imagine how much money was spent on just investigating what everyone already knew

No Link Robbie NO LINK bwhahahahahahhaha

Larry Mohr

600,000 Iraqi documents?
What about the stuff that's not in the documents?
Tools!
The Right

Another thread exposing the lies of Crotch Fur(Alias Bush-Shrubby-Shrub-etc).

NEXT

But there could still be lots of documents buried in the sand or that were transported to Seria. This doesn't prove anything. Ooday and Coosay could have eaten documents or fed them to olympic hopefuls. Yeah.

"Seria."


Proof read, Danni, proof read :-)

That's how GW spelt it.

So Hillary lied on the floor of congress on 10/8/02?

No, she was misled by Shrubs lies like alot of Americans.

"Da Coach" once said "The past is for loosers"... This is one case where I have to agree with him. What does it matter? Does it make one bit of difference? What matters and what will make a difference is: What are we going to do to stabilize things in Iraq and get our troops out of there?

We spend a lot of time and effort trying to place blame (when most have already come to agreement on that) and the real issues of what we are going to do are not being solved.

What does it matter? Does it make one bit of difference?

Some are doomed to repeat history.

"So Hillary lied on the floor of congress on 10/8/02?"

no bush lied
and hillary actually believed her elected leader

oops.

It matters to the families of our soldiers who are dead!! They would still be alive if it wasn't for the lies of Croch Hair!

It matters so we don't elect another one of these to F@#$ups who took us into this war.

We spend a lot of time and effort trying to place blame (when most have already come to agreement on that) and the real issues of what we are going to do are not being solved.


The coach was right.

We should learn from our mistakes so that we never repeat them.

The problem is that some make "learning from our mistakes" and "beating a dead horse" as the same thing.

The only people you will find that still believe the original reasons for going to war in Iraq are the hard-line faithful. Anyone else, you're pretty much preaching to the choir.

So what's the purpose of this story?

Perhaps if democrats spent a little more time in the present while thinking about the future, we'd be able to do as progressives are want to do. Progress.

No amount of "see we told you that there were no connections" is going to change the fact that we were led into a conflict on less-than-stellar evidence. And most of us bought it, hook-line-sinker.

What does it matter? It matters to the families of thousands of US troops who have died in the sands of Iraq FOR A LIE. It matters to the hundreds of thousands of families of Iraqis who have died FOR A LIE. It matters to the Iraqis who are living under US occupation FOR A LIE. And it should matter to each and every American whose childrens' futures have been bartered FOR A LIE. We will spend the rest of OUR lives paying off the debt FOR A LIE and our children will continue paying the debt for the duration of THEIR lives. FOR A LIE. And who is accountable? NO ONE! Not one, single ELECTED United States official has been held responsible for this monsterous LIE. And that is the most monsterous injustice of all.

...you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You fucked up - you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it!

A) Otter, Animal House (1978)

B) Bush, President (2001-2008)

C) McCain, GOP Candidate (2007)

D) All of the above

It matters to the families of our soldiers who are dead!! They would still be alive if it wasn't for the lies of Croch Hair!


So knowing the truth is how we reverse their deaths? No amount of reports on the subject is going to bring any of those people back. The Vietnam war memorial was raised to be a reminder of what the sacrifices of that conflict.

We didn't learn anything from it.

You think, now, we're going to learn something from this one?


It matters so we don't elect another one of these to F@#$ups who took us into this war.


Ha! Shit, you've already re-elected some of the fuck ups that took us into war.

"Perhaps if democrats spent a little more time in the present while thinking about the future, we'd be able to do as progressives are want to do. Progress."

Perhaps if people like Admiral Fallon didn't have to resign to call attention to the war mongering of the Bush administration we might be able to do that. Until Bush is out of office this country is in grave danger of declaring another unnecessary war against a country that hasn't attacked us.

"So what's the purpose of this story?"

To remind all of us that we can NEVER trust the liars who inhabit the White House. We can't allow our country to be drug into another unnecessary war against a country that has never attacked us.
Also to remind us that Bush/Cheney and the rest of the neocon criminals should be in jail not in the WH.

