Saddam not part of Sept. 11th...from George's own mouth... (page 2)

Aztec

Errrrr......gonna get edited by Craigie....Rofl....

~Aztec

Swickley

Bush/shrub's announcement was just his way of saying:

"FOOLED YOU AGAIN SUCKERS!! HAHAHA YOU BOUGHT ALL THAT "BS" WE SAID AND YOU EVEN GAVE US YOUR BLESSING TO GO AND TAKE SADDAM OUT!! WOOHOOOO -- WE WERE JUST KIDDING 'CUZ WE KNEW YOU WOULD NEVER LET US GO BOMB THE HELL OUTTA IRAQ AND STEAL THE OIL WITHOUT A REALLLLLY GOOD STORY! SO WE MADE THE WHOLE THING UP. NOW WE'RE CHANGING OUR STORY AND STATING THE REAL TRUTH - THAT SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. WHY ARE WE CHANGING OUR TUNE? JUST TO PROVE THAT YOU CAN'T DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT!!! I AM THE KING - THE GIANT SHRUB OF THE WORLD. SO BEND OVER AND TAKE UP THE WHOPPEE CUZ YOU KNOW I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT, SAY WHATEVER I WANT, AND YOU'LL BELIEVE IT ALL -- SUCKERS."

Now, imagine him saying all this while playing the banjo on the back porch of his 'ole family home down in Crawford (glamour capital of the world).

Robdar

ROFL @ Swickley!

Welcome to the forum, btw.

Robyn

Swickley

Thanks Robyn -- I enjoy being here, and all of the great comments and info!

Aztec

Rofl....stop it with the editing! DELETED it all..come and get me.....

Waiting for the editing cache to catch up with me...

~Aztec

PS I loved talking to you last night Craig. I really did. Give Kate a kiss for me. :-)

I'm such a BRAT!

DakotaRed

Try as hard as I can, this warmongering, Bush supporting, hate filled, right wing wacko just can't find a single quote where Bush stated Saddam was actually behind Sept 11. All I can find is him saying there are ties to Al Qeada.

As for WMDs, it seems everyone believed they were there until recently. Was Saddam so suicidal that he wouldn't allow the inspectors to verify their destruction over a 12 year period? Quite possible, it seems.

If the Bush administration is guilty of misleading many, then it appears many others are also, including some here.

"Though the Bush administration has been largely silent about Salman Pak, former CIA Director James Woolsey (under the Clinton Administration) is apparently convinced it was used to rehearse Sept. 11-style hijackings."

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/8/13/95502

From the transcript of a Meet The Press interview with General Wesley Clark (ret.)

GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.

MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?

GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, “You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.”

http://crastinate.jonwiley.com/archives/000053.html

From a letter to the editor sent by Gen. Clark to the New York Times

To the Editor:

I would like to correct any possible misunderstanding of my remarks on ''Meet the Press,'' quoted in Paul Krugman's July 15 column, about ''people around the White House'' seeking to link Sept. 11 to Saddam Hussein.

I received a call from a Middle East think tank outside the country, asking me to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11. Subsequently, I learned that there was much discussion inside the administration in the days immediately after Sept. 11 trying to use 9/11 to go after Saddam Hussein.

In other words, there were many people, inside and outside the government, who tried to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11.

WESLEY K. CLARK

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4D81131F930A2575BC0A9659C8B63

Panda

Well here we go again eh? Let me remind you; Saddam H is a very bad person. He did very bad things to his own people, and to ours. How you may ask. He rendered aid , support, and sanctuary to many terrorists who had planned and attacked the US or its embassy's. By aiding and abetting a criminal , makes him a criminal too. Get it? He's a deleted criminal. [ If you change my explotive please make sure that you change everyone elses.]

There was a book published last year on Husseins psychosis. And the book also discussed other leaders psyche. Well our Pres. is not an idiot, he's a fairly regular guy who tries to do the right thing. I like Pres. Bush because he does have integrity. You impute lies to him, but I don't believe that's intentional. He sincerely felt that invading Iraq would be a step in the long process towards mid-east peace and prosperity. His advisors probably went overboard in their enthusiasum. That's not hard to do when it brings a smile to your Presidents face. If you knew more about the man you'd realize that he does want to do whats best for America. But what's best takes time. Our fast food mind set doesn't allow for the patience we need.

Yah'll complain because economics come into the issues. (eeeewwwwww Bush and big oil) Well exactly how do you think America has gotten to be #1? Shoot we'd all have a lot more if we didn't give stuff away to just about every other country. In Iraq at least the people will eventually be self supporting ... which is more than I can say for American farmers who are subsidized into non-production. We really don't need farm subsidies when only 1% of Americans are in agriculture anymore. But I don't hear any complaints about big busines and agriculture. How come?

Everyone has known for the years since the first attempt at bombing the WTC in 1993, that the funding of terrorists was coming through Hamaas.$ 5 million of every $10 million in this charity went to terrorist organizations. Saudi royal families have allowed this to continue. Several Arab experts have written books in the last ten years stating that the Saudi's must fall in order for the middle east to have peace. When more Arabs become like the Royals in Qattar. Then the flow of $$$ to Assyria and to the Queda and Arafat will cease.

So is big business involved? It better be, who else can afford to rebuild and nation-build?

In the case of the US nation building took more than 100 years. 100 years. And those Americans had agreed to build the nation together. It wasn't until after reconstruction, and some may argue until after the civil rights campaign of the 1960s, that our nation had finally got itself to understand that the Bill of Rights was meant for everyone in the nation. Not just white men.

So imagine how long it'll take for Iraqi's and other mid-east peoples, to recognise their own constitutions. Iran is only now with a new generation beginning to flex it's muscles of Liberty. Of course flexing those muscles takes education. So in Iraq girls will be educated now (also in Afganistan). It takes time. It took time to find the sand ensconced jets, it'll take time to find everything else.

Saddam Hussein wanted to be the #1 leader of the muslim world. If you have even a thought that he wouldn't use economic means to support his endeavors and those of extremists, then you need to read more history. Not just newspapers but real history.

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

PS the President doesn't play banjo. And the folks around Crawford figure they dress just fine. They don't have to prove anything by the way they dress. Texans are more individual than that anyway.

Aztec

I'm sooo gonna get you Craig! Watch out!

~Aztec

jelly

And now there never will be.

Terry

Saddam not part of Sept. 11th...from George's own mouth...

Aztec

onacruse

Swickley

Robdar

Swickley

Aztec

DakotaRed

Panda

Aztec

jelly

Share this