I find it humorous that the mainstream media that is weary of the chaos in the Democratic Party and at a time that they desperately want to sling some mud on the Republican Nominee, John McCain, picks up a clear and obvious slip of the tongue, in a random speech to assert that McCain does not know that Iran has no connection to Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), yet the media darling of the left Michael Scheuer in his Frontline interview presents himself as the expert on whether there was ANY link or connection between Osama and Saddam, states that there was no connection between “IRAQ and SADDAM”. Huh?
If a show like Frontline can let that slip by the editors then why is it so hard to believe that McCain, off the cuff made a slip, especially when this ranking member of the Armed services committee has never asserted anything of the sort in his life.
[View the show online, chapter:"Iraq is back on the table"(3:45)]
For what its worth, the 911 commission co-chair, Dem. Lee Hamilton, as well as the Dodd commission, the Dulfer Report, the Butler Report and every other major investigation has asserted that there WAS a “connection” or “link” or “interactions” or whatever you want to call it, between Al Qaeda’s highest members and Iraq’s government, but as Lee Hamilton put it, it did not constitute “command and control”. Well, Mussolini and Tojo were not under the command and control of the Nazis either.
“Bush’s War” has GOT to be THE most vicious, inaccurate, vile, left-wing attack ever conceived by that .org since Bill Moyers’ revisionist history of the Vietnam War.
Just look at the Rogues Gallery of lying, incompetent, lazy bureaucrats they compiled to bash Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.
This veiled attempt at electioneering is downright nauseating.
Payback.
IF America were anything like Saddam’s Iraq, EVERY lying, arrogant malcontent they put on the air would have met the same fate as their hero SADDAM HUSSEIN.
No mystery. Bin Laden didn’t like Hussein, for one thing. Despised him. I thought everyone knew that.
You thought everyone knew what? That Osama didn’t like Saddam...? Or that you believe there was some final claim of “no connection” (whatever you think that means) in the numerous investigations. And regardless of your belief in the meaning of your phrase, “no connection”, what point are you trying to make regarding the significance of what you refer to as “no connection”.
The report this last week that the DOD put out was damning of Saddam beyond anything reported so far. 600,000 documents showing as they put it a Nazi-esque fetish for recording his own crimes and his numerous incidents of sponsoring or assisting terrorists that have killed hundreds of Americans. It shows that he had connections to nearly every major terror attack on Americans up to 911. It also goes into extensive detail regarding the numerous connections, meetings and training regarding Iraq and Ayman Zawahiri, Al Qaeda’s co-chair who in many ways is even more influential in the organization than Bin Laden. How far do we need to go on here? But the nightly news came on all networks and basically shuffled their papers and mumbled, “A new report came out at the DOD that repeated the asertion that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam”. Which is bovine scatology.
It is a symantical trick that the media is playing and many people fall for it.
Democrat commitee members walked out of the 911 commision meeting and started saying there is absolutely no connection between AQ and Saddam, and to his credit Lee Hamilton came out and cut them off at the knees and basically called his own comrades liars.
It is irrelevent whether I want a connection between the two entities, the fact is there are numerous connections and EVERY single report has said so, but just because it didn’t come out of Keith Olberman’s mouth doesn’t change that.
And pointing out that Osama found Saddam’s company distasteful...I don’t care that he won’t be taking cold showers with Saddam at midnight, just that the two entities they are a part of kill your brothers and sisters and for that reason should be neutralized.
In case you missed the point of the previous post, Saddam was President of Iraq, I think that qualifies as a connection between him and his own country.
No mystery. Bin Laden didn’t like Hussein, for one thing. Despised him. I thought everyone knew that.
You thought everyone knew what? That Osama didn’t like Saddam...? Or that you believe there was some final claim of “no connection” (whatever you think that means) in the numerous investigations. And regardless of your belief in the meaning of your phrase, “no connection”, what point are you trying to make regarding the significance of what you refer to as “no connection”.
