Liberal media misled public

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Like I said in one of the numerous other threads on this topic: You guys are clinging to the thinnest shred of anything. Only the most extremely tenuous "ties" can be shown between AQ and SH and the ones you are pointing out do nothing to further your agenda. Ooooh, they "explored possible cooperation" oh and lookee here "...senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994." Reportedly? According to whom? Chalabi? Some other Iraqi defector with an agenda? Wow, you got an avalanche of evidence there.

:roll:

Um, I believe those were the words of your precious 9/11 Commission, whom you loved when you were duped into thinking that they disputed Iraq/al Qaeda ties.

 

[etech]

It was not the mandate of the 9/11 comission to delve into AQ/SH ties yet they found them.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
Um, I believe those were the words of your precious 9/11 Commission, whom you loved when you were duped into thinking that they disputed Iraq/al Qaeda ties.

No? Really? And where did they get the information from?

Some of you are pointing to ties that are so tenuous they would apply to the U.S. as well. We all know that 9/11 operatives were in-country for years prior to the actual attacks. Is the U.S. now guilty of harboring terrorists? We also had a hand in training them to fly commercial jets. Are we now an accomplice to the attacks against ourselves? And on and on. Al Qaeda also exists in 50-60+ other countries as well. Do they all now have "ties" to AQ and must be destroyed?

My point here is: You better have more credible evidence than what's being put forward to show ties between AQ and SH if you want to base the invasion of Iraq on anything remotely solid.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Rob9874
Um, I believe those were the words of your precious 9/11 Commission, whom you loved when you were duped into thinking that they disputed Iraq/al Qaeda ties.

No? Really? And where did they get the information from?

Some of you are pointing to ties that are so tenuous they would apply to the U.S. as well. We all know that 9/11 operatives were in-country for years prior to the actual attacks. Is the U.S. now guilty of harboring terrorists? We also had a hand in training them to fly commercial jets. Are we now an accomplice to the attacks against ourselves? And on and on. Al Qaeda also exists in 50-60+ other countries as well. Do they all now have "ties" to AQ and must be destroyed?

My point here is: You better have more credible evidence than what's being put forward to show ties between AQ and SH if you want to base the invasion of Iraq on anything remotely solid.

Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there."

Do you want to argue about the definition of "defintely" now?

DealMonkey, once in awhile you make a worthwhile post. That wasn't one of them.

We now know that 9/11 operatives were in our country. Do you believe in any way that if our law enforcement agencies knew that they were in our country and what they were planning that they would not have been thrown in jail.

Could they have gone to Iraq and if Saddam knew who they were and what they were planning, would he have thrown them in jail or thrown them a party?

The rest of your points are in the same vein, just too stupid to deal with.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Rob9874
Um, I believe those were the words of your precious 9/11 Commission, whom you loved when you were duped into thinking that they disputed Iraq/al Qaeda ties.

No? Really? And where did they get the information from?

I just find it funny that no one disputed the 9/11 Commission's report when they thought it said "no ties". Now that the truth is out, I'm hearing some skepticism. :roll: Liberals only want to believe that which supports their agenda.

 

[DealMonkey]

We already knew there existed no evidence to support the idea that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. We already knew that there existed only the most tenuous ties between Iraq and AQ. Only the most circumstancial connections that showed no credible ongoing operational cooperation between the two. None of what the 9/11 commission is now saying is somehow new information.

Frankly, they're just confirming what we've known all along. I argued the ties between SH and AQ were tenuous back over a year ago. I still believe they prove nothing. Show me how Iraqi intel coordinated with AQ on the USS Cole attack. Show me a disrupted terrorist plan with Iraqi fingerprints on it. In other words, show me something substantial and I'll start paying attention.

 

[Rob9874]

Is this substantial enough?

Clinton Justice Dept's indictment of Bin Laden from 1998

"Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development."

 

[Painman]

An indictment is a piece of paper that states, "We think you're guilty of [xxxx]"

It's not the proof of same. Long, long way from being evidence, though maybe someone thought they had some evidence at that time. Where is it now?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Well I don't think you can draw out any conclusions about the ties between SH and AQ based on the 9/11 commision. They were appointed specifically to investigate 9/11. What they found was that there was no credible evidence to suggest that SH had anything to do with 9/11. They have repeated this stance numerous times on television, in the newspapers, etc.
As far as connections outside the realm of 9/11, who really knows. There is no smoking gun here that can connect SH directly to AQ. AQ is a huge terrorist organization, and they have operatives in many countries besides Iraq. One thing is for sure though, by invading Iraq, we have caused AQ to send more of its extremists into Iraq causing extreme violence and bloodshed. Did you just hear the news about the 41 civilians killed, and 100+ injured? What's sad is this is becoming a weekly thing.

