Discussion:
Did Saddam & Osama plan 911? LIEbral claims debunked...
(too old to reply)
BÎllary
2004-06-17 20:42:53 UTC
Permalink
Despite the FACT that this Mr. Bush has NEVER made this claim. And despite
the FACT that president Bush has repeatedly said that there was NO
collaboration Between Osama and Saddam on 911. LIEbrals want America
(especially other LIEbral lemmings) to believe that Mr. Bush actually made
this claim. So if you watch Clinton News Network or People Broadcasting
System or listen to National Peoples Radio, Their new tactic is to claim
that Mr. Bush left "the impression" that there "was a connection to 911"

So here's the *play at home* version of this LIEbral deception technique.
Say the following to yourself louder and louder and louder and LOUDER each
time until you're screaming it out of your car window! Say loud enough
until YOU believe it yourself. Ready set go....

Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again

Good now you're LIEbral lemming.....
Roger
2004-06-17 20:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by BÎllary
Despite the FACT that this Mr. Bush has NEVER made this claim. And despite
the FACT that president Bush has repeatedly said that there was NO
collaboration Between Osama and Saddam on 911. LIEbrals want America
(especially other LIEbral lemmings) to believe that Mr. Bush actually made
this claim. So if you watch Clinton News Network or People Broadcasting
System or listen to National Peoples Radio, Their new tactic is to claim
that Mr. Bush left "the impression" that there "was a connection to 911"
From http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm

from the March 14, 2003 edition

WASHINGTON - In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused
almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He
referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same
breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president.
Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among
much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role
in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of
Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about
the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that
Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is
currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging
this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a
possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to
Hussein's regime.

"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some
connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull,
director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the
University of Maryland.
Post by BÎllary
So here's the *play at home* version of this LIEbral deception technique.
Say the following to yourself louder and louder and louder and LOUDER each
time until you're screaming it out of your car window! Say loud enough
until YOU believe it yourself. Ready set go....
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Good now you're LIEbral lemming.....
CB
2004-06-17 23:51:17 UTC
Permalink
Admit the artical said...
"Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president."
Post by Roger
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president.
Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among
much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role
in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of
Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about
the same figure as a month ago.
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that
Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is
currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging
this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a
possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to
Hussein's regime.
"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some
connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull,
director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the
University of Maryland.
Sid9
2004-06-18 02:26:06 UTC
Permalink
Read it and weep:

See the facts with the original quotes:

http://tinyurl.com/2ofuy

Bush and Cheney in denial on the 9/11 committee revelations
Post by CB
Admit the artical said...
"Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi
president."
Post by Roger
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi
president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression
that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi
dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS
poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr.
Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure
as a month ago.
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence
that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has
been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to
be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain
American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate
seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.
"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is
some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven
Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes
(PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
See the facts with the original quotes:

http://tinyurl.com/2ofuy

Bush and Cheney in denial on the 9/11 committee revelations
Docky Wocky
2004-06-18 03:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Yup! Here are the actual quotes:

"The Associated Press

Wednesday, June 16, 2004; 6:58 PM

Comments by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice alleging links between al-Qaida and Iraq under
Saddam Hussein:

2002
Rice, Sept. 25: "There clearly are contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq that
can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have
been important contacts and that there's a relationship here. ... And there
are some al-Qaida personnel who found refuge in Baghdad."

Bush, Oct. 7: "We know that Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network share a
common enemy - the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaida
have had high-level contacts that go back a decade" and "we've learned that
Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly
gases."

2003:
Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28: "And this Congress and the
American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence
sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody
reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members
of al-Qaida."

Bush, Feb. 6: "Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaida have met at
least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and
document forgery experts to work with al-Qaida" and "Iraq has also provided
al-Qaida with chemical and biological weapons training."

2004:
Cheney, Jan. 21: "I continue to believe - I think there's overwhelming
evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaida and the Iraqi
government. I'm very confident that there was an established relationship
there."

Cheney, Monday: Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with
al-Qaida."..."
_______________________________________

Somehow, by some impossible stretch of imagination, scardy-cat left-wing
liberals have rehashed these relatively non-committal statements into the
so-called "lies" that the administration has been misleading the moron
Democrats across the land with.

Democrat propaganda analysts, beginning with Rep. Waxy Waxman, think they
are really as sharp as tacks when it comes to denigrating bush, but actually
are about a sharp as bowling balls when it comes too interpreting what
someone actually said. This is a fundamental brain chemistry defect.

This basically means they don't listen to anything, but they have managed to
convince a lot of morons that they are analytic experts when it comes to
figuring out what the other guys actually said.

Maybe it is time some of the people ought to read what was actually said by
the administration morons and compare it with the interpretations the
opposing morons attach to these statements.

There must be a nice Latin word for this somewhere.
Sid9
2004-06-18 03:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Spin, distortion, denial......the Bush,Jr specialities
Post by Docky Wocky
"The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 16, 2004; 6:58 PM
Comments by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and National
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice alleging links between al-Qaida and
2002
Rice, Sept. 25: "There clearly are contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq
that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the
contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship
here. ... And there are some al-Qaida personnel who found refuge in
Baghdad."
Bush, Oct. 7: "We know that Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network
share a common enemy - the United States of America. We know that
Iraq and al-Qaida have had high-level contacts that go back a decade"
and "we've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in
bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."
Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28: "And this Congress and the
American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from
intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people
now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects
terrorists, including members of al-Qaida."
Bush, Feb. 6: "Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaida have
met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent
bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al-Qaida" and
"Iraq has also provided al-Qaida with chemical and biological weapons
training."
Cheney, Jan. 21: "I continue to believe - I think there's overwhelming
evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaida and the Iraqi
government. I'm very confident that there was an established
relationship there."
Cheney, Monday: Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with
al-Qaida."..."
_______________________________________
Somehow, by some impossible stretch of imagination, scardy-cat
left-wing liberals have rehashed these relatively non-committal
statements into the so-called "lies" that the administration has been
misleading the moron Democrats across the land with.
Democrat propaganda analysts, beginning with Rep. Waxy Waxman, think
they are really as sharp as tacks when it comes to denigrating bush,
but actually are about a sharp as bowling balls when it comes too
interpreting what someone actually said. This is a fundamental brain
chemistry defect.
This basically means they don't listen to anything, but they have
managed to convince a lot of morons that they are analytic experts
when it comes to figuring out what the other guys actually said.
Maybe it is time some of the people ought to read what was actually
said by the administration morons and compare it with the
interpretations the opposing morons attach to these statements.
There must be a nice Latin word for this somewhere.
Jingo
2004-06-18 05:17:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Docky Wocky
"The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 16, 2004; 6:58 PM
Comments by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice alleging links between al-Qaida and Iraq under
2002
Rice, Sept. 25: "There clearly are contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq that
can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have
been important contacts and that there's a relationship here. ... And there
are some al-Qaida personnel who found refuge in Baghdad."
Bush, Oct. 7: "We know that Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network share a
common enemy - the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaida
have had high-level contacts that go back a decade" and "we've learned that
Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly
gases."
Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28: "And this Congress and the
American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence
sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody
reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members
of al-Qaida."
Bush, Feb. 6: "Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaida have met at
least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and
document forgery experts to work with al-Qaida" and "Iraq has also provided
al-Qaida with chemical and biological weapons training."
Cheney, Jan. 21: "I continue to believe - I think there's overwhelming
evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaida and the Iraqi
government. I'm very confident that there was an established relationship
there."
Cheney, Monday: Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with
al-Qaida."..."
_______________________________________
Somehow, by some impossible stretch of imagination, scardy-cat left-wing
liberals have rehashed these relatively non-committal statements into the
so-called "lies" that the administration has been misleading the moron
Democrats across the land with.
Democrat propaganda analysts, beginning with Rep. Waxy Waxman, think they
are really as sharp as tacks when it comes to denigrating bush, but actually
are about a sharp as bowling balls when it comes too interpreting what
someone actually said. This is a fundamental brain chemistry defect.
This basically means they don't listen to anything, but they have managed to
convince a lot of morons that they are analytic experts when it comes to
figuring out what the other guys actually said.
Maybe it is time some of the people ought to read what was actually said by
the administration morons and compare it with the interpretations the
opposing morons attach to these statements.
There must be a nice Latin word for this somewhere.
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.

