...Of Bush and Bullshit...

[MetalMilitia]

Been a while since I've ranted, but have no fear.... the Militia's here...

Just some things that made me want to throw a hammer through my TV in Bushs' speech the other night...

General admits to secret air war
The American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.

The article does mention all this transpired 9 months before the official invasion right? However, it does not go into the fact that this was 6+months before congress approved any type of action (which by my definition of war, is what was already happening) concerning the matter. "The use of force has been -- and remains -- our last resort" - a quote from the Bush speech in which he dressed up like a pilot is utter bullshit. Planning for future events, marking targets, gathering intel (hey maybe more of that should have been done) would have been doing all you can to prevent war... The fact that a US general has now outright confirmed that allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 “carefully selected targets” before the war officially started" isn't exactly using force as a "last resort."

1.) If dropping that many bombs isn't considered war or a major combat operation, all the while done in SECRET... then where is the line drawn? I guess it's not force t o drop hundred of bombs on a populace...
2.) And this is my thought on the matter - All the US was doing was trying to provoke a response. Since all of the bombing was done 'in secret' if the Iraqis had retaliated to one of our 'secret bombings' would the US simply have said "Shit!!! They attacked us first!!!" and gone along with it? Use that as a pretext rather than trying to 'fix' our intelligence with our invasion plans?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...669640,00.html

Bush persists with notion of 9/11-Iraq link
Fort Bragg address again binds battle against Iraq insurgents to 'war on terror' in attempt to woo sceptical public. September 11 has been George Bush's rhetorical trumpcard since he climbed the rubble of the World Trade Centre and rallied rescue workers through a megaphone nearly four years ago.

Many believe that was his finest hour and he attempted to invoke the same spirit in his speech on Tuesday night.

With five mentions of September 11 in his 30-minute address, Mr Bush attempted to weld the Iraq insurgency to the battle with al-Qaida in the public's mind, where the two have been drifting apart.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...517792,00.html

Banking on a nations fear? The US national commission examining the 11 September 2001 attacks has found no "credible evidence" that Iraq helped al-Qaeda militants carry them out.

That truth has always been there, you're either BLIND or STUPID if you don't see it. Saddam and OBL aren't and never were buddies, if you'd open your eyes and READ about the two forms of government/control each one wanted over their followers, you'd realize they're the equivilent of day and night.

"But we now know -- some of us always knew -- that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The President has even admitted it on occasion. There is no evidence that the 9/11 hijackers had any assistance from Iraq, or that Osama bin laden and Saddam Hussein were bosom buddies: quite the opposite. Ah, but now we're fighting "the terrorists" who have carved out a base of operations over there. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that the President almost seems to relish."

- http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2183

The flaw in the President's logic is that we are creating more terrorists than we are killing. The people we are supposedly defeating in Iraq -- raiding their homes, killing their loved ones, pushing them around on a daily basis -- will not forget, or forgive. If the next terrorist attack is launched by Iraqis, instead of Saudis, how many will be surprised?

Did I just link to an antiwar article? Woah I must be an American-hating liberal pansy...

So over the last few months the mainstream media is SLOWLY catching up with this pile of LIES.

1) Obviously no WMD's

2) Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, Saddam and OBL weren't working together.

3) The war started in 2002, before congress approved the president to take action on Iraq.

4) And this is the important one.... YOU WERE LIED TO. You weren't misled... that's just a stupid play on words that incompitent people like to fall back on. " A lie is a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it. Thus a true statement may be a lie if the speaker thinks it is false. Fictions, though false, are not lies. Depending on definitions, a lie can be a genuine falsehood or a selective truth, a lie by omission, or even the truth if the intention is to deceive or to cause an action not in the listener's interests. To lie is to tell a lie. A person who tells a lie, and especially a person who habitually tells lies, is a liar."

5) "So let’s try to get this straight. We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, except he didn’t, and because he was tied in to the attacks of September 11, except he wasn’t. We’re staying in Iraq, President Bush said Tuesday night, because terrorists with the same ideology as those behind 9-11 have congregated there since we arrived." - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ and http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lieofthecentury.html

Bush : "We are hunting down the terrorists."

