9/11 bombshell: judge rules saddam trained hijackers .
friday, may 9, 2003 7:22 a.m. edt.
9/11 bombshell: judge rules saddam trained hijackers.
A judge ruled on it so it must be true?
People come on. If Saddam were responsible in that way for 9/11, and this administration had the goods, Bush would be screaming it from every mountain top! For Bush it would be like finding the Holy Freakin' Grail! Not something that anybody could sweep under the liberal rug.
Do you honestly think Bush would sit on that?
Are you sure you didn't get that from The Onion?
LC
fox news is putting out a report that the senate intelligence committee has a sixteen page memo detailing the links between iraq and al qaeda going back before the first gulf war.
this includes monies...weapons...and training going to aq, atta meeting twice with iraqi intelligence (1994 and 2000), and a possible visit by ubl himself to baghdad a few years back.
it'll be interesting to see how this pans out...even more interesting to hear what the oppossers have to say if this all proves true...you know...the ones who keep saying there's no link between iraq and a q.
That post was a homerun.
Badger,
We also allow sleeper terrorist cells to operate in this country in Michigan, Montana and Colorado...but they're all white folks, so it's OK...all they blew up was a federal building in Okla. City.
Great point also.
We as Americans need to be honest with ourselves. This war could be rationalized, after the fact, for a variety of reasons, many of which have been discussed here.
But was Iraq the kind of threat to the US that called for a full blown invasion and a declaration of war? So far the facts do not bear that out.
There are obviously bigger threats to us than Iraq, and we don't even go after them. Realisticly dozens of nations pose a threat to the US. But how great of a threat?
Enough with the A Q links, that would mean we would hit a dozen more countries
To take Badgers point a step further, up until 9/11, the greatest terrorist attack on US soil was perpetrated by a former US soldier, Tim McVeigh.
So do we bomb the US army?
? Do we bomb ourselves?
We don't declare war on nations because of the weak- ass links that we have found so far. If we did Saudi Arabia would be dust.
This brings us back to
who said:
This is the root of the problem, either;
1/ The US government were incompetant in assessing the risk that Iraq represented to the outside world.
... or ...
2/ The US government lied about the risk that Iraq represented to the outside world
Truthully I'm not sure yet, I'm going to give it a little more time. But I'm thinking it is a combination of both.
LC
why can't the browns win??!?!?!!??!?!
they obviously have talent on that team!!!!
i think coach davis has not been utilizing his players to their full potential.
How bout them Browns...They put a 44-6 ass whoopin' on Arizona today..Cleveland still in contension.......yeah I know it was Arizona maybe this can be the springboard.
Go Browns!
fox news is putting out a report that the senate intelligence committee has a sixteen page memo detailing the links between iraq and al qaeda going back before the first gulf war.
this includes monies...weapons...and training going to aq, atta meeting twice with iraqi intelligence (1994 and 2000), and a possible visit by ubl himself to baghdad a few years back.
it'll be interesting to see how this pans out...even more interesting to hear what the oppossers have to say if this all proves true...you know...the ones who keep saying there's no link between iraq and a q.
Yeruselim,
When, where, and how did Bush put 9/11 and Iraq in one basket. The Administration has went to pains NOT to use Iraq and 9/11 in one breath. The Administration has not EVER,. to the very best of my knowledge, said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 17, 2003 President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation
The Cross Hall
8:01 P.M. EST
George W. Bush:"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. "
to the very best of my knowledge, said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
Your right, but it was insinuated,like I said intimated.
If this administration went to so much pain to say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, then why in a recent poll did a large majority of Americans express that that is why they thought we went to war?
So far the links found are less than links A Q has with some of our allies.
I'm not even saying that this administration lied.
But at minimum, much of the info they thought they had reguarding A Q, and WMD's was WRONG.
That is my problem they needed to get their ducks in a row,and they didn't, and now we look like bafoons to the rest of the civilized world.
