No words this time. The facts have been laid down and the american people and the world are starting to wake up. This song explains it all. Make your voice known america!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIsDGCSjI60&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-QfLJbEN3k
lol, you posted a youtube video and the word "facts" in the same post....this just shows your stupidity and inability to actually present a credible news story. I'm glad you have no words, now do us all a favor and keep it that way.
D16man i have posted the facts many times, that is why it wasnt needed anymore. Its a shame that now you are in the minority again. America has finally woke up. Plus if u support that war so much why not enlist lol that youtube video was a song, you know what a song is dont u lol
america has woken up? Yes, that is correct. All they really care about is Paris Hilton going to jail, so I guess they have woken up. They realize that Hollywood has way to much control and are fighting back. I have enlisted, they did not take me, which is more than I could say for you.
yes i wont enlist to fight over a lie. Im not a blind robot that will do as im told even though im being lied to. God bless you and here are some things to ponder. Which is more than you can say about me. Why thank you so much for the compliment, but like it or not i actually care for the soldiers more than you do, i know my middle eastern politicaL HISTORY AND IM NOT JUST SOME IGNORANT PERSON POSTING OUT OF CNN NEWS. Most of the country is against this war and you my friend are in the MINORITYYYYYYYY. Now these are facts you can take to the bank. gulf of tonkin mossadegh abdul qasm iraq war. Why dont u start a topic on irans great former president mossadegh. May 2nd 2007, 1:30 am pingpong123 Spirit Walker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,040 Evidence of no ties between saddam and osama -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry Gtech but the evidence that al-Zarqawi having a connection with saddam is flimsy at best and most of that evidence came from iraqi defectors. al-Zarqawi Operated in northern iraq(an area outside of saddams jurisdiction) Of course abc news wont report this but i had to debunk this bologni once and for all. Thursday, September 18, 2003 Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found President says Saddam had ties to al-Qaida, but apparently not to attacks By SCOTT SHEPARD COX NEWS SERVICE WASHINGTON -- President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said yesterday there is no evidence that the deposed Iraqi leader had a hand in those attacks, in contrast to the belief of most Americans. The president's comments came in response to a reporter's question about Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press" program that Iraq was the "geographic base" of the terrorists behind the attacks on New York and Washington. Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11. "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida. "And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties." Most of the administration's public assertions have focused on the man Bush mentioned, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a senior Osama bin Laden associate whom officials have accused of trying to train terrorists in the use of poison for possible attacks in Europe, running a terrorist haven in northern Iraq -- an area outside Saddam's control -- and organizing an attack that killed an American aid executive in Jordan last year. Security analysts, however, say al-Zarqawi made his way to Iraq, where his leg was amputated. . Unconfirmed reports claim he then visited northern Iraq, where a militant Islamic group affiliated with al-Qaida is encamped not far from the border with Iran. The group, however, far from being an ally of Saddam, sought to replace his secular government with an Islamic regime. A senior intelligence official, who asked not to be identified, said the information linking the group, Ansar al Islam, to Saddam comes "almost exclusively from defectors produced by the Iraqi opposition. They are not uniformly credible." Bush's statement was the latest in a series by administration officials this week that appeared to distance the White House from the widely held public perception that Saddam was a key figure in the attacks. Publicly, at least, Bush has not explicitly blamed the attacks on Saddam. In speech after speech, however, the president has strongly linked Saddam and al-Qaida, the terrorist organization of bin Laden, the renegade Saudi whose followers hijacked jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania. In his May 1 declaration of military victory in Iraq from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, Bush said, "We have removed an ally of al-Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding." He also said, "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror." Two months earlier, in a speech aimed at mustering public support for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Bush said, "The attacks of September 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction." Critics have said the steady drumbeat of that message has tied Saddam to the attacks in the mind of the public. A recent poll by The Washington Post found that nearly seven Americans out of 10 believe Saddam played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, a notion the administration has done little to tamp down. But retired NATO commander Wesley Clark, in a little noticed appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press" on June 15, charged that "a concerted effort ... to pin 9/11" on Saddam began in the fall of 2001, and "it came from people around the White House." Clark, who declared his campaign for president yesterday, did not identify anyone by name. It was just weeks after the terrorist attacks that the first link between Saddam and al-Qaida was alleged by the administration. It came from Cheney, who said it had been "pretty well confirmed" that Mohamed Atta, the man held responsible for masterminding the Sept. 11 hijackings, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in April 2000, an allegation congressional investigators later dismissed. Sunday, Cheney began the group of Bush administration officials denying any ties between Saddam and Sept. 11. He said "we don't know" whether Saddam was connected to the attacks, but admitted, "It's not surprising that people make that connection." The vice president also said: "If we are successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good, representative government in Iraq that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." White House National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, in an interview aired late Tuesday on ABC's "Nightline," said one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged." But she insisted, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11." Her remarks echoed those of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a briefing for reporters at the Pentagon earlier Tuesday. Asked if Saddam was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, Rumsfeld replied, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that." White House spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated to reporters yesterday that the administration never directly linked Saddam to the Sept. 11 strikes. "If you're talking specifically about the September 11th attacks, we never made that claim," McClellan said. "We do know that there is a long history of Saddam Hussein and his regime and ties to terrorism, including al-Qaida." __________________ "The really valuable thing in the pageant of human life seems to me not the State but the creative, sentient individual, the personality; it alone creates the noble and the sublime, while the herd as such remains dull in thought and dull in feeling." And yet there is no eveidence at all as the cia later proved. everytime someone challenges my assertion that this war is based on a lie i will post this , again and again and again. I OWE THIS TO OUR TROOPS AND THE CIVILIAN IRAQI PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAD AND THEIR DESTROYED COUNTRY!!!!! case closeddddddddddddddd __________________ "The really valuable thing in the pageant of human life seems to me not the State but the creative, sentient individual, the personality; it alone creates the noble and the sublime, while the herd as such remains dull in thought and dull in feeling."
