"Bush didn't address the Niger thing, probably because he didn't want to make the man appear a total fool - President Bush never asserted that Saddam had attempted to obtain uranium in Niger."

Uh...

“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”

Tom,

"Africa", not "Niger". And the intel still indicates that Saddam did, indeed, attempt to obtain uranium from AFRICA, even if he didn't try it in Niger...and as far as Niger goes, we've got two things: Saddam did send a trade mission to Niger. Niger has two major exports: goats and uranium.

Which do you think Saddam was interested in?

Mark,
Are you dissecting statements now to defend the President? “He didn’t say Niger, he said Africa”. You are correct, he did say “Africa”. But the intelligence was based on Yellowcake from Niger. I didn’t look specifically for a quote from that, but it must have been said by someone in the Administration. That is how the information got out there.
But please… don’t try dissecting statements like that.

As for his Q&A session…
When the person asked about paying for the war and student loans, the answer should have been “Simple. We are eliminating all student loans. You don’t need them and the war is more important”.
With the New Orleans question. His answer should have been “We want you to own houses and not rent. But all my rich friends want the prime real estate, so you can build you house right under this levee that will be 30% built back up.”

…who asks how we can afford the war and college loans at the same time…The answer was that we're capable of doing more than one thing at a time…. Oh really Mark?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/education.html

The total dollars allocated for student loans for the last three fiscal years:
2005 = $81.6-billion
2006 = $90.9-billion
2007 (budget) = $74.3-billion

He can’t and he wont!

…President Bush very gently answered - that he hadn't made any accusation that Saddam had a hand in 9/11..

You’re right Mark, the president did not make the connection, it was the VP.

Vice President Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that success in Iraq means "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

You can lead the left to the truth but you can't make them believe it.

It's sad, you can tell the left the truth until you are blue in the face, but they still won't believe you.

Sick of Lies, if you are "sick of lies" why do you keep on telling them, and believing them? Your nick name is an oxymoron.

"Africa", not "Niger". And the intel still indicates that Saddam did, indeed, attempt to obtain uranium from AFRICA, even if he didn't try it in Niger...and as far as Niger goes, we've got two things: Saddam did send a trade mission to Niger. Niger has two major exports: goats and uranium."

Mark, it's now common knowledge that the president was referring to Niger. They've admitted as much.

Just curious, where in Africa did Saddam try to obtain uranium.

Item: My fellow Americans, Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. [Bush, 5/1/03]

Item: U.S. forces, joined by Iraqi troops, on Thursday launched the largest air assault since the U.S.-led invasion, targeting insurgent strongholds north of the capital, the military said. 3/16/06

I guess I was wrong about bush not linking Saddam to 9/11. From Think Progress:

Bush, this afternoon:
First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don’t think we ever said – at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.

In fact, Bush justified the war against Iraq by
directly linking it to 9/11:

The use of armed forces against Iraq 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 person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. [Bush’s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]

I am happy to correct my mistake.

It was a known fact that Saddam in Iraq was a supporter of international terrorism. It's likely that he didn't have anything to do with 9/11, at least not directly. But for Saddam himself to publicly say that the 9/11 bombings were "an act of vengance" doesn't paint him in the best light, even if he didn't have anything to do with it.

Bush commonly used Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence so even when he was not connecting the two, the only implication was that they were connected. Cheney explicitly connected the two as already pointed out here.

As well, polls showed that the majority of Americans before the war believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Now, in another thread, Mr. Noonan said no poll existed and ... well, let his words do the talking:

Additionally, you're story of a poll allegedly stating that a majority of Americans believed Saddam had a hand in 9/11 is bogus - in the three years since I first heard of the poll, I've yet to see it...no one who cites it has ever been able to provide me a link to such a poll or, indeed, even cite the source of the poll.

That, of course, was the lynchpin in the post-liberation "Bush Lied!!!!" meme of the left - it was the hook upon which all leftwing theories hung...and like all hooks supporting leftwing theories, it was a lie. There was no such poll - meaning, of course, that the American people were not hookwinked into liberating Iraq and this means, in turn, that President Bush didn't deceive anyone...

Ah, but once again Mr. Noonan is completely wrong.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0923-08.htm

Will Mark look at the link this time, or will he ignore it so he can say he has never seen the poll so he can continue his lie and try to feel ok about it?

Oops...the second paragraph under the italics was also Mark's quote - don't attribute that crap to me.

