Pearl Harbor , led up into it.

Programs can be defunded , dead people can't be brought back

yawn ... there is nothing new under the sun, whatever people are doing now they have been doing forever regardless of the music

When 2 rather vicious groups of people have armed themselves and are both equally determined on killing each other, I don't think there is much you can do, Except step aside.

well , the Arabs hate us intially for supporting Israel, and helping to keep the Shah in power in Iran right?

They don't hate us for our "Freedom"

yeah he would , but he really thought Iraq would be a cake walk, he must of. All those guys thought we could just flip it, and have democratic but sort of puppet government in place in no time, and the oil would pay for it

Remember

 

Directly from the Senate? I thought you didn't trust our government... but you trust these little random, half-truth websites?

 

Did more than that. Vietnam would have been political unfeasible without an income tax, and so would Iraq....hell, if you really look at it, world war I would have had no US involved, and prevent a lot things. I'd even suggest, if world war II did not happen (due to our lack of involvement in world war I), then perhap there would be no growth of communism in to China/south asia. Think of those numbers.

Little in comparison if I can make a connection, right?

Well, there's many aspectives of it. But mine involves a longer war due to America's lack of involvement in world war I, and thus a great chance of a few things...1)the death of hitler in a world war I battle 2)a more comprimising agreement among germany and others ie no versaille treaty. Without Hitler and such a bad enviroment in Germany for people such as hitler to launch his movement, there'd be no world war II.

Given there was no world war II in Europe, it lessens the chance of Chinese communist overthrowning China...they depended wholly on Japan weakening their national military before they put in their own personal blow.

Mao was rather weak in comparison to the Chinese Nationalitic army; although Mao was smart, he made an alliance with the army to fight the Japanese (even though they had been incredibly weakened by the army),...and he had no intention to battle the Japanese. He just let the army fight it's ass-off, and when they found the opportunity they attacked them.

America primarily took their policy to offend Japan based on the fact that they were allied with Germany...so they could enter the war in Europe. You do know our policies taken durning the conflict in Asia...pre-conflict in asia?

You don't think music has had an effect on the culture of America (for good or for bad)? 50's vs 60's...no difference? I must admit there's many factors e.g tv. The opening of values beyond the family and community....

Music is a part of those ideas/culture...it's a form of the new media.

You do believe at some point people should get involved, don't you...not just when blood is shed on our side?

I'd say there's mutiple reasons. The hate relationship is fairly long,...atleast with Europe, initially. It's a cultural thing. They attack us, we attack them...and so forth and so-on.

I think they would have suceed had they planned better, jmo. The invasion itself was a problem. They couldn't use Turkey to come-in from the north. And on a separate note, it was far too vocal, and it gave Saddam and his buddies time to decide what to do. I knew it was bad when the fight was too easy, as that meant a lot of the military went into hiding...only to use gueurilla tactics. A big no-no for our military.

Bush and the repubs would easily dominate any election if they didn't enter Iraq. Can't speak for Katrina (even though I'm not so harsh on Bush for that), but generally Iraq is probably the biggest kick in the balls Bush has.

 

I'll be back to repond the rest once my work is done

but just quick

I think the music. "OMG someone is gyrating their hips" thing is BS. There have been mass orgies, sadists, cheap sex, Sexual deviants etc since there have been people. And all in all the US keeps getting better, the world keeps advancing. Regarless what eminem is singing about.

It’s a fake issue, early Americans were puritans, and we still are compared to most of the world. Watch some foreign television you will see.

 

when you get back, respond why you deliberately misled with the title of this post in comparison to what is actually being reported.

Problem is, no one is arguing this point. Just another strawman, but in this case, you tried to pawn it off with the title of:

Now that's deceptive and a flat out right lie. Saddam did have ties to al qaida and evidence of such has been posted many times here. However, I don't recall anyone suggesting saddam had ties with zarqawi. zarqawi was in Iraq prior to our mission there, but who the hell is arguing ties of saddam/zarqawi?