Incorrect. You've posted opinion and when presented with facts, avoid them. Like you did here. You can be against the war without being dishonest about it. Hatred of something doesn't justify being dishonest about it.
There you go again, ping! Dishonestly trying to paint a picture that saddam and al qaida didn't have ties by posting an article that said saddam wasn't responsible for 9/11! Duh! No one suggests saddam was behind 9/11! Come on ping, you're selling out your integrity over something you dislike and the truth is, you can still dislike it without compromising your integrity! Hatred of something doesn't justify lying about it.
I think it's time for the world to wake up and stop criticizing the US and its citizens based on the current political mess alone. They overlook the contributions that American philanthropists, foundations/institutions, and even the government is making.
Yes, that's the AGS method. I don't always agree with ping, but I still think he's a gentle and kind person. That's why what he's doing disturbs me so much. I want to think he's a better person than that, but he keeps proving me wrong.
Gtech, ok where are the weapons of mass destruction. What a jokeeeeee. Again your facts are hanging by a string. As i said many times before zarkaway was in iraq at that time yet he was in an area not under the jurisdiction or control of saddam. That was basically flimsy evidence at best. Gtech your posting bush's opinion also which showed up later to be all liesssssssss, as also the ex head of teh cia said, but then again he disagrees with bush so he must be crazy and yes he did try to tie iraq to 9-11 and if saddam wasnt tied to the wmd's or 9-11 then why was he taken out. Gtech you so full of it. i will make it my mission fully now to prove you wrong. Now ask teh american people would they go to war now knowing all the bs that was spun their way. 1000% no http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/17/185436/985 Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate March 21, 2003 Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq. These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully. As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation. Sincerely, GEORGE W. BUSH Are you gonna use the wmd excuse now? My god man that is tiring and laughable loooooooooool. No wmd's were ever found no link between saddam and alqaeda No link between saddam and any 9-11 terrorist was found Gtech going by ur admission we should have given the country back to iraq. Thank you for reminding to read your nonsense. Shwo me the evidence of wmd's please show show show show cause you canttttttt Now please stop defending your best friend
Hey pingpong, since you need one, here is a clue just for you, now go get it! http://members.aol.com/deejpearls/clue.html
So you want to move the discussion to WMD? We can do that too. Where are they? Well, the UN said some were moved to Syria. Some were found (LMAO at a "think progress" refute, that was hilarious!) and according to the NYT, some were looted. Of course, you're probably not interested in *those* facts, though. Who tried to tie saddam to 9/11? Just saying it doesn't make it so. You mean you don't remember why we went to war with Iraq? Good Lord! No wonder you think it's all about wmd. Let's recap (yet again): http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html Which one of those do you believe would have been most difficult for saddam to do? I applaud your new mission. You might consider facts and resources to back up your claims. All I ever see is "opinion." Hindsight? That's all you have? Arm chair quarterbacking? Let's see what the democrats had to say.
No one said a link between a 9/11 terrorist and saddam had to exist. See reasons why we went to war above. Good grief, the "daily kos?" How low are you willing to stoop? That's the centerpoint for American hatred and pro-terrorists. You hang out with that scum?
Un said some were moved to syria???????????? where are they , where is the evidence. So you believe any opinion of the un without asking for evidence? Un said this and NYT said that???????????? Like i said show me the evidence What your presenting so far is flimsy at best. On top of that no normal human being with half a mind would believe this as syria and iraq were and have always been bitter enemies, and if you had any knowledge of middle eastern politics you would know this before you stated your flimsy facts. Im laughing harder by the second. As far as the dialykos, it doesnt really matter where it came from as these are quotes words of teh president, i dont care if it came from aunt joebillbobs farm as long as they are the words of mr bush. facism starts like this. If you arent with my cause then you are my enemy. Zith lord thinking lol. the american people dont support this war and some are even starting to read up on the facts. Gtech ill ask you time and time again, where is the evidence Im gonna have to ask you for a direct link to this , not to a link to one of your posts with a bunch of links on it. Im gonna have so much fun gtech)))))))))))))
If you had read the links I provided, you wouldn't be making requests for evidence. Unfortunately, you've chosen to ignore it, as usual. Seems kind of silly to demand for evidence to back something up, when it's already been provided so many times, doesn't it? See my last post. See the one before it. Opinions are not facts, ping!
Dude, you need to trade your backhoe for a shovel, because at the rate you are digging the hole you are in, you will be to china in no time.... if you really want to make an argument here, then you need to show some facts. As of yet, you have shown none.