posted on October 4, 2004 11:44:02 PM new
....no connection between Bin Laden and Hussein......another "reason" for going to war goes by the wayside......
posted on October 5, 2004 12:29:58 AM new
No sh!t, Sherlock! No connection and no WOMD.
The rest of the world knew this all along. When some of us said that at the very beginning we were accused of not knowing what we were talking about. Seems like just yesterday that some here were still trying to make that connection and the rest of us must be crazy or liars.
Ya...... all this while we were talked down to and we were told we must be anti-American to think such a thing or voice our opinion. Uh huh........ must be terrible for Rummy to admit again what we knew all along. I think those fools owe a lot of people an apology for the huge mess they've made and for all the people they've killed.
And before someone comes in with the Clinton mantra........ NO, this was NOT Clinton's fault. Bush was strutting his stuff for his Daddy and hoped to get some oil and other goodies out of it. Now it's all unraveling for everyone to see. It's a real sad mess.
posted on October 5, 2004 12:58:46 AM new
We hear about Iraq, we read about it and we see pictures on television, all of us relatively safe in our homes.
This lady lives there....... she lives it, sees it, smells it, feels it daily and this is what she says.
"Why is it 'terrorism' when foreigners set off bombs in London or Washington or New York and it's a 'liberation' or 'operation' when foreigners bomb whole cities in Iraq? Are we that much less important?"
posted on October 5, 2004 06:06:44 AM new
Here's one of your 'fools'.....and some of his own words. Now, in order to gain the WH he has taken a different postion....flip-flopping away.
RNC Research Briefings
Sunday, February 08, 2004 Sunday Supplement:
AFTER 14 YEARS, KERRY CHANGES STORY ON WMDS
Kerry Attacks President On Threat Posed By Iraq, Does He Not Believe His Own Words?
______
SINCE 1990, KERRY HAS TOLD AMERICA OF SADDAM'S WMD THREAT
June 2003
Kerry Said: It Would Be Irresponsible To Draw Conclusions That Suggest President Misled On WMD.
ABC'S GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I know you said you're agnostic about whether or not he misled the public on weapons of mass destruction. But do you have a hunch on whether you think they hyped the intelligence?
KERRY: "George, again, I think it would be irresponsible of me at this point to draw conclusions prior to all the evidence being on the table." (ABC's This Week,¯ 6/15/03)
March 2003
As War Began, Kerry Said Saddam Chose To Make Military Force The Ultimate Weapons Inspections Enforcement Mechanism.
Senator John F. Kerry had lambasted Bush's diplomatic efforts, despite voting last fall in support of a congressional resolution authorizing military action to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction. "It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism," Kerry said. (Glen Johnson, Critics Of Bush Voice Support For The Troops,¯ The Boston Globe, 3/20/03)
Kerry Said Saddam Hussein's WMD Are A Threat. "I think Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him." I think we need to (NPR's All Things Considered, 3/19/03)
February 2003
Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable. (Jill Lawrence, War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates,¯ USA Today, 2/12/03)
Kerry Described Secretary Of State Colin Powell's Evidence Of WMD In Iraq As Real And Compelling." [Kerry] said the Bush administration has taken too long to make its case for military action, "but nonetheless I am glad we've reached this moment in our diplomacy." Kerry added: "Convincing evidence of Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction should trigger, I believe, a final ultimatum from the United Nations for a full, complete, immediate disarmament of those weapons by Iraq. Over the next hours, I will work with my colleagues in the Senate to fully examine the evidence offered by the secretary for a complete and close reading. But, on its face, the evidence against Saddam Hussein appears real and compelling." (Wayne Washington, Kennedy, Others Question Timing Of Attack But Presidential Hopefuls Back War With Iraq,¯ The Boston Globe, 2/6/03)
January 2003
Kerry Said, "If You Don't Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn't Vote For Me." (Ronald Brownstein, Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd, Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)
Kerry Described Threat Of Saddam Hussein With WMD As Real, But Not New. "We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)
October 2002
Mr. Kerry "Said Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Posed A Real And Grave Threat To The United States." (Dave Boyer, Key Senators Of Both Parties Back Bush On Iraq War,¯ The Washington Times, 10/10/02)
Kerry Questioned Saddam's Actions With Respect To His WMD Capability. "Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?" (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)
Kerry Called It "Naive To The Point Of Grave Danger¯ To Leave Saddam" To His Own Devices. "It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)