The word is "Bullshit."

Jingo



***
"You might be a right wing republican if...you think it's OK for Nancy Reagan to
practice astrology but John Kerry shouldn't receive communion."

--Lisa Casey
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/6-14-04_uplifting_news.htm
John Saunders
2004-06-18 13:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the Bush
Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks?

I've never seen any, though I have seen speeches showing how 9/11 reminds us
that WMD in the hands of someone like Saddam Hussein. In the same way he
paid money to the families of suicide bombers, he could as easily slip
terrorists a crate of sarin artillery shells (the newer ones, not the old
ones which were used in an IED a few weeks ago).

Saddam Hussein has already used WMD against his neighbors and his own
people, was shooting at American planes, and was violating numerous UN
Security Council Resolutions. Why wait around for a repeat of 9/11, but with
WMD on the plane instead of a full load of fuel?
--
John Saunders
johnwsaundersiii at hotmail
Sid9
2004-06-18 14:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the
Bush Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the
9/11 attacks?
I've never seen any, though I have seen speeches showing how 9/11
reminds us that WMD in the hands of someone like Saddam Hussein. In
the same way he paid money to the families of suicide bombers, he
could as easily slip terrorists a crate of sarin artillery shells
(the newer ones, not the old ones which were used in an IED a few
weeks ago).
Saddam Hussein has already used WMD against his neighbors and his own
people, was shooting at American planes, and was violating numerous UN
Security Council Resolutions. Why wait around for a repeat of 9/11,
but with WMD on the plane instead of a full load of fuel?
http://tinyurl.com/2pkah
Scott Erb
2004-06-18 14:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the
Bush Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the
9/11 attacks?
I've never seen any, though I have seen speeches showing how 9/11
reminds us that WMD in the hands of someone like Saddam Hussein. In
the same way he paid money to the families of suicide bombers, he
could as easily slip terrorists a crate of sarin artillery shells
(the newer ones, not the old ones which were used in an IED a few
weeks ago).
Saddam Hussein has already used WMD against his neighbors and his own
people, was shooting at American planes, and was violating numerous UN
Security Council Resolutions. Why wait around for a repeat of 9/11,
but with WMD on the plane instead of a full load of fuel?
http://tinyurl.com/2pkah
Wow, a pretty impressive document!
John Saunders
2004-06-18 17:40:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the
Bush Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the
9/11 attacks?
I've never seen any, though I have seen speeches showing how 9/11
reminds us that WMD in the hands of someone like Saddam Hussein. In
the same way he paid money to the families of suicide bombers, he
could as easily slip terrorists a crate of sarin artillery shells
(the newer ones, not the old ones which were used in an IED a few
weeks ago).
Saddam Hussein has already used WMD against his neighbors and his own
people, was shooting at American planes, and was violating numerous UN
Security Council Resolutions. Why wait around for a repeat of 9/11,
but with WMD on the plane instead of a full load of fuel?
http://tinyurl.com/2pkah
Thanks for the link. Could you point me to a specific paragraph or section
of that document which makes your point?
--
John Saunders
johnwsaundersiii at hotmail
Jingo
2004-06-18 20:56:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:40:09 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Sid9
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the
Bush Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the
9/11 attacks?
I've never seen any, though I have seen speeches showing how 9/11
reminds us that WMD in the hands of someone like Saddam Hussein. In
the same way he paid money to the families of suicide bombers, he
could as easily slip terrorists a crate of sarin artillery shells
(the newer ones, not the old ones which were used in an IED a few
weeks ago).
Saddam Hussein has already used WMD against his neighbors and his own
people, was shooting at American planes, and was violating numerous UN
Security Council Resolutions. Why wait around for a repeat of 9/11,
but with WMD on the plane instead of a full load of fuel?
http://tinyurl.com/2pkah
Thanks for the link. Could you point me to a specific paragraph or section
of that document which makes your point?
And the next time you pee I bet you want us to hold your tiny pecker
for you too?

Try reading the document.

You can read, can't you?

Jingo


***

God was my Co-Pilot but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.

--http://www.ruighaver.net/bumperstickers/stickers/copilot.htm
John Saunders
2004-06-18 21:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jingo
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:40:09 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Sid9
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the
Bush Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the
9/11 attacks?
I've never seen any, though I have seen speeches showing how 9/11
reminds us that WMD in the hands of someone like Saddam Hussein. In
the same way he paid money to the families of suicide bombers, he
could as easily slip terrorists a crate of sarin artillery shells
(the newer ones, not the old ones which were used in an IED a few
weeks ago).
Saddam Hussein has already used WMD against his neighbors and his own
people, was shooting at American planes, and was violating numerous UN
Security Council Resolutions. Why wait around for a repeat of 9/11,
but with WMD on the plane instead of a full load of fuel?
http://tinyurl.com/2pkah
Thanks for the link. Could you point me to a specific paragraph or section
of that document which makes your point?
And the next time you pee I bet you want us to hold your tiny pecker
for you too?
Try reading the document.
You can read, can't you?
I did read the document, but I didn't see any part of it which made your
point. I was trying to give you the opportunity of pointing out to me what I
had missed.
--
John Saunders
johnwsaundersiii at hotmail
zepp
2004-06-18 14:59:38 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:37:14 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the Bush
Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks?
Gotta be a troll. Nobody's that fucking stupid.
Post by John Saunders
I've never seen any, though I have seen speeches showing how 9/11 reminds us
that WMD in the hands of someone like Saddam Hussein. In the same way he
paid money to the families of suicide bombers, he could as easily slip
terrorists a crate of sarin artillery shells (the newer ones, not the old
ones which were used in an IED a few weeks ago).
Saddam Hussein has already used WMD against his neighbors and his own
people, was shooting at American planes, and was violating numerous UN
Security Council Resolutions. Why wait around for a repeat of 9/11, but with
WMD on the plane instead of a full load of fuel?
-
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
terrorism.'"

-- CNN, 4/30/2001.


Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
Steve Canyon
2004-06-18 16:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:37:14 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the Bush
Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks?
Gotta be a troll. Nobody's that fucking stupid.
<LOL> IOW, the moron leftists can't find any such record, but want
you to believe that they can....


"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."[...] the
corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper.
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0403172013.7bb7c449%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&

"States cannot amend the Constitution, you clod. Congress can. The states
get to ratify it or not. But they have to ratify what they're given."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=385570ab.9710819%40news.earthlink.net

"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com


"I mean, Jesus, you moron; basically what you're arguing is that the Bill
of Rights only protects you from the government. That's insane."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=rOednTyGe5IzVjvd4p2dnA%40comcast.com
John Saunders
2004-06-18 17:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:37:14 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the Bush
Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks?
Gotta be a troll. Nobody's that fucking stupid.
Please elaborate. I meant what I said. I never saw or read any statement by
anyone in the Administration which said that Iraq was involved in the 9/11
attacks. I have seen them say that Iraq was involved with terrorism and that
Iraq had ties (or links, or connections) to al Qaeda. I have seen the Press
decide that the Administration was "implying" that Iraq was involved in
9/11.

