Sitting on Evidence of Saddam's WMDs, Al Qaeda Ties

Limbaugh's website ^ | 8/26/03 | Rush Limbaugh

[Coop]

Did a search and was surprised not to find this.

[Huck]

I printed it out from the Weekly Standard website

Weekly Standard? Ain't that one of them jeeeeeew papers? I mean, neocon papers?

[Gabrielle Reilly]

Read later.

Please ignore link.
http://www.gabriellereillyweekly.com/full/bushtaxcuts.html

[JohnGalt]

No, it's a Murdoch publication; you know the succesful pornographer?

[Huck]

Murdoch publishes porn?

[Coop]

(unadmitted by Bush)

That's just a flat-out lie.

[princess leah]

Does anyone recalll Hillary standing in front of an American Flag? I sure can't remember her being so "patriotic"?

[hopespringseternal]

It's pretty convincing on the ties between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, even prior to now, and it also says the administration knows all this, and one of the points that Mr. Hayes raises: Why is the administration holding this information back? They know it; they can prove it. It's sort of like the weapons of mass destruction news. They've got it. They have some of it. They're holding it for release, sometime, we are told, in mid-December.

It may be a situation like the long, slow buildup to Iraq, where we supposedly took so long because we had to rebuild our bomb arsenal. Information like that you can't release no matter how much it might benefit you politically, because it will also help the enemy.

The information may implicate another country (Syria? Iran?) and telegraph our next move in the War on Terror.

Yes, soldiers are dying, but they are doing a lot better and inflicting a lot more harm on the terrorists than unarmed civilians would if the terrorists were pouring across our borders rather than Iraq's.

[TUX]

The media swine do not have a monopoly anymore, and they don't know it.

Shhhhh...dont tell them that a new age has begun, and babbeling liberals are on the bottom of the influence chain.

[JohnGalt]

He publishes "softporn", anyway, in his London tab, the famous Page 3 Girls; he makes money off porn through SKY TV which carries a host of "adult" channels. But without that money how could he fund all those "Beltway Conservative" operations, right?

[maestro]

UR# 9.........Correct!!

Yes, soldiers are dying, but they are doing a lot better and inflicting a lot more harm on the terrorists than unarmed civilians would if the terrorists were pouring across our borders rather than Iraq's.

Save the innocent,.....'911'...........NEVER FORGET

[Sam's Army]

If you can't attack the message, you can always attack the messenger. That's an old BillyJeff trick ain't it?

[JohnGalt]

I was providing information to a poster, who then asked for details. Is that so wrong?


Rush on the otherhand, has been known to overhype important issues for the past decade, from reading an unsourced report on the air that Vince Foster killed himself in an apartment leased by Hillary, to claiming that Starr ask Clinton about drugs in the taped deposition. In the latter case, he read John Cruedel's unsourced article on the subject from the New York Post. Neither Cruedel or Rush have ever explained who got away with 'using' them to frame the President's defense.

He has been a conduit to disinformation before and thus is generally not a good source for 'intelligence' even if he has an interesting radio program.

Its a curious defense anyway, as Rupert Murdoch has nothing to do with this story but whatever floats your already made up mind. I doubt you even care one way or the other if WMDs are ever found or if they ever existed, fair?


PS: I think Murdoch's NY Post is the best paper in America, and Fox News is the best broadcast. He is great at entertainment and a solid reminder what a phony Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are.

[mr.pink]

One would think Rush would be smart enough to not use the Weekly Standard as an arguementative life preserver considering their miscalculations during the pre-war debates.

You're also right about Rush being played like a yokel who just fell off the turnip truck for dis-information/propaganda purposes. The spoon fed post OK city bombing dis-information he shrilly regurgitated comes immediately to my mind.

[Sam's Army]

"Its a curious defense anyway, as Rupert Murdoch has nothing to do with this story but whatever floats your already made up mind. I doubt you even care one way or the other if WMDs are ever found or if they ever existed, fair?"

You're the one that brought Murdoch into it. And WMD's are well known to have been in Iraq's arsenal. But, that was not the only reason for going to war as we all know. For my money, the best reason was that he is no longer able to threaten Isreal and give payouts to suicide bombers' families.

[Lynn]

But THOSE didn't run a tab of $1B/week.

I find it amazing those that would put a price on freedom. And how quickly one dismisses the cost of depleting weapons of stockpiles meant to secure unpriceable freedom. Bill Clinton's war on Kosovo, the reasons for (mass graves, ethnic cleansing etc...) are among some of the reasons we are in Iraq now, which Clinton looked away from for eight years. Bill Clinton's 15000 foot air war (supposedly to reduce American casualties) was done at the behest of the UN on a country that had never (read NEVER) jeopardized American sovereignty or caused 3000 American civilian casualties as in 9/11. Was it a cheaply made lead-pipe bomb that destroyed a Chinese embassy? I don't think so... And how much may I ask did the transfers of secret missile technology to China and the ignoring of Koreas nuclear program cost us? Well, ignoring is being kind...lying about it is another issue...

Clinton fought "wars of mass destruction"? As I recall, Clinton declared the "War on Terrorism" on numerous occassions... The fact that he declared it more than once ought to speak volumes to any thinking individual...

It's not Bush's billion dollar a week (source??) war, but moreso the inaction of Bill Clinton on a war he declared many, many times that has put Bush in the unkindly predicament of rebuilding depleted stockpiles and eliminating those that would strive to eliminate a country that enjoys the fruits and benefits of unpriceable....freedom.... Considering all of this would you vote for Hillary?

[JohnGalt]

WMDs or nuclear weapons were known to be in Iraq's arsenal?

Can you please cite your source or if you are privy to information please get it to the President as soon as possible?

"For my money, the best reason was that he is no longer able to threaten Isreal and give payouts to suicide bombers' families."

So you felt comfortable asking America's sons and daughters to fight and die for the benefit of another country? How unpatriotic of you. What kind of man sends women to the frontlines, I'll never know, but to fight for a different country? Wow.

Murdoch was the answer to Huck's question; is his name verboten in your circle?

[Sam's Army]

"Can you please cite your source or if you are privy to information please get it to the President as soon as possible?"

Hahaha. I guess you don't remember the Kurds being gassed do you? Or was that "Vichycon Propaganda"?

"So you felt comfortable asking America's sons and daughters to fight and die for the benefit of another country? How unpatriotic of you. What kind of man sends women to the frontlines, I'll never know, but to fight for a different country? Wow."

Actually, no---I did not "feel comfortable". I said it was one of the best reasons (in my opinion). Are you saying that you would have supported Isreal taking the gloves off finally in the Middle-East? Seems like the US is in a no-win sitaution in regards to that. If we let them, then Washington is "calling the shots" if we do it then it's that we are "controlled by Zionists" or are the "War Party".

And no need to be so dramatic, you felt it necessary to change the tone away from the thrust of the article and direct attention to Murdoch being a pornographer in an attempt to smear the contents of the report. It's not that hard to figure out.

[cookcounty]

" But THOSE didn't run a tab of $1B/week.

"..........So we're all supposed to take the word of the Master that in spite of the (unadmitted by Bush) cost in blood and dollars, things will be just fine."

And maintaining pressure on Saddam for 12 years costed us HOW MUCH? All those troops in Kuwait, training in the desert for 120 months, all those rotations to the gulf, back from the gulf, back to the gulf, over and over ad nauseum, and a gazillion sorties to man the no-fly zone. WHAT DID THIS COST?

As for blood, these critics always include deaths due to accidents and illness. Do they also mention the deaths incurred over the 12 years of "containment"? Never.