Kerry Said "Threat Of Saddam Hussein With Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Real." "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)
Kerry: "I Am Prepared To Hold Saddam Hussein Accountable And Destroy His Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (Ronald Brownstein, Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Differ On War In Iraq, Los Angeles Times, 10/6/02)
September 2000
Kerry Said There Is Nothing More Destabilizing Or Threatening [To The World] Than Weapons Of Mass Destruction. "I think all of us are deeply concerned about the degree to which certain countries seem to be contributing to the potential of instability in the world. Obviously, there is nothing more destabilizing or threatening than weapons of mass destruction. We have spent an enormous amount of time and energy focused on Iraq, on Iran, on Russia, on loose nukes, on nuclear materials, and of course on China and on the issue of the transfer of technology to Pakistan."¯ (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 9/11/00, p. S8321)
December 1998
Kerry Defended Clinton's 1998 Attacks Because Saddam "Is Pursuing Weapons Of Mass Destruction." "Americans need to really understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. The president does not control the schedule of UNSCOM. The president did not withdraw the UNSCOM inspectors. And the president did not, obviously, cut a deal with Saddam Hussein to do this at this moment. Saddam Hussein has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction." ¯(Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 12/16/98)
September 1998
Kerry Said, "We're Going To Have To Make Some Fundamental Decisions About Whether To Follow A Policy Of Containment Or Deprive Iraq Of Its Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (Eric Schmitt, U.N. Arms Inspector Who Quit Is Told He Can't Make Policy, The New York Times, 9/4/98)
February 1998
Kerry Said Saddam Had Already Used WMD And Had Intent "To Do So¯ Again." "[T]here are set of principles here that are very large, larger in some measure than I think has been adequately conveyed, both internationally and certainly to the American people. Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so.Ā That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East.Ā It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis.Ā It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)
Kerry Said That If Saddam's Weapon Capability Was Not Eliminated "We Will Be Called On To Send Our Ships And Our Troops At One Point In The Future Back To The Middle East." "Saddam Hussein has violated" that standard [against using weapons of mass destruction] on several occasions previously and by most people's expectation, no matter what agreement we come up with, may well do so again. The greater likelihood is that we will be called on to send our ships and our troops at one point in the future back to the Middle East to stand up to the next crisis." (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)
December 1997
Kerry Urged U.N. To Eliminate Iraq's Suspected Infrastructure For Developing And Manufacturing Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Democratic Senator John Kerry has said: "The Security Council should authorize a strong UN military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction." He added that "Saddam Hussein has intentionally or inadvertently set up a test which the entire world will be watching, and if he gets away with this arrogant ploy, he will have terminated the most important multilateral effort to defuse a legitimate threat to global security." (US Lawmakers Threaten Military Action Against Iraq,¯ Agence France Presse, 12/12/97)
November 1997
Kerry Warned U.S. Senate Of Saddam's WMD Capabilities. "It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true."¯ (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
January 1991
Kerry Acknowledged Saddam Working Toward Development Of WMD For Years. "If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years ...." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 1/12/91, p. S369)
October 1990
Kerry Said Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability.
"Today, we are confronted by a regional power, Iraq, which has attacked a weaker state, Kuwait. ...Ā The crisis is even more threatening by virtue of the fact that Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program. And Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction in the past, whether in his war against Iran or against his own Kurdish population." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14330)
posted on October 5, 2004 06:12:03 AM new
Linda every one on Bush's cabinet has said Iraq did not pose a threat and there was no connection between Iraq and Al-Qeada. This stance was also verified by the 9/11 commission.
Bush lied or "stretched the truth" at the very least to make his argument for war.
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on October 5, 2004 06:32:03 AM new
logansdad - Nope...and you can't back that up either. It's according to how statements are worded...as to the answer.
