For those whose mantra is "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up," nothing will ever change their tune. It will continue to be--

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. There was no tie between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Bush lied.

no, no, no matt...

"evidence" must, simply MUST, be probative per the ABA in order to have any meaning whatever.

and only then after discovery & socratic debate.

this is the only acceptable filter...even in the murky world of intel.

so there.

Oh, here we go. Hmmm, Bush and the administration falsified intelligence and lied into a war and now a mysterious document shows up that would seem to justify the invasion. Any scooped by Faux news to boot. Things that make you want to go hmmm.

Is this like the cover story about US troops stumbling across Saddam Hussein hiding in a hole and then we find out that he was actually captured by kurdish troops and handed over to the US.

Or the Zarqawi bombing, 2 500 tonne bombs dropped on the house, totally obliterating it, yet Zarqawi gets up, unscathed with a few scrapes and bruises and then dies in the street, yet the photos seem to show numerous bullet wounds on him, which doesn't fit the bomb cover story.

These things are being set up for pro-war press ops, like when the "Chimp" President donned that navigators suit and pretended like he had just landed a jet on the aircraft carrier during the "Mission Accomplished" (But not accomplished) press op.

This is obviously because the truth of what happens during a "good news event" is far less glamerous so they spruce it up a bit to make it seem more spectacular. Zarqawi is shot by his comrades and dumped in the street, the US picks him up, does a make up job on him and then drops a couple bombs and saws that how they got him. LOL
Funny how the story keeps changing

Oh, here we go. Hmmm, Bush and the administration falsified intelligence and lied into a war and now a mysterious document shows up that would seem to justify the invasion. Any scooped by Faux news to boot. Things that make you want to go hmmm.

Is this like the cover story about US troops stumbling across Saddam Hussein hiding in a hole and then we find out that he was actually captured by kurdish troops and handed over to the US.

Or the Zarqawi bombing, 2 500 tonne bombs dropped on the house, totally obliterating it, yet Zarqawi gets up, unscathed with a few scrapes and bruises and then dies in the street, yet the photos seem to show numerous bullet wounds on him, which doesn't fit the bomb cover story.

These things are being set up for pro-war press ops, like when the "Chimp" President donned that navigators suit and pretended like he had just landed a jet on the aircraft carrier during the "Mission Accomplished" (But not accomplished) press op.

This is obviously because the truth of what happens during a "good news event" is far less glamerous so they spruce it up a bit to make it seem more spectacular. Zarqawi is shot by his comrades and dumped in the street, the US picks him up, does a make up job on him and then drops a couple bombs and saws that how they got him. LOL
Funny how the story keeps changing

QED

Axis,

you just don't fail to disappoint. That tin hat must be getting a little tight.

The ever morphing post-invasion justifications.

Maybe one day we can connect Saddam to Kubla Kahn, and just be done with all this second-guessing of Der Leader.

Wow...looks like a REAL "Inconvenient Truth" hitting the pinko lib democrat party squarely with a 2x4 of facts upside their collective heads.

I give thanks to President Bush, Sec Def Rumsfeld, and the men and women of the US military for their steadfast and tireless efforts protecting America at home and abroad from islamofacist terrorist...and also keeping the democrats out of power.

Fortunately AA and axis are in the minority of Americans...and will continue to be in the future.

While Saddam may not have fingerprints on 9/11 he has been providing a safe haven and funding for terrorists for years..Abu Nidal, Salman Pak...the recently killed Zarqawi was provided safe haven by Saddam after the invasion of Afghanistan.

Just more "Inconvenient Truths" for you moonbat democrats.

The ever morphing post-invasion justifications.

Maybe one day we can connect Saddam to Kubla Kahn, and just be done with all this second-guessing of Der Leader.

I'm sure that if we toppled Saudi Arabia we would also find documents linking them to the Taliban.

A democratic Iraq is a powerful thing, but I find the amount of money spent on it absurd. A recent Harvard study in Harvard Magazine (Harvard, I know, I know) put the total cost at 2 trillion dollars by factoring in every single cost, the biggest of which is interest on loans to pay for the war.

