T1B

Dr_Phibes wrote:Tom, you are new to this board but quick to pick up on current trends, you will fit in just fine, but check out the map of the terrorist training camp provided by Khodada from your link:

U.S. officials have now concluded that Salman Pak was most likely used to train Iraqi counter-terrorism units in anti-hijacking techniques

Since the original broadcast, Khodada has not publicly addressed questions that have been raised about his account of activities at Salman Pak.

Martyred wrote:

Dr_Phibes wrote:Tom, you are new to this board but quick to pick up on current trends, you will fit in just fine, but check out the map of the terrorist training camp provided by Khodada from your link:

Dude, he coloured within the lines.
That is a known Al-Queda tactic.

Also, the CIA's spectral analysis labs have confirmed that those Crayolas can be traced
to an Office Max in downtown Basra.

I just hope they don't find that macaroni and glue drawing with the sparkly pipe cleaners stuck to it showing the mobile weapons labs.

mvscal wrote:It's pretty simple really. Terry is an idiot. The meaning of that statement is quite clear to any intellectually honest individual.

Tom In VA wrote: But please counter the facts by providing the following.

1. Where did Bush ever tie Saddam directly to the attack of 9-11-2001

Tom In VA wrote: 2. Where Saddam was not a state sponsor of terrorism.

Dr_Phibes wrote:Any handler would be a blockhead to let the top man make a statement like that, think of the position you put yourself in if you're proven wrong - you get hung out to dry, best leave it to unofficial organs or lower functionaries - they're expendable. It's just common sense, I recall Russert nailing Rumsfeld to the wall on that.

And the second one you're asking for negative proof..

Martyred wrote:

Tom In VA wrote: But please counter the facts by providing the following.

1. Where did Bush ever tie Saddam directly to the attack of 9-11-2001

Everytime he finishes a peroration about the Iraq War with an invoking of the greater
war on terror, and it's main constituent, Al-Queda.
The dull-witted public is left to connect the dots like a Denny's kid's menu
colouring page.

Tom In VA wrote: 2. Where Saddam was not a state sponsor of terrorism.

All states sponsor terror by their very nature.
Centralized government is authoritarian from inception.

RadioFan wrote:

mvscal wrote:It's pretty simple really. Terry is an idiot. The meaning of that statement is quite clear to any intellectually honest individual.

Oh really?

Nice post and nice imitation of the average call-in radio show imbecile.

Btw, in case you STILL don't get it -- "I disagree with your point of view," is NOT equal to "you're an idiot."

What part of Bush implying there was a connection do you NOT understand? Or are you just trolling, as a fucking tard?

Terry is arguing that Bush implied it. You're saying that Bush never said it directly. In fact, Bush finally said, when asked point blank (but not until then), there was no connection. I've posted as much in here, in response to a user in here, who, at least until that time, still believed it.

A significant number of the American public still believes there is a connection, despite having virtually none following 9/11,

How is that?

Oh wait, let me guess, half the Democrats giving Bush the authority to go to war, did it, right?

Ah, yes the power of the twisted arm, to shape public opinion.

The perception of Saddam having to do with 9/11 doesn't have anything to do with Bush.

Right?

Tom In VA wrote: 1-2. Bullshit


The problem you're having is with reality. Bush never said anything of the sort.

Tom In VA wrote:Bush defined three primary countries. Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Despite his poor choice of words "Axis of Evil", those countries have several primary things in common.

1. Ramping up WMD programs.
2. Sponsorship of terrorists that pose a threat to the interests from which you and I benefit.

Enjoy your jelly donut, but please don't talk with your mouth full, it's unbecoming.

Tom In VA wrote:Bush defined three primary countries. Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Despite his poor choice of words "Axis of Evil", those countries have several primary things in common.

RadioFan wrote:Bwah.

I am breathing, bro. I can't believe you buy into this definition that has been fed to you.

Tom In VA wrote:Bush defined three primary countries. Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Despite his poor choice of words "Axis of Evil", those countries have several primary things in common.

Along with Burma, Cuba and ... China.

You do understand that China is, on a large-scale, without a doubt, the most oppressive regime on the planet, don't you?

How any president in this day and age, can talk about an "Axis of Evil" and not include China is beyond me, Tom.