It won't matter that this was published. The neoright habitually asserts such research is created by persons in the pockets of foreign nations.

Yes, they do absolutely believe that Iraqi WMD is in Syria, or maybe Russia. Yoy can show them the contradictory evidence until the cows come home. It's the ACT of contradiction that proves to them they must be right.

so i murder someone ten years ago, I can say hey stop beating a dead horse,lets look to the future, what difference does it make, we spend a lot of time and effort trying to place blame and the real issues of what we are going to do are not being solved, etc etc etc

Yes, the deaths in Iraq matter. But pointing the blame at Bush or anyone else will not bring them back or prevent more deaths.

What is needed is for people to focus on what it will take to stabilze Iraq so we can get them out.

Or if we agree that stabilizing Iraq is not what we need to do, then just pull out.

I actually am conflicted on this. On one hand, we created the mess so we should clean it up. After-all isn't that what we teach our children?

On the other hand, a destabilized Iraq presents a problem to Jorday, Saudi Arabia and others in the middle-east. Let them have some skin in the game. Pull out and let it be their problem. By being there we are "enablers" for these coutries. We enable them to not have to deal with this problem.

If feel the same about Isreal and Gaza. We keep sticking our nose in this. Why not let the countries in the region sort it out.

This worked in the case of N. Korea. Why not let it work here?

What are we going to do to stabilize things in Iraq and get our troops out of there?


According to the Iraqis, doing the latter will make the former occur.

I wonder if the troops will get to see this. As late as 2005 or 2006 a majority of them still believed Saddam was involved.

And Danni -FF

Well, the surge has gotten things to a certain point. We saw the thing yesterday that said things are not getting better (or worse). So like I said yesterday, isn't this a bit like losing weight? When you hit a plateu you need to do something different.

I am not sure how much different coutries are than kids (I have never been in charge of a country). But I found that with my kids when I quit enabling their dependent behavior they (for the most part) found ways to "grow" up and do what needed to be done. Even when they did not think they could and begged me to bail them out. They are now grown and all contributing members of society (ha, do as I say not as I do, but that is another story...).

Anyway, why not give it a try, get out, stop the death of our soldiers, see what happens.

Maybe, Saudi Arabia or someone else will need to step up.

"What is needed is for people to focus on what it will take to stabilze Iraq so we can get them out."

No, what is needed is for our military leaders to focus on what it will take to stabilize Iraq so that we can get our troops out....the rest of us can continue to remember what caused this disaster so that we don't let history repeat itself right next door in Iran. It is just a little too convenient to say we shouldn't be talking about what led to this disaster....a position I notice is primarily espoused by those who supported this disaster and called those who didn't unpatriotic.
Never forget what disasters are caused by liars who wave the flag and scream about the unpatriotic opposition.

Danni,

It would be pertinent to worry about this if Bush was running for another term. He is not. Of course,the Democrats who agreed with him are still there for the most part as well as some of the Republicans. So, in places where those people are involved in elections, I suppose this would be pertinent.

The pertinent question is: what do we do now? I say...win the war. You've said...lose it. That would be a productive dialogue, because resolving it will tell us what to do next.

I thought this was a dead issue, who is still in doubt?

Hey Jonryker-

Still looking for the post where Danni said we should "lose" the war. Can you help me find it?

It's easy to win arguments if you just make shit up, so I hope you can help.

No Link Robbie NO LINK bwhahahahahahhaha

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr


No OPERATIONAL link Larry, no OPERATIONAL link.

I've never said there was an operational link... this is nothing new.

"The pertinent question is: what do we do now? I say...win the war. You've said...lose it. That would be a productive dialogue, because resolving it will tell us what to do next."

McCain and Bush seem to say....bomb Iran.
You can take your "You've said...lose it." comments and blow them out your ass. I don't even dignify such lies with real discussion. It's just more of the same crap we heard so much of earlier in the Iraq war....."anyone who doesn't agree with you is unpatriotic." Personally, I think anyone who still agrees with you is unpatriotic. Why do you, Bush and John McCain want to destroy the economy and the military of the US??? Why do you want to declare wars on countries that have not attacked us. Why are you such a sheep???

and Bush seem to say....bomb Iran.