The statement by kiara and xx are wrong also. The 9-11 commission DID list the connections between AQ and binladen...you guys just refuse to see it.
posted on October 5, 2004 06:40:35 AM new
From the link I provided in the 'The RIGHT war, at the RIGHT time, in the RIGHT place' thread:
---
Anyone who has actually read the report would know that the 9/11 Commission had plenty to say about the connections between al Qaeda and Iraq, but because much of its findings were beyond the scope of its charter, important details went unstated in public hearings or were buried in the minutiae of the published narrative.
Virtually every reporter I have spoken to has failed to answer this basic question satisfactorily: "Have you actually read the report?" The answer is almost always a sheepish "No." Those who have only given it a cursory scan may have missed the fine-print chapter notes where explosive information about names, dates, places, and conversations concerning the Iraq-al Qaeda connection are outlined in chilling detail.
To cite but one of many examples, it states that Saddam Hussein--wanting to curry favor with other Arab governments wary of Osama bin Laden--was not responsive to a 1996 request by bin Laden for safe haven in Iraq when the Sudanese government was poised to give him the boot. After bin Laden declared war against the U.S. in 1998, two al Qaeda operatives went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. Later, a delegation of Iraqi officials traveled to Afghanistan and offered to set bin Laden up.
Taliban leaders, concerned with the increasing possibility of retaliatory strikes by the U.S., urged bin Laden to go. During heated discussions with other Clinton administration policy makers about the effect of launching missile strikes on bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan, then-NSC Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke worried that bin Laden would "boogie to Baghdad" where he would put his network at Saddam's service and be all the harder to root out, given Saddam's formidable security apparatus.
The commission further reported that terrorist training camps, now eliminated by the coalition forces of Operation Iraqi Freedom, were set up in Northern Iraq with bin Laden's help. Al Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was given safe haven by Saddam Hussein after he fled Afghanistan. It is Zarqawi, a chemical weapons expert, who is believed to be the leading force behind Ansar al-Islam, the terrorist organization bin Laden assisted in founding several years ago and which is carrying out beheadings and suicide bombings in Iraq today.
-----------
Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.
Many on this board did not believe the story that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. or to their neighbors. We were right.
Those who still believe it are grossly misinformed.
posted on October 5, 2004 07:43:24 AM new
Well, again, that also includes kerry. Because within the last six months he's been quoted as saying [paraphrasing here] 'we may still find wmd in Iraq, or we may not'.
-----------
It's so wonderful that we have kerry's OWN words in print...so no matter what he says he did or didn't say...they're there for all to see.
His exact quote:
May 2003: In First Democrat Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President's Action In Iraq.
SEN. JOHN KERRY: "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."¯ (ABC News Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)
January 2004: After Voting For War And Trailing Candidate Howard Dean In The Democrat Primaries, Kerry Said He Is Anti-War Candidate.
MATTHEWS: Are you one of the anti-war candidates?¯
KERRY: I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.¯ (MSNBC's Hardball,¯ 1/6/04)
May 2003: Kerry Said The Winning Of The War Was Brilliant.¯ "I think they clearly have dropped the ball with respect to the first month in the after -- winning the war. That winning of the war was brilliant and superb, and we all applaud our troops for doing what they did, but you've got to have the capacity to provide law and order on the streets and to provide the fundamental services, and I believe American troops will be safer and America will pay less money if we have a broader coalition involved in that, including the United Nations[/b].¯ (MSNBC's Hardball,¯ 5/19/03)
VS - JOHN KERRY: September 2004: Kerry: Iraq Is The Wrong War In The Wrong Place At The Wrong Time.¯ The Associated Press, 9/6/04)
******Kerry: I Have Always Said We May Yet Even Find Weapons Of Mass Destruction.******* I Don't Know The Answer To That.¯ (Fox News Fox News Sunday,¯ 12/14/03)
posted on October 5, 2004 08:45:22 AM new
Ha Ha ha HeeHee
Well Good Morning Linda
Now dipshit Please explain without a cut and paste
.........
What KERRY has to do with RUMSFELD admitting there was no connection between Hussein and Bin Laden
Can't , can ya !
It's a BUSH administration
FLIPFLOPFLIPFLOPFLIPFLOPFLIPFLIPFLOP FLOPFLIPFLIPFLIPFLIPFLOPFLIPFLOPFLOPFLIPFLIPFLOPFLIPFLOPLFliop:
[ edited by crowfarm on Oct 5, 2004 08:47 AM ]
posted on October 5, 2004 08:51:20 AM new
For those who didn't get it the first time around....a repeat...
