chomerics Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 WOW, she claims that she has not read the report :doh: "That particular report I don't remember seeing," http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060910/ts_alt_afp/usattacksiraqqaedarice What the hellis going on in this country. How can our leaders continue to lie like this? Man, the shipis sinking fast, and they STILL will not come out and say what they want the ublic to believe, even when the facts do not back them. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Ooh, and Zarqawi was the ringleader, too. Granted, just because I don't remember something doesn't prove it didn't happen. But am I the only one who gets the impression that Zarqawi was completely unknown untill he became a pain in the butt of our invasion, at which time he suddenly became world famous as the person in charge of the Iraq branch of Al Qeda? (Sort of the same way that Richard Armitage suddenly became an opponent of invading Iraq after he became Official Sacpegoat for outing Vallary Plame?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 11, 2006 Author Share Posted September 11, 2006 Ooh, and Zarqawi was the ringleader, too. Granted, just because I don't remember something doesn't prove it didn't happen. But am I the only one who gets the impression that Zarqawi was completely unknown untill he became a pain in the butt of our invasion, at which time he suddenly became world famous as the person in charge of the Iraq branch of Al Qeda? (Sort of the same way that Richard Armitage suddenly became an opponent of invading Iraq after he became Official Sacpegoat for outing Vallary Plame?) Yea, there is even mentioning of the report that Saddam tried unsuccessfuly to cap[ture Zarqawi. I bet he just wanted to capture him to give him hugs and roses too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Don't we all feel safer with these people in charge?? SIGH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 11, 2006 Author Share Posted September 11, 2006 Don't we all feel safer with these people in charge?? SIGH The scary thing is since 9-11 our ports are free, no secure border, no mandatory screening on airlines etc etc. It is still possible for a terrorist to place a bomb in their checked luggage and it won't be screened. Safer, yea if you believe that one, I have a war I can sell ya. . . oh wait, that already happened :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 It is still possible for a terrorist to place a bomb in their checked luggage and it won't be screened. Safer, yea if you believe that one, I have a war I can sell ya. . . oh wait, that already happened :doh: Hate to interupt the leftist goo fest here, but you don't fly much, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Ooh, and Zarqawi was the ringleader, too. Granted, just because I don't remember something doesn't prove it didn't happen. But am I the only one who gets the impression that Zarqawi was completely unknown untill he became a pain in the butt of our invasion, at which time he suddenly became world famous as the person in charge of the Iraq branch of Al Qeda? (Sort of the same way that Richard Armitage suddenly became an opponent of invading Iraq after he became Official Sacpegoat for outing Vallary Plame?) What did YOU know about Bin LAden before he became a pain the butt 5 years ago today? I would wager to bet that many, not all, outside the intelligence, law enforcement, and military knew about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Hate to interupt the leftist goo fest here, but you don't fly much, do you? Come on Sarge, he is always high as kite, figure he can only get that way by flying!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 They do have documents coming out saying there was a link i thought earlier this year? and 100k+ documents to go through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 She is not claiming a link to Saddam or the Iraqi government. She is stating that our intelligence has Al-Queda operating in Iraq. I have no knowledge of any report that dismisses this claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 When you get a thousand a week I believe this is an accurate statement from her: "There are conflicting intelligence reports all the time," she said. "That's why we have an intelligence system that brings those together into a unified assessment by the intelligence commit of what -- community of what we're looking at." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 11, 2006 Author Share Posted September 11, 2006 She is not claiming a link to Saddam or the Iraqi government. Actually, she is EXACTLY claiming that, did you even read the article? :doh: "There were ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda," she said on Fox News Sunday. Al Qaeda was not operating in Iraq before we invaded. That is a fact. Zarqawi at the time of the invasion was not Al Qaeda, he was Anser al Islam, Zarqawi was a threat to Saddam, and Saddam viewed him as the enemy. He was NOT providing a "safe harbor" for Zarqawi, and did not aid him in developing chemical weapons :doh: I have no knowledge of any report that dismisses this claim. Did you read the Senate Intel report? It dismisses it pretty clearly, which is why I started the thread in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 11, 2006 Author Share Posted September 11, 2006 They do have documents coming out saying there was a link i thought earlier this year?and 100k+ documents to go through. No, they do not Bear. There was a meeting in 95' between one of their henchmen, and Saddam wanted nothing to do with Bin Laden. He thought of him as a threat. Bin Laden wanted to operatin in Iraq before the Sudan kicked him out and Saddam said no. It is really as simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Cheney said himself yesterday that there was no link. Said this while he was passing blame on the CIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EersSkins05 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 They do have documents coming out saying there was a link i thought earlier this year?and 100k+ documents to go through. GWB himself has been fairly clear on the issue, admitting now that there was no connection whatsoever. In a press briefing only about 2 weeks ago, when asked what 9/11 had to do with Iraq, he answered, "NOTHING!" That pretty much did it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Actually, she is EXACTLY claiming that, did you even read the article? Where exactly? Give me the quote please. Methinks you are exerting your own skewed opinions into this article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 GWB himself has been fairly clear on the issue, admitting now that there was no connection whatsoever.In a press briefing only about 2 weeks ago, when asked what 9/11 had to do with Iraq, he answered, "NOTHING!" That pretty much did it for me. How could anyone believe such a liar? Oh that's right, when it seems to agree with our own point of view, then it's not a lie. Got it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Where exactly? Give me the quote please. Methinks you are exerting your own skewed opinions into this article. Not Chomerics..he has no agenda:rotflmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 11, 2006 Author Share Posted September 11, 2006 Where exactly? Give me the quote please. Methinks you are exerting your own skewed opinions into this article. RIF, reading is fundamental . . . "There were ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda," Do you want to see the video? http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/10/rice-qaeda-saddam/ Watch it and see what she said :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 11, 2006 Author Share Posted September 11, 2006 Not Chomerics..he has no agenda:rotflmao: Yes I do, my agenda is figuring out what the truth is, and how to fix things in my country. It differs from the rights agenda in they're trying to obfuscate the facts and continue to deceive the American public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 RIF, reading is fundamental . . .Do you want to see the video? http://Nationalenquirer.org/2006/09/10/rice-qaeda-saddam/ Watch it and see what she said :doh: Fixed your source for ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Dr. Rice is not very good at playing dumb. Funny how the Bush administration's lies are more bold on FOX news than elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Dr. Rice is not very good at playing dumb. Funny how the Bush administration's lies are more bold on FOX news than elsewhere. We've got the mandatory Fox news comment...now where is the "Why do you hate America?" comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Yes I do, my agenda is figuring out what the truth is, and how to fix things in my country. It differs from the rights agenda in they're trying to obfuscate the facts and continue to deceive the American public. If that were true you would not only post negative articles. You paint yourself as a patriot with no attachment to a side only a quest for truth...it rings hollow...except with those that share your side with you. If you wanted the truth you would look for the whole truth...you are stuck on negativity and administration bashing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Looks like Condoleeeezzzza was reading from the old talking points. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.