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/050682.html

Link to Harvard article

grosseMann

Lets for the sake of arguement agree that taking down Saddam made us safer. How much would you spend for that safety?

Nebraska,

Why would a socialist leader who is ruling a totalitarian regime invite into his fold religious zealots, whom he had fought a bloody and unresolved war with for 8 years?

Zarqawi was hiding out in Iraq, but he was in the northern reaches of the country, outside of Saddam's control, and protected by American air superiority, you would think logically if he were trying to plan out attacks on the US he would have had people like Zarqawi and OBL and Taliban leaders into the country, but instead he rejected these people, for the same reason he rejected the advances of Khomayni's radical islam, it causes instability and dissent, two things that Saddam couldn't have to keep an iron-clad grasp on his government, which was always a bit tenuous due to Ba'athist leaders who were national socialists only in name.

CJ,

If we sell off our treasures to foreign nations, to fight a war which we cannot even begin to say when it will end, and this has been said is only the begining of this "long war" how long before we no longer control ANY of our own nation? Are you willing to sell off, piece by piece our nation to foreign investment so we can fight a war that we may never see the end to in our lifetime? Its as if the terrorists have forced us into an arms race where they don't have to buy any arms, we are wasting money to fight an idea which is self-perpetuating, the more of them you kill, the more they become legends and allow for further indoctrination.

"A missle has not been created which can kill an idea" --Torrijos

For all the doubters, just read Stephen Hayes book. Plenty of EVIDENCE of terrorism and Iraq going way back.

However it is funny as hell to watch all the liberals here scream at the top of their lungs again (he LIED, blah blah blah)....they want so badly for there not to be a connection.

I again ask for the 1000th time here...where is the EVIDENCE that he lied?

Thank you

Nebraska Militant

You nailed it perfect!

These commies are getting off on the idea that their lies and their hopes for failure and their hatred of all thing american will somehow propel them back into power.

You are so right that it doesn't matter if Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. That's not why we went in there anyways. Oh, and they love to point out the lack of WMDs, as if that was the reason we went into Iraq.

The fact is, that part of the world is like a forest fire. To put out a raging fire, you gotta surround it, get on top of it, destroy it. By taking Afghanistant, then skipping past Iran to take Iraq, we have essentially formed a dotted line through the Middle East. Everyone there knows we could make a simple jaunt into Syria and Iran to form a stripe of American dominance through the region, which effectively stamps out the fire that is the Middle East.

But the libbies just can't get with the program and will do or say anything to stop Bush and Rumsfeld's far-reaching plan for a Pax Americana.

I hail great Americans like you, Nebraska. We think alike and it is important for folks like us to band together against those that will destroy America.

Gross, man

What on Earth are you talking about? Why would we topple Saudi Arabia? They have been our best ally in the region.

Even if there were documents linking them to the Taliban, I'm sure there is a reasonable explaination, as they are our friends. Hell, even association with the planning and execution of 9/11 wouldn't --- in and of itself --- be damning without knowing the context of their involvement.

I don't know if you liberals can't understand the nuances of geopolitics or whether you just want to obstruct, but it is pretty sickening to see you anti-americanism on display.

How quickly they forget ...

The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.

In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

President Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Shortly after the embassy bombings, Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.

To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.

Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission.
He testified that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."

He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, " 'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?"

How quickly they forget ...

The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.

In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

President Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Shortly after the embassy bombings, Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.

To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.

Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission.
He testified that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."

He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, " 'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?"

“I again ask for the 1000th time here...where is the EVIDENCE that he lied?
Thank you”

Does the phrase “16-words” ring a bell? Or how about “..you need a warrant…”?

Here you go moonbats:

The Who Said It Game - Iraq Style...A repository of quotes from prominent Democrats regarding pre-war intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Whack!!...Another 2by4 of "Inconvenient Truths" to the head of the moonbat nation.

TEO...exactly how did Zarqawi get into Iraq after the overthrow of the Taliban? He flew into to what city? He was treated at what hospital? Do you see how stupid your moonbat talking points are?

Kimberly,

The plant was an aspirin manufacturing facility, if you remember correctly.

I don't really feel like rebutting all of your history blurbs, so ill say this:

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."

