9/11 Commission finds no Credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam by Zoriah

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Then there's the British and the "conspiracy of reality TV". Yep they all started there and now they are after us all.

Actually, the Brits didn't start it. They copied some other country network (somewhere else in Europe) that locked there employees in for the weekend and filmed it. Actually the Brits got sued for that. I don't have any time to waste re-getting that link for you. You can do that yourself.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 7:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gtman8503:
Actually, the CIA determined that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. In a CIA letter to the Select Committee on Intelligence dated October 9, 2002, John McLaughlin wrote (For former CIA Director George Tenet), "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade...We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."

Whether or not the information that that conclusion was based on was accurate is another matter entirely, but the CIA did believe that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the war.

Also, the 9-11 commission stated that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda on the 9-11 attack. The commission did not say that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. In fact, they said exactly the opposite--that there were links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Whether or not this was justification for war is, again, a seperate issue, but these are the facts. Its disheartening to see every single news outlet with the exception of FOX misrepresenting what happened.

Contacts != links. One can talk to someone else without there being a link between them. All this proves is that Al Qaeda was persistent. And since Al Qaeda never obtained those WMD, it would seems as though those contacts never produced anything.

Perhaps you should stop watching FOX "news" and start looking to credible news agencies such as the BBC. After all, FOX "news" would *never* be considered a news agency in the rest of the world. We consider it comedy and a quite dark one at that.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 8:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ I never said that about Nixon... why does jcobb put words into my mouth?

...

So, let me ask you something.

Did Nixon increasingly decrease the number of troops stationed in Vietnam during his presidency?

Did JFK and Johnson continually put in troops into Vietnam?

Did Nixon want to pull out without creating an international incident and leaving South Vietnam hanging?

You betcha.

So, another question, how do you feel about how "we" handled Serbia and Milosevic? That was a war in which people died, and I think we can all agree that Milosevic was no where near as "bad" a person as Saddam.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 8:24 AM

We need to just kill this threat, since the title is one big fat falsehood:

"9/11 Commission finds no Credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam" as a statement is completely untrue.

I vote, kill this thread and start a new one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 11:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by gtman8503:
Actually, the CIA determined that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. In a CIA letter to the Select Committee on Intelligence dated October 9, 2002,

Yea, but I posted the LATEST news from the CIA. You give me old news? That makes sense how? Thanx for posting good info (even if that guy you mention is lieing, info it be!) but it's made mote by the latest info - as all things are right?

That's my only gripe about your post though.

...

Quote:
October 9, 2002, John McLaughlin wrote (For former CIA Director George Tenet), "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade...We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."

Whether or not the information that that conclusion was based on was accurate is another matter entirely, but the CIA did believe that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the war.

Also, the 9-11 commission stated that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda on the 9-11 attack. The commission did not say that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. In fact, they said exactly the opposite--that there were links between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Whether or not this was justification for war is, again, a seperate issue, but these are the facts. Its disheartening to see every single news outlet with the exception of FOX misrepresenting what happened.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 11:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ I never said that about Nixon... why does jcobb put words into my mouth?

...

So, let me ask you something.

Did Nixon increasingly decrease the number of troops stationed in Vietnam during his presidency?

Did JFK and Johnson continually put in troops into Vietnam?

Did Nixon want to pull out without creating an international incident and leaving South Vietnam hanging?

You betcha.

So, another question, how do you feel about how "we" handled Serbia and Milosevic? That was a war in which people died, and I think we can all agree that Milosevic was no where near as "bad" a person as Saddam.

I don't care, I'm still free.

Hey, if you can't argue the points then give up.

Attacking me only makes a fool out of you. People CAN read ya know.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 11:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

We need to just kill this threat, since the title is one big fat falsehood:

"9/11 Commission finds no Credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam" as a statement is completely untrue.

I vote, kill this thread and start a new one.

Best troll ever? Hm.

Terrible behavior Jason. I've never seen anyone online EVER just try to kill an entire discussion. Disgusting.

So much for free speach.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
That's how a "conspiracy of silence" works. You just keep silent about the truth.

Maybe. But the left has a "conspiracy of screamers". It works by spouting lies at every turn and drowing out the truth.