Anyone who has actually read the report would know that the 9/11 Commission had plenty to say about the connections between al Qaeda and Iraq, but because much of its findings were beyond the scope of its charter, important details went unstated in public hearings or were buried in the minutiae of the published narrative.
Virtually every reporter I have spoken to has failed to answer this basic question satisfactorily: "Have you actually read the report?" The answer is almost always a sheepish "No." Those who have only given it a cursory scan may have missed the fine-print chapter notes where explosive information about names, dates, places, and conversations concerning the Iraq-al Qaeda connection are outlined in chilling detail.
To cite but one of many examples, it states that Saddam Hussein--wanting to curry favor with other Arab governments wary of Osama bin Laden--was not responsive to a 1996 request by bin Laden for safe haven in Iraq when the Sudanese government was poised to give him the boot. After bin Laden declared war against the U.S. in 1998, two al Qaeda operatives went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. Later, a delegation of Iraqi officials traveled to Afghanistan and offered to set bin Laden up.
Taliban leaders, concerned with the increasing possibility of retaliatory strikes by the U.S., urged bin Laden to go. During heated discussions with other Clinton administration policy makers about the effect of launching missile strikes on bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan, then-NSC Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke worried that bin Laden would "boogie to Baghdad" where he would put his network at Saddam's service and be all the harder to root out, given Saddam's formidable security apparatus.
The commission further reported that terrorist training camps, now eliminated by the coalition forces of Operation Iraqi Freedom, were set up in Northern Iraq with bin Laden's help. Al Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was given safe haven by Saddam Hussein after he fled Afghanistan. It is Zarqawi, a chemical weapons expert, who is believed to be the leading force behind Ansar al-Islam, the terrorist organization bin Laden assisted in founding several years ago and which is carrying out beheadings and suicide bombings in Iraq today.
posted on October 5, 2004 09:16:41 AM new
Not the point linduh.
The point is the bush administration FLIP FLOPPED on a BIGGIE!
Now ,linduh, we know you know more than Nobel Prize-winning economists but YOU don't know more about the connection than Dummy Rumsfeld...after all, he's right in the mix of lies and innuendos.....
But I expect you'll just keep C&Ping to prove some obscure point no one but you cares about.....go ahead....it's probaly the only exercise you get.....
posted on October 5, 2004 09:24:37 AM new
It hasn't crumbled, reamond. It's just that kerry has now taken ALL sides of the Iraq war issue and now you guys/gals here are glad THIS TIME he's saying what YOU want to hear.
Just wait...he might return to one of his previous [pro-Iraq war] positions.
Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels
Ex-Overseer of Iraq Says U.S. Effort Was Hampered Early On
By Robin Wright and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 5, 2004; Page A01
The former U.S. official who governed Iraq after the invasion said yesterday that the United States made two major mistakes: not deploying enough troops in Iraq and then not containing the violence and looting immediately after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.
Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28, said he still supports the decision to intervene in Iraq but said a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on.
"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."
Bremer's comments were striking because they echoed contentions of many administration critics, including Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, who argue that the U.S. government failed to plan adequately to maintain security in Iraq after the invasion. Bremer has generally defended the U.S. approach in Iraq but in recent weeks has begun to criticize the administration for tactical and policy shortfalls.
posted on October 5, 2004 10:21:59 AM new
Linda..uh...we were talking about RUMSFELD and the present administration's Flip-Flopping!
Now, I know Rumsfed's admission was all Clinton's fault but what exactly does Kerry have to do with the Rove administrations flip flopping????????
If you are afraid to answer my posts why are you in this thread?
I started it ....hahahaha Proof you read it..........maybe.....you don't read very well........
posted on October 5, 2004 10:43:11 AM newLinda_k, are you trying to tell us that you know more about all of this than the Pentagon does?
Of course she thinks she does. She shares the same brain as Bush.
Her news about the war and Iraq is all first hand accounts because she see what goes on every day. The news reports from the media based in Iraq are all wrong and telling lies. After Bush gets his daily news reports, Linda is next in the line to receive them.