I've never seen anyone in the Press attempt to present corroboration that
the Administration was "implying" anything about Iraq and 9/11. Just their
assumption that the Administration must have been "implying" something.
--
John Saunders
johnwsaundersiii at hotmail
Post by zepp
Post by John Saunders
Saddam Hussein has already used WMD against his neighbors and his own
people, was shooting at American planes, and was violating numerous UN
Security Council Resolutions. Why wait around for a repeat of 9/11, but with
WMD on the plane instead of a full load of fuel?
-
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
terrorism.'"
I'm sorry, I don't understand the connection between this quote and what I
asked. Could you please show me the connection?
--
John Saunders
johnwsaundersiii at hotmail
Geo
2004-06-18 17:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Saunders
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:37:14 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the Bush
Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the 9/11
attacks?
Post by zepp
Gotta be a troll. Nobody's that fucking stupid.
Please elaborate. I meant what I said. I never saw or read any statement by
anyone in the Administration which said that Iraq was involved in the 9/11
attacks. I have seen them say that Iraq was involved with terrorism and that
Iraq had ties (or links, or connections) to al Qaeda. I have seen the Press
decide that the Administration was "implying" that Iraq was involved in
9/11.
I've never seen anyone in the Press attempt to present corroboration that
the Administration was "implying" anything about Iraq and 9/11. Just their
assumption that the Administration must have been "implying" something.
Nor will you ever see anyone in the press present corroboration, because
they can't.
Jingo
2004-06-18 20:58:32 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:44:55 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:37:14 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the Bush
Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the 9/11
attacks?
Post by zepp
Gotta be a troll. Nobody's that fucking stupid.
Please elaborate. I meant what I said. I never saw or read any statement by
anyone in the Administration which said that Iraq was involved in the 9/11
attacks. I have seen them say that Iraq was involved with terrorism and that
Iraq had ties (or links, or connections) to al Qaeda. I have seen the Press
decide that the Administration was "implying" that Iraq was involved in
9/11.
Then you have been asleep for a very long time.
Post by John Saunders
I've never seen anyone in the Press attempt to present corroboration that
the Administration was "implying" anything about Iraq and 9/11. Just their
assumption that the Administration must have been "implying" something.
They are still doing it today, John.

You are obviously just a right wing troll.

You lose by default.

Jingo



***

God was my Co-Pilot but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.

--http://www.ruighaver.net/bumperstickers/stickers/copilot.htm
John Saunders
2004-06-18 21:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jingo
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:44:55 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:37:14 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the Bush
Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the 9/11
attacks?
Post by zepp
Gotta be a troll. Nobody's that fucking stupid.
Please elaborate. I meant what I said. I never saw or read any statement by
anyone in the Administration which said that Iraq was involved in the 9/11
attacks. I have seen them say that Iraq was involved with terrorism and that
Iraq had ties (or links, or connections) to al Qaeda. I have seen the Press
decide that the Administration was "implying" that Iraq was involved in
9/11.
Then you have been asleep for a very long time.
Post by John Saunders
I've never seen anyone in the Press attempt to present corroboration that
the Administration was "implying" anything about Iraq and 9/11. Just their
assumption that the Administration must have been "implying" something.
They are still doing it today, John.
You are obviously just a right wing troll.
You lose by default.
If they're still doing it, then it should be easy for you to show me an
example. Please do.
--
John Saunders
johnwsaundersiii at hotmail
zepp
2004-06-18 23:17:58 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:10:34 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:44:55 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:37:14 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the
Bush
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
Post by zepp
Post by John Saunders
Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the 9/11
attacks?
Post by zepp
Gotta be a troll. Nobody's that fucking stupid.
Please elaborate. I meant what I said. I never saw or read any statement
by
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
anyone in the Administration which said that Iraq was involved in the
9/11
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
attacks. I have seen them say that Iraq was involved with terrorism and
that
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
Iraq had ties (or links, or connections) to al Qaeda. I have seen the
Press
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
decide that the Administration was "implying" that Iraq was involved in
9/11.
Then you have been asleep for a very long time.
Post by John Saunders
I've never seen anyone in the Press attempt to present corroboration that
the Administration was "implying" anything about Iraq and 9/11. Just
their
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
assumption that the Administration must have been "implying" something.
They are still doing it today, John.
You are obviously just a right wing troll.
You lose by default.
If they're still doing it, then it should be easy for you to show me an
example. Please do.
Like shooting fish in a barrel...

http://www.winfieldcourier.com/w040619/Fri1.html

*******************

"Reports that say something hasn't happened are always
interesting to me, because as we know, there are known
knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know
there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there
are some things we do not know. But there are also
unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, making things clear

To subscribe to Zepp's News http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zepps_News/join
For essays ONLY, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/***@yahoogroups.com/join
For my fiction, http://www.finestplanet.com/~zepp/
John Saunders
2004-06-18 23:31:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:10:34 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:44:55 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:37:14 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the
Bush
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
Post by zepp
Post by John Saunders
Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the 9/11
attacks?
Post by zepp
Gotta be a troll. Nobody's that fucking stupid.
Please elaborate. I meant what I said. I never saw or read any statement
by
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
anyone in the Administration which said that Iraq was involved in the
9/11
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
attacks. I have seen them say that Iraq was involved with terrorism and
that
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
Iraq had ties (or links, or connections) to al Qaeda. I have seen the
Press
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
decide that the Administration was "implying" that Iraq was involved in
9/11.
Then you have been asleep for a very long time.
Post by John Saunders
I've never seen anyone in the Press attempt to present corroboration that
the Administration was "implying" anything about Iraq and 9/11. Just
their
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
assumption that the Administration must have been "implying" something.
They are still doing it today, John.
You are obviously just a right wing troll.
You lose by default.
If they're still doing it, then it should be easy for you to show me an
example. Please do.
Like shooting fish in a barrel...
http://www.winfieldcourier.com/w040619/Fri1.html
According to this article:

President Bush insisted Thursday that Saddam Hussein had posed "a threat
because he had terrorist connections" to al-Qaida - despite a finding by the
commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks that there was no credible
evidence of cooperation between the ousted Iraqi dictator and the global
terrorist network.
-----------
"terrorist connections" is not the same thing as "cooperation". Note the
following exchange from an interview with Chris Matthews of MSNBC
(http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5228545/):
------------
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This is a development a lot of people will find
clarifying is that there was no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and
9/11.

THOMAS KEAN, 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Well, that's what our staff has
found. Now, it doesn't mean there weren't al Qaeda connections with Iraq
over the years. They're somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there. But
with 9/11, no, our staff has found no evidence of that.

MATTHEWS: Mr. Hamilton, so many polls have been taken that shows the
American people, almost three-quarters of the people, believe there was a
connection. How do we rectify that? Is your commission going to clarify
that to the extent that people won't still be singing country music that
says "remember how you felt?"

LEE HAMILTON, 9/11 COMMISSION VICE CHAIRMAN: All we can do is state as
clearly as we can what the evidence is that we have found. We have found no
operational collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden with
regard to attacks on the United States. That conclusion is a very firm one
that we have reached.

What the governor referred to is also true. There are all kinds of ties.
There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that
Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam
Hussein lieutenants.

They had contacts, but what we did not find was any operational tie with
respect to attacks on the United States.

---------------

Note that the Republican says "... it doesn't mean there weren't al Qaeda
connections with Iraq over the years. They're somewhat shadowy, but I think
they were there." The Democrat says, "We have found no operational
collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden with regard to
attacks on the United States". and "There are all kinds of connections", and
"They had contacts, but ... not ... any operational tie".

There is no conflict between what the President and Vice President have said
and what the 9/11 Commission found. The problem is that many people in the
Press hear the Administration say "ties with al Qaeda" but substitute "ties
with 9/11". This is an extremely dangerous bit of bad journalism.

BTW, this isn't the first time I've noticed this problem. What does it mean
when the Press says that someone is "linked to organized crime"? If a man
marries a woman whose older brother works for organized crime, is the man
"linked" to organized crime? Back when I first noticed the Press using this
term I noticed that they used the same term as a abbreviation of many, more
complicated, relationships. But rather than take the time on their air to
explain the complexity of the relationship, they used the word "linked" to
stand in for all of the possible relationships.