Like when the Nazis were cooking people for fun? That was a "conspiracy of silence" and was described as such then, and is still.

I love it when someone blows off anothers opinion as "nutty". Well, if you can't refute what a poster has to say try to keep yourself from being rude and obnoxious. Ok?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 2:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

We need to just kill this threat, since the title is one big fat falsehood:

"9/11 Commission finds no Credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam" as a statement is completely untrue.

I vote, kill this thread and start a new one.

Best troll ever? Hm.

Terrible behavior Jason. I've never seen anyone online EVER just try to kill an entire discussion. Disgusting.

So much for free speach.

Are you shitting me? (and please forget the 'favourite turd' line ) This entire thread is one lengthy huge troll.

Did I toss a grenade into the room and snuck out?
No, but that would have killed a thread. Did I somehow disable this thread so that no one can post in it any longer? ahem, no.

My "suggestion" is to kill this thread since it's entire impetus to the thread is based in a title spewing falsehood. People online make suggestions to terminate threads all the time for various reasons. This has been done more than once on this board as well. I would also have suggested that you look harder if you haven't seen people shut down threads before - but I won't, since you obviously have got to be blind to have not "seen" it. why bother.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 4:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ I never said that about Nixon... why does jcobb put words into my mouth?

...

So, let me ask you something.

Did Nixon increasingly decrease the number of troops stationed in Vietnam during his presidency?

Did JFK and Johnson continually put in troops into Vietnam?

Did Nixon want to pull out without creating an international incident and leaving South Vietnam hanging?

You betcha.

So, another question, how do you feel about how "we" handled Serbia and Milosevic? That was a war in which people died, and I think we can all agree that Milosevic was no where near as "bad" a person as Saddam.

I don't care, I'm still free.
Hey, if you can't argue the points then give up.

Attacking me only makes a fool out of you. People CAN read ya know.

Attacking you?

I don't see an attack in there? Though, I can't say I find your work to be the most thought provoking things I have ever heard. And as of yet you haven't adressed my questions.

Another thing, it seems to me you think everything you pull off of the media to be gospel truth (nevermind some of the dubious websites you have provided as 'sources'). Try taking the middle ground for once in your life, and being objective. I think you follow one agenda, and thats it. Try exploring others.

(Furthermore, you are dead wrong about most of what you say, so meh is all I can say.)

If I wanted to have a coversation with a brickwall I would do so.

EDIT

Furthermore, I just had a great laugh, read what you said to Jason, and then you come back and yell at me for apparently attacking you. Nevermind the other threads where you go off on your tangents.

On a totally unrelated note, (read sarcasm) is there a way to block people here? I think I would enjoy these forums more if there were people that put SOME thought into their posts.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 6:00 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

That works both ways.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 2:14 AM

^^^ ROTFL!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 6:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ ROTFL!!!

Brilliant comeback there bud.

You've convinced me.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2004 1:12 PM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152l
ndzv.asp?pg=1

Don't forget to read page 2.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2004 5:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152l
ndzv.asp?pg=1

Don't forget to read page 2.

I don't care, I'm still free.

You just can't shut the fuck up can ya? Oh, and this article refers to utter lies.

http://sport-books-online.net/0060746734.html
The author of this shit book was on John Stewart last week... and to his face John Stewart called his book a "cluster fuck". Which is accurate.

... and the rest of JCOBBs links and info is all lies. He has no interest in the truth at all. Not even a little.

Jcobb is one of those types who like to highjack online threads in order to attack people who don't agree with sending American troops to die on foreign soil for greed. He likes seeing Osama Bin Laden free and threatening to WMD the USA. After all, that would let GWB and the elite, who JCOBB is protecting, have all the money and don't care how they get it... even over the dead headless bodies of Americans.

Traitor.

See how you like it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2004 9:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Quicksand:
This isn't news to anyone that's .... been.... reading.... the.... NEWS!!!!

Not only was there no credible link between Saddam and Al Qaeda... there was NEVER any kind of link at ALL!!!

Every single 9/11 terrorist, except two, were from Saudi Arabia. The other two were from Egypt. This isn't news, the New York Times had this YEARS ago.

Liberal Media, my Big Fat Ass. Don't forgot to VOTE!!!!!

Love this post. Simple, true, and powerful.