"But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

What you have is a wide array of numerology connecting anniversaries of Iraqi sanctions and attacks to AQ attacks. To me this seems like wishful thinking that you guys on the right laugh at liberals for making in connection with reasoning behind the attacks, but are so eager to eat up when someone is trying to make similar connections that bolster your world/historical view...so i'll parrot the same line everyone on the right wants to 'sqwauk' WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

Nebraska,

So you're saying that he slunk into baghdad in the middle of the night, to goto a hospital, and then slunk back up north...but somehow he was Saddam's boy? Are you smokin crack man?

"Since the Sept. 11 commission's judgment in June, Bush and Cheney have repeatedly said that al-Zarqawi was an associate of bin Laden and received safe haven from Saddam. But Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld backed away Monday from such claims, apparently as a result of the new CIA assessment"

"The report didn't conclude that Saddam's regime had provided "aid, comfort and succor" to al-Zarqawi, a senior administration official said.

He added that there are now questions about earlier administration assertions that al-Zarqawi received treatment at a Baghdad hospital in May 2002.

"The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything," another U.S. official said."

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two [Saddam and Zarqawi]," Rumsfeld said during an appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations, a Washington research center."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1005-01.htm

your boy is saying something different Nebraska.

TEO,
I asked you how Zarqawi got into Iraq. So again...How did Zarqawi get into Iraq?

I gotta take a shower after checking out your link...I feel so dirty and icky, now I have to get the moonbat stench off...it's worse than skunk.

Nebraska,

Thats a silly question; maybe he walked, maybe he drove, maybe Powdered Toast Man dropped him off, who the hell knows... Ansar al-Islam who may or may not have been affiliated with AQ probably helped him to get into the country to help fight the PUK, we do know he was training anti-Saddam troops in Northeastern Iraq, out of the controlled areas of Saddam...now what was your point again?

Ok, that's it!! I have finally come to the unrefutable conclusion that axis is truly insane....

TEO rebukes Kimberley with the comment:
"The plant was an aspirin manufacturing facility, if you remember correctly."

Thank you, TEO. See, even the radical Left acknowledges that Clinton bombed an aspirin factory---unlike the wild claims of their boy ALF (Alien Life Form) Ranken, who claimed that Clinton, in that raid, wiped out all of Sadaam's WMD. He said:
1. Yes, Sadaam HAD had WMD, but
2. Clinton took them all out in that raid, and
3. It's all in in the Deulfer Report

Good to see that even the neorads can see through ALF's rantings.....

Almiranta,

good to see we can agree on things...now when you realize that Bush is a vapid little twit with about as much use for a Yale diploma as tits on a warthog, and that Bubba was a big-mac vaccum, waste of space corporate shill with just enough twang for people south of the Mason-Dixon to not get all bubbly in the guts for voting democrat again, then we can have lunch, "Hell I might even let you come over and f*ck my sister..."

My first post is floating in cyberspace, probaby waiting to leap out as I try to recall it.

axis is working on a new record---three lies in one paragraph.
"These things are being set up for pro-war press ops, like when the "Chimp" President donned that navigators suit and pretended like he had just landed a jet on the aircraft carrier during the "Mission Accomplished" (But not accomplished) press op."

1. Bush did not don a navigators suit---unless he borrowed his suit from a navigator---but wore the same pressurized suit required for anyone who flies in a supersonic jet fighter.
2. No one, much less the President, ever "pretended he landed a jet on the aircraft carrier. He did land on the aircraft carrier. And he did land IN a jet. But the pilot of that jet was named, and interviewed.
3. The aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln had been assigned a mission. It accomplished that mission. The President congratulated them on the accomplishment of that mission.

Wow---nearly a record, even for a serial liar like axis---three big ones in four lines.

President Bush stated, repeatedly, that we were not claiming Sadaam was involved in 9/11. So the Loony Tunes claimed that Bush claimed Sadaam was reponsible for 9/11. Typical, to not let facts get in the way.

It was not until we started to translate documents found in Iraq that the evidence of collusion between Sadaam and Al-Queda started to surface.

