"What link? We don't see a link. No link exists."
Posted on 05/28/2004 11:09:32 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
Great post, thanks
Great picture. That needs to be posted whenever the Slimes or whatever has an article/lie about no connection between $oddomite and al Qaeda.
All we're looking for are the swing voters in the middle.
The lunatic left of America has hated America since the cold war was started, and they will never vote for what is good for America. It is the moderate/middle voter, who makes the difference.
Great reply re the lunatic left's response to data like this.
Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read: Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.
Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden.
Isn't it amazing the minute that GW was sworn in, any linkage between the liberals's Uncle $oddomite and al Qaeda just disappeared in the past, the present then and of course now.
That picture with the two GI's holding a Saddam/WTC poster is as powerful a statement as any I have seen to make the ties between Iraq and Terrorists. And assuming its genuine, it should be sent to as many people as possible. No,not the media/press. They have a different agenda.
But getting this out to as many people as possible certainly should remind people of why we are in Iraq, and what the stakes are.
This is an excellent suggestion. I will send that photo out to my email list this weekend.
"That picture with the two GI's holding a Saddam/WTC poster is as powerful a statement as any I have seen to make the ties between Iraq and Terrorists. And assuming its genuine, it should be sent to as many people as possible. No,not the media/press. They have a different agenda."
A marine friend, my age has heard from Marine Reservists who were in Phase I of this Iraqi war, that pictures and tile works showing that picture were all over Iraq.
If you find any other such pictures, please Freepmail me the link.
Thanks
Dammit...the frustrating part is getting what we here at FR know into the mainstream media.
The major mainstream mediots will never run the reality news. Go to this thread on Free Republic that is active right now. It shows that the NY Slimes editors have run 28 days of front page prison abuse stories/spins/lies while burying the real news.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1143835/posts
Confirmed! The New York Times is ACTUALLY Plotting to Oust Bush! (actual, first-hand source)
5-18-04
Posted on 05/28/2004 7:14:34 AM PDT by jmstein7
Confirmed! The New York Times is ACTUALLY Plotting to Oust Bush!
Where to begin? I just got an interesting call from a buddy (a listening post) who works at the Times -- I will keep the name out of this, because I don't to be responsible for someone losing their job.
Anyway, the person is a lurker on FR, and, this morning,
read this activism item I posted last night. We spoke for a few minutes this morning.
Apparently, Bill O'Reilly had a segment on his show last night where he accused the New York Times of having an agenda to oust Bush -- for example, they have had the Prisoner Abuse story on the front page of the Times for 28 days in a row, even though there has been no news for 10 days (even to the point of relegating the story about the seven terror suspects to the middle pages of the paper).
There was an editors' meeting at the Times this morning. The O'Reilly piece was a subject of conversation. But, during the discussion, one of the editors actually said that they would have to alter their "strategy" to be less overt and draw less public criticism from the likes of O'Reilly!
The editor didn't say specifically that there was a "strategy" to oust Bush, but the editor did imply that there is some sort of strategy "at play" in the Editorial board at the Times. This is the first time I've heard actual proof of a coordinated effort there to actually campaign against the President and damage him.
So, there you have it -- the New York Times is actually at war with the Bush administration.
I will post more info as I get it.
Report Details Saddam's Support for Terrorists Who Killed Americans
The above link is the FreeRepublic discussion thread.
The actual article is :
"Saddam Hussein’s Philanthropy of Terror"
It is a pdf document with substantial footnotes and put together by Dewey Murdock of the Hudson Institute.
Thanks.
The liberals will say so what? There are no WMDs and no connection between $oddomite and al Qaeda.
When those connections become common knowledge, they will just move to their next attempt to electronically lynch GW.
Like the NY Slimes for 28 straight days making the so called prison abuse front page news while burying the real news.
Thanks for posting this again. As I remember, it was originally posted in July of 2003. Do you, or does anybody else here, have an exact cititation for its original source? Can it be authenticated as an actual picture from Iraq, instead of a Photoshop job? Does anybody have a translation? If it can be properly authenticated and translated, it could be devastating.
I copied it when it was originally posted. Then my computer got badly infected by viruses, recieved a computer cancer cure and a new operating system, and I lost the picture.
Indeed, where is the dreaded Rove spin machine that the RAT bastards talk about? Let's go, W --- get this info out now and often in the press. We are losing the battle even though truth is on our side.
Thanks for the info.
If you watch it, would you please take a few notes and put them on this thread with a ping to me.
I will not be able to watch it due to medical advise. When Russert smirks, I want to choke him and my bp rises too much.
In the spring of 1998--well before the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa--the Clinton administration indicted Osama bin Laden. The indictment, unsealed a few months later, prominently cited al Qaeda's agreement to collaborate with Iraq on weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton Justice Department had been concerned about negative public reaction to its potentially capturing bin Laden without "a vehicle for extradition," official paperwork charging him with a crime. It was "not an afterthought" to include the al Qaeda-Iraq connection in the indictment, says an official familiar with the deliberations. "It couldn't have gotten into the indictment unless someone was willing to testify to it under oath." The Clinton administration's indictment read unequivocally:
Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.