Oh wait, I must work for Google, Cisco, Yahoo and that other money-grubbing company.

Oh wait ... it's all about "security," right?

Dr_Phibes wrote:
And ignore Martyred, he is comfy in his armchair advocating a system that would benefit from something as simple as a Denny's menu roadmap - nothing even close has ever been put forward by any Anarchist.

RadioFan wrote:Bwah.

I am breathing, bro. I can't believe you buy into this definition that has been fed to you.

Tom In VA wrote:Bush defined three primary countries. Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Despite his poor choice of words "Axis of Evil", those countries have several primary things in common.

Along with Burma, Cuba and ... China.

You do understand that China is, on a large-scale, without a doubt, the most oppressive regime on the planet, don't you?

How any president in this day and age, can talk about an "Axis of Evil" and not include China is beyond me, Tom.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Yet there's no talk of invading the Congo. Why? Oh, silly me, I forgot -- the Congo doesn't "swim on a sea of oil," to use Wolfowitz' choice of words.

mvscal wrote:

RadioFan wrote:What part of Bush implying there was a connection do you NOT understand? Terry is arguing that Bush implied it.

Which makes him an idiot. It also makes you an idiot.

You cannot imply one thing while explicitly stating the direct opposite. Period. End of fucking story.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Public opinion rarely, if ever, changes so dramatically in favor of an incorrect conclusion, and in particular, an incorrect conclusion that was so easily and objectively verifiable, unless a person or persons in position to influence public opinion are not suggesting that conclusion.

That coercion of public opinion was the fruit of efforts by extremists in the DNC, the mouthpieces of "Air America" and Michael Moore's of the world.

Felix wrote:

That coercion of public opinion was the fruit of efforts by extremists in the DNC, the mouthpieces of "Air America" and Michael Moore's of the world.

Huh? You're kidding right?

Look Tom you're more intelligent than that......

Why do you attribute so much power to guys like Al Franken and Micheal Moore.......

Air America is about to tank due to excessively ratings, and Moore's films never do that well at the box office, yet you seem to imply that everyone that "connected" 9/11 and Hussein got their information from these two asshats......

my mother has never listened to Air America or any other liberal talk radio, yet she was under the impression for months afterward that Hussein was connected to the events of 9/11......how do you suppose she came to that conclusion?

But please, if you can find for me, examples of statements by Bush or members of his administration that "implied" Saddam's direct connection with 9-11, I will gladly eat a small piece of humble pie and stand down.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained.

mvscal wrote:

Felix wrote:what was it necessary to invoke 9/11 when talking about Hussein

Because he was a state sponsor of terrorism, you stupid fuck.

Because he was a state sponsor of terrorism, you stupid fuck.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote: Because he was a state sponsor of terrorism, you stupid fuck.

But not that act of terrorism.

No shit, dumbfuck.

Hence the numerous statements from numerous adminstration offcials stating that Saddam was not involved in the 9/11 attacks.

How's the list coming, by the way? You should have been able to come up with an administration official linking Saddam with the 9/11 attack by now.

Felix wrote:

But please, if you can find for me, examples of statements by Bush or members of his administration that "implied" Saddam's direct connection with 9-11, I will gladly eat a small piece of humble pie and stand down.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained.

You must have missed this, so I'll use it again.....

what was it necessary to invoke 9/11 when talking about Hussein

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I've already come up with a link showing Bush implied that they were linked. You've spent the last two pages spinning that. What color is the sky in your world?

The only link you provided shows Bush explicitly denying that Saddam was responsible for the attack.

You're going to have to do better than that, fuckwit.

Tom In VA wrote:But please, if you can find for me, examples of statements by Bush or members of his administration that "implied" Saddam's direct connection with 9-11, I will gladly eat a small piece of humble pie and stand down.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I've already come up with a link showing Bush implied that they were linked. You've spent the last two pages spinning that. What color is the sky in your world?

The only link you provided shows Bush explicitly denying that Saddam was responsible for the attack.

You're going to have to do better than that, fuckwit.

It detailed a number of statements where he mentioned 9/11 and Saddam Hussein in the same breath. And his explicit denial of Saddam's involvement in the attack didn't come until a long time thereafter.