TEO drags out that tired old whine about how it would just be impossible for a religiously-based group to work with a secular leader. Yeah, except they had an enemy in common, and no matter who weakened that enemy, the other would benefit. (TEO might have to break with tradition and actuall LEARN something---I suggest looking up the attitude of Churchill and FDR toward Stalin in WW Two---rememberng that we agree to ally with Russia during that war.)

Anywary, according to TEO, Bin Laden--knowing that Sadaam had lots of nasty weapons, and was working on acquiring nuclear weapons as well---would stil refuse to work with him because Sadaam was not religious. He knew that Sadaam would not hesitate to use those weapons, having already done so, and he knew Sadaam was a stone cold killer who hated the United States, but he would turn his back on the leader of another Muslim country because that leader didn't meet some Osama standard of religiousity.

And according to TEO, Sadaam would never align himself with Osama, no matter how much damage Bin Laden had done and planned to do to an enemy of Sadaam, because Bin Laden was TOO religious?

Perhaps TEO is so sensitive and principled that he has always refused to deal in any way with anyone with whom he did not share a deep sprititual and political bond, but I think he might be ascribing just a touch too much delicacy to two mass murderers.

TEO says, in a lovely example of leftist intellectual discourse,
"Hell I might even let you come over and f*ck my sister..."

Now that we know what you do with that never-shut "eye" of yours, we wonder----do you eat with that mouth?

As for the offer----I'm a woman, so that would make me a lesbian.

Not that there's anything wrong with that......

Xango Annie,

Most of us came to that conclusion weeks ago. He lives in a liberal, virual world, 180 degrees out of phase with reality.

I don't respond to his posts anymore because he is either insane, and it's not polite to make fun of someone who has lost their mind, or a troll, and we shouldn't feed the trolls.

Almiranta, your problem is that you have been lied to for so long, and have been propagating

those lies to other people for so long that you are not physically not able to distinguish

truth from lies anymore.

1. Bush did not don a navigators suit---unless he borrowed his suit from a

navigator---but wore the same pressurized suit required for anyone who flies in a supersonic

jet fighter.

-- Thats what I said moron. He didn't fly the jet, he admitted after that the last time he

flew anything was in '72 in the Guard. They put him in the suit and made pretend like he

was a war hero and had just landed the jet. It could not have been a more pathetic photo

op unless he was also seen kissing a baby.

2. No one, much less the President, ever "pretended he landed a jet on the aircraft

carrier. He did land on the aircraft carrier. And he did land IN a jet. But the pilot of

that jet was named, and interviewed.

-- I see, you yourself admit that another pilot of the jet was named, yet you insist that

Bush landed the jet. Kinda hard for 2 pilots to land the same jet. This was not really a

lie, more a decaption because they never actually said that he had landed the jet, the press

and you just ASSUMED that he had as he was seen getting out of the cockpit. Bush admitted

after to a reporter that he had not flown since '72, so you are a LIAR sir, or at least a

schmuck for believing it.

"Bush revealed that after he left his Texas National Guard unit in 1972 under murky

circumstances, he never piloted a plane again. That casts doubt on the

carefully-choreographed moment of Bush emerging in pilot’s garb from a jet on the aircraft

carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 to celebrate “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq. The image,

instantly telegraphed around the globe, and subsequent hazy White House statements about his

capacity in the cockpit, created the impression that a heroic Bush had played a role in

landing the craft."

3. The aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln had been assigned a mission. It accomplished that

mission. The President congratulated them on the accomplishment of that mission.

-- Please, you are embarassing yourself, you and I both know that "Mission Accomplished" did

not mean the Lincoln's mission, it meant the "Major combat operations have ended" that Bush

announced on that day, thinking that the war was over and the US had won. Then the

insurgency started and the GOP have been screwing up things ever since. In fact, that photo

op was so embarassing that now when they show a piece of it, they have airbrushed the

"mission accomplished" banner from the photo.

President Bush stated, repeatedly, that we were not claiming Sadaam was involved in 9/11.

So the Loony Tunes claimed that Bush claimed Sadaam was reponsible for 9/11.

-- Thats a major weasel, both Bush and Cheney drew many, many parallels between Iraq and

9/11.