Getting back onto the Media and thier spin... check out the latest book. And it's not by 32 year old Right Wing Movementarians like that cluster fuck posted above.

IMPERIAL HUBRIS by 'Anonymous' (Senior CIA Official)
To Claim America Losing the War on Terror
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1242638,00.html
A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's hands.

Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, due out next month, dismisses two of the most frequent boasts of the Bush administration: that Bin Laden and al-Qaida are "on the run" and that the Iraq invasion has made America safer.

In an interview with the Guardian the official, who writes as "Anonymous", described al-Qaida as a much more proficient and focused organisation than it was in 2001, and predicted that it would "inevitably" acquire weapons of mass destruction and try to use them.

Click the link for more.

Remember a few post above when I said if you are for the war in Iraq you are for Osama? Well, seems a senoir CIA guy agrees with me. Seems when I say that the White House has no interest in even finding Osama... a senior CIA agent agrees that this is (at least) the same result.

And heads will role... on TV. Why? I guess CNN loves to give terrorists everything they want?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2004 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:

I don't care, I'm still free.

Quote:

You just can't shut the fuck up can ya? Oh, and this article refers to utter lies.

Yeah, you just love the freedom of speech. You are what the framers of the constitution feared most. A rabid, anti-freedom, (under the guise of civil liberties) zealot intent on the utter destruction of people that are "different" from you. I am certain you and the Nazi's would get along smashingly.

Pray tell, do you enjoy burning literature that you don't nessecarily agree with?

Quote:
http://sport-books-online.net/0060746734.html
The author of this shit book was on John Stewart last week... and to his face John Stewart called his book a "cluster fuck". Which is accurate.

I watched that episode, which, in turn, led me to the author. If you were capable of any form of deduction, you would realize that he was talking about the situation the country was in currently, the one discussed in the book. But, then again, that would assume that you capable of any level of actual discernment.

Quote:
... and the rest of JCOBBs links and info is all lies. He has no interest in the truth at all. Not even a little.

Says the man who adores Michael Moore as the epitome of truth and justice.

Stop it, you are making my sides hurt.

Quote:

Jcobb is one of those types who like to highjack online threads in order to attack people who don't agree with sending American troops to die on foreign soil for greed. He likes seeing Osama Bin Laden free and threatening to WMD the USA. After all, that would let GWB and the elite, who JCOBB is protecting, have all the money and don't care how they get it... even over the dead headless bodies of Americans.

...

Okay, anyone want to point out the extremist in this thread? Anyone? Come on, anyone at all? Do I have any takers?

Right'o mate. I have said, countless times, I don't care what political faction you are from, I can like liberals, libertarians, conservatives, athiests, Christians, Muslims, Jews, you name it. I can get along with most anyone. It is, apparently, you that have trouble "co-existing" with others.

You must live a terribly sad life.

Quote:
Traitor.

Well, you've convinced me! I hate my country!

Quote:
See how you like it.

Your poorly worded, inflammatory, vitriolic statements? I don't care, its the internet bud. You can say whatever you want. I honestly DON'T care if you insult me. It just doesn't bother me. I am sorry it bothers you so much, but if it does, maybe you should take some time off? You know, take a step back and reexamine your priorities? Really check that if you think this is worth getting SO angry about. Obviously, you think it is. I think you would fly into a murderous rage if anyone mentioned something contrary to your beliefs, which is why I suggest seeking help. And I am not trying to be demeaning, I am serious. If you can not take a calm, (maybe a friendly jab now and then) discussion over the internet, and it gets you this worked up, you might indeed have some serious psychiatric troubles.

I think that behind your rabid exterior, there probably lurks a good person. See if you can't let him out every now and then.

Oh, and while I am at it..

Here's something oddly funny that I noticed. The 'only' man who supposedly thinks for himself, can only quote others. I don't know what he considers that, (maybe he has fooled himself into thinking he can discern between bias and facts written).

Oh, BTW, I got a call from an unnamed source that is near Osama Bin Laden. He said that Clinton wired him fifty dollars for a cab!!!1111!!11111 AMAZING FACTUAL INFORMATION!!!!11111

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2004 1:42 PM

QUICKSAND

Does your mom know you're using her computer?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2004 12:40 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Too far down the list, and I'm too busy to scan it all, but that is NOT what the 9-11 Commission found, and a link between al Qaida and Saddam were NEVER primary or even secondary reasons for going to war. Might I suggest UN Resolutions 1441.... aww hell, I'm TIRED OF THIS GORRAM SHIT!!!