So now the Press is again using "linked" and "connections" and "ties" to
mean a variety of different things they don't want to take the time to
explain. But now the problem is compounded. When the Press hears the
Administration say "links", different members of the Press hear different
things. And many members of the Press hear "linked to 9/11" when the
Administration just meant "linked by giving shelter to al Qaeda
franchisees". The Press have forgotten that there are many meanings for this
word they have overloaded, and don't bother to find out which of the several
meanings was intended. Confusion ensues, along with large percentages of the
American population believing the nonsensical idea that Iraq had something
to do with 9/11.
--
John Saunders
johnwsaundersiii at hotmail
--
John Saunders
johnwsaundersiii at hotmail
Julian D.
2004-06-19 01:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:10:34 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:44:55 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:37:14 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the
Bush
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
Post by zepp
Post by John Saunders
Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the 9/11
attacks?
Post by zepp
Gotta be a troll. Nobody's that fucking stupid.
Please elaborate. I meant what I said. I never saw or read any statement
by
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
anyone in the Administration which said that Iraq was involved in the
9/11
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
attacks. I have seen them say that Iraq was involved with terrorism and
that
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
Iraq had ties (or links, or connections) to al Qaeda. I have seen the
Press
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
decide that the Administration was "implying" that Iraq was involved in
9/11.
Then you have been asleep for a very long time.
Post by John Saunders
I've never seen anyone in the Press attempt to present corroboration that
the Administration was "implying" anything about Iraq and 9/11. Just
their
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
assumption that the Administration must have been "implying" something.
They are still doing it today, John.
You are obviously just a right wing troll.
You lose by default.
If they're still doing it, then it should be easy for you to show me an
example. Please do.
Like shooting fish in a barrel...
http://www.winfieldcourier.com/w040619/Fri1.html
Jim Thompson today said Bush nor Cheney ever said that Hussein had
anything to do with 9-11. And that there commission found no evidence
towards it. The commission DID find links between Iraq and bin laden.

USA Today Editorial/Opinion
by Stephen Hadley, deputy national security adviser
http://snipurl.com/76hp

A 9/11 commission staff report is being cited to argue that the
administration was wrong about there being suspicious ties and
contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. In fact, just the opposite
is true. The staff report documents such links.
The staff report concludes that:

o Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation
with Iraq during his time in Sudan."

o "A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three
visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994."

o "Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin
Laden had returned to Afghanistan."

Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between
Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little
shadowy. They were definitely there."

Following news stories, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he did
not understand the media flap over this issue and that the
commission does not disagree with the administration's assertion
that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam
Hussein's government.

President Bush and members of his administration have said all
along that there were contacts and that those contacts raised
troubling questions.

For instance, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the leader of a terrorist
group that is responsible for a number of deadly attacks
throughout Iraq. He and his men trained and fought with al-Qaeda
for years. Zarqawi's network helped establish and operate an
explosives and poisons facility in northeast Iraq. Zarqawi and
nearly two-dozen al-Qaeda associates were in Baghdad before the
fall of Saddam's regime. In 2002, one al-Qaeda associate bragged
that the situation in Iraq was "good" and that Baghdad could be
transited quickly.

It may be that all of the contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda
never resulted in joint terrorist attacks. But considering all
that we knew, no responsible leader could take for granted that
such a collaboration would never happen.

Saddam had threatened American interests for more than a decade,
harbored and assisted other terrorists, and possessed and used
weapons of mass destruction. Al-Qaeda had declared war on
America, and bin Laden had called the acquisition of weapons of
mass destruction to attack Americans a "religious duty."

The president did not order the liberation of Iraq in
retaliation for 9/11. He sent American troops to Iraq to remove
a grave and gathering threat to America's security. Because he
acted, Iraq is free, and America and the world are safer.

_____________________________________________________

Now little zeppy...spin that. Or are you going to discount this 9/11
commission staff report when it comes out?
Now, with Putin's information about Hussein wanting to attack the US
after 9-11, this report clarifying what Bush has been saying all
along, Bush's poll numbers going up and Kerry's going down, Clinton
stealing the limelight from Kerry,......it's been a bad week for
Democrats.
Post by zepp
*******************
"Reports that say something hasn't happened are always
interesting to me, because as we know, there are known
knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know
there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there
are some things we do not know. But there are also
unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, making things clear
To subscribe to Zepp's News http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zepps_News/join
For my fiction, http://www.finestplanet.com/~zepp/
JD



USA Today Editorial/Opinion
by Stephen Hadley, deputy national security adviser
http://snipurl.com/76hp

A 9/11 commission staff report is being cited to argue that the
administration was wrong about there being suspicious ties and
contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. In fact, just the opposite
is true. The staff report documents such links.
Jingo
2004-06-19 01:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian D.
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:10:34 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:44:55 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:37:14 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the
Bush
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
Post by zepp
Post by John Saunders
Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the 9/11
attacks?
Post by zepp
Gotta be a troll. Nobody's that fucking stupid.
Please elaborate. I meant what I said. I never saw or read any statement
by
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
anyone in the Administration which said that Iraq was involved in the
9/11
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
attacks. I have seen them say that Iraq was involved with terrorism and
that
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
Iraq had ties (or links, or connections) to al Qaeda. I have seen the
Press
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
decide that the Administration was "implying" that Iraq was involved in
9/11.
Then you have been asleep for a very long time.
Post by John Saunders
I've never seen anyone in the Press attempt to present corroboration that
the Administration was "implying" anything about Iraq and 9/11. Just
their
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
assumption that the Administration must have been "implying" something.
They are still doing it today, John.
You are obviously just a right wing troll.
You lose by default.
If they're still doing it, then it should be easy for you to show me an
example. Please do.
Like shooting fish in a barrel...
http://www.winfieldcourier.com/w040619/Fri1.html
Jim Thompson today said Bush nor Cheney ever said that Hussein had
anything to do with 9-11. And that there commission found no evidence
towards it. The commission DID find links between Iraq and bin laden.
USA Today Editorial/Opinion
by Stephen Hadley, deputy national security adviser
http://snipurl.com/76hp
Spin, Spin Spin.

Up is down. Down is up.

Bush never used imaginary ties between Iraq and 9/11.

You lose again and no amount of lying is going to change that.

Jingo


***

God was my Co-Pilot but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.

--http://www.ruighaver.net/bumperstickers/stickers/copilot.htm
zepp
2004-06-19 04:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian D.
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:10:34 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:44:55 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:37:14 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the
Bush
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
Post by zepp
Post by John Saunders
Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the 9/11
attacks?
Post by zepp
Gotta be a troll. Nobody's that fucking stupid.
Please elaborate. I meant what I said. I never saw or read any statement
by
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
anyone in the Administration which said that Iraq was involved in the
9/11
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
attacks. I have seen them say that Iraq was involved with terrorism and
that
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
Iraq had ties (or links, or connections) to al Qaeda. I have seen the
Press
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
decide that the Administration was "implying" that Iraq was involved in
9/11.
Then you have been asleep for a very long time.
Post by John Saunders
I've never seen anyone in the Press attempt to present corroboration that
the Administration was "implying" anything about Iraq and 9/11. Just
their
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
assumption that the Administration must have been "implying" something.
They are still doing it today, John.
You are obviously just a right wing troll.
You lose by default.
If they're still doing it, then it should be easy for you to show me an
example. Please do.
Like shooting fish in a barrel...
http://www.winfieldcourier.com/w040619/Fri1.html
Jim Thompson today said Bush nor Cheney ever said that Hussein had
anything to do with 9-11. And that there commission found no evidence
towards it. The commission DID find links between Iraq and bin laden.
Well, that's a flat-out lie there, Jules. Jimmy's gonna go to hell
for that one.