You libs have been saying Bush will attack Iran since the summer before the 2006 elections...

Well?

So Rob, should we attack the country of every person who ever had contact with Bin laden and Al Quaeda????
Saudi Arabia would be rubble right now if we did that, doncha think?

Hmmm.....Did Bush's buddies in the Bin Laden family ever meet with.....their brother????

Using that logic, we would be at war with almost everyone.

"Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995"

"On December 20, 1984 Donald Rumsfeld met with Iraqi tryant and mass-murderer Saddam Hussein in Baghdad."

"Well?"

So Rob, what's your theory on Admiral Fallon's resignation?
Or are you going to pretend it doesn't matter, has no significance???
My guess is that Bush will leave the bombing of Iran to McCain but if he fears McCain will lose the election he will try to do it before he leaves office.

DOC he wasn't evil yet on Dec. 20, 1984. Then he was a great guy. He later fell in with a bad crowd and peer pressure turned him into a murdering lunatic.

DANNI -

Thanks for clearing that up.
I feel much better now.

No Link Between Saddam, Al Qaeda

But the Decider said there was! If the Decider said there was a link, then there was a link.

so i murder someone ten years ago, I can say hey stop beating a dead horse,lets look to the future, what difference does it make, we spend a lot of time and effort trying to place blame and the real issues of what we are going to do are not being solved, etc etc etc


The difference is that the police actually have the will to pursue you for murder. They'll build a case, hand it over to a prosecutor who will bring charges against you, and then you'll have your day in court.

On the other hand, democrats ran for election with the unspoken understanding that they might seek to impeach George W Bush for his perceived crimes against the Constitution. Sadly, once elected they gave up on that and bringing our troops home for fear that they might be smeared as "not supporting the troops".

We may have been mislead in the beginning. That falls on the Bush Administration, but the Democrats who ran for election on the promise of bringing our troops home have to share some blame for the last 2 years in Iraq.

Each and every time a spending bill has come up concerning Iraq they hem and haw then eventually lose all nerve and give in.


To remind all of us that we can NEVER trust the liars who inhabit the White House. We can't allow our country to be drug into another unnecessary war against a country that has never attacked us.
Also to remind us that Bush/Cheney and the rest of the neocon criminals should be in jail not in the WH.


Americans should be able to trust their government, but that hasn't been possible for quite a while now. There have been people in power for decades who got where they are through dishonesty. That you think you should be able to trust them or any other elected official is telling.

Perhaps it's my cynicism that leads me to believe that Regan was right about, at least, one thing. The nine most frightening words an American can hear are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

"Did they meet with each other on several occasions? Yes. Read the bold above..."

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-03-13 09:37 AM


YEAH!

But how many millions of dolars did saddam give them?

Bush met with the Taliban, and he gave them 40 million dollars of our tax money just weeks before 9-11!

I guess that just means Bush has links to the taliban!

So Rob, should we attack the country of every person who ever had contact with Bin laden and Al Quaeda????


Nope... didn't say that either.

I've never used the relationship Hussein had with Al Qaeda as justification for the attack. All I've ever done is point out that there was a relationship (note: I did not say operational relationship)

My guess is that Bush will leave the bombing of Iran to McCain but if he fears McCain will lose the election he will try to do it before he leaves office.

I'd ask you to be perfectly honest here. Did you guess that Bush would attack Iran before the 2006 elections to influence them?

Then Rob, what is the significance of such a "relationship" other than an attempt to provide excuses for the invasion????

If you ignore Bin Laden's relationship with his own country and family in Saudi ARabia but need to talk about a very minor relationship between Al Quaeda and Saddam....it is obvious what your purpose really is.

I don't know what lib conspiracy I like more: the "we're going to attack iran", or "Bush is going to use a catostraphic event to remain in office and negate the Presidential elections".

CalifChris and a few other nut-jobs have been predicting the Iranian attack (via pedo Scott Ritter or whatever his name is) and giving time lines for it for at least 3 years now.

Then Rob, what is the significance of such a "relationship" other than an attempt to provide excuses for the invasion????