It's not that liberals don't want to believe there are no ties between SH and AQ. I just think many of us are able to see past the BS this administration spews out. When we say we need evidence, we mean evidence. What has been stated here in this thread is nothing substantial.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
Is this substantial enough?

Clinton Justice Dept's indictment of Bin Laden from 1998

"Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development."

OK, so where are these weapons they developed
Good to see a rightwing idiot use Clinton's DOJ for cover.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

OK, so where are these weapons they developed
Good to see a rightwing idiot use Clinton's DOJ for cover.

See, when liberals resport to name-calling, I have no use for your opinion. I'm sure I've done it out of frustration recently, but I make a valiant effort to keep the debate civil and mature.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: SuperTool

OK, so where are these weapons they developed
Good to see a rightwing idiot use Clinton's DOJ for cover.

See, when liberals resport to name-calling, I have no use for your opinion. I'm sure I've done it out of frustration recently, but I make a valiant effort to keep the debate civil and mature.

Why bother? This is PN, you're all animals anyways.

*ATOTer pokes PNers with a stick through their cage*

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

yea seriously, this is P&N for christ sakes. Some of the most heated debates take place here, if you can't handle a little bit of sarcasm and humor then you don't belong here. If you can dish it out, be prepared when it comes back at you.

And Rob/Element, please stop wasting our time with your obviously flawed arguments. Supertool, and others have repeatedly shown you why your arguments fall short. They have provided direct evidence and have challenged you to own up to your claims. Instead of doing that you simply change subject and act like your somehow above them. There is a reason why we keep saying kool-aid/tin foil.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: SuperTool

OK, so where are these weapons they developed
Good to see a rightwing idiot use Clinton's DOJ for cover.

See, when liberals resport to name-calling, I have no use for your opinion. I'm sure I've done it out of frustration recently, but I make a valiant effort to keep the debate civil and mature.

Yeah, of course you can call everything you disagree with liberal propaganda, but when I call you an idiot, you get upset. Well get used to it. You are a useful idiot.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
And Rob/Element, please stop wasting our time with your obviously flawed arguments. Supertool, and others have repeatedly shown you why your arguments fall short. They have provided direct evidence and have challenged you to own up to your claims. Instead of doing that you simply change subject and act like your somehow above them. There is a reason why we keep saying kool-aid/tin foil.

I don't feel my arguments are flawed at all. As in many responses I've seen here, just stating it doesn't make it so. You're merely taking solice in the fact that SuperTool and others have posted messages that support your agenda. However, I think HeartSurgeon and others have proven why their arguments fall short.

Liberals have a tendency to take strength in numbers and strong-arm the conservative argument into a corner. (And HATE when the opposite happens - i.e., Fox News.) I don't hear much compelling evidence, but more "you're an idiot", "wasting our time", and "your logic is obviously flawed". Give me an original idea or some evidence that contradicts what I'm saying, instead of getting in a good jab at the amusement of the other monkeys reading this. This election is similar, I don't hear much reason to vote for Kerry - just reasons why to not vote for Bush. Is that the best the Democratic party has to offer - "We're not Republican!" ?

And I don't label every idea as liberal propaganda. Just cliched rhetoric that I hear in the media every day. If you merely regerjitate what the liberal media tells you to think, I'm going to call it liberal propoganda.

 

[Klixxer]

I'd say that the US has had more to do with supplying Bin Ladin with both weapons, training and manpower than Iraq ever did.

Rob, at least for me, this info is worthless without knowing what their sources were. I learned not to trust unknown sources when the whole "Bush didn't lie, it was the sources that were wrong" thing started. Since then anyone can say anything and get away with it by blaming their sources, it is no longer their duty to check their sources, if they are wrong, they can always just blame it on faulty intelligence or sources that were "believed" to be credible, you can even say that you KNOW things without knowing them and get away with it by blaming it on the source.

