Posted on 06/16/2004 6:20:23 AM PDT by NYC Republican
Bitt... here's the link http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1154167/posts
The same commission who said that there was no evidence that Bill Klinton turned down Osama Bin Laden....not even Klinton's OWN voice on tape saying he was turning Osama down, was not evidence enough.
Any questions?
The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found "no credible evidence" of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda in attacks against the United States.
In a report based on research and interviews by the commission staff, the panel said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam Hussein even though he opposed the Iraqi leader's secular regime.
A senior Iraqi intelligence official reportedly met with bin Laden in 1994 in Sudan, the panel found, and bin Laden "is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded."
((((SIGH))) You have a good point!
It's going to be a long, hot summer... Giddy-up... Keep the faith... and hope that President Bush has the stamina, will-power, and desire to fight these scum right through November.
I am getting so sick of all of the media gloom and doom.
Of course they are going to talk about this non-stop.
I just wish President Bush would start defending himself. He is taking shots left and right and it is showing in the polls. I am still optimistic he will win in November, I just hate seeing all of the liberal talking heads filling the air waves about how they are right.
That's exactly right. President Bush NEVER directly used 911 as a reason to go into Iraq. 911 changed the landscape, and put us in pre-emptive mode, so indirectly, it made the U.S. much more suspicious, and much less forgiving of a country with known (known at the time by everyone) WMDs. Cheney may have made more of a link, and that could be pivotal, but I've NEVER heard President Bush say, or even imply, that Iraq was directly/partially responsible, or in cahoots with, AQ.
It's funny I was walking up third avenue yesterday towards the 59th Street Bridge and I noticed on one of the side panels on the phone booth was an advertisement for volunteering for the Republican Convention with Mayor Koch saying "You don't have to be a Democrat to live in New York City". It was the first one I've seen here and It made me smile. I'm glad they are advertising.
What you say is true, but here we go again. Another wave of defensive posture from our side. I'm so tired of it.
To a certain degree, he needs to stay "above the fray".
Cheney, Frist, Hastert, Powell, and Rice (where is she lately anyway???) need to do this, and they've been woefully inept and ineffective...
Remember lunatic Al Gore? The one good thing he did for Clinton was being an excellent attack dog, defending him aggressively at every turn... Where's Cheney???
New headline: "Democrat dominated panel criticizes Bush administration as election nears."
"Credible evidence" so that's their key words this time. First it was " with each other" to "there are no alqueida in iraq"to" the only alqueida in iraq are out of saddams control" to "no evidence whatsoever linking saddam husseinto 9-11", which moulded into "no operational ties", now they admit the evidence is there but it's just not "credible".
Did I miss any?
More here:
"9/11 Panel Says Iraq Rebuffed Bin Laden"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1154473/posts
thanks for the link...I guess...I was wearing my tin foil hat for "snowball" the asteroid, but I guess I had better switch to "Pith Helmet" for the next couple of months...
don't like the link to the article about Russia and Iran, either...
Folks, don't underestimate the damage this could do... I'm not trying to be gloom-and-doom, but don't be surprised to hear a lot more Americans question the war all over again- even among those that have thus far supported it...
The impression among many Americans is that one of the reasons we went into Iraq WAS because of 911... Call it ignorance on their part...
Unfortunately, President Bush never directly came out and said "Even though we haven't found a direct link, Iraq is a danger because of X,Y, and Z... in light of the new world-wide environment of terror threats, we need to be forceful in protecting America, including pre-emptive actions...
"Who is this frickin Commission; and why do they contradict what we already know!"
By Jiminy - how do you know more than the Commission, what are your sources (why are they better than what the Commission has)? You know things different than what I know, and I feel cheated.
That sums it up pretty well.
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.