Because they were making a case for war and piling on every bit of evidence that they could find. Al Qaeda and Iraq explored the possibility of a working relationship... now it certainly never worked out and probably never would, but knowing that they were thinking about it is too big not to use back 2002/2003 if you're trying to make a case for war.

the "we're going to attack iran", or "Bush is going to use a catostraphic event to remain in office and negate the Presidential elections".

I like it when they combine them!

I picture some of these tools collapsing into a heap and twitching when that event(s) never happens and Bush leaves office without incident on 1/20/2009... lol

"I'd ask you to be perfectly honest here. Did you guess that Bush would attack Iran before the 2006 elections to influence them?"

I can't honestly say whether I ever said that or not but I doubt it because I don't think his reasons for bombing Iran were/are for political gain. No, I will say this for Bush, I don't think he would bomb Iran to influence an election here.
His reasons, I think, are wrong but he does fear Iran could someday be a threat and his arrogance has allowed him to convince himself that only he or someone like minded will have the gumption to deal with them. This will prevent him from exploring other options which could allow us to avoid bombing Iran. I think his arrogance borders on insanity and McCain is just as bad. The truth is, any of the current top candidates for president will act, if necessary, just as tough as the pretend cowboy. They just won't reject diplomacy before we even try it.

wow i didnt know clinton invaded Iraq!


NO EVIDENCE of WMD

wow i didnt know clinton invaded Iraq!

She just said it was okay to.

She (Hillary Clinton) also said on the Senate Floor that Hussein was helping Al Qaeda.

""So Hillary lied on the floor of congress on 10/8/02?"

no bush lied
and hillary actually believed her elected leader

oops.""

So you are saying that as co-presidents Bill and Hillary did not get the same info from the CIA that Bush did?

Or did Bill and Hillary have a different CIA?

Danni,

I haven't heard anyone recommend bombing Iran yet, but I have heard Obama recommend we bomb Pakistan.

My original question stands: why do you think it is in our interst to lose this war?

What does it matter? Does it make one bit of difference?

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Obviously if you want to bury your head in the sand and play lalalallalalala I am not listening to you, then no it does not matter.

But when you go and pay $4 for a gallon of gas think back to the lies perpetrated for Lil Bush's holy war.

When taxes HAVE to be increased significantly to pay off the massive debt this nation has incurred for this holy war think about the lies that lead the mouthbreathers to thump their chests and beg for war. Oh and they WILL have to be increased because not one politico will ever significantly cut spending on their two favorite and bloated programs... defense and social security.

but I have heard Obama recommend we bomb Pakistan.


Have you heard that our military is CURRENTLY conducting the same operations inside Pakistan RIGHT NOW?

what we are bombing Pakistan? Wow what gives bush the authority to do that?

RaH,

and like 25-30% of our nation (the redneck fools), you still believe it, eh?

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Posted by 726 at 2008-03-13 10:52 AM | Reply

Correctamundo.
It seems as though that argument gets lost though when I repeatedly see posters crying about the smaller number of troops in Afghanistan. Apparently learning from the Russian's mistakes in Afghanistan don't count.

Rob: Those "reported meetings" were later discredited by everyone but Dick Cheney-the commission was referring to the non-existent Czech meetings with Atta.

Rob: Those "reported meetings" were later discredited by everyone but Dick Cheney-the commission was referring to the non-existent Czech meetings with Atta.

Posted by northguy3


You and the 9/11 commission report are at odds with each other.

I'll stick with them... no offense... its just that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

"My original question stands: why do you think it is in our interst to lose this war?"

Saddam is deposed, so we already won. Now we seem to be determined to dictate the future of Iraq at any cost. From the expense already incurred and that still to be spent it is a better question to ask you why you think it is in our interest to remain in Iraq. Not how it benefits the Iraqi government but how does it benefit us????
Why is it our job to be the policeman of the ME????

BTW, as 726 mentions above, when you and the rest of the "conservatives" decide you want to actually pay for this "war" you deem so important then I might listen to your arguments with an open mind. As it is your arguments are reduced to transparent excuses for a failed oil grab without a plan for finishing the job or pulling out.