So when someone says definently, we KNOW this, we even know exactly where this took place, it no longer means anything if they don't reveal their sources.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Rob9874

Face it. Your argument is meaningless. You can point out all the little fine points of semantics you want to prove Bush didn't lie. It does not dispute that Bush & co. have have tried to connect Iraq and 911 in the minds of the citizenry. This is a lie of purposeful misdirection and you know it. Surely you do. How anyone can support a politition who is repeatedly deceptive is beyond me. I wouldn't even let such a person into my home.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Rob9874

Face it. Your argument is meaningless. You can point out all the little fine points of semantics you want to prove Bush didn't lie. It does not dispute that Bush & co. have have tried to connect Iraq and 911 in the minds of the citizenry. This is a lie of purposeful misdirection and you know it. Surely you do. How anyone can support a politition who is repeatedly deceptive is beyond me. I wouldn't even let such a person into my home.

I would tend to agree with the above. You can argue over the semantics all day long (in contact with versus supporting yade yadda). The point is Bush presented this skimpy "evidence" as a proof that Iraq is harboring terrorists and has WMD and can prove em to bin Laden. I'm sure i can find video GWB saying that somehwere on moveon.org

I actually watched the report of of the commision findings and Bushe's later statement on Fox news and it didn't look good. The commision was pretty clear with their findings and Bush stated that hes sticking to his evidence and CIA insigt

 

[Gravity]

Originally posted by: eriqesque
The liberals in general and most of the liberals on this board will never agree to anything that even remotely resembles the truth.
The always put their spin on it and they are the only ones who hold and speak the truth.
Always spewing the same garbage lines
Tin foil hats and kool aide tin foil hats and kool aide.

You people are so friggin brainwashed it's pathetic.

:thumbsup:

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I expect you all to hold on to the lies you want to believe.

Gov. Thompson: They (Bush and Cheney) are right, and the newspapers are wrong.

Well please provide links to the evidence.

Zephyr

1998 indictment

 

[Red Dawn]

I don't find it inconceivable that there were some peripheral contacts between Al Qaeda and some factions of the Iraqi Government.

 

[cash1220]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Rob9874

Face it. Your argument is meaningless. You can point out all the little fine points of semantics you want to prove Bush didn't lie. It does not dispute that Bush & co. have have tried to connect Iraq and 911 in the minds of the citizenry. This is a lie of purposeful misdirection and you know it. Surely you do. How anyone can support a politition who is repeatedly deceptive is beyond me. I wouldn't even let such a person into my home.

the burden of proof is on the folks they claim bush lied, no visa versa. nice try though. and it was the commision members that spoke out saying their findings were misrepresented by the liberal media.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Rob9874
Um, I believe those were the words of your precious 9/11 Commission, whom you loved when you were duped into thinking that they disputed Iraq/al Qaeda ties.

No? Really? And where did they get the information from?

Some of you are pointing to ties that are so tenuous they would apply to the U.S. as well. We all know that 9/11 operatives were in-country for years prior to the actual attacks. Is the U.S. now guilty of harboring terrorists? We also had a hand in training them to fly commercial jets. Are we now an accomplice to the attacks against ourselves? And on and on. Al Qaeda also exists in 50-60+ other countries as well. Do they all now have "ties" to AQ and must be destroyed?

My point here is: You better have more credible evidence than what's being put forward to show ties between AQ and SH if you want to base the invasion of Iraq on anything remotely solid.

If you're SO intelligent and SO right about this, then WHY DON'T YOU GO READ THE REPORT?! There have been numerous ties that I've heard of. One includes Iraq giving sanction to al-Zarqwi (sp?), a known top al Qaeda member, and letting him stay in Uday's home.

You people constantly complain that conservatives don't read the "real" news and that you all get your news from such incredible sources, so instead of just saying, "They're wrong; they have no proof," why don't you come up with ONE LINK to a story that argues that the ties the 9/11 Commission claims are tenuous.

Until then, just admit that the liberal media absolutely lied about this.

 

[chrisms]

Nader 2004

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
If you're SO intelligent and SO right about this, then WHY DON'T YOU GO READ THE REPORT?! There have been numerous ties that I've heard of. One includes Iraq giving sanction to al-Zarqwi (sp?), a known top al Qaeda member, and letting him stay in Uday's home.

You people constantly complain that conservatives don't read the "real" news and that you all get your news from such incredible sources, so instead of just saying, "They're wrong; they have no proof," why don't you come up with ONE LINK to a story that argues that the ties the 9/11 Commission claims are tenuous.

Until then, just admit that the liberal media absolutely lied about this.

You don't understand how things work here buddy. YOU are the one that needs to prove the contacts AREN'T tenuous. And so far, all you warmongering neocons have done is argued about whether there were contacts or not.

What are your conclusions and what are their implications?

A member of AQ stayed at a hospital owned by Saddam's son = IRAQ is an eminent threat to America?