CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - While defending the war in Iraq on Independence Day, President Bush said that America is safer because Saddam Hussein is in a prison cell.

The Bush administration has come under increasing criticism after a staff report from the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks found little evidence of a collaboration between the ousted Iraqi leader and Osama bin-Laden's terrorist organization. Such a link was one of the administration's main justifications for invading Iraq.

Vice President Dick Cheney reaffirmed the administration's position in a speech last week in New Orleans, standing by his long-held assertions of connections between al-Qaida and Saddam.

Cheney said Saddam sent a brigadier general in the Iraqi intelligence service to Sudan to train al-Qaida in bomb-making and document forgery. Cheney said that Saddam was part of a terrorist threat that had gone largely unchecked before Bush's presidency.

no one ever said there was never a connection between saddams Iraq and Alqeada, it was mearly pointed out by the commision that iraq did not have a hand in 9-11, which was never claimed by anyone in the first place.

Originally posted by Travh20
no one ever said there was never a connection between saddams Iraq and Alqeada, it was mearly pointed out by the commision that iraq did not have a hand in 9-11, which was never claimed by anyone in the first place.

Hello Trav, long time no-see...

While Bush never came out and said that Iraq was responsible for 9-11 he has spoken of them together often in an attempt to link them in the minds of the American voters.

Polls have also repeatedly found that much of the public thinks Saddam contributed to the September 11 attacks. Forty-two percent of those surveyed in a February New York Times/CBS poll said they believed Saddam was "personally involved" in the September 11 attacks (down from the 51 percent who believed so this September 2002). A January Knight Ridder poll found that roughly one-fourth of the public believe that President Bush has released evidence showing that Iraq helped plan and fund the attacks. Yet no evidence has been presented by any source to suggest that Saddam had any involvement whatsoever with the September 11 hijackers.

Many also believe that some of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqis. The January Knight Ridder poll found that just over half of those surveyed answered, incorrectly, that at least one of the hijackers was an Iraqi. In fact, none of them were. Most are believed to have been Saudi citizens; Mohammed Atta, the alleged leader of the group, was Egyptian.

Now this info was published just before the war in Iraq was begun, but it would be interesting to see how many Americans still believe that Iraq was somehow connected to 9-11.

hello pagan, I was on vacation in colorado for 2 weeks. what happened to your face? LMAO

anyway, bush is not the first one to speak of a al qeada/iraq connection. clinton spoke of it, as did everyone in the US senate, and well before bush was even in office. trying to say that bush was saying it to try and somehow subliminally insinuate a connection between iraq and 9-11 is paranoind and a real stretch. I think maybe micheal moore has seeped into your brain a bit to much.

Y'know, IMO - whether you want it or not - the fact remains that SADDAM and AL-QAEDA are terrorists!! The only difference is that Saddam terrorized his own people (and nobody did anything about it until now) and Al-Qaeda terrorizes everyone else. We KNOW that Al-Qaeda was NOT the reason we attacked Iraq. Funny, I remember the WMD deadlines looming, passing, looming, passing until finally Bush says - NO MORE. I don't remember Bush starting this war because of "Al-Qaeda". He started this war as a beginning to an end of terrorism PERIOD...and, Saddam is a terrorist. Whether he had WMD or not...he is a terrorist and needed to be kicked out before he was allowed to continue and build a bigger arsenal of God knows what.

Funny how it wasn't a big deal to stop him from attacking and killing his own people UNTIL such a time as we thought he had WMD. Imagine his WMD being used on our soil --- the same type of chemical warfare that he used on the Kurds, etc. THEN people would have been crying that we did nothing to stop him.

I can't stand how everyone jumps on the "there is no connection" bandwagon. To them, it's just one more thing to bitch about. I can't stand Bush, BUT, he did get rid of Saddam. Whether there were no WMD is beyond arguing about...the fact is that we're there, we started this mess, we need to clean it up and clean it up RIGHT. The quicker, the better. AND the Middle Eastern region will be safer in the future because of it. Everyone knows that - it's just that nobody wants to admit it. They want to bitch about all the mistakes instead. Go figure.

the most important thing to the democrats is the reaqusition of power, it is even more of a priority then national security. they will say and do anything to regain power. taking parts of reports and quoting others out of context is a standard tactic of theirs. once they get the sentance they want they shout it to the rafters overandover again until the half wits believe it.