This may seem like another gratuitous attack on Bush and maybe it is but, so what?

Saddam had no Al Quaeda connection. is like Bush has no connection with intelligence.(It is true that Cheney would say "Not so. He is close to me.)

This is really old news. It just bears repeating, since there are still sheep out there that believe otherwise. Piling more and more research into it each time might eventually get some to pull away from their silly flock.

RaH,

and like 25-30% of our nation (the redneck fools), you still believe it, eh?

Posted by nutcase

Am I "RaH"? Believe what? What Clinton said on the Senate Floor that Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear program had stockpiles of WMD and was helping Al Qaeda...

No, I don't think he was/did... well he did help AN (as in one) al qaeda, but that don't really count.

Still though... Hillary was selling this war as hard as any Bush Admin official...

Saddam had no Al Quaeda connection.

False.

Saddam had no operational Al Qaeda connection.

there is a difference.

"Saddam had no operational Al Qaeda connection."

11 letters.

Give it up Rob, that dog won't hunt.

Should have been: the difference is 11 letters.

rob dimwit, the USA had contacts with Al Queda, should we have bombed ourselves?

rob dimwit, the USA had contacts with Al Queda, should we have bombed ourselves?

Posted by truthhurts


Show me where I'm saying we should have bombed Iraq because of Iraqs CONNECTION to Al Qaeda? I've never said that. All I'm saying is that they had a connection.

Dimwit... harsh stuff there fuckhole.

Rob is just trying to make the thread about himself again.

Rob is just trying to make the thread about himself again.

Posted by danni

If fals accusations are going to be made against me, like that I supported the invasion based on intel that Iraq and Al Qaeda were in league with each other then I'm going to refute them and clarify my position.

If you don't want that to happen, don't make such assertions.

Should have been: the difference is 11 letters.

Posted by danni


And those 11 letters make a huge distinction.

Having no link, and having no operational link are light years apart from each other.

"Having no link, and having no operational link are light years apart from each other."

Riiight. Saddam's secular government was really going to align itself with a fanatically religiously inspired organization that would have been his enemies. But when you have no other argument other than an insignificant meeting which may or may not ever have happened.....well then....that changes everything. Thanks, now it makes perfect sense that we invade Iraq in order to fight Al Quaeda. Thanks for clearing that up Rob.

We can't vote to stop funding the war because the Republicans will advertise that we don't love our troops.

Therefore, we will continue to fund the war so our boys and gals will die overseas instead of here.

We know we shouldn't have agreed to the war, now that we know everything. But, we cannot correct our mistake because we'll look bad.

Boys and gals, please continue to die for our mistake then and our decision to save our bloody jobs.

signed, Congress - both sides of the aisle.

Petrous,

You hit the nail right on the head.

The cowards in Congress were too inept or afraid to question the intel pre war.

Now they are too afraid to take the needed action and end this clusterfuck.

"We can't vote to stop funding the war because the Republicans will advertise that we don't love our troops."

Unfortunately that is not the reason we can't stop funding the war....the truth is that we fear Bush will keep the troops there regardless of what hardships they face. We're not willing to force the troops to obey Bush's orders to remain in Iraq without the proper supplies and equipment.

But I do have to laugh at the mouthbreathers that will still be out there saying "We had to catch Saddamm for how he attacked us on 9/11".

These are the same people that will sit on the toilet so long their fat legs will grow around the seat.

You can also see them on the news describing what the UFO looked like.

If Bush would agree to obey the will of Congress and if the Republicans in Congress would cooperate we could have the troops home quickly. Unfortunately righties like to conveniently forget that (1) Bush won't go along with the will of Congress and (2) the Republicans in Congress (especially the Senate) will fillibuster any attempt to do anything to force the issue on Bush.

Danni, I wouldn't put it past the retard in chief to stubbornley refuse to remove the troops and leave them there without the proper equipment.

Hell he sent them over there without the proper equipment in the first place. But then we all know that you go to war with the army you have, not the one you want.

Folks, look at the big picture. We KNOW weapons of mass destruction were a blatant White House lie. If we add two plus two we can work out that terror, terrorism and terrorists were a Karl Rove fiction to insure Four More Years of Bush.

