Re: Cheney shoots a guy..



Are you seriously denying Iraq's collaboration with (and financing of)
international terrorism? Al Qaeda or not, they were demonstrably a
terrorist-exporting state.

When? Iran has shown to harbor more terrorists. Why are we not attacking them?
Cheney specified Al Qaeda links. There were none.

NO link with 9-11 is necessary to justify the
toppling of Saddam's insidious regime. Have you read Stephen Hayes' latest
report in the Weekly Standard? Of course you haven't. New documents found
in post-war Iraq confirm earlier reports that Saddam Hussein actively
funded and trained Islamic terrorists:

Why? Fundamentalists were his enemy. He foguth a long war with fundamentlists
that killed in excess of 1 million people.


THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical
Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years
immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and
photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence
and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD
by eleven U.S. government officials.

Links please.

There were other Terrorists groups that Saddam funded, mostly to thwart his
enemies like the Kurds. None were Al Qaeda.


The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra,
Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units.
Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and
military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters
were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al
Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some
2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to
2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials
believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible
for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with
knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and
National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May
2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same
briefing.

The White House was specific on Al Qaeda links. They were specific as to why
they wne into Iraq. And it wasn't for this reason. This "war on terror", started
when public support for the war was falling, and there were no WMD found. So
Buch started to go on a public tours, holding speeches in front of military
bases, to sell the war again.


Christopher Hitchens, no right-wing tool, also stated the obvious in his
review of F911:

Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even
threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as
ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad
was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the
most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by
the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome.

Completely irrelevent.

Baghdad was the safe
house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam
boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel.

Then why didn't the administration sell this at the beginning? Are you buying
this? ARe you fucking telling me we attacked this guy because of Klinghoffer?

(Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.)
In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After
that same invasion was repelled-Saddam having killed quite a few Americans
and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened
to kill many more-the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder
former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his
son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and
I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our
retired chief executives?

This is all bull***. These were not the reasons they sold the war. The guy had
nothing. Barely had an army. It took less time to get into Baghdad, then to get
help into New Orleans.

(President Clinton certainly took it that way: He
ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security"
headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft
that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the
north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the
chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq,


Yasin was born in the USA. Does that mean we have Al Qaada links too? Do we have
to attack Indiana?


where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In
2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated
the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the
beginning of a larger revenge.

They Palastinians were dancing in the streets of Jerusalum. What's your point?

Its official media regularly spewed out a
stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as
"threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism
only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that
Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan
his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On
Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported-and the David Kay report had
established-that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear
Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the
spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-
production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered
until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile
put an end to the negotiations.)

Interesting. SO why didn't we attack North Korea? Aren't they a far greater
threat?


Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you
can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so
many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can
possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all.
Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been
allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that
Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or
of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."

I never saw the movie.


If you think Kerry is a liar, and thin that Bush and Cheney are
truthful, you need to get out of the cave.

Kerry voted for the war based on the exact same intelligence at Bush's (and
Clinton's) disposal. Guess that makes him a liar too. Once the war got
rough, he bailed. Spare me the "We were duped!" wails of indignation.

Someone (can't remember who) wrote, that attacking Iraq was on the Bush
Checklist, even before he was elected. I wasn't duped. You were.

Alot has been written about
how they manpulated or cherry picked intelligence, to justify the war.

And all of it thoroughly debunked by a recent Chicago Tribune series:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512280311dec28,0,7879020.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed


Oh, I don't think so.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/32213/

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/1





I have a simple question for you: do you think Bush or Cheney would
knowingly send young men and women off to their deaths based on a known
lie? Do you really think either man is capable of that?

We're not talking capable. We are talking been there, done that.


They have made enemies with the CIA over the blame game.

Ha! Now the Left LOVES the CIA! What a change of heart!

Left? I didn't even vote for Clinton in either of his wins.

