Well, it sure took, a lot of left wing lies, but we did it..Follow

Platapus I have been over this topic ad nauesum you have just recently returned to the board and should really develop some since of time having passed since your last 8 posts on the old UBB forum.

Stok, your argument is full of swiss cheese just waving at you from the holes.

never claimed to be an old timer but didnt whine to get back my old post count either like someone I know=)

proof that there is no link to terror in Iraq,


"In a desperate effort to justify its focus on Iraq, the Administration has long asserted that there are ties between Osama and Saddam -- a theory with no proof that is widely doubted by intelligence experts. Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that we had 'bulletproof' evidence of the link. But a year later, CIA Director Tenet conceded in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee that the Administration's understanding of the link was still 'evolving' and was based on 'sources of varying reliability.' In fact, the link is so widely doubted that intelligence experts have expressed their concern that intelligence is being politicized to support the rush to war."
03/13/03 E.KENNEDY senator

Scott Ritter, former United Nations weapons inspector, stated in his article "Iraq: the phantom threat," published by The Christian Science Monitor on January 23, 2002 :

"The lack of documentation of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection in this intelligence trove should lead to the questioning of the original source of such speculation, as well as the motivation of those who continue to peddle the 'Iraq connection' theory. Foremost among them are opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress and his American sponsors, in particular Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, former CIA Director James Woolsey, and former Undersecretary of State Richard Perle."

Dr. Judith Yaphe, Senior Research Fellow and Middle East Project Director in the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University, stated at a public hearing to the National Committee on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States on July 9, 2003 :

"Did Iraq need al Qaeda? Probably Saddam might have liked a group like that, but I don't think he would have needed them. I've said given the reasons why I thought -- and it is in my testimony -- I think he saw him as a threat, Osama as a threat, rather than as a potential partner."

"The unwillingness of Saddam and Osama to consider cooperation is not because they had different sects -- one's Sunni, one's Shi'a -- or different ideologies. Saddam was no ideologue. I think the point again was I think it was more of a danger to Saddam. It was a risk he didn't need to take."
07/09/03


Wesley K. Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, stated in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on September 26, 2002 :

"Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam's regime to the Al Qaeda network."
09/26/02

Saddam Hussein, former President of Iraq, stated in an interview with former U.K. Labour Cabinet Minister Tony Benn broadcast on UK's Channel 4 New program on February 4, 2003 :

"If we had a relationship with al-Qaeda and we believed in that relationship we wouldn't be ashamed to admit it. Therefore I would like to tell you directly and also through you to anyone who is interested to know that we have no relationship with al-Qaeda."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4829855

an intresting interview with Bob Woodward above.


VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is — in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein. But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein’s bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.
MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

http://emperor.vwh.net/9-11backups/nbcmp.htm

And yet another meet the press with the VP saying Iraq had nothing to do with it or links to terrorism except in the past.

Was that more to your liking Platapus or was I just sucking Smash's **** again? Lol nm your one of those that tries to build a rep by attacking what they percieve to be weakness. Hmm that sounds sorta like the current administration. Farewell idiot unless you actually have something to say on the subject besides criticizing me that is.

Lol, ya didnt think so.

Edit cause I mispeeled a word or two =)

Edited, Mon Jun 14 05:49:42 2004 by flishtaco

This, of course, highlights the entire issue. The Dems have essentially been running a strawman argument the whole time.

The administration says that "Iraq is linked to terror".

Democrats reply that "there's no link between Saddam and Al-queda and 9/11".

Reps are then pressured by media to "prove a link between Saddam and Bin Laden".


Um... The original statement was a connection between Iraq and "terror" (specifically terrorist groups). Read the links that Stok posted. Note the numbers and names of the terrorist groups in there. How many times is Al-queda mentioned? How many times is Bin Laden mentioned?

It's classic strawman, and the media eats it up. Dems re-interpret "terrorist groups" to mean "Al-queda", and the media plays the trumpet. There is *nothing* inconsistent with the justification of the administration. It's only inconsistent if you deliberately misinterpret the statements made by that administration and then continually bleat to the press about how the administration can't "proove" your misinterpretation.


got it? Terrorists does not mean just Al-queda. Just because you think that does not make it true. How exactly does anything in your post prove that there's no link between Iraq and "terror"? It only mentions Al-queda, which is only one terrorist group, and is *not* specifically mentioned in the whitehouse papers as one of the groups that Iraq was dealing with directly.

Why is this a problem?

Edited, Mon Jun 14 17:25:42 2004 by gbaji

Flish,

Your mistake was rationalizing with them.

Just tell 'em to suck it.

Eb

I am not "The Left". I'm an individual.

An individual who is telling you to "Suuuuuuckkkk it!"

Eb

See how easy and fun that is, Flish?

No, you trying to present the Democrat's side of this issue highlights the entire strawman.

It's been proven repeadetly that this just isn't true. I'd really like it to be, because I think the Dems win more educated voters than the Reps do, but people DO NOT look at all the facts.

Witness the polling that showed over 50 percent of people thought there had been a link established between Saddam and Bin Laden and that was why were invading.

Nah, Democrats allmost allways win College educated voters. It's the middle class that thinks it's gaining something from massive tax cuts for the rich that we should be getting and don't.

i saw it on T.V... yalp

Lol, I bring in the "conjecture" of experts people who are paid to make "conjecture", to refute the pre-invasion evidence of Stok which if you really look at it dumbass is all "conjecture" too by people who are paid to "conjecture" the funny thing is that when you ask these same people about their "comjecture" from 2 years ago they will not bring up or mention anything about Iraq being linked to 9/11, or a state sponser of terrorism, instead they "conjecture" that he might in the freaking future have again tried to obtain WMD and given them to terrorists.

Platapus, you, Stok, and Gbaji all "conjecture" that spending 150,000,000,000 on what might have happened in Iraq in the future is worth it.

I "conjecture" and use support from experts "conjecture" that we would be better off spending that 150,000,000,000 in places that are a terrorist threat now like Afgahnistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia. I also "conjecture" that we could be using that money to help our defenses at home from another terrorist attack.

God feel like I am teaching freaking debate 101. Lesson over. Stok try and find a non out dated link if you want me to bother to reply back in the future. Gbaji, good job as always at least you have some evidence and skill at this.