Comes now the BBC with a credible report (google it) that there is no such thing as Al Qaeda. No organization with that name, no world headquarters, no leadership or cadre. The ultimate proof of our emperor having no clothes. herm

But Danni, I thought that fillibusters were stalling techniques only fit for losers.

Surely you are not saying that the Republitards are using the same Senate procedures they used to wail and bitch about solely because it is convenient for them to do so now.

Herm,

But look for more "terrawr" alerts to be frequent news up until November.

Just like 2004. If you cannot win with ideas, with with smear, and if you cannot win with smear then win with fear.

"Hell he sent them over there without the proper equipment in the first place."

Good point. I hadn't thought of that one.

Thanks, now it makes perfect sense that we invade Iraq in order to fight Al Quaeda.

See there you go again... "Thanks" meaning I put that out there as a justification for bombing and invading.

I did not, and you're a fucking liar.

Rob, what's your point? I'm getting absolutely nothing of value from your argument.

Bush lied people died, Clinton got blown buildings got blown up.

/they both suck

I've never used the relationship Hussein had with Al Qaeda as justification for the attack. All I've ever done is point out that there was a relationship (note: I did not say operational relationship)

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-03-13 10:23 AM | Reply


Why do You continually lie out of Your ass Robbie. There was NO Relationship between Saddam Hussein and AL Qaeda. To declare otherwise and state there was is blatantly lying and a typical right winged tactic.

Larry Mohr

".. there is no such thing as Al Qaeda"

C'mon, Herm, this is as much symantics as the bit about contacts vs. no operational contacts. Bin Laden has an organization. It is operationally connected to various terrorist groups throughout the world. If you wish to call is something other than "Al-Qaida", feel free. Doesn't mean that Bin-Laden and his merry bunch don't exist.

Rob, what's your point?

Posted by YAV

That there was a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. As this report says there is no operational link, but that does not mean there wasn't a link of some type. There was.

".. there is no such thing as Al Qaeda"

BTW, that argument has been around since at least 2001. It's usually followed by "9/11 was a government conspiracy". If you want to establish a case against the war, you should leave such arguments to the Buffalo. Throwing in garbage only damages your effort.

That there was a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. As this report says there is no operational link, but that does not mean there wasn't a link of some type. There was.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-03-13 01:42 PM | Reply

a meeting does not a link make.

Larry Mohr

a meeting does not a link make

Good thing there were many meetings... making a link.

Good thing there were many meetings... making a link.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-03-13 01:58 PM | Reply


Keep spewing Your bullshit Robbie it won't make it true. Typical Right WInged cretin

Larry Mohr

"An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network."

That was completely unambiguous. The one reported meeting between Saddam and Bin Laden's Al Qaeda resulted in Saddam refusing their overtures. He was far too threatened by them to allow them any operational room or assistance. Period.

That there was a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. As this report says there is no operational link, but that does not mean there wasn't a link of some type. There was.

Wow, yer one ignorant asshole, Robbie.

The reason America supported the evil dictator Saddam Hussein throughout the worst of his atrocities was very, very simple.

"He may be an asshole but he's OUR asshole"

Simply put, Saddam Hussein was seen, quite rightly, as being a bulwark against the forces of radical jihadists in the region, one who prevented a political alliance betweent the mostly Shia states of Iran, Iraq and Syria.

Not to put too fine a point on it, he was allowed to be a murderous thug by the US and supported in that effort with cash, arms, logistics and the nerve gas that was dropped on Halabja precisely because he PREVENTED the rise of folks like AQ and the Taliban.

Ya wanna know who was mostly responsible for the rise in the Taliban and AQ? The CIA. In America's quest to give the Soviets "Their own Vietnam" America covertly spent mucho dinero on folks like Bin Laden and then after the Soviets fled left the area to stew in it's own juices which, of course, led to the Taliban coming in to assume power in the power vacuum that was created.

America creates it's own enemies and then comes over the crest of the hill on a white charger saying "Don't worry. We're coming to save you".

Excuse people fer not clapping too loudly at that old play.

