Ex-CIA chief slam dunks the miserable failure Bush

There is no point in you trying to defend the massive WMD lie GTech when your hero Bush and others including Rumsfeld have even admitted there were none.

Let it go GTech, I can see it is driving you insane even to the point of quoting FOX News.

Your hero coupled with the poodle Blair managed to con people into accepting the BS and now all Bush has to fall back on is his "War On Terror" mantra that is wearing thin as your posts are beginning to do.

 

You're correct. Because you have nothing to stand on and nothing to counter the sources I've presented, other than the fact you let alex jones do your thinking. I couldn't agree more

 

I don't understand why it is so easy for you to just give up...did alex jones tell you to do that? or did the terrorist provide you with all the info?

 

MEN Of HONOURS, Don't Do This Kind Of Stuff.

PARASITES Live Off Other People

 

It's all about slimy sales man.

JUST GET YOUR FEET IN THE DOOR. PEOPLE CAN BE DRAGGED INTO THINGS, THEY DON'T WANT

 

why not combine your posts...are you trying to up your post count?

Also, anyone noticed that the news on this story has already died down?

 

LMAO that is one of the funniest posts I have seen for a long time.

Pot.....kettle.....black.

 

Even after bush knew there werent any wmd's he said it was still right to get saddam out of there as he was an evil dictator( who we turned a blind eye towards when he was gassing kurds). Its funny how no one that supports the war brings this up. I guess our government can decide when its time to call a dictator evil and when its time not to.

The other ludicrous evidence the bush administration wanted the cia to put out is that there was a connection between saddam and al quaida, this is a complete joke for anyone who is intimate in knowledge of the middle east region. The ideologies of the bath and osama make them bitter enemies. Even more bitter enemies that our country is with al quaida
They got us into a war in vietnam over a fake gulf of tonkin incident and they did it again. What is past is prologue, why cant we seem to remember this one phrase. arghhhhhhhhhh

nsam 55,56,57 ahhh what could have been

 

Quantity doesn't mean anything. Your post lack quality.

I DON'T SPEND 24/7 ON DP.

I AM AT THE FOUNDATION OF MY EMPIRE.

DP POST COUNT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING TO ME.

WHEN A MAN HOLDS AN EMPIRE, MANY ARE PAID OR VOLUNTARILY DO THEIR PART FOR HIS EMPIRE.

MY RESPECT GOES TO THOSE WHO MAKE IT TO THE crème de la crème.

 

This thread reminds me of a quote from the late great Ronald Reagan, "Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book."

 

Sorry to post the same info on 2 separate threads but i feel this is important to debunk the bs that is being posted here supporting the flimsy evidence that saddam was connected to osama. This ends all of that speculation once and for all and proves that bush knew that we were going to war in iraq over a lie. Again i say to my fellow americans , if u knew all of this in 2003 would u or would congress support going to war with iraq. Answer? heck NO!!!

Evidence of no ties between saddam and osamma
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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."

 

Umm... your debunking has already been debunked.

You are ignoring all evidence which does not support your assertions?

Why are you being so silly?

 

lmfao!!
Your posts have so much quality... case in point:

such quality posts....lol!

good, then we don't have to read your not so quality posts...besides, I never said you spent 24/7 here on DP.

Why use all the bold, is that an "empire" thing, to show that you are better than everyone? You realize that most people probably just skip over it, since it seems like you are yelling at people. Your definition of Empire sounds like communism to me...

 

Willie Spencer u know that isnt true. I have posted the debunk. Now please show me where the evidence is that doesnt back my assertions? Answers with no evidence is like no answers at all(or maybe even worse lol)

 

pingpong:

I am not going to follow your lead and re-post the same data over and over again.

Read back in the various threads which you are spamming.