Try again.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:But please, if you can find for me, examples of statements by Bush or members of his administration that "implied" Saddam's direct connection with 9-11, I will gladly eat a small piece of humble pie and stand down.

In addition to what's been cited previously, as late as the 2004 Presidential debates Bush attempted to imply that the two were linked.

At one time during the debates, Bush was asked whether, knowing what he now knew, if he would have gone to war in Iraq. Bush's answer, in sum and substance, was that he had no choice because we were attacked on September 11.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.

Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all documents requested by the inspectors.

Tom In VA wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:But please, if you can find for me, examples of statements by Bush or members of his administration that "implied" Saddam's direct connection with 9-11, I will gladly eat a small piece of humble pie and stand down.

In addition to what's been cited previously, as late as the 2004 Presidential debates Bush attempted to imply that the two were linked.

At one time during the debates, Bush was asked whether, knowing what he now knew, if he would have gone to war in Iraq. Bush's answer, in sum and substance, was that he had no choice because we were attacked on September 11.

You see what you want to see. I've explained why a man who is responsible for the United States and assumes the responsibilities of protecting a country would be concerned about Saddam Hussein.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

Terry in Crapchester wrote: But there's no reason to mention 9/11 and Saddam Hussein in the same breath, unless you want to create the impression in the minds of many that they are linked, without really saying so.

Hell, I'm certainly no fan of Bush's, but I could write a speech on his behalf which points out why he thinks Saddam is dangerous, and why he thinks it's necessary to use military force to take him out, without creating in any way any possible implication that he was linked to 9/11. And this has been, without a doubt, the most scripted Presidency of my lifetime, if not in U.S. history.

The numerous references to Saddam and 9/11 in the same breath were not accidental.

Tom In VA wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: But there's no reason to mention 9/11 and Saddam Hussein in the same breath, unless you want to create the impression in the minds of many that they are linked, without really saying so.

Hell, I'm certainly no fan of Bush's, but I could write a speech on his behalf which points out why he thinks Saddam is dangerous, and why he thinks it's necessary to use military force to take him out, without creating in any way any possible implication that he was linked to 9/11. And this has been, without a doubt, the most scripted Presidency of my lifetime, if not in U.S. history.

The numerous references to Saddam and 9/11 in the same breath were not accidental.

So you don't see a reason to correlate a threat to the United States, it's interests, and it's allies ... a threat that even Bush's predecessor acknowledged and took steps to thwart ... and one of the worst attacks on American soil ever ?

My fellow Americans, on September 11, this nation endured a dastardly attack from the international terrorist group al-Qaeda that left 3000 of our countrymen dead and which damaged a number of buildings which have historical, political and financial importance to our great nation. We have already begun the process of making those responsible for this attack answer for their actions, although our work in that regard is far from over.

In a more perfect world, I would be able to tell you that al-Qaeda represents the only threat to our nation's security, and to the security of other peace-loving nations in the world. Sadly, that is not the case. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein continues to defy U.N. weapons inspectors, in violation of several U.N. resolutions and in violation of the treaty he signed with the United States at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. There are even some reports which indicate that he may be attempting to rebuild his program for weapons of mass destruction.

My fellow Americans, I have spent the past several months meeting with members of my cabinet, advisors on international affairs and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency on several occasions concerning Iraq. I have spent countless hours studying the intelligence briefings that have been provided to me. And I have prayed for guidance in my decision.

My fellow Americans, it is my duty to inform you that I have decided that tomorrow I will formally ask Congress to give me authority to use military force, if necessary, to effect the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. This is not a decision that I make lightly, but soberly, and only after a great deal of contemplation. I trust that the honorable men and women you have elected to represent you will give this very important matter all of the attention it properly deserves.

And finally, my fellow Americans, I pledge to you that, if it turns out to be necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power by military means, that I will do everything in my power to ensure that the United States does not bear the costs of this operation alone. I will go to our allied nations, and to the United Nations. I will make the case to them for our decision, and I will humbly beseech their assistance.

Thank you, and God bless America.

Tom In VA wrote:Why would you include Saddam in a speech about 9-11 in your speech ?

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:It was a way to remind people of 9/11 without implying, in any reasonable sense, that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.

He didn't imply it in any reasonable sense, dumbfuck.