Steven Douglas <dsteven@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 11:23 pm, deelil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Dee) wrote:
> > Steven Douglas <dste...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > On Apr 10, 10:27 pm, deelil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Dee) wrote:
> > > > Steven Douglas <dste...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 9, 11:13 pm, deelil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Dee) wrote:
> > > > > > Steven Douglas <dste...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Apr 8, 12:08 pm, deelil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Dee) wrote:
> > > > > > > > Steven Douglas <dste...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 7, 9:37 pm, deelil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Dee) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > seon ferguson <s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > "GW Bush: War Criminal" <impe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > > >message
> > > > > > > > > > >news:1hvyxqq.10y6lprgqbqe5N%impeach@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > > > > > seon ferguson <s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Yeah why not we tell our kids the Easter bunny
and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Santa Clause exists so why not the mythical
Godman
> > > > > > > > > > > >> himself?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Someone should expose the current WH whopper about
> > > > > > > > > > > > "executive privilege" for the fascist ploy that it
is.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > While there at it they should expose the WMD myths.
> > > > > > > > > > > Its so sad some fools still believe it.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > It is sad. It's also insane. Is Cheney a bot? Even the
9/11
> > > > > > > > > >re****t said that al Qeada had no ties with Iraq:
> > > > > > > > > >http://tinyurl.com/2rfoc4
> >
> > > > > > > > > There's a bit of leftist "common knowledge" that (as
usual) is
> > > > > > > > > just plain false. The 9/11 Commission Re****t DID say
Saddam
> > > > > > > > > had a loose working agreement with bin Laden. That is
what was
> > > > > > > > > believed, at the time, by intelligence agencies.
> >
> > > > > > > > Not even close.
> >
> > > > > > > Another lie of the left.
> >
> > > > > > Bull****.
> >
> > > > > > > > > If newer information has disproven the old information,
> > > > > > > > > and you expected the government to know at the time (in
> > > > > > > > > advance) that the information they had was wrong, that's
> > > > > > > > > called 20/20 hindsight. And one thing leftists seem to
be
> > > > > > > > > very good at is using their excellent 20/20 hindsight to
> > > > > > > > > its maximum potential for cynical political purposes.
> >
> > > > > > > > >http://www.9-11commission.gov/re****t/911Re****t_Ch2.htm
> >
> > > > > > > > Maybe you should read the whole thing. "But to date we
have
> > > > > > > > seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever
> > > > > > > > developed into a collaborative operational relation****p.
Nor
> > > > > > > > have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with
> > > > > > > > al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against
> > > > > > > > the United States."
> >
> > > > > > > If you meant there was no "collaborative operational
> > > > > > > relation****p," why didn't you say that? Just saying there
were
> > > > > > > "no ties" is a lie of the left.
> >
> > > > > > Silly semantics. The kind of ties that you're whinging about
are
> > > > > > completely pissant, and have been discounted in all the
summaries as
> > > > > > meaningless.
> >
> > > > > They kept reaching out to each other.
> >
> > > > Pooh. The bin Laden family has been in bed with the Bush family
for
> > > > many, many years.
> >
> > > The bin Laden family you're referring to had disowned Osama.
> >
> > That's another fib.http://tinyurl.com/ys8lz8
>
> Okay, you've managed to divert the discussion away from your
> inaccurate statement that the 9/11 Commisison Re****t said there were
> no ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, when you obviously meant to say
> there was not collaborative operational relation****p (which is not the
> same as no ties).
Wrong again. And when are you planning to try to defend your total
fabrication, "[t]hey kept reaching out to each other"?
> inaccurate statement that the 9/11 Commisison Re****t said there were
> But what would you have liked to see happen to the bin Laden family?
> Do you think they had been investigated prior to 9/11? Or do you think
> they were hiding here, and were in on the 9/11 plot, and waited until
> the last minute to make their escape (with the help of Richard
> Clarke)? Please explain.
LOL
"In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top
anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks,
despite being told there didn't seem to be one."
http://tinyurl.com/yq9ax
That Richard Clarke?
> > > And what does this have to do with what you inaccurately said the
9/11
> > > Commission Re****t re****ted?
> >
> > Read the part that you removed right after it. Hint: It's in reply to
> > your wildly inaccurate statement "They kept reaching out to each
other."