Y'know Trav, it's pretty effen scary that I agree with you so much. Pretty effen scary indeed.

I've noticed that the Dems DO take what they want you to hear and shout about it. It's unbelievable. Even funnier is that they do it here too!! For instance, Look at 90% of Overdose's postings...all about the lack of Al-Qaeda/Iraq connections and how X% think the war is wrong....blah blah blah. It's like beating a dead horse. :rolleyes:

Let's all move on to something else as this is getting rather boring.

overdose is a tape recorder regurgitating the weekly party line. its like he is hooked into the network.

Originally posted by Travh20

anyway, bush is not the first one to speak of a al qeada/iraq connection. clinton spoke of it, as did everyone in the US senate, and well before bush was even in office. trying to say that bush was saying it to try and somehow subliminally insinuate a connection between iraq and 9-11 is paranoind and a real stretch. .

Did Clinton launch war…? Of course he spoke of it, everyone did. Even I believed Saddam had a connection with Al Queda. But, it was fairly obvious, that President Bush was trying to link Saddam to the 9/11 attacks. His speeches would include Al Queda, 9/11 and Saddam. When Americans hear that, they automatically assume (like Bush wanted) that there is a link between Saddam and 9/11.

Originally posted by saycricket

For instance, Look at 90% of Overdose's postings...all about the lack of Al-Qaeda/Iraq connections and how X% think the war is wrong....blah blah blah. It's like beating a dead horse. :rolleyes:


I have no problem admitting that Iraq and Al Queda did have connections. But I have a problem when we are avenging 9/11, but yet, Saddam had no link to those attacks. Bush manipulated us into believing there was a link, without really saying it. It was ironic when he would talk about everything, 9/11, Al Queda, and Saddam in his speeches…making it appear that there was indeed a link.

I also have a problem when the 9/11 panel comes out and says Pakistan and Iran are closer to Al Queda, then Iraq. So to use the link between Saddam and Al Queda as a valid reason to go to war is just a cover up. Many other countries are far more closely linked to terror.

Its called the war on terror, not the War on only those responsible for 9-11. And again, the same people who are so upset we attacked an aggressive dictator like saddam imply that relativly peeaceful countries like saudi arabia and pakistan should have been targeted. it doesnt make any sense. your not willing to engage SADDAM HUSSEIN, the most aggresive world leader since Hitler, but pretty much say we should be attacking 2 countries who havent attacked anyone ever? whatever.

Originally posted by Travh20
Its called the war on terror, not the War on only those responsible for 9-11.

We are basing our “war on terror” off of 9/11. Yes, Saddam is linked to terror in some form or another. But other countries are far more associated with terrorist networks.

Originally posted by Travh20
And again, the same people who are so upset we attacked an aggressive dictator like saddam imply that relativly peeaceful countries like saudi arabia and pakistan should have been targeted.

An aggressive dictator? He’s never once attacked us, or threatened us with the means of his army and or “weapons”. Pakistan and Iran are aggressive nations. Iran does have weapons, and they are more closely linked to terrorism, as with Pakistan. If you are going to say, “we are in Iraq because Saddam is linked to terrorism” we should also be in many other countries, for Iraq isn’t as closely linked to terrorism as many other countries worldwide.

Originally posted by Travh20
it doesnt make any sense. your not willing to engage SADDAM HUSSEIN, the most aggresive world leader since Hitler, but pretty much say we should be attacking 2 countries who havent attacked anyone ever? whatever.

Saddam attacked Iran, because we wanted him to. He was not conquering or striking war on any other countries at the moment.

Iran, is not a peaceful country and neither is North Korea. Almost all African countries have cruel leaders. It's a common thing we have worldwide. It's not the United State's job to go around and stopping "evil" people, when we should be focusing on real issues such as terrorism.

Originally posted by Overdose
We are basing our “war on terror” off of 9/11. Yes, Saddam is linked to terror in some form or another. But other countries are far more associated with terrorist networks.

and we should do more action agaisnt terrorists in other countries, I agree. And I assure you we are. just becasue we havent invaded and taken over a country dont let that lead you to believe we are not there fighting terrorists. Bush said that many of the victories in this war would never be reported. it is so stupid when the anti war crowd tries to make the war in iraq look bad by saying we should have attacked other countries. either you want to invade countries or you dont. I guarentee you if we were ready to go into north korea or saudi arabia you would start with the same crap ou said before iraq. your full of shit no matterhow you slice it. or maybe its only the iraqis civilians you care about.