What a shame. I thought for a minute you might actually have something. Only to learn it's just more misleading.

 

here gtech, this must be what its like to teach retarded kids stuff

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/editorial_opinion/region/10066248.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-08-iraq-report_x.htm

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp?pg=2

Yet more that is so overwhelming, it cannot be ignored:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49297

Court rules link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/uttm/main552868.shtml

A body of evidence:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/780plthl.asp

Yet tons more:
http://www.spiritoftruth.org/iraqlinks.htm
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38685

Case Closed:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
[quote}
The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

...

Information about connections between al Qaeda and Iraq was so widespread by early 1999 that it made its way into the mainstream press. A January 11, 1999, Newsweek story ran under this headline: "Saddam + Bin Laden?" The story cited an "Arab intelligence source" with knowledge of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. "According to this source, Saddam expected last month's American and British bombing campaign to go on much longer than it did. The dictator believed that as the attacks continued, indignation would grow in the Muslim world, making his terrorism offensive both harder to trace and more effective. With acts of terror contributing to chaos in the region, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait might feel less inclined to support Washington. Saddam's long-term strategy, according to several sources, is to bully or cajole Muslim countries into breaking the embargo against Iraq, without waiting for the United Nations to lift if formally."
[/quote]


Once again, your title doesn't match the substance of your claim. But even that is wrong, according to new documents discovered this year.

Let me know if you need more sources. I just picked off a few here

 

It's not even about the sex issue. Haven't you ever seen a white male that behaved as though he was/is a gangaster rapper...but he was born in the suburb? Haven't you ever see a girl all dressed in odd clothes of black, with extremely dark make-up...just because she listenings to goth? Music doesn't change everyone, but I think there are many cultural effects from it.

People don't call things a culture if they don't have some influence...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_hop_culture

I'm not saying they're all bad, but they do have an influence (to a degree). I speak for myself in saying that I love music, but the music doesn't make me.

Before tv there hardly was an impression on the American public beyond their family, friends, and surroundings....it really opened the values up.

 

Gtech, the weekly standard and some lawsuit are BS why don't you quote some real news sources

here is bush clearly stating that Iraq had nothing to do with 911

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsPSI-tcoaI

Those things are so mind blowingly insignificant I put them in the same category as people wearing winger shirts.

 

Everybody knows that bin Laden is linked to Sadam Hoessein, your government has told you so! And you should trust your goverment since they always know what's best. It's not that they own a secret network of torture camps for several years and neglected the geneva conventions .... that would be really bad... now please get back to your cubicle and do what your government expects from you. Do not argue about this matter anymore.

 

They are BS for you, because it doesn't fit your agenda. And the ABC link, and the Newsweek, and all the others mentioned? So in other words, your mind is absolutely closed, no amount of overwhelming evidence is good enough. That's what I thought.

There you go again! Just like the way your first post to post title was absolutely misleading, now you take it in the direction of Iraq having to do with 9/11. No one is arguing that Iraq was a part of 9/11.

You are making it entirely too easy for me to point out that "only the message matters" here. It's so easy, it's embarrasing for me to watch you continue down this misleading path.

saddam and bin laden/al qaida had ties. That is the bottom line and I've sourced so much information on it, to suggest otherwise is a lie. You can say "but, but, but Bush said Iraq wasn't part of 9/11" as a strawman argument, but no one is arguing such.

I take it credibility isn't important for you?

 

Gtech, abc article is based on a handwritten peice of paper with no seal, or any proof it is real, or who wrote it when

What news week article ?



From the WND, just screams credibility doesn't it?

 

If you didn't see the Newsweek reference, you didn't read the sources. Which is what I figured.

Yes, they are all credible sources of solid information. The easy way out is to cry "but, but, but they aren't liberal media sources." But I don't see you countering them

 

How do you counter a handwritten piece of paper?

here you go

 

That's the best you have?

Heh!

 

Actually, ferret, that's not hand-written, that's cursor-written...