When the PRESS is even willing to lie to us, WE ARE SCREWED.

Thank you and good night.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2004 7:30 PM

ooooh... Gruelman sez STFU....

here's some STFU, Gruelman.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2004 9:09 PM

"That's how 'conspiracy of silence' works."

It's also what accusers of Bush are banking on.
Falsely accuse him of enough stuff and he'll never be able to prove it didn't happen ..then... whammy, sneak Hillary into the white house. :O)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2004 9:14 PM

IMPERIAL HUBRIS by 'Anonymous' (UK liberal reporter pretending to be a Senior CIA Official)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2004 9:20 PM

"Not only was there no credible link between Saddam and Al Qaeda... there was NEVER any kind of link at ALL!!!"

This was a big fat falsehood reported by a gungho reporter who didn't even have the official commission findings. The Commission was so embarrassed by the reporters mischaracterization that they said came out and said there are plenty of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda .. .. and that what they meant was they found no collaborative links between the two regarding 9/11.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 2, 2004 3:04 AM

^^^Not even CNN is saying this now. So what's your excuse?

Quote:
Originally posted by Doran:

"That's how 'conspiracy of silence' works."

It's also what accusers of Bush are banking on.
Falsely accuse him of enough stuff and he'll never be able to prove it didn't happen ..then... whammy, sneak Hillary into the white house. :O)

*chuckle*... you know - it's been shown that Bush lied. All of America and btw the WORLD knows this. It's just a fact now.

So you come here... and make a fool of yourself. Jason even more so.

What giant sized asses you both are. Loosers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 2, 2004 9:47 AM

Ghoulman is no longer contend with just making an ass of himself. He continues and goes with direct personal commentary calling people liars and his "opponents" losers.

What a finish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 2, 2004 10:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Doran:
Falsely accuse him of enough stuff and he'll never be able to prove it didn't happen

Didn't Bush do this to Saddam? Well, no WMD found, etc. You be the judge.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 2, 2004 10:24 AM

"Didn't Bush do this to Saddam? Well, no WMD found, etc. You be the judge."

Thank you. Still more Sarin found yesterday. biologicals confiscated at the Jordanian border. The more time passes the more we see Bush hasn't falsely accused Saddam.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 2, 2004 10:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Doran:
"Didn't Bush do this to Saddam? Well, no WMD found, etc. You be the judge."

Thank you. Still more Sarin found yesterday. biologicals confiscated at the Jordanian border. The more time passes the more we see Bush hasn't falsely accused Saddam.

link please

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 2, 2004 10:50 AM

MINDSEYE

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Doran:
"Didn't Bush do this to Saddam? Well, no WMD found, etc. You be the judge."

Thank you. Still more Sarin found yesterday. biologicals confiscated at the Jordanian border. The more time passes the more we see Bush hasn't falsely accused Saddam.

link please

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html

Freedom - Peace - Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 2, 2004 11:21 AM

link please>

I think it's wonderful that ya'al finally want to do some research.. Too bad you don't spend as much time researching Moore wacko movie claims.

Here's one but it was all over the news yesterday.. The scarey part is that these ones were intercepted on the Iraqi black market aimed at terrorist. These were found by the Pols..

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html

This stuff keeps showing up a little at a time.. and every time it does mostly the left dismisses it.. but these are them.. this is the stuff that Saddam was supposed to have gotten rid of years ago.

You may be one of those folks who feel really sorry for Saddam but I am not. Here's only a partial list of Saddam's crimes.

• July 16, 1979: Shortly after Saddam seized power, fifteen top party leaders who allegedly conspired against him were executed by firing squad.

• 1980: Iraqi forces invade neighboring Iran on September 22nd, sparking eight years of war that left an estimated one million dead. Chemical attacks against Iran kill as many as 5,000.

• 1983: Government launches campaign against members of the Kurdish Barzani tribe for helping Iran launch offensive in northern Iraq. Estimated 8,000 killed, many buried in mass graves.