"We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United

States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back

a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very

senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been

associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has

trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after

September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on

America. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)"

That quote right from the white house press page in 2002 seems to show that you are full of

it and that they DID indicate a connection between Iraq and 9/11

You are debunked sir.

Almiranta, your problem is that you have been lied to for so long, and have been propagating

those lies to other people for so long that you are not physically not able to distinguish

truth from lies anymore.

1. Bush did not don a navigators suit---unless he borrowed his suit from a

navigator---but wore the same pressurized suit required for anyone who flies in a supersonic

jet fighter.

-- Thats what I said moron. He didn't fly the jet, he admitted after that the last time he

flew anything was in '72 in the Guard. They put him in the suit and made pretend like he

was a war hero and had just landed the jet. It could not have been a more pathetic photo

op unless he was also seen kissing a baby.

2. No one, much less the President, ever "pretended he landed a jet on the aircraft

carrier. He did land on the aircraft carrier. And he did land IN a jet. But the pilot of

that jet was named, and interviewed.

-- I see, you yourself admit that another pilot of the jet was named, yet you insist that

Bush landed the jet. Kinda hard for 2 pilots to land the same jet. This was not really a

lie, more a decaption because they never actually said that he had landed the jet, the press

and you just ASSUMED that he had as he was seen getting out of the cockpit. Bush admitted

after to a reporter that he had not flown since '72, so you are a LIAR sir, or at least a

schmuck for believing it.

"Bush revealed that after he left his Texas National Guard unit in 1972 under murky

circumstances, he never piloted a plane again. That casts doubt on the

carefully-choreographed moment of Bush emerging in pilot’s garb from a jet on the aircraft

carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 to celebrate “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq. The image,

instantly telegraphed around the globe, and subsequent hazy White House statements about his

capacity in the cockpit, created the impression that a heroic Bush had played a role in

landing the craft."

3. The aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln had been assigned a mission. It accomplished that

mission. The President congratulated them on the accomplishment of that mission.

-- Please, you are embarassing yourself, you and I both know that "Mission Accomplished" did

not mean the Lincoln's mission, it meant the "Major combat operations have ended" that Bush

announced on that day, thinking that the war was over and the US had won. Then the

insurgency started and the GOP have been screwing up things ever since. In fact, that photo

op was so embarassing that now when they show a piece of it, they have airbrushed the

"mission accomplished" banner from the photo.

President Bush stated, repeatedly, that we were not claiming Sadaam was involved in 9/11.

So the Loony Tunes claimed that Bush claimed Sadaam was reponsible for 9/11.

-- Thats a major weasel, both Bush and Cheney drew many, many parallels between Iraq and

9/11.

"We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United

States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back

a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very

senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been

associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has

trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after

September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on

America. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)"

That quote right from the white house press page in 2002 seems to show that you are full of

it and that they DID indicate a connection between Iraq and 9/11

You are debunked sir.

Almiranta,

Excuse me Miss, my quoted reference to was one of my favorite movies, "Full Metal Jacket"; but that's no excuse for being crass.

Now, let us get to your oh-so educated assumptions about despot psychology, shall we?

1. You claim that crazy religious zealots will combine forces with crazy, extremely secular madmen, just as long as they have the same enemy, correct? well then if that is the case why wouldn't Saddam, prior to either the gulf war of '91 or the second installment, have called on Hezbollah, or the Muslim Brotherhood, or AQ or Iran, Syria, Oman,etc for some sort of help? If he was such buddy-buddy with these guys, why did Zarqawi get to do all the command and control in the country, seems like a guy who had held such tight reign over a country for 40 years wouldn't let a light-weight thug like Zarqawi have all the fun wreaking havoc and terrorizing HIS children.

2. If Saddam wanted to give WMD to the terrorists, then he would have done so before the war, ofcourse knowing their combined plan of insurgent warfare on the US forces...If he knew he was going to be invaded and that he couldn't turn back the american military might, why would he have just let his country melt through his hands without giving in to scorched earth policy...? Could it possibly be that he didn't have anything after 12 years of sanctions and intermitant but extremely intrusive WMD inspections...hmmm, that reality thing doesn't fit well into your THEORY.

