Link (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp)

I saw this on Drudge and found it very interesting. Because the site is right-leaning I am sure this is going to get written off by most on this board but I thought it was a pretty fair assesment. It even mentions mistakes made by the CIA after 9/11. This may not be the smoking gun in this connection but I would think this is the most smoke we have seen yet about there really being a connection between the two.

Umm...yeah the Weekly Standard is a bit right-leaning. That being said, the article was not very convincing, and I really don't see much point in making a case for an Iraqi-Alquaida link over a year after we invaded Iraq.

link to Al Qaeda only one name is needed.
Salman Pak. need I say more.

Rumsfield, Bush and others don’t see connection between Saddam and 9/11


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C97527%2C00.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/118345p-106678c.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html

Well maybe thats why Bush and the CIA are at odds? Or maybe it happens to be something that cant be divulged as of yet or maybe Bush dropped the ball on the OBVIOUS ties.

ummmhmmmm

So you agree that the ties exist, good on to the next topic.

No, I don't think the connection does exist. It's just funny that Bush does not believe in the connection...and at least we agree on one thing!

:)

Originally posted by Overdose
Rumsfield, Bush and others don’t see connection between Saddam and 9/11


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C97527%2C00.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/118345p-106678c.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html

I posted about an Iraq - Al Qaeda connection not an Iraq - 9/11 connection.

From the first paragraph from your first link...

Deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (search) may have not been involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, but he definitely is linked to the terrorists who did commit those crimes, President Bush said Wednesday.

Oh I believe that Bush knows there is a connection, I just think since this is an election year he has chosen to keep it out of the fight until he has all the proof he wants. Maybe in September at the convention.

Funny, you Republicans (or Independents haha) let Bush change his mind on issues, because of new evidence. Yet, Kerry, who you claim to be a flip flopper, can’t change his mind because of new evidence and facts. Interesting…?

Originally posted by Overdose
Funny, you Republicans (or Independents haha) let Bush change his mind on issues, because of new evidence. Yet, Kerry, who you claim to be a flip flopper, can’t change his mind because of new evidence and facts. Interesting…? thats my point exactly O.D. i respect a man making an argument, but when they inturn defend someone for doing the exact same thing they condemned another for doing, i lose respect for their opinion. you dont show partisanship, you show points and good ones.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Oh I believe that Bush knows there is a connection, I just think since this is an election year he has chosen to keep it out of the fight until he has all the proof he wants. Maybe in September at the convention. so what your saying is that he's gonna USE it to further HIS cause. he shouldnt save anything, the people have a right to know now, if he can prove it. to say he's , as you put it, waiting for more proof, makes a very serious issue political.....thats wrong, and you guys wouldnt accept that from a dem......thats what bothers me the most.....

hell, give me enough time, i could give you a connection between hitler and a rabbi.......give me a break. if he had it, he would have said it, he needs something thats not a lie !

Originally posted by korg
hell, give me enough time, i could give you a connection between hitler and a rabbi.......give me a break. if he had it, he would have said it, he needs something thats not a lie !
That would be easy his grandmother was part Jewish.
I never said Bush was flip flopping, what I said was if he brought up now, without a lot of evidence then people would blast him. I heard Lott and Lieberman say yesterday that as sson as the intelligence was declassified it would all come together. This was in answer to a question about WMD's and the terror link.
Also did you notice that Lieberman was saying that GWB was on the side of right in the fight with HUssein, where does that leave Kerry?

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
This was in answer to a question about WMD's and the terror link.
Also did you notice that Lieberman was saying that GWB was on the side of right in the fight with HUssein, where does that leave Kerry?

Don’t hold your breath on the WMD links. The intelligence Bush got was from Chalabi, and that was false, fake information. It was the only source of evidence that Saddam 'had' weapons. Blix, David Kay, and all other UN inspectors said he didn't have weapons, and we didn't have evidence supporting our war with Iraq.