This post says it all. "Lunatic Left". Right out of the Ann Coulter playbook. This dialogue serves no purpose and has no objective. You can't win this with rhetoric. These Republicans have no impact on me or anybody else as far as I’m concerned. This should not be political. When you go by the graveyard over at Arlington, it doesn't say Democrat or Republican, it says American.

Lets take a look at the so called Republican results. Republicans have been dead wrong about the war in Iraq. Bush and company called the shots on a dangerously incompetent strategy. Republicans, dead wrong about the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Dead wrong about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Dead wrong about America being greeted as liberators. Dead wrong about the insurgency being in its last throes. Now Bush and company reject the idea of civil war.

Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects have been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American causalities have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our obligation, to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out.

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home.

Anyone know if the transcript is posted anywhere. I would like to read the Q&A.

Richard Clarke, himself, in his book said Iraq tried to obtain uranium from Africa.

The Brits still stand by that claim today.

As far as the poll goes. How many times does Bush have to say that there is no evidence of a direct link between Saddam and 9/11? The public evidentally thinks there was "indirect support" from Saddam for other reasons. Perhaps it was the Judge in NY who ruled a case against Saddam in favor of a 9/11 family member (due to his support/training connections to al Qaeda). Maybe it was the pictures Saddam posted/painted on walls/billboards of him smoking a cigar in front of the burning twin towers (of 9/11). Maybe it is because the 9/11 Commission established a co-operative relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda in chemical weapons training. Who knows? But, whatever the reason...it wasn't because of anything Bush/Cheney said.

I think the problem the left has with Bush/Cheney connecting Saddam to terrorism and groups connected with al Qaeda is because they only can only see one thing (and not the entire connected picture).

All I can say is.....pay attention to the Iraq/Afghanistan documents and tapes that are being released. It proves Saddam an even bigger supporter of terror and and even bigger danger than most of us imagined.

No Bush lies. Only leftist partisan attacks (politics over national security).

"It's Imperialism Stupid said:
Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."

The House had a vote on that recently, remember?
What was it? Three in favor? It's partisan politics (bloviating idiots) ahead of National Security.

Sorry, no one liked Murtha's idea of redeploying troops to fight GWOT in Japan.

Brokeback,

Well, glory be, there actually is such a poll.

Of course, you'll have to explain to me the validity of a poll of 403 adults, and why the believe in this was at 53% in August of 2002, 43% in September of 2003 and 53% in December of 2003.

The poll exists - the results are still bogus.

SOL,

Only in Joe Wilson's weird world...the reason the infamous 16 words were placed in the SOTU address was due to Brit intelligence entirely separate from the yellowcake story.

As it turns out, the Administration was wrong to disavow the words - the more time goes on, the more proven it is that Saddam sought uranium in Africa...and very likely in Niger.

Barney,

Geesh, you guys will stretch as far as necessary to keep up your BUSH LIED!!! meme, won't you? The 2003 quote you have from President Bush doesn't say what you think it says.

Ah, well, it is a bit pointless - to argue with the anti-Bush people is an exercise in futulity...and I'm sure all the lefty blogs are dissecting today's speech. Wanna know what that will be worth? A big, fat zero - you see, out there in the rest of America there isn't this automatic presumption that the Persident lied...they will watch things like today's event and be pleased, not angered.

Tom,

Niger isn't the only place to get uranium in west Africa...its fairly common around there.

The Brit intell used to back up the assertion said "Africa", not "Niger"...Joe Wilson wen't to Niger, pretended to find out if Saddam had tried to buy some, came back home and briefed the CIA that Saddam may, indeed, have tried to obtain uranium from Niger, and then produced a NY Times opinion piece saying the exact opposite...as Joe Wilson has been caught in lie after lie, I find it still amazing that you on the left consider his bogus journey to be proof that President Bush lied, when what Joe Wilson says, even if it were true, would not make what the President said a lie.

.....and one more thing...

If Bush is responsible for Americans believing that Saddam had either direct, or indirect, involvement with 9/11....then can someone explain to me why they thought that immediately after 9/11 happened (and before Bush mentioned Iraq) in a poll taken 9/13 (practically the next day)?
-----------------------------

How likely is it that Saddam Hussein (INSERT ITEM) ? Would you say that it is very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely?
a. was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks

9/13/01 78% think it is likely.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm
----------------------------------

There is definately a reason in the collective conscience of Americans that Saddam is connected to terrorism and 9/11. But it was there before Bush opened his mouth to explain GWOT and the dangers we must face up to.

