bin Ladin dead?

Wow. So many problems with one sentence. Ken, you've got lies, falsehoods, and logical disconnects, all in there. Would you like to discuss them? It might help you understand the real situaiton a bit better if you realize where you've made your mistakes.

Perhaps you would be able to explain to me the links Iraq had to 9/11 attacks? I understand what the US people were told by your government, with regard to WMDs, and that Saddam was personally responsible for arranging the attacks may possibly have been untrue?

k

you know nothing else to say , do you ?

If you can show me where Bush linked 9/11 to Iraq, I can discuss it. Everything _I_ have seen and read from him was, in effect, and I'm paraphrasing here, "OK, that was bad. These guys (AQ) clearly don't like us. The only thing that would have made that worse is if they had WMD. Now Iraq, and SH, have used WMDs, have refused inspectors the ready access they promised, and have failed to document alleged destruction of their WMDs. If Iraq and AQ get together, we could be in a world of hurt. Given Iraq's continued resistance to proving they don't have the WMDs that we know they had, and they didn't document disposal of, we're going to make sure that that doesn't happen."

Far as I know my government hasn't told me any such thing. If you can find an example of that happening, I'd like to see it. Please include sources so we can talk about the entire context, not a mangled misquote.

I read this article as well - I only found a link to it off of wnd.com., though.

What struck me as I read it is some time back - maybe as much as 2 years or so ago - Fox News had that Arab commentator (can't remember his name - he had a very Americanized voice and his hair was kinda greased back).

I distinctly remember him doing a couple of reports indicating he had information from very reliable sources that bin Laden was in Iran. The story ran for a couple of days and then I never heard anything more about it.

Leading up to US attacks against the people of Iraq, US opinion polls suggested that up to 60% of those polled believed that Saddam was personally responsible for 9/11 attacks.

It was also widely held that Saddam had WMDs which were able to strike US targets, and able to be deployed within 45 minutes.

Subsquent to the actual attacks against the people of Iraq, these things have proved to be totally false, and supporters of the said attacks seem to be hard pressed to put forward any valid reason to justify them in any way.

k

You seem to have shifted your point significantly. First you were claiming my government was telling me this, and now you're pointing to a popular poll of unknown origins. These are two distinctly different things, are they not, Ken?

Cite please? I don't remember any such claims.

Seems to me, the only people claiming those claims were made, are people like you who are trying to tie these lies to Bush somehow. Thing is, if you're going to disagree with him and his actions, you really shouldn't make up points he never made; it's bad for your credibility. So, as I asked before, can you give some cites to back up your initial claims?

"Dave Hinz" wrote

Try the Shrubs speach Oct 7, 2002:

the official notice to Congress: to this day he is trying to cover his ass: How many more do you need? There are lots of them.

Have you read it? What part of that do you imagine is Bush saying SH caused 9/11, please? The only time Iraq and 9/11 are mentioned in the same paragraph is where he's talking about SH's actions killing 20,000 people, "more than 6 times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th." In other words, he's saying 'Yeah, 9/11 was bad, but SH has shown he can be even worse.'

He then goes on to say that the US is a common enemy to AQ and SH. I mean, come on, it's all right there. Your cite doesn't seem to show what you claim it did, maybe you meant to use a different one?

He's pointing out that the danger is if the two join forces against us. Try turning off your hatred and read it for what it says.

He wants permission to attack Iraq, and he wants permission to attack those responsible for 9/11. Just the fact that they're two different requests should tell you he's not saying they're the same group.

"contacts between the two" is hardly claiming that SH caused 9/11.

If they're like these 4, don't bother. Tell you what. Go reread them and see if, just as a mental exercise, you're able to see my interpretations of what was written. Obviously we both have a bias but I've tried to keep my response (uncharacteristically) neutral. What you're saying is in these 4 articles, doesn't match with what I'm seeing there.

Bush never made such a link ,quoting the US media has to be a joke they have not told the truth from day one . quoting poles instigated by them and worded to produce their "desired "answer is even more asinine. When and if they ever leave their hotel rooms in Iraq then they become the story note the reporter who got injured by a roadside bomb ,we all get daily updates on his condition like anyone cares except his immediate family.

However of late the press has finally picked up on captured Iraqi classified documents which does make the link with alqueda[sp?] so if Bush had made the link which he never did he would have been right anyway

One would have thought that if there had been any credible evidence to link SH to 9/11, then shrub would have been shouting it from the roof tops, just as soon as i thad been verified as accurate!

As there is no such evidence, I wonder if you would be good enough to indicate the reason the US made a ferocious attack on the people of Iraq, costing billions of tax dollars, and thousands of lives, and which seems to left the region in a state of anarchy, which will almost certainly lead to civil war?

k

Perhaps that's why President Bush never stated that Iraq had any direct involvement in the attack of 9/11?

The US did no such thing. They spearheaded a well planned, well executed attack against the fanatically militant regime and the despotic leader that controlled Iraq, that probably did seem quite ferocious if you were on the receiving end.

Are the differences too subtle for your synapses to process, or are you being *willfully* ignorant of fact because it suites you?

Methinks your crystal ball is over due for it's 6 month factory servicing. Seems to be a bit sluggish and prone to spewing noxious fumes...

Did you read it? Bush said Saddam H posed a danger very much like the one posed by the people responsible for 9/11, and gave support to them before 9/11, but he does not say Saddam H was linked to 9/11.

Did you read this one? The closest is that that Saddam H and AQ "work in concert". Not the same thing as a 9/11 link.

Are you just citing stuff you were told supports the strawman that Bush linked Saddam to 9/11?

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

Closer, but "including" indicates the presence of a class larger than "those" specified.

"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda," Bush said. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

"Lots" times zero does not equal anything.

Learn to read.

Only someone highly biased can interpret them the way he does.

Perhaps you missed my previous post, Ken? Or, did you perhaps choose not to acknowledge it? In any case, Bush made it clear that the reason was to inhibit SH from teaming up with AQ, with us as the common enemy.

As the prior to the attacks the CIA had been trying deparately for some while to establish credbile links between SH and terrorist groups, and had failed entirely, then perhaps you are aware of something the CIA isnt? Would you perhaps be good enough to share your secrets with all the rest of us? Finally if this were the reason for the attack, then why put forwarrd ridiculous lies regarding WMDs, which could only result in showing the leaders of the US/UK in their true colours?

k

Perhaps you could go back and _read_ my previous post, Ken. I did a point by point response to the four links you provided. Perhaps you remember it? Google does.

So where did all those WMDs go then, Ken? SH had 'em, we know that, and then he continued to claim he had them, and now we can't find them. Does that mean he just happened to destroy them and forgot to document it as he aggeed to?

So before I waste any more time on an apparent troll, please respond to my earlier post which responded to your four completely useless links. Thanks awfully.

Um, Tony? If I ever do hire a spokesman, it won't be you, sorry.