Did you know that at their height, the Soviets had over 200,000 troops in Afghanistan plus another 150,000 Afghani warriors who were bribed into supporting them?

They lost, btw.

The number of American and other countries troops in the region (including the Brits adn Canada) is nowhere near that.

Spud heard that the US is planning on putting another couple thousand troops into the failing mission in Afghanistan. A drop in a bucket that is already leaking and nowhere near half full.

Good luck with that.

Part of the problem in Afghanisatn by the way has nothing to do with the Taliban it has to do with the exclusion of the Pashtun tribemen in the south (whre the oil is) who have not been given a voice in the political process. The Administration over inflates the presence of AQ in Iraq in porder to make it look that that's the problem instead of the much larger popular insurgency that is as commited to getting the US out as the Vietcong were in Vietnam. In Afghanistan the admin oversimplifies the problem to being simply about the Taliban when in truth there are hardliners who need to be confronted militarily and more reasonable Talaban folk who are amenable to talks. There are also as Spud has expalined, the Pashtuns and other tribesmen to deal with.

The CIA continues to trade in the resurgent heroin trade in the lucrative but deadly Hellmand province.

Meanwhile, yer MSM continues to do a wonderful job of underinforming the majority of Americans on these life or death issues.

And so it goes.

Be Well.

Rob:
From the 9-11 Commission way back in 2004

The commission issued its report on al Qaeda's history at the start of a two-day round of hearings this morning. In a separate report on the planning and deliberations for the Sept. 11 plot, the panel cited numerous pieces of FBI evidence in concluding that ringleader Mohamed Atta never met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9, 2001, as Cheney and some other Bush administration officials have alleged.

"Based on the evidence available -- including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting -- we do not believe that such a meeting occurred," the second report said.

The report on al Qaeda's history said the government of Sudan, which gave sanctuary to al Qaeda from 1991 to 1996, persuaded bin Laden to cease supporting anti-Hussein forces and "arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda." But the contacts did not result in any cooperation, the panel said.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report says. "Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

It's not so much I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about is I'm talking to low-grade morons who can't read. Now tell us Iraq is a Mission Accomplished and McBush didn't mean be in Iraq for a century when he said he'd be happy to be in Iraq for a century. It's so much easier than thinking for yourself.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,"

that's what I've been saying all along...

Keep spewing Your bullshit Robbie it won't make it true. Typical Right WInged cretin

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMo


See my last post, and Northguy's last post...

Its proven me right.

Contacts to don't a relationship or Link Make Robbie do You not grasp the concept of what a Relationship or Link means??

Larry Mohr

do You not grasp the concept of what a Relationship or Link means??

I do perfectly...

For example.

Iraq and Al Qaeda had a relationship, or link if you will, after numerous meetings to discuss the possibility of working together. Though no collaborative relationship was ever agreed to, top members of both groups had a relationship with each other.

Relationship.

I for one will now consider Al Qaeda to be as mythical as WMDs, rocs, dragons, virgins and Republicans. herm

"That there was a link between Ira-Q and Al Q-aeda"

yes, obvious link. ty, Rob.

Perhaps it would have been better to actually take care of Osama Bin Laden and his #2 Al-Zawiri (sp?) before setting off on a trillion dollar misadventure in Iraq. Or is that all part of the plan?

I'll stick with them... no offense... its just that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


Do you mean the same 9/11 Commission report that states that "blowback" as one of the contributing factors leading to terror attacks against the United States and her International Interests?

A conclusion that, when mentioned by Ron Paul, is met with ridicule and much frothing at the mouth of from you and your ilk?

That 9/11 commission? So you choose to cherry pick.

Lower your dress Rob, your morals are showing.

Relationship. Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole


If you haven't received your Certificate of Completion from the BushCo neo-Con School of Diplomacy then please contact the White House. They probably lost your last email.

Correspondence schools are notorious for taking your money and then forgetting the sheepskin.

Don't be cheated.

And don't think that other countries eschew conversations with enemies and protagonists. Lots of smart people believe that it is the best way to "know thine enemy." At the very least they're able to discern the demands and needs, and decide how to best approach the problem or threat. Seems the message to Al Qaeda was to stay out of Iraq.