But it was fun watching Putsch insist that there was too a link, even
as Dicky Ticker got up in front of the Madison Foundation and swore
the Iraq/911 link was just a media invention.

That would be that LIBERAL media, right, Dicky?
Post by Julian D.
USA Today Editorial/Opinion
by Stephen Hadley, deputy national security adviser
http://snipurl.com/76hp
A 9/11 commission staff report is being cited to argue that the
administration was wrong about there being suspicious ties and
contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. In fact, just the opposite
is true. The staff report documents such links.
o Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation
with Iraq during his time in Sudan."
o "A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three
visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994."
o "Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin
Laden had returned to Afghanistan."
Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between
Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little
shadowy. They were definitely there."
Following news stories, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he did
not understand the media flap over this issue and that the
commission does not disagree with the administration's assertion
that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam
Hussein's government.
President Bush and members of his administration have said all
along that there were contacts and that those contacts raised
troubling questions.
For instance, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the leader of a terrorist
group that is responsible for a number of deadly attacks
throughout Iraq. He and his men trained and fought with al-Qaeda
for years. Zarqawi's network helped establish and operate an
explosives and poisons facility in northeast Iraq. Zarqawi and
nearly two-dozen al-Qaeda associates were in Baghdad before the
fall of Saddam's regime. In 2002, one al-Qaeda associate bragged
that the situation in Iraq was "good" and that Baghdad could be
transited quickly.
It may be that all of the contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda
never resulted in joint terrorist attacks. But considering all
that we knew, no responsible leader could take for granted that
such a collaboration would never happen.
Saddam had threatened American interests for more than a decade,
harbored and assisted other terrorists, and possessed and used
weapons of mass destruction. Al-Qaeda had declared war on
America, and bin Laden had called the acquisition of weapons of
mass destruction to attack Americans a "religious duty."
The president did not order the liberation of Iraq in
retaliation for 9/11. He sent American troops to Iraq to remove
a grave and gathering threat to America's security. Because he
acted, Iraq is free, and America and the world are safer.
_____________________________________________________
Now little zeppy...spin that. Or are you going to discount this 9/11
commission staff report when it comes out?
Now, with Putin's information about Hussein wanting to attack the US
after 9-11, this report clarifying what Bush has been saying all
along, Bush's poll numbers going up and Kerry's going down, Clinton
stealing the limelight from Kerry,......it's been a bad week for
Democrats.
Post by zepp
*******************
"Reports that say something hasn't happened are always
interesting to me, because as we know, there are known
knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know
there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there
are some things we do not know. But there are also
unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, making things clear
To subscribe to Zepp's News http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zepps_News/join
For my fiction, http://www.finestplanet.com/~zepp/
JD
USA Today Editorial/Opinion
by Stephen Hadley, deputy national security adviser
http://snipurl.com/76hp
A 9/11 commission staff report is being cited to argue that the
administration was wrong about there being suspicious ties and
contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. In fact, just the opposite
is true. The staff report documents such links.
-
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
terrorism.'"

-- CNN, 4/30/2001.


Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
Julian D.
2004-06-19 07:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by zepp
Post by Julian D.
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:10:34 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:44:55 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:37:14 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the
Bush
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
Post by zepp
Post by John Saunders
Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the 9/11
attacks?
Post by zepp
Gotta be a troll. Nobody's that fucking stupid.
Please elaborate. I meant what I said. I never saw or read any statement
by
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
anyone in the Administration which said that Iraq was involved in the
9/11
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
attacks. I have seen them say that Iraq was involved with terrorism and
that
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
Iraq had ties (or links, or connections) to al Qaeda. I have seen the
Press
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
decide that the Administration was "implying" that Iraq was involved in
9/11.
Then you have been asleep for a very long time.
Post by John Saunders
I've never seen anyone in the Press attempt to present corroboration that
the Administration was "implying" anything about Iraq and 9/11. Just
their
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
assumption that the Administration must have been "implying" something.
They are still doing it today, John.
You are obviously just a right wing troll.
You lose by default.
If they're still doing it, then it should be easy for you to show me an
example. Please do.
Like shooting fish in a barrel...
http://www.winfieldcourier.com/w040619/Fri1.html
Jim Thompson today said Bush nor Cheney ever said that Hussein had
anything to do with 9-11. And that there commission found no evidence
towards it. The commission DID find links between Iraq and bin laden.
Well, that's a flat-out lie there, Jules. Jimmy's gonna go to hell
for that one.
So...A member of the 9-11 commission says so...and you don't accept
it. Here's some facts from the 9-11 'staff report':

The staff report concludes that:

o Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation
with Iraq during his time in Sudan."

o "A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three
visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994."

o "Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin
Laden had returned to Afghanistan."

Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between
Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little
shadowy. They were definitely there."

Following news stories, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he did
not understand the media flap over this issue and that the
commission does not disagree with the administration's assertion
that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam
Hussein's government.

____________________________________
Now...just what higher authorities than a member of the Commission and
the findings of the commssion itself do you need?
How about a Democrat saying so? Like the Vice Chairman of the
Commission Lee Hamilton?


And you wonder why Bush is going up in the polls and will continue to.
btw...don't get a big head or anything, but after much thought, YOU,
yes YOU zepp, are officially added to my 'scorn and derision' list
the day after Bush gets re-elected. That's even highter up and more
prestigious than my 'boast and ridicule' list.
Post by zepp
But it was fun watching Putsch insist that there was too a link, even
as Dicky Ticker got up in front of the Madison Foundation and swore
the Iraq/911 link was just a media invention.
That would be that LIBERAL media, right, Dicky?
Post by Julian D.
USA Today Editorial/Opinion
by Stephen Hadley, deputy national security adviser
http://snipurl.com/76hp
A 9/11 commission staff report is being cited to argue that the
administration was wrong about there being suspicious ties and
contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. In fact, just the opposite
is true. The staff report documents such links.
o Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation
with Iraq during his time in Sudan."
o "A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three
visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994."
o "Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin
Laden had returned to Afghanistan."
Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between
Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little
shadowy. They were definitely there."
Following news stories, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he did
not understand the media flap over this issue and that the
commission does not disagree with the administration's assertion
that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam
Hussein's government.
President Bush and members of his administration have said all
along that there were contacts and that those contacts raised
troubling questions.
For instance, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the leader of a terrorist
group that is responsible for a number of deadly attacks
throughout Iraq. He and his men trained and fought with al-Qaeda
for years. Zarqawi's network helped establish and operate an
explosives and poisons facility in northeast Iraq. Zarqawi and
nearly two-dozen al-Qaeda associates were in Baghdad before the
fall of Saddam's regime. In 2002, one al-Qaeda associate bragged
that the situation in Iraq was "good" and that Baghdad could be
transited quickly.
It may be that all of the contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda
never resulted in joint terrorist attacks. But considering all
that we knew, no responsible leader could take for granted that
such a collaboration would never happen.
Saddam had threatened American interests for more than a decade,
harbored and assisted other terrorists, and possessed and used
weapons of mass destruction. Al-Qaeda had declared war on
America, and bin Laden had called the acquisition of weapons of
mass destruction to attack Americans a "religious duty."
The president did not order the liberation of Iraq in
retaliation for 9/11. He sent American troops to Iraq to remove
a grave and gathering threat to America's security. Because he
acted, Iraq is free, and America and the world are safer.
_____________________________________________________
Now little zeppy...spin that. Or are you going to discount this 9/11
commission staff report when it comes out?
Now, with Putin's information about Hussein wanting to attack the US
after 9-11, this report clarifying what Bush has been saying all
along, Bush's poll numbers going up and Kerry's going down, Clinton
stealing the limelight from Kerry,......it's been a bad week for
Democrats.
Post by zepp
*******************
"Reports that say something hasn't happened are always
interesting to me, because as we know, there are known
knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know
there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there
are some things we do not know. But there are also
unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, making things clear
To subscribe to Zepp's News http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zepps_News/join
For my fiction, http://www.finestplanet.com/~zepp/
JD
USA Today Editorial/Opinion
by Stephen Hadley, deputy national security adviser
http://snipurl.com/76hp
A 9/11 commission staff report is being cited to argue that the
administration was wrong about there being suspicious ties and
contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. In fact, just the opposite
is true. The staff report documents such links.
-
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
terrorism.'"
-- CNN, 4/30/2001.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
JD