I thought it was a great speech, no one can accuse him of "planting" questions. Anyway the questions are the ones that are always asked by the looney left, now they got their answers. Took a lot of courage for my man Bush to do that! God speed Mr. President, I love you and I'm so proud of you and so thankful that you are our president. Keep on truckin'.

Semby

Back in college, I was sitting in my living room reading one evening and I heard someone try my front doorknob. It was locked and he went away, so I didn't think anything about it; figured someone came home drunk and got confused. About 10 minutes later he found an unlocked front door, went in, tried to rape the girl living there. The neighbors heard her screams, broke in through the front window, and tackled and held him until the police arrived.

Sometimes the simple act of rattling doorknobs is a prelude to a criminal act. We know, from Wilson's own verbal report, that Hussein was going around Africa rattling doorknobs, looking for regimes willing to sell him uranium on the sly. We don't know that he didn't succeed in Niger, only that Wilson didn't think he succeeded. But like the rapist at my apartment building he only had to find *one* unlocked door to succeed.

By itself it was only a concern; if those 16 words had been the only grievance against Hussein then no, the war wouldn't have been justified. But those were only 16 words out of a laundry list of grievances against Iraq. They were in continual violation of the terms of the '91 ceasefire, there was every evidence that once sanctions were completely lifted they'd be right back to intimidating their neighbors and reconstituing their WMD programs.

The link to 9/11 - and the only link anyone in the Bush Administration has ever made - is that because of 9/11 we can no longer afford to allow the doorknob rattling. Clinton ignored bin Laden or took only timid half-measures to eliminate him as a threat (27 cruise missiles into abandoned terrorist training camps and an aspirin factory do NOT constitute "effective" meassures!) and the WTC burned to the ground with 3000 people inside as a result. Clinton shot cruise missiles at Hussein's secret police building and he still kept rattling those doorknobs. Stronger measures were required and Bush took them, before Hussein could find an unlocked door.

Not sure why, but leftist liars have apparently targeted this site for a relentless propaganda campaign. Every single leftist post on this forum has been a lie. There is NO dispute that Saddam tried to acquire uranium in Niger. Niger wasn't selling, but it's unquestioned that Saddam approached Niger to sell it to him.

Similarly, the quotes cited by Barney and Tom Shitley -- in their illiterate attempt to prove that Bush directly connected Saddam to 9/11 -- completely disprove their own argument. In fact, the quotes prove that Bush was only making a general connection between Saddam's Iraq and terrorism -- which is undeniably true, especially in light of the documents released in the past few days, which prove that Saddam WAS cooperating with al Qaeda. Bush never claimed Saddam was directly involved in 9/11.

The leftists on this site are worthy successors to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

The apostles once begged Christ to convince the unconverted by performing another miracle -His response was the all the miracles in the world won't convert those who chose not to believe.
Speeches mean nothing, nor does truth-to liberals.

Orion: good post. You are right, of course, that Bush, and you, can see the big picture. Unfortunately, some posters here, and the majority of the anti-Bush/war crowd can't. But, that happens when you're so consumed by hate and determination to discredit someones every word. It's hard for them to multi-task.:) Going back to dissect those 16 words is like thinking you can stop an avalanche by catching a few snowflakes in your hat. If Bush just wouldn't have said those 16 words, we wouldn't be at war and everything in world would be just fine. Right? ;)

The moonbats are getting hot and bothered. They must think they have Bush this time. Run moonbats, your must catch up with your leaders.

Meanwhile, more documents released today that show Saddam and Bin Laden linked.

Somehow Barney and Friends will dismiss these

-------------

Bin Laden Sought 'Joint Operations' With Saddam

An Iraqi intelligence document released last week indicates that Osama bin Laden sought to conduct "joint operations" with Saddam Hussein's regime six years before the 9/11 attacks - and was given the green light by the Iraqi dictator.

The document, detailed in the March 27 issue of the Weekly Standard, describes a Feb. 1995 meeting between bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence that was personally approved by "the Honorable Presidency" - an apparent reference to Saddam.

"We discussed with [bin Laden] his organization. He requested the broadcast of the speeches of Sheikh Sulayman al-Uda [who has influence within Saudi Arabia and outside due to being a well known religious and influential personality] and to designate a program for them through the broadcast directed inside Iraq, and to perform joint operations against the foreign forces in the land of Hijaz [Saudi Arabia]."