The report this last week that the DOD put out was damning of Saddam beyond anything reported so far. 600,000 documents showing as they put it a Nazi-esque fetish for recording his own crimes and his numerous incidents of sponsoring or assisting terrorists that have killed hundreds of Americans. It shows that he had connections to nearly every major terror attack on Americans up to 911. It also goes into extensive detail regarding the numerous connections, meetings and training regarding Iraq and Ayman Zawahiri, Al Qaeda’s co-chair who in many ways is even more influential in the organization than Bin Laden.
No, it doesn’t but you’re on an insane roll, please continue.
How far do we need to go on here? But the nightly news came on all networks and basically shuffled their papers and mumbled, “A new report came out at the DOD that repeated the asertion that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam”. Which is bovine scatology.
“Bovine scatology” which dovetails and reaffirms the findings of the 9/11 commission and the report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
It is a symantical trick that the media is playing and many people fall for it.
Democrat commitee members walked out of the 911 commision meeting and started saying there is absolutely no connection between AQ and Saddam, and to his credit Lee Hamilton came out and cut them off at the knees and basically called his own comrades liars.
It is irrelevent whether I want a connection between the two entities, the fact is there are numerous connections and EVERY single report has said so, but just because it didn’t come out of Keith Olberman’s mouth doesn’t change that.
And pointing out that Osama found Saddam’s company distasteful...I don’t care that he won’t be taking cold showers with Saddam at midnight, just that the two entities they are a part of kill your brothers and sisters and for that reason should be neutralized.
In case you missed the point of the previous post, Saddam was President of Iraq, I think that qualifies as a connection between him and his own country.
How long have you had these incongruous and disconnected trains of logic running through your head???
We invaded Iraq to avenge 9/11. We invaded Iraq to punish Hussein for collaborating with al Qaeda. We invaded Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction.
None, not one of those reasons turned out to have validity.
We didn’t go into Iraq because our former ally in the region, Saddam Hussein, was a bad guy. Hell, we were complicit in Saddam Hussein’s actions against his own people and Iran.
Is your argument so weak that you must devolve into this, “No, its not! says who! I know you are but what am I!” type response. You got no game.
The evidence is SO extensive It would stack up like a mountain of phone books just to list it. You obviously do not understand the Network of networks nature of AQ. Are you aware of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, ormekhtab al Khidemat or al Gamaa Islamia or any of the other numerous organizations that Saddam has worked with. How about the WTC93 bomber that Tariq Azziz tried to ransom to GWB just before the invasion, or Saddam’s connections to Lockerbie, Achille Lauro, assasination attempts on American presidents and diplomats. Even this leftist PBS special admitted that Saddam was training Al Qaeda in the use of chemical weapons. Did you even watch the show? This argument you make that Bush was complicit sounds like the same garbage that Gore tried in 1992 when he based his entire reason for being Clintons running mate on his get tough foreign policy image and claimed that HE would have invaded Baghdad in 1991 and that Bush 41 had failed because he took the diplomatic route. Maybe you want to peddle the old April Glaspie fairy tale or October Surprise or Capricorn One. (OJ did it, by the way)
Where were you in 1998 when Clinton/Gore were claiming a connection between AQ and Iraq? Do you have any idea why his foreign policy team was booed at Ohio State? Its because they were advocating regime change and war. The second presidential debate in October of 2000 was centered on who would force Saddam out of power, Bush or Gore. Gore again critized Bush 41 for not conquering Baghdad, then criticized his own President and Bush 41 for being weak knee’d and then promoted himself as the one that would finally take “tough action” against Saddam. Gore clearly told the world he was going to invade. Now he claims that anyone that would advocate invading Iraq is a traitor.
You are laboring under the worst possible delusion of the left. You misrepresent what the Bush administration said as their reasons for going to war so many times that you later claim that your previous misrepresentations are what was actually said. In the intelligence community its called “drinking your own bath water”. Go back and read the presidents address to the nation announcing the impending invasion. It doesnt say anything close to what you are saying.
Your argument appears to be Bush might have said “X” in 2003, but he really meant “Y”. Then 5 years later you claim that “Y” is false. He never said “Y”. That is your fantasy.
You act like this is a court of law where Bush has to give OBL or Saddam a warrant from the bench and then read them their rights. This is War!