Plus Lieberman, can say what he wants, and to say "where does that leave Kerry" is just pointless. Lieberman is Lieberman, not Kerry.

But Lieberman was Gores VP nominee and you said in another thread that Gore should have been President and then Lieberman would have been VP.
As for the WMD thing, look at the UN report and then tell me where in that OFFICIAL document it says that Hussein disarmed, which by the way was written by BLIX and with the help of KAY.... so maybe you are wrong.

I wanted Gore, I never cared for Lieberman, besides Gore would have been better then Bush. And no matter what, Lieberman isn’t Bush and I can disagree with another liberal.

Blix and Kay said that they couldn’t “account” for the weapons, not that he had the weapons, which is not what Bush told us. Big difference.

Gore? You mean Gore who just last week called the Mayor of Miami the most crooked man he ever met? That Al Gore, the man who actually threw a fit on stage two months ago and even called Clinton a fool? Ok yep he is sane.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Gore? You mean Gore who just last week called the Mayor of Miami the most crooked man he ever met? That Al Gore, the man who actually threw a fit on stage two months ago and even called Clinton a fool? Ok yep he is sane. you know, i didnt like gore, so that should tell you how much more i didnt like bush. you know, when you can tell when a person is lying, thats what i see in bush, rumsfeld....but not cheney. he's cold and calculating, and knows how to lie with a str8 face. he's a real bastard. gore was a little weak to me. he sweat too much during debates...lol. thats a little shaky. that presidential race was funny, because it was extreme cases. bush was a sneaky bastard, too crooked........and gore was too damn wimpy....clinton was a perfect balance of weakness for people, strength for the country,....and that man knew how to relieve some tension....thats why things would have gone right. after an incident, clinton would have taken a moment, gotten a blowjob, release some tension, and dealt with the situation with a clear head...........did someone say head ......lmao

LMAO @ Korg!! Too Funny!! But, makes sense.

I saw Gore on TV a couple of weeks ago giving a speech at a university in NY - He was NOT the same man that ran for the presidency nearly 4 years ago. He showed so much emotion, pounded the podium, yelled (and sweat too - drank a lot of water, the lights were hot!) and I was overwhelmed with his performance. THAT was the man that should have been President...as he is now - not as he was then. I have to wonder if he wanted the presidency in the first place, or was pressured to run by the party.

Anyway, on the Iraq WMD issue, I don't believe there were no WMD at all. I think they've been squirrelled away in Syria. Later on, down the road, all the dems will wind up with egg on their face and Bush will proclaim "Told ya so!", whether he's President at the time or not. Usually that's the case--people like Bush fall into the shit and come out smelling like a rose everytime. It's sickening.

Originally posted by saycricket
LMAO @ Korg!! Too Funny!! But, makes sense.

I saw Gore on TV a couple of weeks ago giving a speech at a university in NY - He was NOT the same man that ran for the presidency nearly 4 years ago. He showed so much emotion, pounded the podium, yelled (and sweat too - drank a lot of water, the lights were hot!) and I was overwhelmed with his performance. THAT was the man that should have been President...as he is now - not as he was then. I have to wonder if he wanted the presidency in the first place, or was pressured to run by the party.

Anyway, on the Iraq WMD issue, I don't believe there were no WMD at all. I think they've been squirrelled away in Syria. Later on, down the road, all the dems will wind up with egg on their face and Bush will proclaim "Told ya so!", whether he's President at the time or not. Usually that's the case--people like Bush fall into the shit and come out smelling like a rose everytime. It's sickening. your right man !..lmao

Korg you know how to tell if they are lying? Their lips are moving. All Politicians lie, it is part of the game, they lie we believe as much as we can without exploding and then we vote for the best liar.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Korg you know how to tell if they are lying? Their lips are moving. All Politicians lie, it is part of the game, they lie we believe as much as we can without exploding and then we vote for the best liar. you are right beirut.....we vote for the best liar.....lmao