Ok.
GitSlayer wrote:
"Second string", pffft, I'm just not sufficiantly motivated most of the time.
This just repeats what we've already been talking about. Nothing about Iraq being responsible for 9/11. Just that Iraq has had dealing with Al-queda in the past, and harbored a senior Al-queda member *after* the start of actions in Afghanistan.
Bush: Afghanistan is a victory over terrorism This one doesn't even ention Iraq.
9/11 panel: Al Qaeda planned to hijack 10 planes This mentions a statement made by Cheny. I'd love to see the context and full statement though. It also makes some "unusual" turns of phrase. Example:
Quote:
The panel said it found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
The report contradicts statements from the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda.
The statement is about the 9/11 panel concluding no connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. Yet the next paragraph then says that this contradicts statements that "Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda". Um... No it doesnt.
Here's the strawman again. Just because Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11 does *not* mean that they did not have ties to Al-queda. Yet here is a report once again comiting a huge logical fallacy and passing it off as evidence of wrongdoing.
I used to know a guy. I went to the movies with him (and a group of friends). I even went to his house once and met his wife. One day, he snapped, took a shotgun and killed his wife, his mother in law, and his infant child.
I had "ties" to this person. I was *not* involved in the deaths of three people. Get it?
Cheney Claims al-Qaida Linked to Saddam Again. What's the problem here? yet another story about how Cheny said that Iraq had "ties" with Al-quedas. Um... They did. Wait! He said: "Long Established Ties". Is 1994 long enough? Considering that the US government wasn't officially aware of the existence of Al-queda until 1998, I'd say that discovering high level meetings took place between Iraq and them in 1994 is enough to warrant the statements Cheny made.
CIA Restricts One-Third of U.S. Senate WMD Report Not sure what this has to do with anything. Unles you just assume that everything marked "Top Secret" is so designated just to keep the Democrats from discovering "the truth" about Saddam's connections to terror. There isn't even a mention of Al-queda in this story.
As I have been accused of biased cut and paste I'll let you do the hard work and read it but don't think you can ******** your way out of it. The evidence is in there. Yes. You've done that. But you've also shown an absolute inability to read a news story and understand what it's really saying. As evidenced by your linkking a half dozen news articles when not one of themm supports your argument.
Bush administration has used 27 rationales for war in Iraq, study says
This one may be considered biased, don't know. Well. I haven't read the actual study, and once again, there is *no* mention of the connection between Iraq and Al-queda in this link, but this bit caught my eye.
Quote:
Largio also discovered that it was the media that initiated discussions about Iraq, introducing ideas before the administration and congressional leaders did about the intentions of that country and its leader. The media also “brought the idea that Iraq may be connected to the 9-11 incident to the forefront, asking questions of the officials on the topic and printing articles about the possibility.”
Wow. I've been saying that for months now... Thatnks for digging up a source that agrees with me Git.
I'm still waiting for something that supports your position. Anything?