The document goes on to note that "the Honorable Presidency was informed of the details of the meeting in our letter 370 on March 4, 1995."

The document indicates that Saddam personally granted bin Laden's request for help with propaganda broadcasts and instructed his agents "to develop the relationship [with bin Laden] and the cooperation between the two sides to see what other doors of cooperation and agreement open up."

The 1997 Iraqi intelligence document goes on to report: "Currently we are working to invigorate this relationship through a new channel in light of his present location [Afghanistan]."

The reference by Iraqi intelligence to "joint operations" with bin Laden apparently contradicts one of the 9/11 Commission's most important findings that Saddam had no "operational relationship" with al Qaeda.

Regarding lefties posting on this board in mass numbers....

I read both republican and democrat blogs....I have been flamed on this board a few times, but that is the way it goes.

On the left leaning blogs....I was accused of being a troll for Rove and they shut off my priviledges to post on that site.

I think it is good to have different opinions posted here. I do have the problem of 'talking points' quite often being discussed with no backing up --- I will state that I see this more from the lefties posting here than the righties...but both sides have their moments.

Over my career, I have served on many non-profit boards. I have found that in general, the right leaning people are 'can do' positive problem solvers. The left leaning people are 'conspiracy theorists' not wanting change and always thinking that there are hidden agendas taking place. Things get done with the righties...meetings usually drag on forever with the lefties.

Sorry lefties....nothing personal....just my observations. mn lib

This is awesome.

Warriornation,

Please put a reference to where you got your info, otherwise its just meaningless.

Steve, remind me sometime to teach you how to find things. Here is the link to the article on weeklystandard.
Saddam's Philippines Terror Connection

the documents had been examined by the U.S. intelligence community and judged "consistent with authentic documents"--the professionals' way of saying that these items cannot definitively be certified but seem to be the real thing.

The only thing I think you could say is, now we have proof! You guys should watch Law and Order or something, see, to prove something, you have to be able to actually prove it, not kinda sorta prove it, but actually really truly prove it.

thanks dl!!

Steve, so you dismiss these documents because they are not "certified"? Not up to the caliber of the "downing street memos" eh?

I guess I'm not surprised, nothing anyone can say or do will ever change your mind. Bush is the only bad guilty guy in the world everybody else is just innocent until proven guilty by well "Certified" documents. Is that a double standard you have?

Steve.... It took you 13 minutes to follow the link, read 2 pages of stuff before you dismissed them.

Wow you are good. Really good, I think they need you to translate, comprehend and determine what is important and what isn't. By being biased, it does make your job easier doesn't it.

Ummmm, I can easily read 2 pages in 13 minutes..., and the DSM was certified by several government sources, and never ever denied by anyone, quite different from a source unidentified saying, "it looks like it, but I wouldn't bet on it"...

Steve, you don't need to read any more of that crap then do you. Bush is guilty as charged. End of story.

come on dl, there are two paragraphs in that story simply trying to build faith that the documents are valid, something the document should do on its own. If you have to try that hard you had better get another source, and then not mention twice the discrepencies between official versions and the copy you have.................................

bush in the january 2003 SOTU said Suddam aided and protects terrorists including members of al-Qaeda, and a sentence later refered "before september 11 many in the world belived Suddam Hussein could be contained." So no he did not directly link the 2 together, but who are we kidding here, that was his attempt.

So I'm confused Steve. Do these documents point to a relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda or not? And if not, what, if anything could prove that? Saddam and Osama on Jerry Springer complaining about how W broke up their relationship?

Seriously, at some point both sides need to take a step back. Republicans need to admit that Bush has made mistakes and Democrats need to realize that Bush isn't the enemy.

We all know that we can look at history with clarity, but it seems to be a past time of some in our country to rewrite history in order to gain an electoral advantage. On either side that's wrong.

