Bush puts his head up his....

[MetalMilitia]

"We have more work to do in Iraq. A free Iraq, a peaceful Iraq will help change an area of the world that needs peace and freedom. A peaceful Iraq and a free Iraq is part of our campaign to rid the world of terror. And that's why the thugs in Iraq still resist us, because they can't stand the thought of free societies. They understand what freedom means. See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction. There will be a free and peaceful Iraq. What's taking place in Iraq is the evolution of a society, to be democratic in nation -- nature, a society in which the people are better off."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031003-4.html

Does anyone see anything wrong with what he just said?

-MM- :crs:

[MacRasta]

Yep, You guys not free....

Mac :grin

[Conservative Front]

1) We where attacked first. We had all the right in the world to go to war against them.

2) Roque nations shouldn't develop weapons of mass destruction they would hold the world hostage with them. Our weapons are to insue are freedoms.

[lotrfan55345]

When were we attacked exactly.... ?

[Emerald_Dragon]

>1) We where attacked first.
>We had all the right in the world to go to war against them.

aha! you were 1 of the 70% that felt SH/Iraq had something to do with 911. haven't you heard? they didn't!


>2) Roque nations shouldn't develop weapons of mass destruction they would hold the world hostage with them.

yeah, i agree, we shouldn't have given Israel those nukes. but i guess, they only threaten the ME countries. unless of course, they use it to stage another false flag op and forget not to celebrate, dance on top of their vans, and take pictures of themselves until after they've been deported for spying/espionage.
http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707


>When were we attacked exactly.... ?

by Iraq? just about every day after we invaded, we better do something about it now, else they'd attack us back, for no reason [/sarcasm].

[Conservative Front]

1) even the New Liberal (York) Times and the 9/11 commision are saying there was a link between 9/11 Al Qaeda and Iraq (Saddam).

2) Whats the problem with Israel having nukes, they haven't use them and there merely a means to keep M.E. peaceful thru fear (palestine in particular) Israel isn't a rogue nation in fact there the only democratic free nation in the M.E. (with the exception of Iraq now).

we were attacked on 9/11.

[MetalMilitia]

This... again, could be in my media BIAS thread.

THe Washington Post Version:

There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

[...]

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report says. "Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html

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

And the New York Times version:
The staff also asserted that "no credible evidence" had been found that Iraq and Al Qaeda terrorists cooperated in the attacks, a conclusion likely to fuel the debate over President Bush's decision to go to war to topple Saddam Hussein.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/16/politics/16CND-REPORT.html?hp

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

So, despite many of the headlines I have seen, what we have here is nothing new. We knew that there was no collaboration between Saddam and al Qaeda on 911. And I would inform the NYT writer: Bush never used a 911-connection as justification for the war. Yes, he linked the regime to terrorism and to al Qaeda (Srill skeptical), but did not link the regime to 911.

This could be comapred to the Bin laden FAMILY (massive in size) being direclty related with what Bin Laden has been doing.

I find this frustrating not because of a need to defend the administration, but rather because I always get frustrated when a blatantly incorrect statement is placed in first couple of paragraphs of a news story.

And yes, I know that opinion polls show that many people think that there was a Saddam-911 connection--however, no one can prove anything... and the references to "osama and saddam" working together are from 1994, and 1998... when he asked for assistance. Saddam never gave him any.

There was no Iraq in 9/11

-MM- :crs:

[Conservative Front]

It would seem that its more or less you're opinion that there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam. and not accutally fact.

[MacRasta]

It would seem that its more or less you're opinion that there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam. and not accutally fact.

Do you have accutall fact about this link between them?

Mac