That said, the point is really moot. That ship has sailed, now we have to finish what we started, stop politicizing Iraq and get the job done right and in a timely fashion. If we pull out now our risk of terrorist threat becomes greater than before we went to war.
fox news is putting out a report that the senate intelligence committee has a sixteen page memo detailing the links between iraq and al qaeda going back before the first gulf war.
this includes monies...weapons...and training going to aq, atta meeting twice with iraqi intelligence (1994 and 2000), and a possible visit by ubl himself to baghdad a few years back.
it'll be interesting to see how this pans out...even more interesting to hear what the oppossers have to say if this all proves true...you know...the ones who keep saying there's no link between iraq and a q.
I'm kinda confused. You say the burden of proof belongs to the accuser. Aren't people who are accusing the US of being wrong to go into Iraq the accusers?
No-- I'm talking about our indictment of Iraq as being involved w/ 9-11 before we went over and bombed them. The accusation was made or intimated that they were directly linked, that was one of the reasons for going to war .. Bush put 9/11 and Iraq all in one basket. The U.S. had a burden of proof there, and in my opinion that was not met. I was continuing an earlier anology about a court trial. We, in a sense took them to court with reguard to 9/11 .
If they can prove a direct link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, although it will be very important, unfortunately, I think it will prove to be very anti-climatic only because of all the doubt that has been shed on the whole operation.
Agreed, they've shot their wad there.
LC
how could the us possibly lose?
well, obviously not in any outright confrontation.
iraq has no chance of waging any effective war without wmd.
Tim Cuprisin E-MAIL | ARCHIVE |
The ratings news is nothing but good for Fox News Channel.
Nielsen Media Research numbers show that Fox News' morning show, "Fox & Friends," actually beat CBS' "Early Show" during the most recent measured week, March 31-April 6. It was a slim win: 2.9 million viewers for Fox compared with 2.8 million for CBS.
Fox News is getting there. Especially when it comes to this war. Everyone has an opinion about how biased various news sources are. What bothers me about fox is their mantra: "Fair and Balanced", I find it anything but.
I think CBS goes the other way, but I find that, excluding commentators, the news on NBC is pretty balanced. And although Jennings is a liberal, I think he does a fair job.
I don't see "the big three leaning" to the left in their reporting, with the exception of Dan Rather at CBS.
I noticed that you didn't mention talk radio which is by far more conservative, and has millions of listeners. I really think that today, the playing field in that reguard is fairly level.
Guess you think I listen only to Fox? You are far from correct.
I never said that. I can certainly can tell you listen to Rush and Sean, and Bill too!
"Feelgood" stories are all over Iraq but go unreported. They don't sell. You get to hear what mainstream media feels is the highest selling story. Blood and gore are high-selling, feelgood isn't.
Face it, most of what is happening over there is bad. It is a big mess. That mess is to be expected, but you can't go in and bomb the holy hell out of a country and expect alot of good news in the aftermath.
This administration has admittedly made many miscalculations with reguard to winning the peace. Don't get me wrong,war is messy --this is to be expected,but you seem to want the picture to be rosier,and it just isn't, and you can't blame it on some media conspiracy..
Huh?.... wait....Okay, now it's all making sense, your poor atempt at sarcasm or hyperbole or whatever just gave you away.I'm all for just having all the terrorists just promise not to do it again and bringing everyone home anyways. Then, disband the military and place ourselves totally under the United Nations. Take all our leaders out and shoot them down like the dogs they are and have representatives of France make the US a better place to be. Then, pass out bags of pot to everyone and we all just mellow. Even Rush Limbaugh would sound better.
Maybe the world would be better off if we just collected all the caucasians in the US and send them back to what countries they originated from in the first place. We all know there was total peace in the world before the US was formed. All the current problems of the world are totally laid at the feet of white America and their penchant for war and robbing everyone else of the precious natural resources so whitey can misuse them.
fox news is putting out a report that the senate intelligence committee has a sixteen page memo detailing the links between iraq and al qaeda going back before the first gulf war.
this includes monies...weapons...and training going to aq, atta meeting twice with iraqi intelligence (1994 and 2000), and a possible visit by ubl himself to baghdad a few years back.
it'll be interesting to see how this pans out...even more interesting to hear what the oppossers have to say if this all proves true...you know...the ones who keep saying there's no link between iraq and a q.