The CIA has been
engaged in a covert war against the Bush Administration for the last
several years, manifesting in damaging leaks such as the NSA domestic
surveillance operation and the interrogation of terrorism suspects in
foreign countries. Don't like a Bush policy? Then leak to your heart's
content to the NY Times-national security be damned. If you're outraged
about that no-talent *** Valerie Plame and her lying sack of *** husband,
then I suggest you muster up some outrage over these leaks too. Otherwise,
STFU.

Make me shut the *** up, ***. Typical republican response. If you don't
agree with them, you're a liberal.


This administration has become the "pass the buck" administration, in
taking no responibility for anything. They weren't at fault for 9-11,
but they are credited for no attacks since then.

Um, if you took the time to read the 9-11 Report, you'd discover that the
"buck" quite correctly fell on the CIA and FBI-whose infighting and
turfwars made them take their eye off the ball.

That infighting had memos PDBs reaching the White House. Somehow, with all that
infighting, they still made it where they was supposed to get to.

The White House is only as
good (or culpable) as the intelligence at its disposal. BTW, the 9-11
hijackers metastasized and trained for several years in the US right under
Bubba's nose. Everything was set and in place by the time Bush took the
oath of office, yet you place the blame ...

Oh, I forgot When Bubbas was bombing Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, you right
wing pricks were saying he was try to distract the media from the Lewinsky
Scandal.



Like if 9-11 was a
mulligan of some sort. Iraq was bad intelligence.

Actually, your timing couldn't be worse. Here's a preview of tonight's ABC
Evening News:

Secret audiotapes of Saddam Hussein discussing ways to attack America with
weapons of mass destruction will be the subject of an ABC "Nightline"
program Wednesday night, a former federal prosecutor told Cybercast News
Service.



The tapes are being called the "smoking gun" of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) in Iraq. The New York Sun reported that the tapes have been
authenticated and currently are being reviewed by the U.S. House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence.
The panel's chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), declined to give the
Sun details of the content or context of the recordings, saying only that
they were provided to his committee by former federal prosecutor John
Loftus.

Loftus has been tight-lipped about the tapes, telling the Sun only that he
received them from a "former American military intelligence analyst."
On Tuesday night, Loftus told Cybercast News Service that ABC's
"Nightline" would air an "extensive report" on the tapes Wednesday night.
Loftus also described an ABC News "teaser," which reportedly contains audio
of Saddam Hussein discussing ways to attack America with WMD. "Nightline
will have a lot more," said Loftus.

We'll, since neither you nor I have seen these, You have about as much
credibility as I do. BTW, if this was such a smoking gun, the administration
would have used it a long time ago.



Katrina was Browns
fault. I don't even want to guess who's fault $3 per gallon of gas is.

Didn't you watch 20/20 last week? A gallon of bottled water is more
expensive than a gallon of gas. So is a gallon of ice cream. Quit your
bitching.

Hey dumb***, next time you run out of gas, put water in your tank. Better yet,
put ice cream in your tank.

If you think Kerry is a liar, as compared to these inbreeds in there
now, I would get off the drugs.

Vinnie S.

Sadly, you're yet another victim of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Most
Democrats see every event through the filter of their hatred for President
Bush. No matter what happens, anywhere in the world, their spin on events
is that they discredit the President. Since the 1970s, Pew Center pollsters
have been asking Americans how happy they are and analyzing the results.
This year's survey came out on Monday, revealing that Republicans, on the
average, are happier than Democrats:

Sadly, you're the eskimo who purchased 50 tons of snow.

Some 45% of all Republicans report being very happy, compared with just 30%
of Democrats and 29% of independents. This finding has also been around a
long time; Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since
the General Social Survey began taking its measurements in 1972.

Get you head out of your ass:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm


Have fun being the party of hate .. and losing elections.

I'm independent, asswipe. Now go back to sucking the *** of your Limbaugh
blow-up doll.



Vinnie S.
.

Loading