The ones that pulled off 9/11? Too late for that. In spite of all the invocations of Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden, the truth is that we are fighting a homegrown nationalist insurgency in Iraq, people who oppose the American occupation -- and are fighting the "foreign fighters" simultaneously.

The President continues his campaign of deception -- he's lying when he says we're fighting the perpetrators of 9/11 in Iraq: we're fighting Iraqi nationalists, for the most part. The effort to scare us into supporting his foreign policy by conjuring the threat of domestic terrorism is also ongoing -- when the reality is that we're renewing and emboldening the trend represented by Al Qaeda, who rise like Myrmidons from the blood-soaked soil of Iraq. More shameless demagoguery in a time of acute crisis in his policy -- and a stubborn refusal to admit error.

Go back to your 'reality TV' nothing to see here.

[Marajadex]

Good to see ya around MM!!!

Missed your rants, this is a good one!

[Defiant Noquisi]

I never have to watch his vomit spewing when you are around. I get a more believable truth reading your posts.

Damn, damn, damn! I knew shenanigans were going to happen from the get go but secret bombing before the war was "approved"? He just had to make sure there was a war to go to didnt he?

I have no idea what to post and have it read with some intelligence.

I dont know if I am more shocked to read of this latest "surprise" or the continuing ignorance of the majority of Americans.

[MetalMilitia]

I forgot to add these, so even if the administration isn't full of liars, we should at least find them to be complete and utter morons.

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” – President Bush, 5/1/03

The war “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]

“We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months.” – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]

“What is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark.” – Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld [2/27/03]

“The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish.” Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, [3/4/03]

“The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” – Paul Wolfowitz, [Congressional Testimony, 3/27/03]

“Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.” – White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer, [2/18/03]

Iraq will be “an affordable endeavor” that “will not require sustained aid” and will “be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion.” – Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post 3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively]

“Costs of any such intervention would be very small.” - Top White House Economist Glen Hubbard [CNBC, 10/4/02]

Paul Wolfowitz “dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year.” [NY Times, 2/28/03]

“In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries and Iraqi oil revenues…The American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.” – USAID Director Andrew Natsios, 4/23/03

Tonight was only a surprise in the scope of the repulsive levels Bush will stoop to in continually pimping his war. What he did not address however, was the recently released Downing Street Memos which prove undeniably that George W. Bush lied to start his war. He lied to Congress and to the people, wholly impeachable crimes. Tonight’s smoke and mirrors did not change that in the slightest. His own words and those of his staff convict him:

“There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more…Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.” – Colin Powell, 2/5/03

“[Saddam has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.” --Don Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” –Vice President Cheney, 8/26/02

“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” –President Bush, 9/26/02

“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” –President Bush, 1/28/03

“His regime has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas; anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox -- and he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons.” – Don Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.”

-President Bush, on locating the mobile biological weapons labs, 5/29/03

“We know where the [WMD] are.” - Don Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

“Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents - equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery.” –President Bush, 2/8/03

“I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it now.” - Colin Powell, 5/4/03

“Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program…Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.” - President Bush, 10/7/02

“[Saddam] is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”- VP Cheney, 3/24/02

“We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” - VP Cheney, 3/16/03

“We do know that [Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.”- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/10/02

“Iraqis were actively trying to pursue a nuclear weapons program.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 7/11/03

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” – President Bush, 1/28/03

“We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” – Vice President Cheney, 3/16/03

“We found the weapons of mass destruction.” – President Bush, 5/29/03

"We know where the WMDs are.” – Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.” – President Bush, 3/19/03

There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

“The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction.” – President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03

“Iraq [is] the central front in the war on terror.” – President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03

“You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam.” – President Bush, 9/25/02

“There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” – President Bush, 9/17/03

“There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.” – Vice President Cheney, 9/14/03

One last question for everyone to think about. A few years ago, we were told by this same party (republicans) that Bill Clintons little sex-capade and lies were worth of possible impeachment. Take a nice long step back, and decide for yourself which is worse.