• 1986 through '88: Scorched-earth offensive known as Anfal that includes chemical attacks on Kurds, estimated 180,000 Kurds killed many buried in mass graves in the south.

• 1988: Chemical weapons attack against Kurdish town of Halabja, or Halabja kills an estimated 5,000 civilians on March 28 -- and this does not touch on those who lived and were disfigured and ruined for the rest of their lives.

• 1990: Saddam orders invasion of Kuwait on August 2nd.

• 1990: Iraqi forces fire Scud missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia.

• 1990: Iraqi soldiers allegedly torture summarily execute hundreds of Kuwaitis and set Kuwaiti oil wells ablaze.

• 1991: Some 60,000 people believed killed when Saddam violently crushes rebellion by Shi'ite Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north at close of Gulf War. Their bodies are found in mass graves all over the south.

• 1992: Draining of marshes in southern Iraq driving population known as "Marsh Arabs" from their homes and wiping out their way of life. Tens of thousands killed.

This alone is worth execution because of the environmental destruction. Forget what he did to the people; he destroyed the marsh! I mean, if the environmentalist wackos in this country and in Europe and around the world would be consistent, he goes to the electric chair, to the gas chamber, whatever, for this alone and the oil well fires. Of course, they got a problem with the oil well fires. They hate oil and they love the oil being depleted but they don't like the fires and that to pollute everything. Of course you know those oil well fires after the Gulf War in the early 90s? Everybody said, "It's going to cost tens years of pollution to the damage to the environment." It's all gone, got cleaned up. There's this thing called "rain," and, you know, when it falls through that all that stuff, it's magic. It's magic what happens. But anyway, forget what he did to the people. Forget what he did: gassing them and murdering them and burying them in mass graves. That is nothing. The environmental destruction alone, especially destroying the marsh! Why, he doesn't deserve to even get his day in court, if you ask me.

• 1996: Two of Saddam's sons-in-law are killed on February 20th after they return from Jordan where they fled and exposed the campaign to hide banned weapons from the United Nations.

Of course, there aren't any weapons of mass destruction. There never were any weapons of mass destruction. I mean, the whole world made up that lie, but Saddam executed a couple guys for spilling the beans on his program. That's just scratching the surface. The mass graves in Iraq number, I think the latest estimate I saw is between 300,000 and a million -- and believe it or not, there are some people who are looking at Iraq today and saying, and there's some people in this country are saying, "Well, you know, that's what it took to run that country. That's what it took to keep that country in order," and we're seeing, "Maybe it was in better shape with Saddam in power." We've heard this said in this country by some of the fringe kook liberals out there.

Sheesh..

Oh and one more thing, everyone keeps going on about how we haven't found the WMD that we said we were going to find. Well, during WWII it was known to the ally intelligence that Hitler had these very large guns mounted on rails aimed at England from France and farther out. There was documentation that told of 100's of these and aerial photography.. It was believed if we didn't take out those guns Hitler would decimate England. Well, guess what we never found one of those very large guns. So my question is this.. if Hitler was able to so effective hide weapons of mass destruction that were that large, (we're talking 2 football fields a piece here) What are the odds that Saddam could hide some nerve and biological agents?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 2, 2004 2:30 PM

Sorry, a link *not* Fox "news" please.

If you have respect for those guys fine, but to say that I lack respect for them is an understatement. Something outside of the US "news" media would be most appropriate.

And by the way, I stopped reading after you said,

"You may be one of those folks who feel really sorry for Saddam..."

If we are going to discuss you really are going to have to stop stuff of this sort.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 2, 2004 4:50 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Agent France Presse (AFP)
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040702181116.ctvlrxgf.html

But the 122mm warheads, found in late June, have been found not to contain the deadly chemicals, a statement from multinational forces here said.

"Those 16 rounds were all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals," it said.

Two other warheads found in mid-June were found to contain an insignificant amount of sarin gas. The armaments were left over from the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the statement said.

"Due to the deteriorated state of the rounds and small quantity of remaining agent, these rounds were determined to have limited to no impact if used by insurgents against coalition forces."

Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=557992
5&pageNumber=1
Poland said the shells found by its troops dated from the 1980s and that it had bought them through individuals who contacted officials in its military zone in south-central Iraq.