For me to sit here and say that these two pieces of evidence PROVE a link is as inexcusable as someone else saying that there is NO link. We simply do not know one way or the other right now. The jury has not come back with the results
The burden of proof belongs to the accuser. When, and if , a direct link showing the government of Iraq was in anyway responsible for 9/11, that's when the accusations become credible. Until then it is only speculative, and in some cases wishfull thinking. One thing is for sure...
This administration nerver proved any direct link before we went to war. That is a problem that I have with them. They certainly tried to give the perception that they had proof, but they did not. Wether we should have gone in for other reasons of course is an entirely different debate.
fox news is putting out a report that the senate intelligence committee has a sixteen page memo detailing the links between iraq and al qaeda going back before the first gulf war.
this includes monies...weapons...and training going to aq, atta meeting twice with iraqi intelligence (1994 and 2000), and a possible visit by ubl himself to baghdad a few years back.
it'll be interesting to see how this pans out...even more interesting to hear what the oppossers have to say if this all proves true...you know...the ones who keep saying there's no link between iraq and a q.
The other damning piece of information that seems to escape some people is the fact that there is FILMED evidence of Muhammad Atta and an Iraqi diplomat meeting in Germany the summer just before 9/11. Yes, I want to know one way or the other if there was in fact a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but I am not going to think there was NO link and our government lied, when in fact, there is information available showing a link!
Respectfully, although this is a link, this doesn't prove anything with reguard to Iraq being involved in 9/11.
Listen, for the Bush administration to establish a DIRECT link between the Iraqi government and what happened on 9/11, to the degree of providing aid or money or anything else, would be the equivilent of finding the "Holy Grail". It is what they deperately need to restore credibillity and provide unquestioned justification for the war.
If they had it, Bush would be giving a "state of the union" type speach and crowing about it right now. They don't have anything that couldn't be describe as soft and squishy.
Emotion has to be removed from this argument. If this were a criminal trial(concerning only the links to A Q) -- the case would be thrown out of court.
how could the us possibly lose?
well, obviously not in any outright confrontation.
iraq has no chance of waging any effective war without wmd.
Dakota said:
seemingly desiring the US to fail at the task and allowing despots like Saddam to return and thrive again, what else should we expect? Too many people take only the view presented by mainstream left wing media and accept it as gospel.
In Iraq, the news isn't as bad as some would make it seem, but it is not as good as others would have you believe either. Unfortunately if your looking for great "feel-good" stories to read about war, there are generally less of those. I mean , hello, it's war.
The problem is politicians on both sides of the isle politicize these issues and spin them for their own gain -- Dakota, the stories you may not wish to hear that are coming out of Iraq aren't untrue.
They are happening, and when 20 Italians get killed in a blast..... I'm sorry, but that is going to be the big story of the day, and the fact that Iraqi children are going back to school,and electricity being restored is going to be a couple pages back from that.
That is the reality of war and how it is reported.
Please stop buying into the idea that the "mainsteam" media is biased to the left.
There has always been biases from both sides, unfortunately that is human nature.
The right reaches just as many as the left. The probelm is both spin alot of bull.
Your going to tell me that Fox News is less to the right than CBS is to the left? Wait a second, Fox is "Fair and balanced" right? Riiighhht.
The most listened to pontificator in the nation is Rush Limbaugh! O'reilly's not far behind. Msnbc has Scarborough!
ABC has Jennings"lefty", anybody who watches enough TV can tell after awhile where the heart lies, bottom line: make up your own mind with the facts. New york Times --left, Chicago Tribune --right. Shall I go on? What is mainstream to you?
Sort the facts out of the commentary and when the facts don't match up with what you want to hear, except other possibilities that are evident.
note: "lord" all capitals =yhwh hebrew
the lord of hosts
"in the year that king uzziah died i saw also the lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
YAWN.......