[Mezurashi]

I'm trying to find a historiical precedent for this sort of thing. Surely some other mad disctator or such has pulled off crap like this in the past (not EXACTLY the same, but you know what I mean).

The best I could come up with was Nazi Germany's Invasion of Poland. Though they handled their logistics better than the US has been.

So ... what's next? Impeachment or more ballroom dancing?

[Rynotek]

I dont this the US and UK sorties into Iraq where exactly secret, i remember the BBC reporting on these while they happened. ill try to dig up the story.

PS: good to see you back MM

[MetalMilitia]

Which wasn't secret? The 'secret air war' or the 'secret memo's' talking about the US fixing their policy to fit whatever they were doing.

You know what I should do one night, is re-examine every speech made by the administration, and see how many times 'liberate' and 'spread freedom' came up BEFORE David Kay bitch slapped the Bush administration on WMD's, BEFORE we found out we were already activlely bombing them in 2002, and BEFORE every single tie to 911 and Iraq was dismissed.

Every speech since those things happened has involved sept. 11th, or how the American people shouldn't 'forget the message of sept. 11th' but this latest primetime speech was on IRAQ right? You know, the country who didn't have the weapons, didn't support al quaeda, and had nothing to do with 911.

With a rising number of Minnesotans unhappy about the nation's direction, President Bush's job-approval rating in the state hit an all-time low of 42 percent last week, according to the latest Star Tribune Minnesota Poll.

/me points to his location of residence

What's next? Minnesota hates America? Where is the media credibility on any of this new information? Do they have a problem connecting the 'misleading information' (which I call lies) ... it's 2+2 folks. FOX and CNN and all the rest of those lovely stations are giving equal coverage to a girl who disappeared in Aruba and the recent shark attack.... while they are both sad and tragic, they don't seem quite as newsworthy as any of what's been presented.

I'm trying to find a historiical precedent for this sort of thing. Surely some other mad disctator or such has pulled off crap like this in the past (not EXACTLY the same, but you know what I mean).

Leaders have lied their countries into wars repeatedly throughout history.... most done with fake terrorism. ( http://www.armageddononline.net/faketerror.php )

Bush:"When the history of this period is written, the liberation of Afghanistan and the liberation of Iraq will be remembered as great turning points in the story of freedom."

Honest question : Does anyone here feel that way, or is going to take more 'revisionism' of history?

[Protostar]

Once people realize that our government is "in bed" with Mofia,saudis,and every other dirt bag on this earth then we'll get somewhere! But, unfortunately most people believe what they are told metal. One word, SHEEP. As in being led to the slaughter.

[Defiant Noquisi]

Honest question : Does anyone here feel that way, or is going to take more 'revisionism' of history?

As if the "revisions" arent occuring right before us already.

I must get approval for war from Congress. Then hey! We were already bombing them!

We gotta find them WMD's! Then, nope, them rascally basturds musta hid em to there are none.

There are ties to Al Queda! Then, OOPS!

I did not have sex with that woman. Oh sorry, wrong Prez.

Bush is revising his revisions in front of all of America! I mean the world!

Please, someone tell me......Who was the flip flopper? I cant remember now....

[stewey]

The Democrats really are to blame for this mess as much as the Republicans. The fact they couldn't field a candidate better than Kerry (face it, he's as much of a douche as Bush) just shows how sad the two biggest parties in our country are. Dean and Rove are both bad, although I think Dean is the guy who says and does the stupider things, while Rove is just more evil.

[MetalMilitia]

The Democrats really are to blame for this mess as much as the Republicans. The fact they couldn't field a candidate better than Kerry (face it, he's as much of a douche as Bush) just shows how sad the two biggest parties in our country are. Dean and Rove are both bad, although I think Dean is the guy who says and does the stupider things, while Rove is just more evil.