"We bought all the shells available ... Terrorists are seeking these missiles on the black market, offering a price of around $5,000 per warhead," General Marek Dukaczewski, head of army intelligence, told a news conference.

He said there was no evidence any shells had ended up in militants' hands.

Poland said its soldiers found 17 Grad rockets and two mortar shells in late June and that U.S. experts had carried out tests on the weapons.

"Tests conducted showed that there was cyclosarin in the rocket heads," said Dukaczewski.

But the U.S. military said only two of the rockets had tested positive for sarin gas, and that another 16 rockets found by the Poles had contained no chemical agents.

The reason for the discrepancy in figures was unclear.

My personal opinion - as a scientist who knows about the technology used for testing - units designed to provide early warning have too many false positives to be useful. It's possible the Polish troops were relating preliminary inaccurate results. Or, it's possible there was miscommunication between various authorities.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 3, 2004 6:57 AM

"Sorry, a link *not* Fox "news" please."

Can I have another source for any of M. Moore's contrivance?

Two versions of the same story came out. One from the liberal Reuters service; Polish soldiers last month recovered munitions containing deadly nerve agent cyclosarin and other things, in Iraq, and the first story today said (paraphrasing), "Well, you know these things are from 1988. They're old, and..." It's a typical Reuters story, "...and they have nothing to do with the weapons of mass destruction. They have nothing to do with the war in Iraq. It doesn't prove anything. Blah, blah-blah, blah, blah, blah." Really? 1988, sarin gas, the rocket shells in Iraq, weapons of mass destruction. Has nothing to do with it? The second incarnation of the story is this:

"Chemical munitions..." and this is the AP. "Chemical munitions found by Polish soldiers were being pursued by terrorists. Polish troops had been searching for munitions as part of their regular mission in south-central Iraq when they were told by an informant in May that terrorists had made a bid to buy the chemical weapons, which date back to Saddam Hussein's war with Iran in the 1980s, Gen. Marek Dukaczewski told reporters in Warsaw. 'We were mortified by the information that terrorists were looking for these warheads and offered $5,000 apiece. An attack with such weapons would be hard to imagine. All of our activity was accelerated at appropriating these warheads.' Dukaczewski refused to give any further details about the terrorists or the sellers of the munitions, saying only that his troops thwarted terrorists by purchasing the 17 rockets for a Soviet-era launcher and two mortar rounds containing the nerve agent for an undisclosed sum June 23," a little over a week ago.

Moore, the democrats, Kerry and so many libs think there's no WMD, there have never been any WMD. Well, why is it that the terrorists themselves think there are WMD there in Iraq? They are there looking for it.. I hope that they don't find it first.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 3, 2004 10:46 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Moore, the democrats, Kerry and so many libs think there's no WMD, there have never been any WMD.

OF COURSE there were WMD. We sold it to them, remember? If you care to scan back into one of my posts, they deteriorate with time (except mustard gas). 10 years ought to make cylcosarin oh, about... useless.

Quote:
Well, why is it that the terrorists themselves think there are WMD there in Iraq?

Maybe they're as effing stupid as you are.

PS- I'm working on a CWA project, so I should know.

DUH!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 3, 2004 12:30 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Doran,

I think you didn't quote either story very well.

The Reuters story reported

Quote:
"the U.S. military said only two of the rockets had tested positive for sarin gas, and that another 16 rockets found by the Poles had contained no chemical agent".

That's according to the US military, not Reuters.

The parts you deleted from the AP report said:
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12194584&BRD=1817&PAG=461&de
pt_id=68561&rfi=6
"But in Iraq, the U.S. military said trace amounts of the nerve agent found in a cache of rockets dating back to the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war were so deteriorated they would have had "little to no impact if used by insurgents."
...
"Laboratory tests showed the presence in them of cyclosarin, a very toxic gas, five times stronger than sarin and five times more durable," Bieniek told Poland's TVN24 at the force's Camp Babylon headquarters.
But the U.S. military statement said: "Due to the deteriorated state of the rounds, and small quantity of remaining agent, these rounds were determined to have limited to no impact."

As to 'liberals' saying there are no WMD, here is the link to David Kay's speech to the Senate:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
"Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 3, 2004 1:24 PM