Originally posted by Overdose
An aggressive dictator? He’s never once attacked us, or threatened us with the means of his army and or “weapons”. Pakistan and Iran are aggressive nations. Iran does have weapons, and they are more closely linked to terrorism, as with Pakistan. If you are going to say, “we are in Iraq because Saddam is linked to terrorism” we should also be in many other countries, for Iraq isn’t as closely linked to terrorism as many other countries worldwide.

yes, there are many countries dealing in terrorism. and again,we are in many countries fighting terrorists covertly. many countries cooperate with us in the fight, such as saudi arabia and pakistan. I dont remember saddams army ever going after and killing terrorists in the name of the war on terror. He was to busy firing on our planes as we enforced the UN's No Fly Zones, us and the british, what a suprise, the only two countries willing to enforce the laws the UN spits out

Originally posted by Overdose
Saddam attacked Iran, because we wanted him to. He was not conquering or striking war on any other countries at the moment.

Iran, is not a peaceful country and neither is North Korea. Almost all African countries have cruel leaders. It's a common thing we have worldwide. It's not the United State's job to go around and stopping "evil" people, when we should be focusing on real issues such as terrorism.

oh ya, saddam only attacked countires and killed people with poison gas on our bidding, I forgot about that :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Travh20
hello pagan, I was on vacation in colorado for 2 weeks. what happened to your face? LMAO

My face? Nothing much...I went to a party and we were bobbing for french fries...:-)

anyway, bush is not the first one to speak of a al qeada/iraq connection. clinton spoke of it, as did everyone in the US senate, and well before bush was even in office. trying to say that bush was saying it to try and somehow subliminally insinuate a connection between iraq and 9-11 is paranoind and a real stretch. I think maybe micheal moore has seeped into your brain a bit to much.

Didn't say he was the first to speak of it, but he can't seem to stop.

Yes, I do believe that in the months leading up to the war he intentionally mentioned them together in speeches to make people think there was a link.

How else do you explain the poll results? No wait...let me guess...it was a conspiracy by the librul media to make Bush look bad...:rolleyes: I think you watch Fox News too much...

Originally posted by saycricket
Y'know Trav, it's pretty effen scary that I agree with you so much. Pretty effen scary indeed.

Frightening in the extreme...

I've noticed that the Dems DO take what they want you to hear and shout about it. It's unbelievable. Even funnier is that they do it here too!! For instance, Look at 90% of Overdose's postings...all about the lack of Al-Qaeda/Iraq connections and how X% think the war is wrong....blah blah blah. It's like beating a dead horse.

Are you saying that only the Democrats do this?

How many times has the current administration told us about WMD's and Iraq's links to Al-Quaida?

It's called politics...and both sides do it.

Originally posted by Travh20
Bush said that many of the victories in this war would never be reported. it is so stupid when the anti war crowd tries to make the war in iraq look bad by saying we should have attacked other countries. either you want to invade countries or you dont.

The only reason Bush said most of the “victories” wouldn’t be reported, is because he knows there weren’t going to be very many, so he said that, to say, “well I told you so!” when really, it’s just a cover up for his failure in Iraq.

Trav, let me make this simple for you. I do not believe we should invade other countries. The point I’m trying to convey, which you seem to be missing, is the simple fact that many other countries are more closely linked to terrorism then Iraq. Yet, we are in Iraq, first (when other countries are closer to terrorism)...ironic...?

I’m not for war with other countries, but, if you wanted to be true to, “we are in Iraq because of terrorism” we should also be in many other countries as well.

Originally posted by Travh20
yes, there are many countries dealing in terrorism. and again,we are in many countries fighting terrorists covertly. many countries cooperate with us in the fight, such as saudi arabia and pakistan. I dont remember saddams army ever going after and killing terrorists in the name of the war on terror.

We are in other countries fighting terrorists covertly? Yet, we don’t have enough troops to stabilize Iraq. We had to send troops from North Korea, because we didn’t have enough in Iraq. We are spending all of our time in Iraq. We are not spending time fighting this “war on terror”

Pakistan is helping us...? That’s news to me. And maybe Saudi Arabia is helping us, because, can you say the Bush family is hugely invested with them.

I also don’t remember Iran doing anything either. Maybe we can ask them for help with the new weapons they produced!

