Turns-out (like we didn't already know) is was mostly bullshit! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html)

"Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

http://home.comcast.net/%7Ewizardofwhimsy/yourkidsmywar.jpg

we can only wish his reason for war was to shut your big pie hole for 5 seconds.

Actually what the panel said, and you can hear it on NPR, is that there is no evidence of a connection between AQ and Iraq vis-a-vis 9/11. Commission staffers don't think there is any discrepancy on the issue of a connection between AQ and Iraq.
This may be a difficult issue for the angry left as it requires more than a room temperature IQ to to hold the two thoughts separately.

I love how the left twists the 9/11 panels findings that Iraq was not involved with Al Qaeda on the 9/11 terrorist attacks into Iraq and Al Qaeda were never involved period. Too bad real Americans can see right through their lies and distortions.

Originally posted by The Republican
I love how the left twists the 9/11 panels findings that Iraq was not involved with Al Qaeda on the 9/11 terrorist attacks into Iraq and Al Qaeda were never involved period. Too bad real Americans can see right through their lies and distortions.
WHOOPS!!!!!!

You must have missed the last Bush talking-points memo!! :p

All-of-a-sudden, Hussein's connection to 9/11 has been downgraded to a relationship with Hussein!!!

Even the Idiot Son has modified his accusations!! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48970-2004Jun17.html) :p :p

Should ANYone (really) be all THAT surprised?? (http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=685) :rolleyes:

Mr. Shaman could you please morph out of your animal shape, the DNC mascot and back into an intelligent logical creature.
You have taken two seperate points and merged them into one. Bush said that Iraq didnt appear to be linked to 9/11, even though a New York judge ruled Iraq laible for training the 9/11 hijackers.
The commission just said the same thing, they admitted that UBL met with agents of Iraq , evidence Bush presented, and they said it was apparent that UBL and Iraq had spoken on numerous occassions.
But answer this, Zarqawi was injured in Afghanistan in the fight against US and was flown to Iraq to be treated before we we even threatened Iraq with invasion.
Hmmmmm Gives ya something to think about doesnt it.
Shaman it is people like you that are pushing me toward the right, I am nowhere near your POV and you and those you represent make me afraid for the country.

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
WHOOPS!!!!!!

You must have missed the last Bush talking-points memo!! :p

All-of-a-sudden, Hussein's connection to 9/11 has been downgraded to a relationship with Hussein!!!

Even the Idiot Son has modified his accusations!! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48970-2004Jun17.html) :p :p

Should ANYone (really) be all THAT surprised?? (http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=685) :rolleyes:

Come on Shaman keep twisting the truth...

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&refer=top_world_news&sid=azMEdM2f.xzQ

``There was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al- Qaeda,'' Bush told reporters after meeting with his Cabinet at the White House. ``This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda.''

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks, Bush said at the start of a meeting with congressional lawmakers discussing new energy legislation.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C97527%2C00.html

...and these wars are because of 9/11, something Saddam does not have a connection to, according to Bush.

Guess what Shaman, Hamilton screwed up your celebration...

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Did you watch the news tonight? Lee Hamilton Vice Chair of the commission said that the commission never said there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, he said we said there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
So I guess this takes the lie out of Bushs mouth as you have quoted him saying there was no connection also.
Hmmmmmm maybe the press should pay attention to what they are saying.
Hamilton the democratic vice chair made these comments after a reporter asked him if these findings proved deciet on the part of Cheney and he said we agree with Cheney, there is a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Well damn, another point shot down by the very people quoted.

Originally posted by Overdose
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks, Bush said at the start of a meeting with congressional lawmakers discussing new energy legislation.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C97527%2C00.html

...and these wars are because of 9/11, something Saddam does not have a connection to, according to Bush.
its a war on terror not only the 9/11 attacks, cant spin that one like that. Doesnt work, Bush never said we are only going after the 9/11 attackers. He said war on ALL terrorists and there is a proven connection by the commission to Iraq and al qaeda but not to 9/11. Ok so the war is still just.

...and these wars are because of 9/11, something Saddam does not have a connection to.

Originally posted by Overdose
...and these wars are because of 9/11, something Saddam does not have a connection to.
Bush never said that, he said it was war on all terrorists, no matter where they were no matter who funded, backed or protected them.
He never billed it as a war against the 9/11 attackers.
Doesnt fly OD, sorry.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Shaman it is people like you that are pushing me toward the right, I am nowhere near your POV and you and those you represent make me afraid for the country.
Gimme a fuckin' break.

I'm gettin' tired of those (on the Right) who're all-the-time talkin' about their concern for the Iraqis' freedom, when the trip (over there) is all about business/oil!!!

Remember how (at one time) Qadhafi/Libya occupied one o' those zones of evil????

Things certainly do change.....when a Bush is in-office & there's oil to be had!!

The reason he launched a war on terrorism was directly because of 9/11. We invaded Afghanistan to find Osama Bin Laden, who was directly responsible for 9/11, proving we went into Afghanistan,, mostly because of 9/11 ties.

The reason we are in Iraq, is because of the WMD threat, as I long to disagree with (as it’s shown, for we have not found the weapons) proves Bush’s war against terrorism was indeed false. WMD’s, do not connect with terrorism.