There have been nearly 2,500 innocent American casualties of Islamic terror groups since RFK was assassinated by a Palestinian radical AND thats not including the over 3,000 killed on 911. How many do you think died at Pearl Harbor? How many do you think died on Omaha Beach?
Does that not register on your compassion radar?
No one in this administration has ever and I repeat NEVER claimed that Saddam was the mastermind of 911 through command and control of the operation.
As I stated, Dem. Lee Hamilton reluctantly was forced to admit that there were connections. His official statement went into detail about the fact that there were numerous connections, but when talking about 911, he used very careful language to differentiate. He used terms like “no OPERATIONAL connection” or He would say there was cooperation, collaboration between the two at times, but “no command and control” with regard to the “specific” planning of the one event known as 911. That is a far cry from your “No connection” statement.
Read here Where he reluctantly and gingerly admits that his fellow democrats are lying about their “no connection” statements. Chris Matthews asks:
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.
Apparently if you did watch the PBS show, when they said that Iraq helped Al Qaeda with chemical weapons training, you just plug your ears and pretend it never happened. Whether you like it or not that IS a connection. This “Bush Lied, People Died” meme is a lie based on the Democrats greedy lust for power. Don’t pretend like its true. Just admit that it is a sleazy political trick first and then we can at least debate how badly this trick endangers our country or not.
The Democrats advocated this policy emphatically and explicitly and are only now opposing it because their greed and lust for power compels them to do so. If you don’t believe that, read the Iraq Regime change act of 1998. Or read the Indictment against Osama Bin Laden in 1998 where clinton even claims that AQ and Saddam are connected. Clinton even claimed that Osama had ties to Iran, Ha Ha.
“It’s hard to know where to start with everything that is wrong with this two-part series, airing at 9 p.m. March 24 and 25 on PBS. So I’ll start with what’s right with it.
As television goes, it is a relatively comprehensive review of the major decisions and controversies of the Iraq war, with a little 9/11, Afghanistan precede. It makes some, though not many, attempts to be fair and thorough in presenting the perspectives of both sides. When you watch it, you might learn a few things. You’ll remember a lot. It won’t change your mind about anything.
We’ve got that out of the way.
On to what’s wrong. I’m not sure in the space I can reasonably fill here, short of exceeding Frontline’s own 4:30-hour limit, that I’ll be able to enumerate them all. It’s daunting.”
some other snippets of Crittenden’s trashing:
“In what is Frontline’s greatest omission and failure, the counter-insurgency strategy is, charitably, only marginally part of this presentation. The development of the surge strategy gets short shrift. To the extent it is discussed at all, it is presented as something Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and State Department Counselor Philip Zelikow dreamed up, based on Col. H.R. McMaster’s experience in Tal Afar, apparently highlighted to further stress what a bonehead Rumsfeld is. The more complex gestation of that strategy is not even alluded to. Its implementation is presented as something only intended to prevent Bush from exiting office with a defeat. The entire year of 2007 is relegated to a single narrated paragraph at the end.
Let me repeat that. The entire year of 2007 is relegated to a single, intoned paragraph, which basically suggests disaster is imminent.”
“While Frontline had thrown away significant air time marveling at the notion that so little could be known about an American wartime commander, Gen. George Casey, Frontline didn’t manage to find any time at all to mention the name of the most significant Iraq commander of all, Gen. David Petraeus.”
Face it, any “documentary” that’s named “Bush’s War” (in fact, said war was also approved by Congress, including the 2004 and one of the 2008 Democrat Presidential candidates) is not going to be objective. But hey, it’s PBS, right?
Let’s also not forget that Hillary Clinton stated that she based her 2002 vote on the Iraq War Resolution to the information she got in briefings from her husband’s intel people.
Let’s also not forget that Hillary Clinton stated that she based her 2002 vote on the Iraq War Resolution to the information she got in briefings from her husband’s intel people.
Regarding her husband’s people,The left loves to invent motives for Republicans in Iraq. Examples: Baker sent Glasspie to give a greenlight to Saddam to start a war to steal his oil...or Bush came into office secretly intent on avenging his Father’s failure to remove Saddam...or anytime Bush speaks of 911 it is a callous attempt to frighten small children into ignoring health care or global warming or some other perceived “real” nightmare.