How about a phone call between someone linked with Al Qaeda and someone in the Iraqi government?
How about a photo of an Iraqi official with a member of Al Qaeda. How about a letter saying "Hey Saddam, Will you help us", and a letter with the response "Sure", not a third party document saying "the Iraqi Government is working with Al Qaeda." Then of course we could find some kind of physical evidence within either Iraq or on the person of an Al Qaeda operative. A manuel from the Republican Guard, maybe a postcard, shit I don't care, anything that isn't here say. Thats all you got, and it's flimsy. I'm not like you, I don't think since they all live in the same part of the world they all know each other, I don't think they all are the same. They aren't, and Saddam was really really secular, not likely to allie with religious extremists, especially not when they would have a huge problem with his secularism. It just doesn't make any sense, and I know you think all Arabs hate America and hate Christianity and hate you for your 20 inch rims, but they don't, and I don't buy the idea that since they both were anti U.S. they could set aside their differences and work togther.

I thought that Saddam had a nuclear program, and I was happy they invaded when they did. I, however, was not privy to the information those in charge had, and now since it has been largley outed or declassified, I am ashamed at our presidents decision, when so many options remained. The deaths of tens of thousands will not be forgotten easily by those effected, and we will be brought to bear for those lives eventually, even if you personally don't care or think they matter.

Well, glory be, there actually is such a poll.

Of course, you'll have to explain to me the validity of a poll of 403 adults, and why the believe in this was at 53% in August of 2002, 43% in September of 2003 and 53% in December of 2003.

The poll exists - the results are still bogus.

Mark, I am going to post the link again so you can actually read what it has to say. Everything you mention about it is completely wrong.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0923-08.htm

53% in August 02, 51% in March 03, and 43% in Sept 03.

Second, 1003 adults were part of the poll for the August results and half that number for the March and Sept results. Your numbers are all wrong.

Don't forget what you said earlier:

That, of course, was the lynchpin in the post-liberation "Bush Lied!!!!" meme of the left - it was the hook upon which all leftwing theories hung...and like all hooks supporting leftwing theories, it was a lie. There was no such poll - meaning, of course, that the American people were not hookwinked into liberating Iraq and this means, in turn, that President Bush didn't deceive anyone...

That whole paragraph is complete and utter crap, not any truth in it at all. You called me a liar, but it is you who has lied and will continue to lie as support for Bush declines.

Do I really need to explain to you the validity of polls based on certain sample sizes? Colleges offer statistics classes, take one if you don't understand how it works.

So you believe the poll is bogus. How surprising, Mark chooses what is fact based on how convienent it is to his side of the argument.

Look, Bush and Cheney and the rest of the administration made some direct quotes linking 9/11 and Saddam, they also made many indirect connections between the two, and many Americans were obviously influenced by this. Many other things also influenced Americans during this time that have turned out to be wrong (cost of war, length of war, wmd, etc...). This is obvious because when the war started support for it was very high and now, after the truth has been exposed, support is extremely low. You can blame the media or Democrats for the low support of the war, but you would be missing a chance to actually make things better for your party. Until you face up to what has happened things will only get worse.

I'd appreciate it that you classify me in any way. You have no idea my views. Beyond willing to call B.S. to any side who spouts out sh*t when they know it just to prove a point.
I also do appreciate you classifying me in the way you did. You don't know me.

I never once personally attacked you. I simply wanted to know what would be needed to prove a connection. You answered that.

I'd appreciate in future keeping this about the issues. If you re-read my post, it was clear that I am advocating a different approach. Someday we will need to come together again, and your last post makes that quite difficult.

Think about that. Unless you're happy with public discourse today.

Steve, you know more and more information is going to be coming out. Be a little more open to the possibility that Bush is really on our side. There are really terrorist who do not like us, and they attacked us before Bush was elected.

Your hatred for Bush is not good for your "peace of mind". -Peace-

Steve:
I re-read my first post, and I can see how my joke (albeit) hard to decipher about Jerry Springer could be taken as rude.

I want to apologize for that. If we are to expect respect, we have to give it in no uncertain terms.

Finally, I think dl is right about being open. I think one side of the debate needs to be a little more suspicious, and the other side, significantly less.

And my second post, well, if the grammar were better it'd have made more sense. Apparently in a hurry, I can't type just like a bunch of other folks around here.

Let's be positive okay?

Wawillyo -

I'll admit - as a liberal, it's tough to stay "positive" when the title of this very thread is insulting: "President Bush Answers the Lunatic Left."

Then again, it's a conservative blog. So it is what it is. The fact is, a lot of people hate President Bush - and I mean truly, truly *hate* him. There's not enough space here to go over all the reasons, but I'm sure you can figure it out for yourself.