USA Today Editorial/Opinion
by Stephen Hadley, deputy national security adviser
http://snipurl.com/76hp

A 9/11 commission staff report is being cited to argue that the
administration was wrong about there being suspicious ties and
contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. In fact, just the opposite
is true. The staff report documents such links.
Steve Canyon
2004-06-19 11:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by zepp
Post by Julian D.
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:10:34 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:44:55 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:37:14 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the
Bush
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
Post by zepp
Post by John Saunders
Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the 9/11
attacks?
Post by zepp
Gotta be a troll. Nobody's that fucking stupid.
Please elaborate. I meant what I said. I never saw or read any statement
by
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
anyone in the Administration which said that Iraq was involved in the
9/11
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
attacks. I have seen them say that Iraq was involved with terrorism and
that
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
Iraq had ties (or links, or connections) to al Qaeda. I have seen the
Press
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
decide that the Administration was "implying" that Iraq was involved in
9/11.
Then you have been asleep for a very long time.
Post by John Saunders
I've never seen anyone in the Press attempt to present corroboration that
the Administration was "implying" anything about Iraq and 9/11. Just
their
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
assumption that the Administration must have been "implying" something.
They are still doing it today, John.
You are obviously just a right wing troll.
You lose by default.
If they're still doing it, then it should be easy for you to show me an
example. Please do.
Like shooting fish in a barrel...
http://www.winfieldcourier.com/w040619/Fri1.html
Jim Thompson today said Bush nor Cheney ever said that Hussein had
anything to do with 9-11. And that there commission found no evidence
towards it. The commission DID find links between Iraq and bin laden.
Well, that's a flat-out lie there, Jules. Jimmy's gonna go to hell
for that one.
Actually, Lee Harrison said that their report doesn't contradict Bush
at all....
Post by zepp
But it was fun watching Putsch insist that there was too a link, even
as Dicky Ticker got up in front of the Madison Foundation and swore
the Iraq/911 link was just a media invention.
But it's fun watching the loony leftists trying to spin this into
something...


"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."[...] the
corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper.
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0403172013.7bb7c449%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&

"States cannot amend the Constitution, you clod. Congress can. The states
get to ratify it or not. But they have to ratify what they're given."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=385570ab.9710819%40news.earthlink.net

"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com


"I mean, Jesus, you moron; basically what you're arguing is that the Bill
of Rights only protects you from the government. That's insane."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=rOednTyGe5IzVjvd4p2dnA%40comcast.com
Steve Canyon
2004-06-19 02:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:10:34 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:44:55 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:37:14 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the
Bush
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
Post by zepp
Post by John Saunders
Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the 9/11
attacks?
Post by zepp
Gotta be a troll. Nobody's that fucking stupid.
Please elaborate. I meant what I said. I never saw or read any statement
by
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
anyone in the Administration which said that Iraq was involved in the
9/11
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
attacks. I have seen them say that Iraq was involved with terrorism and
that
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
Iraq had ties (or links, or connections) to al Qaeda. I have seen the
Press
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
decide that the Administration was "implying" that Iraq was involved in
9/11.
Then you have been asleep for a very long time.
Post by John Saunders
I've never seen anyone in the Press attempt to present corroboration that
the Administration was "implying" anything about Iraq and 9/11. Just
their
Post by Jingo
Post by John Saunders
assumption that the Administration must have been "implying" something.
They are still doing it today, John.
You are obviously just a right wing troll.
You lose by default.
If they're still doing it, then it should be easy for you to show me an
example. Please do.
Like shooting fish in a barrel...
http://www.winfieldcourier.com/w040619/Fri1.html
<LOL> Like I've been saying, Bush never claimed that Saddam had a
connection with the 1/11 attack, and that is what the 9/11 commission
said there was no evidence of. All the moron leftists have is Bush
saying that there has been a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq and
everybody with a brain knows that it's true.

Even the commission says it's findings don't contradict Bush.

"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."[...] the
corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper.
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0403172013.7bb7c449%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&

"States cannot amend the Constitution, you clod. Congress can. The states
get to ratify it or not. But they have to ratify what they're given."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=385570ab.9710819%40news.earthlink.net

"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com


"I mean, Jesus, you moron; basically what you're arguing is that the Bill
of Rights only protects you from the government. That's insane."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=rOednTyGe5IzVjvd4p2dnA%40comcast.com
Jingo
2004-06-18 20:51:59 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:37:14 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the Bush
Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks?
Presidential Letter

For Immediate Release

Office of the Press Secretary, March 19, 2003

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based
on information available to me, including that in the enclosed
document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other
peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national
security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by
Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is
consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to
take the necessary actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH
Post by John Saunders
I've never seen any, though I have seen speeches showing how 9/11 reminds us
that WMD in the hands of someone like Saddam Hussein. In the same way he
paid money to the families of suicide bombers, he could as easily slip
terrorists a crate of sarin artillery shells (the newer ones, not the old
ones which were used in an IED a few weeks ago).
We know Saddam once had WMDs.

We have the receipts he gave Reagan/Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney.
Post by John Saunders
Saddam Hussein has already used WMD against his neighbors and his own
people, was shooting at American planes, and was violating numerous UN
Security Council Resolutions. Why wait around for a repeat of 9/11, but with
WMD on the plane instead of a full load of fuel?
How exactly does that tie Saddam to 9/11 again?

Jingo



***

God was my Co-Pilot but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.

--http://www.ruighaver.net/bumperstickers/stickers/copilot.htm
John Saunders
2004-06-18 21:34:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by zepp
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:37:14 GMT, "John Saunders"
Post by John Saunders
Post by Jingo
Its a Texas word. And it describes the Bush Administrations ongoing
campaign to tie Iraq to 9/11 perfectly.
Hi, could you point me to some articles showing where anyone in the Bush
Administration ever tried to say that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks?
Presidential Letter
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary, March 19, 2003
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
<text elided>

Thanks for posting the text of the letter to which you were referring. For
those like me who like citations, this letter is at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html. Now that I
can read the entire text, I see how there may have been confusion between
this letter and the one on March 21, which refers to the March 18 letter.


I have to admit that I see no good reason to mention 9/11 in reference to
the invasion of Iraq. That may either indicate that this was an attempt to
link Iraq to 9/11, or it may be that I am not yet able to see the reason for
the reference. I'm goingn to research the relavent laws (Public Law 107-243
is at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107),
and get back to you.

Thanks for your reply. This is exactly the kind of thing I was after.

For a little background on my I'll tell you that I grew up in New York City,
and in one of my first jobs as an adult, I had to travel to the train
station below the WTC. I still remember how beautiful it was in the sunrise
as I walked towards it.