Originally posted by Travh20
oh ya, saddam only attacked countires and killed people with poison gas on our bidding, I forgot about that :rolleyes:

Oh yeah...I forgot how African countries stone their women, how they are under cruel laws and leaders...if you think Saddam is the only leader in the world who is evil to their people, you’re sadly mistaken.

Again, that was not the first reason. No one cared about the Iraqis and their lifestyle. No one cared. It was just, “wmd” “wmd” “wmd”

If you have never heard that pakistan is helping us fight al qeada then you have no clue of what is even happening in this war. if you cant comprehend how taking out a massive, aggresive dictatorship smack dab in the middle of the middle east is not instrumental to the global war on terror you have no clue about grand strategy or common sense. your stuck on this idiotic micheal moore fan club. "bush is with the saudis, its all a conspiracy, blah blah blah". you get offended when someone supposedly questions the patriotism of liberals, claiming the president is more interested in saudi arabia then the USA is insulting. you need to grow up and get your own mind. stop looking at everything through micheal moores glasses andsdee things as they are. saddam hussein was not a victim. george bush is not a vile criminal. its a waste of time talking to you until you grow up a little bit.

Originally posted by Travh20
If you have never heard that pakistan is helping us fight al qeada then you have no clue of what is even happening in this war.

They are? That’s why the 9/11 Panel came out and said they are considerably more linked to terrorism, then Iraq. I guess you don’t have as much clue as you thought?

Originally posted by Travh20
if you cant comprehend how taking out a massive, aggresive dictatorship smack dab in the middle of the middle east is not instrumental to the global war on terror you have no clue about grand strategy or common sense.

Please tell me how he has been aggressive in world terror? He’s attacked Iran, and his own people. We wanted him to attack Iran, and countries in Africa attack their people along with many other countries worldwide...so?

You say that this war has been “instrumental” in stopping world terror? That’s fairly funny, for the terror report that was released showed a dramatic increase in terrorism world wide...and a dramatic rise in Al Queda members. All a direct result of this war. It is if anything, making terrorism a much larger issue for America and the world.

Originally posted by Travh20
you need to grow up and get your own mind.

Ditto
You accuse me of being a Moore follower, yet I can say the same thing for you and Limbaugh. I defend Moore, and you never once tell me where I’m wrong on my thought process in my defense. You just say, “Overdose is a dumb liburl, Moore follower!”

it seems you conviently seem to forget saddam took over kuwait and attacked Saudi Arabia. and pakistai soldiers are fighting and dying everyday against al qeada and taliban fighter who hide out on their side of the border with afghanistan. dont yo rmember that whole scene a few months ago when they thought they captured that one head honcho al qeada guy? its funny what you choose to remember and forget as is convieinent to your stupid agenda

Originally posted by Travh20
it seems you conviently seem to forget saddam took over kuwait and attacked Saudi Arabia.

I thought this was a war on terrorism.
It's funny, I don't recall Bush every mentioning that he was a threat because of his army...just the "wmd threat". Or that he was an aggressive dictator who needed to go...just the "wmd threat". I also didn't hear Saddam kills his people so he needs to go...just the "wmd threat". This war was based on the WMD threat, and now that, that is blown out of the water the Right Wing is pulling excuses out of thin air. Countries attack each other. Just because Saddam attacked Kuwait and Saudi Arabia does not mean, we should go to a full out war against Saddam. He has never threatened us or used any weapons against us. It's silly to say, we went in there because he attacked other countries.

OD...I agree with you on WMD being the initial cause for war. However, once we arrived and found no WMD (supposedly there aren't any...I find that hard to believe) we DID need another excuse. Could you blame our government for that? Could you honestly say that our dead soldiers died because of a 'mistake'? It has to be rationalized somehow...even if it were wrong, we MUST make it right now. There's no reason to continue arguing about it. If we fucked up, we need to fix it.

It's not the United State's job to go around and stopping "evil" people, when we should be focusing on real issues such as terrorism. LMAO!! And Saddam isn't a terrorist, I suppose? What irony! LMAO!!

I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet, but am going tonight. I am going with an open mind. I despise George Bush & Company, but am not so keen on Kerry's flip flopping. However, I'm glad to see that he has added Edwards to the mix.

Look out, y'all...Osama will be captured before election day!

Originally posted by saycricket
We DID need another excuse.

The only reason George Bush came up with another excuse is because their first and foremost reason had failed miserably. It’s basically a cover up for the sad mistakes the Bush administration created during this war.