The fact that the Republicans bring up the argument of the democracy we are giving Iraq, makes me want to puke. No one cared, when the thought of war with Iraq was happening, or even at the beginning stages of the war. The main reason was because he had WMD’s, not that he was “missing them” or “shipped them away”. When Republicans say over and over, this war is to give them a democracy; they should seriously look back at the first reasons President Bush presented for this war.

But the democracy is going smoothly, many Republicans like to falsely say. The fact is, almost all of the leaders, that were going to lead Iraq into this new democracy have either turned down the offer, or have been shot and killed.

Slowly all of the reasons for the war are coming to a close. The 9/11 panels said Saddam had links to Al Queda, but not 9/11. Blix and David Kay all said Saddam had no weapons, and we had no substantial evidence to invade Iraq. The WMD threat was non-existent. The UN reports all found no weapons. They found missing weapons, that were either destroyed, hidden (highly unlikely), or shipped away. Right now, all I can believe is that they were destroyed. The UN found no weapons, and we haven’t found any weapons. The argument that they were shipped out has no been proven, nor are we actively searching for the dangerous weapons, that were such a threat to us (nor have they been used against us, funny, you would think they would have used them by now) The only thing that’s left, is that he really did destroy them.

Effects from the Iraq War include, the great rise in Al Queda members, the report that the Bush administration thought “showed a large decrease in terrorism” now saying that it showed a “huge increase in terrorism” Our world reputation has been tarnished, because of the prisoner abuse scandal. We now have a 90% chance of an attack. The weapons that are dangerous to us, are still out there. The democracy is not running smoothly. The majority of Iraq are angry at President Bush and America.


Lovely war though, I must say.

Originally posted by Overdose
The fact that the Republicans bring up the argument of the democracy we are giving Iraq, makes me want to puke. No one cared, when the thought of war with Iraq was happening, or even at the beginning stages of the war. The main reason was because he had WMD’s, not that he was “missing them” or “shipped them away”. When Republicans say over and over, this war is to give them a democracy; they should seriously look back at the first reasons President Bush presented for this war. "
Actually, those reasons (http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Chin110702/chin110702.html) were formulated back when Daddy Bush's boys were still smarting from the ass-whuppin' Bill Clinton gave them! :hitout:

Originally posted by Overdose
WMD’s, do not connect with terrorism.

Are you stupid? It is well known Al Qaeda wants to get a WMD and use it against us and Israel. There is a direct connection between these two and I, for one, want everything done to prevent these weapons from getting into the hands of those that would use them given the chance.

Oh as for Saddam being a threat to the US it looks like Russia provided us the intelligence on that one.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-18-russia-us_x.htm

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
Gimme a fuckin' break.

I'm gettin' tired of those (on the Right) who're all-the-time talkin' about their concern for the Iraqis' freedom, when the trip (over there) is all about business/oil!!!

Remember how (at one time) Qadhafi/Libya occupied one o' those zones of evil????

Things certainly do change.....when a Bush is in-office & there's oil to be had!!

Where's my cheap oil?

The same people who say oil is too high are the ones who say we are there for cheap oil.... I am sooooo confused. The only ones who got cheap gas out of this are the Iraqis.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
The same people who say oil is too high are the ones who say we are there for cheap oil.... I am sooooo confused. The only ones who got cheap gas out of this are the Iraqis.
......And, they do appreciate your tax-dollars KEEPING it that way!! (http://www.showmenews.com/2004/Jun/20040606News020.asp)

Originally posted by The Republican
Are you stupid? It is well known Al Qaeda wants to get a WMD and use it against us and Israel. There is a direct connection between these two and I, for one, want everything done to prevent these weapons from getting into the hands of those that would use them given the chance.
Well known, huh???

Lemme guess........that's a variation of that ol' conservative-favorite: "Everyone knows....", right?? :rolleyes:

"To keep the word "quagmire" from haunting the election debate, President Bush must start closing out the U.S. occupation of Iraq. But America's simultaneously rushed and grudging transfer of power on June 30 may pose an even greater risk: exposing the war's ultimate failure. Facts on the ground -- the stubborn absence of weapons of mass destruction, no smoking gun on Saddam-al Qaeda connections -- have forced the Bush administration to fall back on saying that ridding the country of its brutal dictator was enough to justify the war.

The inherent risk of owning Iraq dissuaded the first Bush administration from pushing U.S. forces on to Baghdad during the 1991 Gulf War. The elder Bush was a pragmatic internationalist, and his realpolitik foreign policy was tinted with an understated sense of noblesse oblige toward the rest of the world. He avoided the trap into which the United States so often falls -- adopting the rhetoric of wild aspirations that makes Americans feel good but carries expectations and responsibilities with it. His son has yet to learn this lesson. The president's foreign policy is brimming with missionary conviction and grand design. Inspired by the vision of a city on a hill, the Iraq invasion was stripped of the commitment and flexibility needed to realize it. The consequences of this unsettling combination are coming home to roost. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54032-2004Jun19.html)"

Wanna try Door #2, now?? :p