Although I am a Republican and supporter of the President, I'm more about
making it not happen again than I am about seeing the President reelected.
The War Against Terrorism is too important to politicize. If we screw this
up there are millions of lives at stake. But not only do I think we can win
this war without becoming evil ourselves, I think we cannot win this war if
we become evil ourselves. If I find that the President lied about this, I'll
be at the head of the line calling for impeachment!
Post by zepp
Post by John Saunders
I've never seen any, though I have seen speeches showing how 9/11 reminds us
that WMD in the hands of someone like Saddam Hussein. In the same way he
paid money to the families of suicide bombers, he could as easily slip
terrorists a crate of sarin artillery shells (the newer ones, not the old
ones which were used in an IED a few weeks ago).
We know Saddam once had WMDs.
We have the receipts he gave Reagan/Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney.
Please post a URL. :-)
Post by zepp
Post by John Saunders
Saddam Hussein has already used WMD against his neighbors and his own
people, was shooting at American planes, and was violating numerous UN
Security Council Resolutions. Why wait around for a repeat of 9/11, but with
WMD on the plane instead of a full load of fuel?
How exactly does that tie Saddam to 9/11 again?
It doesn't.
--
John Saunders
johnwsaundersiii at hotmail
BÎllary
2004-06-17 23:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. And you still have no proof
that Bush said Saddam plotted 911. But nice try Roger Shill
Post by BÎllary
Post by BÎllary
Despite the FACT that this Mr. Bush has NEVER made this claim. And
despite
Post by BÎllary
the FACT that president Bush has repeatedly said that there was NO
collaboration Between Osama and Saddam on 911. LIEbrals want America
(especially other LIEbral lemmings) to believe that Mr. Bush actually made
this claim. So if you watch Clinton News Network or People Broadcasting
System or listen to National Peoples Radio, Their new tactic is to claim
that Mr. Bush left "the impression" that there "was a connection to 911"
From http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm
from the March 14, 2003 edition
WASHINGTON - In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused
almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He
referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same
breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president.
Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among
much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role
in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of
Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about
the same figure as a month ago.
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that
Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is
currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging
this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a
possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to
Hussein's regime.
"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some
connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull,
director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the
University of Maryland.
Post by BÎllary
So here's the *play at home* version of this LIEbral deception technique.
Say the following to yourself louder and louder and louder and LOUDER each
time until you're screaming it out of your car window! Say loud enough
until YOU believe it yourself. Ready set go....
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Good now you're LIEbral lemming.....
ShÎllary
2004-06-18 00:41:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by BÎllary
Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. And you still have no proof
that Bush said Saddam plotted 911. But nice try Roger Shill
http://tinyurl.com/2l8pf

From: Billary (***@vastrightwingconspiracy.org)
Subject: Re: A Brilliant Speech Mr. President!!
View: Complete Thread (132 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Date: 2003-09-08 15:00:36 PST


I suppose you have proof that Saddam had "nothing" to do with 911. Please
do share.
Post by BÎllary
You liberals are not very bright. You need to think outside your
left wing
paranoid box. Think like a military strategist...The strategy has
been and
continues to be to make Iraq a magnet for the terrorists. It accomplishes
several goals. It draws the terrorists away from their missions
and their
camps and into Iraq. Where our troops can isolate them, kill or
capture them. These idiot terrorists don't even know they are
being lead into a trap. As far as they concerned they are fighting
the infidels. Better we
draw them out into the open where we can destroy them, then have
them hiding
in America where they seek to destroy us. DO YOU HEAR ME NOW?...GOOD!!!
Billary, "the brain"
Official member of the "Vast right wing conspiracy"
So you're saying that the US military wants to fight a guerilla war?
Hmmm...
Fight Guerilla war with our highly trained soldiers with kevlar vests,
night vision, and superior tactics and air support and have less
soldiers killed in Iraq every day than have fatalities in traffic
accidents here in the US per day
vs.
Have terrorists fly planes into buildings, poison our water, etc. and
kill thousands of untrained civilians at a time.
Your are right. Tough call!
:-/
What a foolish remark. Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. Why you folks
are so scared of the boogyman I'll never know. The rest of the world has
been dealing with terrorism for centuries. We have our own home grown
terrorists remember the Unibomber, the DC Sniper, McVeigh, The Abortion
bombers, The Atlanta bomber or any number of idiots who have nothing to
do with the Mid-East. Every year more folks are killed and maimed by
American corporations than were killed on 9/11. You cowards who are
willing to place American soldiers in a foreign land in harms way doing a
job they are not trained to do in order for you assholes to feel safe
ought to be required to stand the post. Equally as disgusting is how
quickly you folks are ready to scrap the Bill of Rights and our freedoms
just for a false sense of security. Quit whining and sniviling, grow a
pair. Stand up and be an American and be responsible for your own damn
security.
Sid9
2004-06-18 02:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Read it and weep

See the facts with the original quotes:

http://tinyurl.com/2ofuy

Bush and Cheney in denial on the 9/11 committee revelations
Post by BÎllary
Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. And you still have no
proof that Bush said Saddam plotted 911. But nice try Roger Shill
Post by Roger
Post by BÎllary
Despite the FACT that this Mr. Bush has NEVER made this claim. And
despite the FACT that president Bush has repeatedly said that there
was NO collaboration Between Osama and Saddam on 911. LIEbrals
want America (especially other LIEbral lemmings) to believe that
Mr. Bush actually made this claim. So if you watch Clinton News
Network or People Broadcasting System or listen to National Peoples
Radio, Their new tactic is to claim that Mr. Bush left "the
impression" that there "was a connection to 911"
From http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm
from the March 14, 2003 edition
WASHINGTON - In his prime-time press conference last week, which
focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11
eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than
that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi
president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression
that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi
dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS
poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr.
Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure
as a month ago.
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence
that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has
been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to
be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain
American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate
seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.
"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is
some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven
Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes
(PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
Post by BÎllary
So here's the *play at home* version of this LIEbral deception
technique. Say the following to yourself louder and louder and
louder and LOUDER each time until you're screaming it out of your
car window! Say loud enough until YOU believe it yourself. Ready
set go....
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good
keep saying it...again
Good now you're LIEbral lemming.....
See the facts with the original quotes:

http://tinyurl.com/2ofuy

Bush and Cheney in denial on the 9/11 committee revelations
Roger
2004-06-18 04:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by BÎllary
Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. And you still have no proof
that Bush said Saddam plotted 911. But nice try Roger Shill
From http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm

from the March 14, 2003 edition

WASHINGTON - In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused
almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He
referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same
breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president.
Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among
much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role
in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of
Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about
the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that
Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is
currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging
this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a
possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to
Hussein's regime.

"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some
connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull,
director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the
University of Maryland.
Post by BÎllary
Post by BÎllary
Post by BÎllary
Despite the FACT that this Mr. Bush has NEVER made this claim. And
despite
Post by BÎllary
the FACT that president Bush has repeatedly said that there was NO
collaboration Between Osama and Saddam on 911. LIEbrals want America
(especially other LIEbral lemmings) to believe that Mr. Bush actually
made
Post by BÎllary
Post by BÎllary
this claim. So if you watch Clinton News Network or People Broadcasting
System or listen to National Peoples Radio, Their new tactic is to claim
that Mr. Bush left "the impression" that there "was a connection to 911"
From http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm
from the March 14, 2003 edition
WASHINGTON - In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused
almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He
referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same
breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president.
Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists
among
Post by BÎllary
much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct
role
Post by BÎllary
in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45
percent
Post by BÎllary
of
Post by BÎllary
Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about
the same figure as a month ago.
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that
Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is
currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging
this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a
possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to
Hussein's regime.
"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some
connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull,
director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the
University of Maryland.
Post by BÎllary
So here's the *play at home* version of this LIEbral deception
technique.
Post by BÎllary
Post by BÎllary
Say the following to yourself louder and louder and louder and LOUDER
each
Post by BÎllary
Post by BÎllary
time until you're screaming it out of your car window! Say loud enough
until YOU believe it yourself. Ready set go....
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep
saying it...again
Good now you're LIEbral lemming.....
John Saunders
2004-06-18 18:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by BÎllary
Post by BÎllary
Despite the FACT that this Mr. Bush has NEVER made this claim. And
despite
Post by BÎllary
the FACT that president Bush has repeatedly said that there was NO
collaboration Between Osama and Saddam on 911. LIEbrals want America
(especially other LIEbral lemmings) to believe that Mr. Bush actually made
this claim. So if you watch Clinton News Network or People Broadcasting
System or listen to National Peoples Radio, Their new tactic is to claim
that Mr. Bush left "the impression" that there "was a connection to 911"
From http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm
from the March 14, 2003 edition
WASHINGTON - In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused
almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He
referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same
breath with Sept. 11.
So, somebody actually counted breaths? That would be more credible if they
would tell us, numerically, in which breath he referred to both. :-)
Post by BÎllary
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president.
Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among
much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role
in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of
Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about
the same figure as a month ago.
Ok, so what's the theory on why he doesn't come out and say it if he really
believes it. It's been a couple of years. If he still believes it, why has
he said nothing about it that whole time? In fact, why has he denied it that
whole time?