3. USS Lincoln:

"Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed"

--Sounds like what it says, but just how do YOU define "major", to me 150,000 troops on the ground, with casualties daily, still not in control of large swaths of the country, and little to no reconstruction underway because of "security" issues to be pretty "major" to me...or was Vietnam a war of "minor" combat operations?

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on."

-- Seems like he is claiming victory in Iraq, am I reading that wrong, or is little relevant military accomplishments to be considered a "victory"?

This is what the folks on the right are good at (I guess they learned well from Clinton), parsing words just so finely as to claim something, and yet always leave the crack of plausible deniability...are you really going to tell me that while he was talking to the NATION on that ship, that he wasn't telling us that the worst in Iraq was over, that we had accomplished our mission, and all that was left now was picking up the pieces and moving on to our next "battle" in the WOT?...yeah yeah yeah I know deny all you want.

so, again, where is your proof of collusion, even YOUR congress came to the same conclusion, there was contact, but no cooperation, anything other is speculation...and we all know how much the right hates when people speculate without PROOF.

Educate yourself, MISS

TEO, Saddam had no foreign ambitions at all. He was a paranoid dictator living in constant fear of a kurd uprising and him being overthrown.

Axis,

Ofcourse he was, he was one of our boys from way back that we left to twist in the wind when he got too uppity for us to ignore anymore. But I love it when the right sets up bogey-men so they can wave their members at eachother and grunt.

Sorry, Almiranta, I meant wave their non-gender specific private parts, and grunt ;-)

Repubublicans NEED a boogyman to catapault their propaganda

axis, I want to thank you for your lengthy and detailed proof of my theory that you are profoundly delusional and incapable of reading or at least of understanding a single thing.

you say:
"They put him in the suit and made pretend like he was a war hero and had just landed the jet."
then you say:
" I see, you yourself admit that another pilot of the jet was named"

So you admit in your own post that another pilot was named, yet you simultaneously claim Bush tried to convince people HE had been flying the plane. OK, I admit this is no crazier than most of the LoonyLib convoluted psuedo-logic you regurgitate on a regular basis, but it is still insane.

As far as I can see trying to slog through your incoherence, you "think" Bush was trying to imply that he had flown the plane because he exited from the cockpit. Gee, you got us there, axis. He should have waited till they rolled up the jetway and exited through the rear passenger hatch, where the flight attendants stand to say they hope you had a nice flight. Hope he returned his table to the upright position and replace the inflight magazine.

Take a minute and look up a photo of a jet fighter and tell me how anyone gets in and out of one. But you seem to buy into some wacko theory that because Bush exited the plane in the only way anyone COULD exit the plane, wearing the only kind of clothing anyone COULD wear on that kind of plane, he was trying to create a false illusion. Thank you so very much. I could not have explained you better.

Then I say that yes, Bush DID land on the carrier IN a jet, but that the pilot of the jet had been named and interviewed. You even quote me. And then you claim I really said I "insist that Bush landed the jet."

Again, trying to make some sense from your tortured syntax and distorted "logic" it appears you are trying to claim that because I said Bush landed on the carrier, I was claiming HE had been the pilot. Well, I've landed in a lot of places, in a lot of planes, and no one ever accused me of trying to claim I was flying any of them if I said something like "I landed at DFW ten minutes early".

You go on to employ the beloved Dem Crystal Ball---the one that lets you look into my mind and tell me what I think and feel and believe, no matter what I think I think and feel and believe. You pronounce:
"..the press and you just ASSUMED that he had as he was seen getting out of the cockpit".
This insane rant is the first time I have ever heard anyone---ANYONE--claim that ANYONE ever thought Bush flew that plane. It is astounding, amazing, beyond belief, that ANYONE could buy into your wildly delusional story. Unless you heard it from the head delusion spreader, Ranty Rhodes, who can invent some insane spin on reality like that without breaking a sweat---the result of long months of practice.