President Bush gives such great speeches. His honesty, character and goodness really shines through. I wish President Bush would give a major speech every week or at least once every two weeks. I really enjoyed it when he was making those series of speeches on Iraq a while back. I try to tape as many as I can.

maf53...all that hate and bile are gonna play hell with your health..really........honest...

Maf53

I can't figure it out. Tell me why, without the hyprebole from DailyKos why you hate Bush?

Seriously, I'd love to hear it. Do you think he wants to harm America or its citizens? Why do you hate the man.

Brokeback,

I eschewed Common Dreams - a lefty site totally unreliable; I went to Polling Report.

8/02 has it at 53%, 9/03 has it at 43%, 12/03 has it at 53% - this is from Gallup, so I can only presume that they are reporting their own results correctly. It appears that I did make a mistake - the sample was of 518; though that might have changed since I checked it this afternoon (they do update with corrected info - I could swear I saw it correctly earlier...).

At any rate, it is a bogus poll - the sample is too small, it is a poll of adults and we don't know the demographic and geographic breakdown of the respondents.

If you want to have this as your "proof" that President Bush deliberately misled the American people into thinking Saddam had a hand in 9/11 in order to gin up support for liberating Iraq, then there's nothing I can do for you - such a view is totally divorced from the facts.

maf,

But it is descriptive - anyone who, say, believes that President Bush deliberately misled America into war is either ignorant, or insane.

Maf:
I appreciate that you acknowledge that this is a conservative blog by nature.

I can say that I totally thought Clinton was the scum of the Earth, but I never once said I hated him. I find it odd that those on the left hate him so much. I can't quite figure it out.

Honestly... I cannot understand it. I guess Bush breathing is top of the list of reasons you hate him though. *sigh* I worry how are we ever going to get passed the hostility of each side.

"In fact, the quotes prove that Bush was only making a general connection between Saddam's Iraq and terrorism"

SPIN, SPIN, SPIN. SPIN OF FOOLS.

FROM A PRESIDENTIAL LETTER, MARCH 21, 2003
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html)

"I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Mr. Bush (with a straight face) says Monday in Cleveland:

First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don’t think we ever said – at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.

BUSH LIES

IMPEACH BUSH (WPE)*

*Worst President Ever

"In fact, the quotes prove that Bush was only making a general connection between Saddam's Iraq and terrorism"

As the great Aretha Franklin might sing:

Spin, spin, spin. Spin of fools.

Mark Noonan says:

"such a view is totally divorced from the facts."

From the mouth of babes..........

Annie, Jim, Waywillo - please, please, please carefully re-read my previous post. Here's what I actually said:

"The fact is, a lot of people hate President Bush - and I mean truly, truly *hate* him."

Did I ever say that *I* hateed him? No, I did not - I simply acknowledged that there are such people out there. Please don't jump to such fast conclusions. I don't agree with many of Bush's decisions, and I'd vote for a retard in a wheelchair before I'd ever vote for him, but I don't personally hate him.

Mark, you can rationalize your thread names all you want - heck, it's your blog. But I think the name of the site should be re-named to mirror it's true intentions: bashing the left.

The reason you see more lefties posting on right-wing boards than vice-versa is very simple: Moonbats use their boards to vent on and debating opposing viewpoints takes away from the experience. The easiest way to get in good on, say, DemocraticUnderground is to post a rant comparing Bush to Hitler. The fastest way to get banned from DU is to point out the ways Bush isn't like Hitler.

Lefties get banned from rightwing boards, too, but most often for personal attacks or cut-and-paste spamming. There's a great deal more tolerance on the right than the left, forum-wise.

So Maf...then you're saying you don't hate Bush?

Maybe on behalf of your leftists brothers you could tell us why they hate him.

Thanks

***************
Vice President Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that success in Iraq means "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
******************

Barn, see if you can find an online dictionary so you can look up the word "geographic". Iraq was a geographic base for worldwide terrorism. What you people don't seem to understand is that a terrorist does not sign an exclusive contract with any one group. He can work with Hamas, train with Al-Queda, train in Iraq with terrorists from several other groups, funnel money from one group to another, and in any operation be considered to be "with" the main group enacting that operation.

No one ever claimed that Sadaam Hussein was personally a part of the planning or execution of 9/11. But everyone who knew anything about the nature of Mideastern terrorism knew that Iraq funnelled money into several terrorist organizations, and that training camps in Iraq accepted and trained people who had affiliations with many groups.