This is just bad journalism, along with the typical result of bad
journalism - people believe it. It's bad journalism because "Bush implied"
or "Bush left the impression" isn't the same kind of concrete occurrence as
"Bush picked up a pen", or "Bush got on Air Force One at 8:45 am". The
latter two can be proven to be true (someone may have seen him get on Air
Force One) or can be properly inferred (someone may have seen what he wrote
after picking up the pen).

But things like "Bush left the impression" are just a matter of journalists
taking about themselves. These really mean, "I (the journalist) believe that
Bush left the impression ..." or "I believe that Bush implied ...".

It's ok for journalists to use their experience and knowledge to fill in the
gaps between the facts in the stories they report, but they should also use
good journalistic practices to confirm that their knowledge and experience
have brought them to a valid conclusion. For instance, did anyone ever get a
report "from sources close to the White House" that Bush _intended_ to
"leave the impression"? Has anyone stated that "Bush knew he was leaving the
impression and made a decision not to correct the impression so that the
country would be more likely to go to war"? If so, I haven't seen this.
--
John Saunders
johnwsaundersiii at hotmail
ShÎllary
2004-06-17 21:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by BÎllary
Despite the FACT that this Mr. Bush has NEVER made this claim. And despite
the FACT that president Bush has repeatedly said that there was NO
collaboration Between Osama and Saddam on 911. LIEbrals want America
(especially other LIEbral lemmings) to believe that Mr. Bush actually made
this claim. So if you watch Clinton News Network or People Broadcasting
System or listen to National Peoples Radio, Their new tactic is to claim
that Mr. Bush left "the impression" that there "was a connection to 911"
So here's the *play at home* version of this LIEbral deception technique.
Say the following to yourself louder and louder and louder and LOUDER each
time until you're screaming it out of your car window! Say loud enough
until YOU believe it yourself. Ready set go....
http://tinyurl.com/2l8pf


From: Billary (***@vastrightwingconspiracy.org)
Subject: Re: A Brilliant Speech Mr. President!!
View: Complete Thread (132 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Date: 2003-09-08 15:00:36 PST


I suppose you have proof that Saddam had "nothing" to do with 911. Please
do share.
Post by BÎllary
You liberals are not very bright. You need to think outside your
left wing
paranoid box. Think like a military strategist...The strategy has
been and
continues to be to make Iraq a magnet for the terrorists. It accomplishes
several goals. It draws the terrorists away from their missions
and their
camps and into Iraq. Where our troops can isolate them, kill or
capture them. These idiot terrorists don't even know they are
being lead into a trap. As far as they concerned they are fighting
the infidels. Better we
draw them out into the open where we can destroy them, then have
them hiding
in America where they seek to destroy us. DO YOU HEAR ME NOW?...GOOD!!!
Billary, "the brain"
Official member of the "Vast right wing conspiracy"
So you're saying that the US military wants to fight a guerilla war?
Hmmm...
Fight Guerilla war with our highly trained soldiers with kevlar vests,
night vision, and superior tactics and air support and have less
soldiers killed in Iraq every day than have fatalities in traffic
accidents here in the US per day
vs.
Have terrorists fly planes into buildings, poison our water, etc. and
kill thousands of untrained civilians at a time.
Your are right. Tough call!
:-/
What a foolish remark. Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. Why you folks
are so scared of the boogyman I'll never know. The rest of the world has
been dealing with terrorism for centuries. We have our own home grown
terrorists remember the Unibomber, the DC Sniper, McVeigh, The Abortion
bombers, The Atlanta bomber or any number of idiots who have nothing to
do with the Mid-East. Every year more folks are killed and maimed by
American corporations than were killed on 9/11. You cowards who are
willing to place American soldiers in a foreign land in harms way doing a
job they are not trained to do in order for you assholes to feel safe
ought to be required to stand the post. Equally as disgusting is how
quickly you folks are ready to scrap the Bill of Rights and our freedoms
just for a false sense of security. Quit whining and sniviling, grow a
pair. Stand up and be an American and be responsible for your own damn
security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
g***@internet.charitydays.uk.co
2004-06-17 22:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by BÎllary
Despite the FACT that this Mr. Bush has NEVER made this claim. And despite
the FACT that president Bush has repeatedly said that there was NO
collaboration Between Osama and Saddam on 911. LIEbrals want America
(especially other LIEbral lemmings) to believe that Mr. Bush actually made
this claim. So if you watch Clinton News Network or People Broadcasting
System or listen to National Peoples Radio, Their new tactic is to claim
that Mr. Bush left "the impression" that there "was a connection to 911"
So here's the *play at home* version of this LIEbral deception technique.
Say the following to yourself louder and louder and louder and LOUDER each
time until you're screaming it out of your car window! Say loud enough
until YOU believe it yourself. Ready set go....
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep saying it...again
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bush spent $200 million on this propaganda campaign during the moths prior to the invasion of Iraq.

The object of this campaign was to link 9/11 and Iraq in the minds of Americans.

The $200 million was taxpayer's money.
And it was being used to influence those same taxpayers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[snip]
John Saunders
2004-06-18 19:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@internet.charitydays.uk.co
Post by BÎllary
Despite the FACT that this Mr. Bush has NEVER made this claim. And despite
the FACT that president Bush has repeatedly said that there was NO
collaboration Between Osama and Saddam on 911. LIEbrals want America
(especially other LIEbral lemmings) to believe that Mr. Bush actually made
this claim. So if you watch Clinton News Network or People Broadcasting
System or listen to National Peoples Radio, Their new tactic is to claim
that Mr. Bush left "the impression" that there "was a connection to 911"
So here's the *play at home* version of this LIEbral deception technique.
Say the following to yourself louder and louder and louder and LOUDER each
time until you're screaming it out of your car window! Say loud enough
until YOU believe it yourself. Ready set go....
Bush fooled America into thinking Saddam planned 911, that's good keep saying it...again
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bush spent $200 million on this propaganda campaign during the moths prior
to the invasion of Iraq.
Post by g***@internet.charitydays.uk.co
The object of this campaign was to link 9/11 and Iraq in the minds of Americans.
The $200 million was taxpayer's money.
And it was being used to influence those same taxpayers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Proof, please. Please prove not only that there was a $200 million campaign,
but also that its object was to link 9/11 and Iraq in the minds of
Americans.
--
John Saunders
johnwsaundersiii at hotmail
Abhijit Bhattacharya
2004-06-19 00:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Saunders
Proof, please. Please prove not only that there was a $200 million campaign,
but also that its object was to link 9/11 and Iraq in the minds of
Americans.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

Regards,

Abhijit
John Saunders
2004-06-19 00:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Saunders
Post by John Saunders
Proof, please. Please prove not only that there was a $200 million campaign,
but also that its object was to link 9/11 and Iraq in the minds of
Americans.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
Regards,
Abhijit
Abhijit, I'm sorry, but I've read that letter, and I don't see any mention
of a $200 million public relations campaign. I do see the mention of Iraq
and 9/11, and I've stated in a prior post that I don't see a good reason for
both to be in this letter. I'm going to do some research to see if I can
come up with a good reason. Either way, I'll post my findings here.
--
John Saunders
johnwsaundersiii at hotmail
Loading...