Fact: President Bush and a pilot exited a fighter plane through the only exit on that plane---the cockpit. President Bush introduced the pilot---AS THE PILOT---and admitted he had not PILOTED A PLANE for many years. The pilot was interviewed about what it was like to fly the President of the United States on such a dangerous flight---a tailhook landing is very dangerous, you know. And you spin this to say that there was a conspiracy to convince the public that the President had flown the plane.

Well, you all still claim that the President LIED about WMD being the only reason we went to war, when he repeatedly said WMD were only one of many reasons.

You still claim that the President LIED about Sadaam being a part of 9/11 when he repeatedly said we were not accusing Sadaam of being involved. (But the Crystal Ball tells you that they were trying to IMPLY a connection---through brain waves, perhaps? Which is why YOU were not convinced, what with the tinfoil hat and all.)

You still claim the President said the Iraq war would be a 'cakewalk' in spite of repeated speeches in which he said this war would take decades, and perhaps generations. Unless 'cakewalk' in Canuck means '"half a century" and you were thinking of generations of fruit flies, your own ancestors.

You still claim the President LIED about the Iraqis trying to buy yellowcake in Niger, when he clearly quoted a belief held by another country---one which they still insist is correct.

In other words, you are oblivious to the truth, uncaring of the truth, and so involved in your sad little conspiracy theories that the real world is passing you by. Which, of course, only adds to your impotent rage, which only makes you more delusional.......and so it goes.

Thanks, TEO, for your lofty lecture on what you call "despot psychology". Obviously, in TEOLand, where theories pass for reality, no two leaders who have even been enemies could possibly cooperate against a third enemy. Even, as you seem to claim, when one of those "enemies" is not even the leader of a country, but merely the leader of a movement which is not limited to any one country.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll just look to history, recent intelligence, and rational evaluation of constantly shifting ongoing events, and decline to make sweeping statements about what "could not" have happened based on a very limited world view.

I'll also decline to debate on your speculations about why Sadaam did or did not do anything. Yours is the party with the Crystal Ball. Yours is the party that can somehow magically determine motive and intent and what people "really think". But to me, such speculation is as valuable as speculating on why Sadaam thought that moustache looked cool. I'll just look at what did happen, and what has been documented, and skip the foolish dependence on what YOU think SHOULD have made sense.

As for the Lincoln, the Mission Accomplished poster was for THEIR mission. So what if the President also talked about the fact that Iraq had fallen to our army? He was supposed to ignore that?

The resulting actions in Iraq are just extreme examples of what usually happens after a country is defeated by another. That does not negate the defeat of the Iraqi regime, or the victory of US forces.

I am so happy for you, TEO, that you seem to live in a simple place where simple problems have simple solutions and no one ever miscalculates anything and all proceeds according to your expectations. You are a fortunate man.

Your disdain and contempt for a more disorganized and messy (real)world, one in which people do miscalculate, or where people do have a lag time in responding to heretofore unexperienced threats, seems at odds with the concept of the word 'liberal' which you threw at me in another post in another thread. But it is wholly consistent with the neorad adoption of the word Liberal, which means totally intolerant of any other position or action.

I'm sure that when it is your turn to run the universe, it will be a lovely place of wholly predictable events, with complete control over all who inhabit it. At least that last part sounds like the dream of the Left, while the firsr is one of their illusions. But until then, we have real people, doing their best to deal with real problems, and at the same time trying to either ignore or deal with the negativists who devote themselves to twisting facts and trying to undermine those who are actually trying to DO something.

You and your buddies sound like a guy who has never played football or even seen a game, sitting in the stands yelling at the ball carrier: "RUN! RUN! JUST RUN THE BALL ACROSS THE GOAL LINE! IT'S RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU! CAN'T YOU SEE IT? IT'S RIGHT THERE! JUST RUN THE BALL, YOU IDIOT!" Oblivious, of course, to the burly linemen blocking the way. It's so SIMPLE, you see. There is a ball, there is a goal line, what's the problem? Anyone who can't score every time must be an idiot! Anyone who chooses a route to the goal line only to find it blocked must be a moron! Because YOU can see, from your seat way way up there away from the action, that it is a simple matter of getting the ball into the end zone.

