Here is the proof "d16man" and Gtech, that the link Iraq - Al Qaed was fabricated ...

Fixed.

That blade cuts both ways.

 

Whose defending anything? I'm simply offering a correction for the OP and asking if he'll come back and correct his proof.

Do you not see where OP's whole original point is nuked by the correction issued?

 

i posted two link and although both are critical of the administration they feature Rice Powell and Cheney you came back and made a comment without viewing them. i asked you if you could view them and see if you think they are authentic since they are not very good quality. you again refused to take a look and made a second comment so i made my comment in regard to lack of interest in your part maybe i misunderstood any way they are pretty short and it would be nice if you look and see if you think they are authentic or not?

 

And I asked you to confirm that the story correction nuked the OP's whole point and thus, this entire thread. Your inability to answer says "yes" to me. Did you read the correction? Probably not. Did you understand it, if you did? Less likely.

Re - your point. The video is irrelevant. Read Resolution 1441:

You can either take a remark by someone or what was passed by the UN security council on this matter. History doesn't start or stop with a single press conference.

Also read Blix's remark with regards to the WMD issue:

You can sit here whining about why we went in or how we got there. Its a hot chocolate argument, though.

 

i hope you are wrong
what is really strange is that it looks like Iranians are trying to provoke an attack also. you know up to now whoever wanted to develop nuclear weapons did it on the quiet, but these guys have almost drawing a mark and screaming hit here hit here i wonder what is their angel

 

I doubt he will be back to fix the post...most of the people that have posts that have no credit only do one, and then never come back to it...it seems to me when the OP is presented with evidence that supports his post is a farse, instead of sticking up for himself he sends in AGS and pizzaman....sad part is neither of them can argue effectivly either...

 

i have not read the Washington post so i really do not know what it said i just watched the pbs a little while ago and was trying to find out more when i found the two video but i did read your link and it seems that they had made a big mistake

as far as WMD i have no argument that they had it at certain point of time and they have even used it
as far as iraq at this time we are already there and i wanted maybe 50.000 more troops so it would be a deterrent and 22000 is more of an invitation to fight which does not seem to be a very good idea with me

The bigger worry is what goeso on with iran and that makes it a lot more important that we find out where was the problem exactly.

back to the videos

 

questioning our government is what differentiate us from communists and dictators and fascists take that to the bank

 

That's cuz you probably don't understand the deployment. The US has about 13,000 troops in baghdad, where much of the killing is. The 22,000 are all going into baghdad, which will more than double the force there. Put into context, doesn't 22,000 seem like a lot more than it did originally?

I think that more troops should have been put in at the beginning and that the aftermath was poorly handled, but arguing over why we are there and how we got there is, as I said, a hot chocolate argument.

 

Then why are you so against those of us who have proven it wrong?

How come you don't question Shrillay's extreme socialist values? Communism, here we come...

 

What am I going to say? Two things:

1) Source your information when making claims. Allies don't remain allies forever.

2) I'm going to say, whether your latest side track is true or not, that it doesn't change what you originally posted. I'm also going to say that if you are too weak to stand behind your assertions (ones that didn't meet up with your post title or content), then it would be logical for you to change the subject. But it shows that you really don't care, it's all about *something being wrong* and the facts don't matter, only your message does.

That's what I'm going to say

Yet another misleading claim that has no foundation. No one is claiming there was any link between saddam and 9/11. It's like saying "see, there isn't any link between saddam and hezbollah." No one is making any claim of such. However, as pointed out, there are many links between saddam and al qaida. To that, there is no question. Terrorist supporters here can try to dismiss it, but the information is there. Anyone is welcome to debunk the massive amount of information I've covered that says otherwise. But AGS has already proven he cannot.

 

The US supported the northern alliance against Russia in the 80's. They were not the taliban, though. Taliban came in later.

 

Where are the questions? There is a difference between persistently attacking our country/government, and asking questions. Especially questions that have time and again been answered.

 

i agree that more troops at the start would have been the best but that is pssed.
if you haven't noticed they have shot down our helicopters in the west and they attacked a base in disguise and kidnapped and killed our troops in the south.
it also seems that some of sadr militia is dispersing all over the country. we also must consider that if we want to station these troops within the city as we clear the insurgents , that might leave them open to attacks as the iraqi police have been in the past few years. i think there are 20 different section in the city and that is about 1500 per section in your calculation

 

Seems to be a common theme with you

 

a- i read the link to the washingtonpost.com provided here and saw the correction
b- i saw pbs coverage
c- there are going to be a lot of congressional investigation and hopefully we will find out how the mistakes were made and shit is going to hit the fan
d nobody have seen the videos and that was the question

 

I've already answered that its irrelevant. Did you read resolution 1441 that I posted?

 

i do not understand how you determine relevancy of something that you don't know anything about.
hellooooo!!!!!!

 

But you said you didn't read them...so now you are a flipflopper? Let me guess, you voted for the story before voting against it? Right?

 

it takes about an hour for you guys to relax and stop defending before you can have a civilized convo
to me it is not about bush republicans democrats Hillary or any of this partisan shit
the point is what is good for the country