Nit picking about just what name any group used at any one time, or what affiliation was claimed by anyone training in Iraq or using money that came from or through Iraq is silly and transparently an effort to make a claim that is not true.

The President himself said that he was not claiming Sadaam was involved with 9/11. He said it then, he said it repeatedly, and he has said it again and again since the invasion.

Straw Man time---please quit setting up invented targets so you can shoot them down.

BTW----pointing out the fallicies in Leftist claims is NOT the same thing as "bashing the left". It's this simplistic 'thinking' that carries on the theme that the only reason anyone wanted to look into's Clinton's legal and moral problems was to "get" him. By that same peverted 'logic' one would say that the only reason a policeman arrests a burglar is because he is "out to get him".

The Left is freaked out because they don't control information any more. After decades of taking over universities and newspapers, they must have been feeling pretty smug about their ability to control what people were told. And it is clearly rankling them to realize that the truth is still out there, and, worse, that there is a way to get it out to millions, who then send it on to millions. What might have been called "The Ward Churchill Project" is failing, and its death spiral is pretty terrifying to those who fear the truth as vampires fear daylight.

The Barking Mad contingent does not hate Bush because he got us into Iraq. They hated him when he started his run for the Presidency back in early 2000 and they have never let up.

Look at the wild accusations made against the man, from attacks on his religion to his ears to his family to his business contacts to his quirky speech mannerisms to just about anything you can name. His wife was called a "murderer" bacause when she was 17 she ran a red light (or stop sign) and hit a car carrying her boyfriend, who died in the wreck. His daughters have been slimed, when previously no White House children were considered fair game. The attacks have been vicious, unrelenting, and originated a long time before he was even sworn in.

I ask lefties why they hate Bush, and the answer, EVERY SINGLE TIME, has been that it is only fair to hate him after the way we "hated" Clinton.

??????????????????

First, there is the Leftist meme that the only reason anyone ever asked any questions about Bill or Hill was because we HATED them. Being involved in a scheme which included fraud, tax evasion, violation of Federal banking laws, and illegal campaign contributions, a scheme in which all others involved were found guilty of one crime or another, did not---according to the Left--- justify a look at the remaining partners, the Clintons. No, being actual PARTNERS in Whitewater, admitting to taking income tax deductions on Whitewater losses when they never had any money invested in the first place, etc. etc., did not in the eyes of the faithful Left constitute any reason to wonder if they should be investigated. So any investigation was written off as "spite" "malice" "hatred" and "out to get..." the Clintons.

Upon this false, flimsy, and somewhat pathological foundation of invented and assumed "hatred" of the Clintons is built the rationale for hating George W. Bush.

Nuts? You bet? Screwy? Paranoid? Irrational? The list of descriptions goes on and on.

But the significant thing to remember is that no one on the Left hates George Bush for anything he has done. They hated him first, and because of that irrational but cherished loathing, everything he does is poison to them.

And anything they do is justified.

None of these lefties are willing to answer why Saddam buried his air force in the desert but apparently wouldn't do such a thing with WMD.

Interesting.

What's wrong lefties, cat got your tongue?

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp

warrior-

the buried air force planes are difficult to explain - it seems that revealing weapons, whether conventional or not, to the u.n. inspectors could have at least bought some more time; if not, it seems absurd to bury your best means of defense in the sand while an invading army is massing on your borders. i'm interested to know more about this story, and i'm interested to know what point you're trying to make by challenging "lefties" to explain it.

i also think it's a little absurd to watch bush apologists go through semantic gymnastics to try to claim that the administration never connected al quada and hussein, and then proclaim two comments farther down the thread that there were connections all along. without even the slightest sense of irony.

"I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say -- that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."
-George Bush, 3/20/06

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two."
-George Bush, 6/17/04

there's some parsing that can be done there - what's the difference between a "connection" and a "relationship," for example, but i think most rational people recognize that these two statements contradict each other pretty explicitly.

To MN Libertarian,

I know your post was pretty far up there, maybe nobody will even read this. But I think you're right...Con's are Type-A personality, Lib's are Type-B. I'm a moderate and that probably stems from having Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and Attention Deficit Disorder at the same time. Try being articulate with a million things at the same time and bouncing around from one to another. I'd probably fit into Congress quite well.

Why we fight

Afghan Who Converted to Christianity Seeks Asylum

Moussaoui Eligible for Death Penalty