To extend the analogy, this is like a football game where people can come onto the field and attack the ball carrier from the rear, and where people in the stands radio the plays to the opposition. But up there in the safe seats, far from responsibilty for outcome or consequences for actions, you smugly ridicule the guys on the field taking the hits.

And your crassness extended into another thread, as well. Blaming that on a movie, too? It's telling that your favorite movie is a paranoid fantasy about the corruption of the American military and your favorite quote from that movie is a filthy obscenity.

Welcome to TEOLand.

Matt, I do not post things three times...is your guy working on this"

TEO quotes, to make his point, I guess:
""The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on."

Making, however, MY point.

Ignoring, oviously, several key words in the quote.

How about this?
""The battle of Iraq is ONE victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 AND STILL GOES ON."

Couldn't be any clearer. ONE victory, and the war STILL GOES ON. But in the meantime, Lincoln crew, YOUR mission is accomplished, and good work!

So much time wasted deconstructing, parsing, and generally rearranging and redefining what was what it was, no more and no less.

You say:
"-- Seems like he is claiming victory in Iraq, am I reading that wrong, or is little relevant military accomplishments to be considered a "victory"?

I say he is claiming ONE victory. Why? Because he SAID it. You didn't READ that wrong, you just tried to spin it into something he DIDN'T say.

And you go on to describe an amazingly rapid and bloodless conquest of a country as a "....little relevant military accomplishment(s)..." and then scorn that for being called a "victory". I am not sure what you are trying to say, but it sounds like you are belittling the conquest of Iraq as being of little relevance. Am I reading YOU wrong? Or is it relevant but a little accomplishment?

Those questions don't make me hmmmm. I leave the hummers to axis.

[NOTE: Yes, we're trying to isolate the problem... --Matt]

Almiranta,

You call my post 'crystal ball viewing', but it is a reality which upholds the facts of the congressional report, then claim your OPINION is more plausible...who is making up reality as they go?

I am sorry life isn't nice and neat. I never claimed that illegally invading a sovereign nation was going to be easy or orderly, but I realize that this is the reality in which we live right now. Would I have rather seen this occupation go better, ofcourse I would, I would have preferred us not side-stepping security council approval for the attck, so that we could have muslim boy son the ground right now, but unfortunately, no one asked my opinion.

Who exactly granted you wisdom to see that your decisions are right? you are caught in the middle of a war you don't know how to remove us from, in a land we have no clue how to deal with, with people who have hated eachother for centuries before the USA ever existed, but you swallowed the kool-aid and went along, because it's much more fun to blow stuff up, claiming moral certitude, than having to painfully rebuild them. Our guys and girls on the ground are sitting ducks, the whole while Der leader is pretending that an irrelevant government, stuck behind blast walls is a fix for deep seeded hatred.

lets see if you can answer some questions for me:

1. how do we know when we have won?

2. how do we stop a civil war we can't control?

3. how do we curb militias infiltrating police?

We sit in a situation where less than a third of the country is free of regular, daily violence, a place where water and electricity are scarce and almost non-existant in certain places. Where is your plan, you've got the ball, now what are you going to do with it? "Stay the course" is not a plan, turning corners are not a plan, what goals have we set for ourselves? We setup a government...but no one is listening to them. We setup a police force... but come to find out they are murdering people in sectarian violence. we setup a military... but they wont fight away from their own homes and at the same time their ranks are being filled by militia member, so we are arming the very people who are killing iraqis.

Lastly, ive presented common sense, do you have anything to say about how unlikely it was that Saddam and OBL were in collaboration, do you see why it is wishful thinking, when a republican and bi-partisan commissions setup to investigate your very claims of collusion, came up with the same answer...NOPE, Didn't happen...or is reality too much for you when it doesn't fir into your percieved view of how things went down?

hugs and kisses,
XOXOXO

Almiranta,

read the quote...he claimed "victory" in the battle for iraq, I would argue that the battle of iraq continues, or has the 3 years since invasion been just clean-up duty?

You can try to spin it anyway you want, this isn't about the ship, the comment was directed at his audience there, and at home, hence him using the term, "My fellow Americans" which alludes to him talking to the nation, hence the jet photo-op.