>
> The 9/11 Commission re****ted numerous conversations over the years
> between Iraqi and Al Qaeda officials. To say those aren't ties is just
> unrealistic.
It's insane to ignore the conclusion of a re****t that said there were
_no ties_ in favor of some details that led said re****t to conclude that
there were _no ties_.
Repeat: "Several official investigations by U.S. intelligence agencies,
foreign intelligence agencies, and independent investigative bodies have
looked into various aspects of the alleged links between Saddam Hussein
and al-Qaeda. Every single investigation has resulted in the conclusion
that the data examined did not provide compelling evidence of a
cooperative relation****p between the two entities."'
No ties. None, zero, zip.
> To say those ties did not lead to a collaborative operational
relation****p
> is something different.
There weren't any ties. It's a lie.
> > It's one thing to snip out the facts that you don't like, or aren't
> > comfortable discussing; quite another to take a sentence out of
context
> > and question it. Ignoring what you yourself said to prompt the reply
> > compounds the dishonesty.
>
> As I have already pointed out, this started with your statement that
> the 9/11 Commision Re****t said there were "no ties" between Iraq and
> Al Qaeda is incorrect. That's the only relevant point in this
> discussion.
Silly semantics. The kind of ties that you're whinging about are
completely pissant, and have been discounted in all of the summaries as
meaningless. As I said before.
> > > > After 9/11 the bin Ladens were flown out of the US,
> > > > _even though every other plane on the hemisphere was grounded_.
> >
> > > Yes, that was done by the famed Richard Clarke, who also worked for
> > > President Clinton.
> >
> > Oooh, the "C" word. Well, it took you longer than most, so congrats.
>
> What's wrong with pointing out a fact? It was in response to your
> point that is nothing more than a distraction from your original
> statement ("no ties") which was incorrect.
The "C" word isn't a fact; and it's not ever relevant to the topic at
hand, whether it be:
BushCo's legalized torture,
BushCo's violations of the Geneva Conventions,
BushCo's pissing on The Magna Carta by banning Habeas Corpus,
BushCo's illegal invasion of a Sovereign Nation,
BushCo's not giving the US troops decent armour,
BushCo's failure to find bin Laden,
BushCo's domestic crimes,
BushCo's economic disaster,
BushCo's failure to rebuild New Orleans, as promised,
etc., etc., etc.
Or today's special: BushCo's lies that were foisted on the US to sup****t
the illegal invasion of a Sovereign Nation.
> > > It was cleared by the FBI, who interrogated those members of the bin
Laden
> > > family (who had nothing to do with Osama, as the FBI knew from
previous
> > > interviews) before their flight left the country.
> >
> > And what does that have to do wtih Cheney's never ending bull****
about
> > Usama bin Laden's ties with Saddam?
>
> I didn't bring up Cheney. You did. I wasn't talking about Cheney. I
> was talking about your inaccurate statement that there were "no ties"
> between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
There were _no ties_. Cheney is a drool.
And, as I said before; the Vice President of The United ( Ha. Ha. Ha. )
States of America is still spewing all that awful bull****, in public,
in spite of all the re****ts which say conclusively that there were _no
ties_ :
1993 WTC investigations
1998 National Security Council exercise
2001 Presidential Daily Briefing
2001-2 Atta in Prague investigations
2002 DIA re****ts
2002 British intelligence re****t
2003 CIA re****t
2003 British intelligence re****t
2003 Israeli intelligence
2004 Carnegie study
2004 9/11 Commission Re****t
2004 Senate Re****t of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq
2004 CIA re****t
2005 update of CIA re****t
2006 Pentagon study
2006 Senate Re****t of Pre-War Intelligence
2007 Pentagon Inspector General Re****t
2006 Senate Re****t of Pre-War Intelligence
2005 update of CIA re****t
Rinse, replace:
You have to admit that the constant and endless repetition of the words
"al Qeada-bin Laden" and "Saddam-Iraq" in the same sentence has
brain-washed a lot of Americans into believing that it's true, in spite
of endless re****ts to the contrary. Because, sadly, some do persist in
believing this lie.
Fortunately an awful lot of them have come to their senses :)
http://www.texansforpeace.org/Emergency.htm
--
http://www.iraqbodycount.org
http://stopiranwar.com
|
