Posted on 06/17/2004 8:26:45 AM PDT by dead
No, but most are Democrats / Liberals - the former if US citizens, the later if not.
Bush never once said Iraq was involved with 9/11.
And the myth that an airplane could breach a containment building at a nuke plant has been "completely and totally devastated" to many times to count.
This guy is only slightly more over the top than Soledad O'Brian was on CNN this morning, btw.
Slightly....
Hey let`s not forget also that the mutts who bombed the WTC the first time came into the US using Iraqi passports and afterwards one or two fled back to Iraq after it was done. Doesn`t prove they were supported by Saddam, but you have to ask yourself, if you wanted to come to the US, would you use the passport of a country that the US ain`t too friendly with? To me it reeks of taunting by Saddam in revenge for the gulf war. People seem to forget that Saddam was a psycho who was mighty PO-ed over that. They seem to forget the oil wells being opened and everything else, and they are so damn sure that Saddam was 100% innocent of having any connections whatsoever to Al Qaida? Are they kidding me? This is a guy who would literally knock off 10 or 20 people just if he was in a bad mood, but liberals still think Saddam just went to his room like a nice boy after the Gulf war.
"The only problem with this idiot’s reasoning is that Bush never tried to blame Sadam for 911, and certainly never used that as a reason for invading Iraq."
This is a combination of the strawman and big lie stratagems. The fact that it is being repeated endlessly in media around the world means that it will ultimately be accepted by most people as being the truth, even though it has no basis in fact.
Should any lingering doubts remain regarding the intelligence, ethics or agenda of the 9/11 commission, one needed only to see and hear Tom Keane on last nights edition of "Hardball". He actually had the audacity to state that we, (U.S.), needed to be more "culturally sensitive" regarding the beliefs and "religion" of those in the Middle East. I for one will never be
"sensitive" to a "religion" or culture that allows and condones and promotes, killing of innocents, beheadings, dhimmitude, subjugation of women, honor killings, forced conversions, etc. Keane went on to state that we angered the islamists in the early 1990's when we put troops on the "holy ground" of Saudi Arabia. Keane stated that all of our problems were a result of this action in the 90's. Of course, he wasn't asked and had no explaination for the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, Iran hostage situation, etc., all in the 80's and other incidents in the 70's. The lunatics are truly running the asylum.
What is so hard to understand about the old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?"
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Source: (Arab)
http://www.worldofquotes.com/proverb/Arab/1/
Now the big problem was, we kept the embargo & the no fly zones, which humiliated him in front of his people for more than ten years. By definition, he did not love our sanction. And, since he has billions of petrodollars at his disposal; by definition he will have to use some to 1) rebuild his military 2) Bribe other nations on the Security Council to help him take that sanction off. That is very natural, and expected.
The big problem for us, after 9/11, our leaders who were sleeping at the wheels woke up, and started to realize that the Islamic fanatic movement is a real problem! The next step is how to defend against such a problem. The logical question is what if a guy is so pissed at us, and has billions of dollars at his disposal would turn around and help these low life Moslem fanatics, just to get back at us. THAT IS IN A NUTSHELL IS THE REASON FOR NEWTRALIZING SADDAM. The Bush administration failed to explain that point, and resorted to all kinds of exaggerated half truth, and lies to make their point.
Other less expensive and more pragmatic solution could have been: OK Saddam, we know that you are pissed at us for the ten years sanction; we know that you are working hard (with the help of China, Russia, and France) to have it lifted; we know that you are a secular dude, and not a friend of the Moslem nutcases. We are hereby proposing to you an offer that you cannot refuse. 1) We will help you lift the sanction 2) We will help you rebuild your military, and your economy 3) You will pay us back by invading Saudi Arabia, and Iran the two most hateful Moslem fanatic states
The end result; cheap way of neutralizing the source of Moslem fanatics! The Iranians were more than ready to topple their government, and it is better for a Moslem dictator to mess with them then for the infidel America. Saudi Arabia is simply a rag tag dictatorship of bunch fanatics with lots of money. Neutralizing Saudi Arabia has the effect of shutting the flow of dollars to the Madrasas in Pakistan, Asia, and the Middle East.
Since we are going to be the hidden players behind the scene, we will dictate to Saddam immediately to help restore SECULAR regimes in both Saudi Arabia, and Iran. This particular dream scenario is highly imaginative, and is a good way to think outside the box. So far, the use to be secular Iraq has become a hell hole, and the real bad enemies Iran and Saudi Arabia are untouched. We are running out of money, ammunitions, and world public goodwill towards our policy. I go for thinking outside the box.
My e-mail sent to the SMH. Not that it will see the light
of day in print.
Mr McGeough,
Please specifically state the date and event that President Bush said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Certainly you must have some inside super secret information that no one else has. Of course you don't because it never happened, but then the truth never got in the way of the liberal media. Sir, we have enough leftist lap dogs from the media in the USA, we don't need any more from Australia
So the attempt is no longer vast. Is it really half vast? or is it just locally narrow?
The operative word here is "journalists."
The problem is Bush never linked Iraq to 9/11. Iraq was included in the Axis of Evil (since proved true) and it was said Iraq had connections to Al-Qaeda (also true)
bump
Actually, you're quite mistaken.
We have MORE allies in this war than we had in World War II.
Well, they say that journalists and newspaper editors are "leaders" in their communities, so maybe this guy is one of the Foreign Leaders For John Kerry.
...And don't forget the FACT that he harbored that murderous, coward, scum:
Abul Abbas, the head of a Palestinian splinter group who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Italian passenger ship the Achille Lauro in which an American tourist, elderly wheelchair-bound Jewish American tourist, Leon Klinghoffer, was thrown overboard and killed.
I guess the fact that he was a Palestinian "ex"-terrorist retired in Iraq means NOTHING! (after all he APOLOGIZED in 1996)
Saddam must have been operating a retirement home for ex-terrorists or a rehabilitation center (dripping sarcasm).
MKM
And since when is the '10 plane plan' new news? We heard about this last year.
Hussien had extensive contacts with Al Qaeda and its member organizations. For the media to come out today and state that Iraq had NO CONTACT with AQ is not only a diservice to the country, but quite possibly the basis for a nationwide class-action lawsuit.
To willfully and knowingly misinform the public makes a mockery of the freedom of the press this nation has. The media whores just yelled 'fire' in a crowded theater. Lets make them pay.
9/11 Chair Hamilton Slams Media Distortions
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1155847/posts?page=1
9/11 Commission Headline Lies
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155603/posts
Amnesia - New York Times 1998: Bin Laden and Iraq Made a Deal; 2004: No Al Qaeda Iraq Connection
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1155977/posts?page=1
Bush: 'Numerous Contacts' Between Iraq, Al-Qaida
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155950/posts
Putin warned Bush of Iraq terror plot against U.S.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155802/posts
Rush Says 9/11 Commission Member DID Find Iraq/AQ Connections
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155250/posts
Freep This AOL Poll !(If the election were held today, who would you vote for?)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1153639/posts
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.