So... It's the democrats fault for having a republican president dish out stone cold lies? My Post doesn't even call into question 'party politics', all I'm doing is making a 'bullshit' charge against the commander and chief. I seem to recall yourself defending him and Iraq, have you lost the faith? It's so easy to blame the other party for not doing more, while letting one party wreck it all huh? BTW, im not a democrap or a repubLIEcan... I wanna know if its worth 200 billion and (I fear) the end of this summer having 2000 dead American servicemen and women... when the start and run-up to the war was based on BULLSHIT. The war didn't start in 2003, it was in in nearly full 'air raid' swing in 2002. WMD's don't exist, Al Qaeda connection are non-existent. Why would Saddam supply others (radical extremists) with WMD's when he himself is dictator? The fact that Sept. 11th was mentioned over, and over, and over in Bushs' speech (about Iraq) is a low blow, and I don't think you can't tell me it shows an intent to deceive the public.

He would love, since his numbers are flopping and he's up shit creek without a paddle, to simply link Iraq with sept. 11th now that all the other excuses have been found to be false or simply LIES.

[stewey]

I was replying to Defiant's post

[Joseph Liberator]

bla bla bla..we have war...Iraq is a shithole...and Bush talks funny...what the fuck do you want everyone to do?

I just love to see rants lol.

[tranz]

I wouldn't mind seeing a million angry armed citizens marching on washington

[Mirazh]

You go MetalM! Good posts

[Rynotek]

[QUOTE=MetalMilitia]Which wasn't secret? The 'secret air war' or the 'secret memo's' talking about the US fixing their policy to fit whatever they were doing.
[QUOTE]

The secret air war, below are a list of links only from the BBC regarding sorties by US planes into Iraq before hostilities where declared
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2532263.stm
Allied planes 'raid Iraqi oil plant'
Sunday, 1 December, 2002, 12:40 GMT


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2492413.stm
Tuesday, 19 November, 2002, 15:28 GMT
Iraqi fire 'does not break resolution'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2490525.stm
Tense start to Iraq arms mission
Tuesday, 19 November, 2002, 04:49 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2238568.stm
Friday, 6 September, 2002, 12:52 GMT 13:52 UK
Iraqi air defence site attacked

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2139737.stm
Friday, 19 July, 2002, 19:22 GMT 20:22 UK
New strikes on Iraq 'kill five'

[DeathCometh]

Thanks for clearing this up Rynotek and to think i get accused of posting crap.
Unbeleivable.

[tranz]

FOX and CNN and all the rest of those lovely stations are giving equal coverage to a girl who disappeared in Aruba and the recent shark attack.... while they are both sad and tragic, they don't seem quite as newsworthy as any of what's been presented.

http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=37
CNN’s Hard News - Serving 0.0001% of America

Missing person cases affect ONLY the missing persons themselves, the abductors and the families and friends. Others may be concerned, but realistically nobody else is really affected by these incidents. So I am going to estimate that 250 people (and that is a generous estimation) in the United States are affected by these two stories. This means it affects 0.0001% of the American population.

Let me repeat that: 17% of CNN’s broadcast was important news to 0.0001% of the US population!!!

[Defiant Noquisi]

Let me repeat that: 17% of CNN’s broadcast was important news to 0.0001% of the US population!!!

Thats a far cry from their big popularity binge during Desert Storm and the "Scud Stud".

The secret air war, below are a list of links only from the BBC regarding sorties by US planes into Iraq before hostilities where declared

It figures that it would be made news elsewhere. Still, the undisputed fact remains that while the US was still numb from 9/11, the pre-planned war was occuring while the entire country was distracted and before Congress gave approval publically.

This country never woke up.

[Rynotek]

Of course it was Defiant. These links only go to prove that US/UK planes were taking out Iraqi air defence system well before any announcment was made.

[Chili]

Typical government crap. Tsk, tsk. I still think we were the stupid ones for voting for Bush again. Then again Kerry got C-'s in Yale and Bush got C's.....He's still stupid though. Check out this vid:

http://www.2flashgames.com/viewlink....74.htm&id=1423

Now you'd think he'd have been smart enoguh to at least say he didn't know but he look into it or something but not Bush! I just hope I won't vote for somebody like him someday. That would be a truly sad day.