All Saddam had to do is look at Saudi Arabia to realize that he did not need a rival faction of Sunnis pecking away at his dictatorship. Suppressing the Shi'ites and Kurds was enough to keep him busy.

Further, it is known that bin Laden wanted Iraq to observe some religious traditions, and one if not more of these contacts involved issues of religion. Of course once he saw that he would be deposed and hunted down Saddam opened the doors and invited the mujhadeen to assist in fighting the "crusaders." One more point against your assertion is the delayed response. It took a year before they assembled enough men to pose a threat.

"Unfortunately that is not the reason we can't stop funding the war....the truth is that we fear Bush will keep the troops there regardless of what hardships they face. We're not willing to force the troops to obey Bush's orders to remain in Iraq without the proper supplies and equipment.

Posted by danni"


I'd call for impeachment if the President left the troops behind.

See, not that hard at all. Now, cut the funding. Force the President to bring them all home. As for Iraq, let the UN send troops in to keep the peace. That's their job. Don't worry, Bush. As usual, the US will be the largest force the UN sends - it always is.

One more point against your assertion is the delayed response

What assertion is that?

I'd call for impeachment if the President left the troops behind.

Bush has given SO many reasons for impeachment. He makes Nixon and Watergate look like a hooker scandal.

Whatever happened to right and wrong in America?

Lets see FACT: No connection between Saddam an Al Qaeda. Pentagon Study...

Right Wing Apologist..."It does not Matter, Our Country Right or Wrong"

WHAT A FUCKING DISGRACE!!!!

"I'd call for impeachment if the President left the troops behind."

Great, one more person calling for the impeachment of the President. Boy, that will sure scare Bush.
You know good and well that if Bush left the troops over there the situation would very gradually deteriorate until teh Congress was forced to give in. You can't win when you are dealing with a president with no conscience.

Iraq and Al Qaeda had a relationship, or link if you will, after numerous meetings to discuss the possibility of working together. Though no collaborative relationship was ever agreed to, top members of both groups had a relationship with each other.


ROB

Saddam clearly rebuffed Al Qaeda's overtures in no uncertain terms.

The negotiation you're inferring ROB reminds me of the old music biz joke:

"I'm negotiating with Sony Records (Saddam). I want to sign, and they don't want me (Al Qaeda) to"

hmmmmmm

Bush Lied and Thousands died?

Danni,

You can deal with the president who has no conscience...it's called impeachment. Built right into the system...of course, you have to have a conscience yourself to notice that he doesn't...

Hmmm.....

"Hmmm....."

You also need the votes in both houses to first bring charges and then to convict in the Senate.
Quite simply we don't right now and when we may have he will be gone. Previously Nixon was forced to resign because Republicans joined with Democrats and threatened impeachment, that was a different, less partisan, time when the nation came before political party.

You can't win when you are dealing with a president with no conscience.

Face it Danni, Pelosi is complicit - as are others in Congress - and that's why she's tried to stop EVEN THE INVESTIGATIONS INTO WRONG DOING AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

I'm not a big fan of Jane Harmon but at least she wrote a letter to the CIA advising them not to destroy the evidence of waterboarding.

Unfortunately the leadership of the Democratic Party is just as corrupt as Bush and his minions.

The expression is Thick as Thieves. The only fight is over the spoils.

"Unfortunately the leadership of the Democratic Party is just as corrupt as Bush and his minions."

Unfortunately I think I agree with you on that. Sad.
I have said lots of times here that Pelosi & Reid need to be replaced.

Investigations are needed to find crimes.

When the President has the purse taken from him and he chooses to leave the troops there with no funding and threatens their safety in exchange for his own bravado, you don't need an investigation like all the suppposed crimes he is always bloggedly convicted of.

This story is bullcrap!

The Muslims have already taken over Washington and the press is lying to you. And you idiots are going to elect Hussein Obama.

America is dead.

"you don't need an investigation like all the suppposed crimes he is always bloggedly convicted of."

No, you need a Congress which will actually impeach him, unfortunately we don't have one right now. I really don't know what to call what we have right now but whatever it is the president doesn't seem to fear it.