How about the motives of her husband’s advisors that are still advising her now? Namely Sandy “Sandy Pants Burglar” Berger. Berger is currently a foreign affairs advisor for Hillary and has recently stepped forward to defend another one of her corkscrew “flawed memories”.
How irresponsible is it for Hillary to have him in the same room with other advisors that have very high security clearances discussing classified material, when he has had all security clearances removed until Sept. of 2008, at which time it will be reviewed.
So what were his motives for criminally stealing highly classified documents from the Archives before the 911 commission could get a hold of them?
When he was busted, He lied and Bill Clinton covered for him. Can it be any more obvious that Berger was working on the Clinton’s bequest. Berger initially claimed that it was an accident that numerous documents were accidentally stuffed into his socks and pants, which was observed by Archive employees. Bill Clinton tried to bolster this impossible alibi, by joking that Berger had a repuation for being disheveled and sloppy. Being sloppy means things fly out of your pants, not magically fly into your pants, but I guess Bill could relate to that.
When confronted with the evidence against him, Berger realized he was facing a “blue dress moment” and admitted that it was not sloppiness or an accident, he intentionally took the documents, went out side, looked at the windows to see if he had been detected, then hide them under a trailer for later clandestine retrieval.
He also initially claimed they were copies that he needed for his own personal review. In fact one of the documents that was quite critical of the Clinton’s handling of Al Qaeda, he took all 5 copies including the original. Richard Clarke, claims that some of the documents were written by him and included bombshell criticism of the negligence of Bill Clinton’s pre-911 foreign policy.
It would be unheard of for a candidate to carry in tow an advisor like Berger and not intend to provide him with a prominent role in her administration’s strategy to deal with Al Qaeda. I imagine she will lobby in September quietly to get his security clearance back.
So, If Berger, is willing to risk taking the fall from the prestige of National Security Advisor to a Jail Cell, by breaking IN TO the government secret vaults in an attempt to cover up the Clinton’s mistakes, how can we trust he and Hillary Clinton to put our nation’s security before their desire to whitewash history and deceive the American people once he is the man in charge.
One footnote, as part of Berger’s plea deal when he was found guilty, he promised to submit to a lie detector test in order that the government can ask what was in the documents he claims he destroyed and who else he shared them with, among other things.
Four and half years after committing the crime, Bill Clinton’s former National Security advisor has failed to comply with the lie detector request.
Doesn’t matter how much you masturbate in front of a life sized poster of Ann Coulter, you’re wrong.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda.
Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
Jerk off all you want to. Won’t change history one iota.
Sorry.
Is your argument so weak, that it can not withstand a debate?
You are reduced to saying, “I know you are but what am I”. Pretty pathetic. If you can’t handle an adult exchange of facts, evidence supported by links and legal documents provided by both political parties, then obviously you are either delusional or disingenuous.
And the above is the best you can do? Ha, Ha!
As I said earlier, You got no game. You got nothin’.
Is your argument so weak, that it can not withstand a debate?
You (snip)
There is no debate. Your “debate” is analogous to presenting church doctrine that proclaims the Earth is the center of the universe.
Of course, you will insist that we are somehow “closed minded” because we won’t consider long ago debunked lies and propaganda but feel free to make yourself look stupid by repeating crap that no one believes anymore. We now know how history went down. Bush didn’t come out so well.
Is your argument so weak, that it can not withstand a debate?
You (snip)
There is no debate. Your “debate” is analogous to presenting church doctrine that proclaims the Earth is the center of the universe.
Of course, you will insist that we are somehow “closed minded” because we won’t consider long ago debunked lies and propaganda but feel free to make yourself look stupid by repeating crap that no one believes anymore. We now know how history went down. Bush didn’t come out so well.
Altan to TJ King:
“The debate is over”
-Al Gore
TJ King to Altan:
“You better put some ice on that.”
-Bill Clinton
I like Pie
You need to be logged in to reply. Please Login or Register