Oh and remember Linda never makes assumptions about what other people think or do because after all that would be lying then.
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on October 5, 2004 10:44:59 AM new
So far we have no direct quotes from Mr. Rumsfeld stating what he's being accused of.
So this very well could be ANOTHER unfounded rumor.
Then:
Taken from the csmonitor.com:
Staff writer for The Weekly Standard Stephen F. Hughes challenges the Kerry campaign's "efforts to disassociate the Iraq war from the war on terror."
Thomas Kean, co-chairman of the September 11 Commission, went far beyond mere "links" between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda. "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," he said at a press conference on July 22, 2004. ...
And is Cheney really alone in his belief that the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection was a threat? Hardly. Along with most Republicans in Congress, so do Democratic Senators Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh. So do several 9/11 commissioners. So does Ayad Allawi, the new Iraqi Prime Minister.
As for the success of Kerry's anti-democracy protests and his leadership of the VVAW and association with Fonda's Winter Soldier Investigation, General Vo Nguyen Giap, Vietnam's most decorated military leader, wrote in retrospect that if not for the disunity created by such stateside protesters, Hanoi would have ultimately surrendered.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, which states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." --George Washington
posted on October 5, 2004 10:51:45 AM new
helen's article forgets that we DID have enough troops to overtake Iraq. No disputing that.
No one had anyway of knowing that the terrorists who supported saddam would all run and hide and then come out again AFTER we invaded.
President Bush has been quoted several times, that he would approve ALL the troops the military commanders said they needed. They kept saying they didn't need any more. I judge the commanders on the ground have a much better idea of what they need than anyone else. They DIDN'T request more troops.
And logansdad - once again you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not getting my information from some left leaning news media source...but rather directly from our DoD website. Which as I've stated before anyone can do the same, rather than believing everything the kerry campaign puts out.
As for the success of Kerry's anti-democracy protests and his leadership of the VVAW and association with Fonda's Winter Soldier Investigation, General Vo Nguyen Giap, Vietnam's most decorated military leader, wrote in retrospect that if not for the disunity created by such stateside protesters, Hanoi would have ultimately surrendered.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, which states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." --George Washington
posted on October 5, 2004 10:56:48 AM new
For anyone interested in actually learning the FACTS, rather than the lefties twists on what's going on in the war....here's the DoD website. Keep tabs youself on the News releases, rather than believe the nonsence spewed here, on what's going on.
posted on October 5, 2004 10:57:36 AM new
"US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was forced to go into damage control mode Monday hours after a statement he made began to spread through the media.
Mr. Rumsfeld "attempted to distance himself from his earlier comments that there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda," reports The Guardian"
LOL
Not getting huffy at all, parklane. I'm just used to being called a liar by linda_k who knows the inside workings of everything right down to what Rummy meant and didn't mean and said and shouldn't have said and now says again about what was said and shouldn't have been said.
posted on October 5, 2004 10:57:52 AM newlogansdad - Nope...and you can't back that up either. It's according to how statements are worded...as to the answer
WASHINGTON - Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was ``no credible evidence'' that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States.
While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a ``collaborative relationship.''
DICK CHENEY SUPPORTS MY RELATIONSHIP: People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
posted on October 5, 2004 11:22:42 AM new
kiara and logansdad -
First of all since he's playing defence that means the left-leaning media took something he said incorrectly, AGIAN.
Second of all...what I believe you two and other's are not 'GETTING' is there are two different issues here.
One being did saddam help the AQ/Taliban/binladen to plan or bomb on 9-11. They have no proof of that happening. Doesn't mean they can't suspect they did...but no proof of a connection IN THAT EVENT ALONE. Does screaming make it any clearer?
But they ALL believe there were connections between members of AQ/Taliban/binladen and they have offered their proof on that....just like the 9-11 commission report has.
Get it??? Two separate issues that you're mixing together. The Iraq war and 9-11.
posted on October 5, 2004 11:25:59 AM new
What KERRY has to do with RUMSFELD admitting there was no connection between Hussein and Bin Laden ???
Why is this not a flip flop.
An INTELLIGENT person could answer this without a C&P. And without charging off to a million other topics which have nothing to do with the OP.