The other excuses included, the fact that Saddam was linked to Terrorism…while Pakistan and Iran are closer linked to terrorism. That excuse is completely out.

The next excuse was that Saddam was an evil man who killed his people. That excuse is out, because countries in Africa kill their people all the time. Besides in Iran their people are doing so well, as with North Koreas people.

Originally posted by saycricket
LMAO!! And Saddam isn't a terrorist, I suppose? What irony! LMAO!!


Has he attacked the United States? Has he threatened us? No. He was no threat to America. This is a war on terrorism. Not a war against mass murderers. He has had ties to terrorism, just like when we funded and trained Osama Bin Laden and his “troops”.

Regardless there are countries in the world today that are far more terrorist friendly.

theres one less friendly to terrorist then there was

Originally posted by Travh20
theres one less friendly to terrorist then there was

You’re ignorant to think that ridding Saddam has helped with the terrorist issues around the world. There are more terrorists now then ever before. The reports show a large increase in Al Queda membership, because of the Iraq war. The Terrorism report showed a huge increase in terrorism world wide, since the Iraq war. Which concludes that this war, and getting rid of Saddam has indeed made terrorism an even larger issue for America.

your ignorant to thing not attacking iraq would have had th eopposite effect

Originally posted by Travh20
your ignorant to thing not attacking iraq would have had th eopposite effect

If we had not attacked Iraq we could be focusing on terrorism. Instead we are in Iraq. This Iraq war has proved to make terrorism a larger issue for America. Al Queda membership has risen and the terror report shows a dramatic increase in terrorism. That all concludes this Iraq war has made terrorism worse for us.

If we had not invaded Iraq, that would have not been possible because the Iraq Abuse would not have happened. That abuse lead to the rise in Al Queda membership. Which in return created the rise in terrorism worldwide. So if we had not attacked Iraq, terrorism would have gone down.

We could be efficiently hunting the terrorists right now, but instead we are in Iraq.

will you stop with the al qeadamembership has risen shit? there is no way to know that, its specualtion. if we knew how many members there were we would know where they were would we not? and if you think that all this documented membership increase ahppened becasue of the naked picture syou are a bigger pig headed fool then even I origianally believed. stop looking at everything as being our fucking fault you jackass.

Originally posted by Travh20
will you stop with the al qeadamembership has risen shit? there is no way to know that, its specualtion.

We’ve had threads about the rise in Al Queda membership. It’s already been public that Al Queda has risen in membership. Learn to pay attention.

Originally posted by Travh20
and if you think that all this documented membership increase ahppened becasue of the naked picture syou are a bigger pig headed fool then even I origianally believed.

The Prisoner Abuse has lead to the disgust from America around the world. It has proved the image the Al Queda leaders are trying to prove, “American’s are evil”. Regardless it may have not been the sole reason for the rise in terrorism worldwide, but it does have relevance.

And it’s ironic that terrorism would rise, but the membership wouldn’t. Don’t you think that with a rise in membership, terrorism would increase, because there are more people supporting Al Queda?

It’s a simple to understand. Rise in membership=More terrorism (because more people are willing to commit terrorist attacks)

Originally posted by Travh20
stop looking at everything as being our fucking fault you jackass.

Very mature for an adult to be saying. I commend you for saying it!

ya, I heard about it the last 500 times you posted it overdose, and everytime you say it means the same thing: jackshit. I dont know how you can possibly prove this, unless you buy into al qead press releases, which you obviously do. if they say they have more members, you believe it, if hey say they cut off a guys head becasue we stacked some iaqis up, you believe it. the funny thing is, you will believe everything they say, but nothing your own govrnment says. and just becasue there is more terrorism doesnt mena there are a lot more terrorists. does a major drop in crime mean that there is a major rise in the number of police officers? maybe more things that were once unreported are being chalked up to terrorism. I swear I am amaze at your uncanny ability to pick apart reports and polls to fit your needs.

Trav this is a simple equation

When terrorism rises, it is mainly because most terrorists have joined their organization. When more people are apart of terrorism, more people would commit terrorist attacks. Which all in all increases terrorism.

I’m not going to argue with you about the rise of Al Queda members because it's fairly obvious.

But the simple fact remains, that your argument that us going into Iraq has helped with our war on terror is wrong.

Terrorism has increased, no matter how you look at it. Ashcroft said we have a 90% chance of an attack. So this Iraq war has made us less safe.

Next Argument...