[Spartan]

I'm so sick and tired of this bullshit. We liberated Iraq. Wow we installed a puppet government and killed thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis in the process. How would you feel if someone invaded your country for no particularly good reason and recklessly killed innocent civillians? Next we're gonna invade Syria, Iran, start a war with North Korea. Possibly start a war with China. I said possibly. I made a promise to myself this summer. You see I'm 120 pounds right now. I'm actually 16. I believe that there will be a draft to North Korea or the middle east sometime in the near future probabally this year. I have seen what humanity is and why there is a reason to protect it. That reason is because everyone else is weaker than me. I can stand in a firefight, I can deal with being shot, I can do so much shit that everyone else can't handle and I let myself fall. I let myself fall when I needed my strength the most. Now I'm gonna pick myself up. I'm not gonna let anyone do this to these people. People are people. They have sex, they get married, sometimes they don't want to have sex untill they get married, they wanna be happy, they have kids, they love, they are just not simply to have bullets blazing past their heads and going into their heads. I made a promise to myself. I promised myself that when I go back to school nobody will be able to physically recognize who I am. One of these days your gonna see me on the news. Heres something else for you to munch on one. Not only are they innocent harmless people, THEY'RE KIDS. They make kids go to war. Oh ya I forgot to mention the other thing. It would be bad enough sending kids off to fight in a war that has some reason to it, but faking terrorist attacks?

[Protostar]

I had a stupid thought, could you imagine if this administration pushes the USA into a DEPRESSION but oh, its 2008 and time for elections again. Suddenly DONALD TRUMP jumps into the fold with his financial wizardry and saves us, gets elected
as president? Maybe not so stupid thought but scary that he is "getting very public" with his life suddenly. And probably the only person who could beat Hillery
at her own game. Think about it, its been clinton and bushes since 1980's.
2 families only running this country. hmmmmm.

[fatman6502002]

There was no secret air war in the run up to the Iraq war. It was part of the enforcement of the no fly zones. Also the president did have authorization from Congress in the form of the "Iraqi Liberation Act" passed in 1998 and signed into law by President Clinton. President Bush also had Congressional authorization in the form of the Congressional Declaration of War on Terror, which authorized the President of the US to:

"use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

The fact is the 9-11 commission documented more than a dozen instances in which Saddam and Al-queda co-operated with each other since 1992. The fact is Saddam made Iraq a safe haven and a training base for international terrorists and as such the President was clearly authorized to attack Iraq or any other country that sponsers terrorism(Syria and Iran also if he chooses) at any time he sees fit.

All this talk about President Bush not being authorized by Congress to attack Iraq is simple fantasy put forth by Bush haters who have no clue about or choose to ignore the actual facts and as such keep themselves ignorant of the actual truth. In fact President Bush was authorized by two seperate Congressional resolutions and the Iraq Liberation Act to attack Iraq, that is three seperate Congressional authorizations so I have no idea what all of you are complaining about. There are real issues with the conduct of the aftermath of the Iraq war that should be questioned rather than the reasons we attacked Iraq. The attack is over and done with we need to learn from our mistakes during the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq such that we do not make the same mistakes in Syria, Iran or North Korea if and when the time comes that we have to attack and occupy those countries.

Either way the increased bombing was reported extensively in the MSM. I was working as a Navy Contractor at the time with the NSGA and we kept track of all of the Open Source Intelligence(OSI) we could find. OSI by the way is the gathering of intelligence through public information systems such as the main stream media, newpapers, news broadcasts, internet and the like and there was plenty of reporting of the extra bombing taking place and of what targets were being hit. What happened was simply prudent in military and political terms i.e. the Bush administration knew that there was a very high probability that Saddam would not comply with the UNSC and therefore it understood that there was an equally big probability that we would go to war with Iraq, therefore they decided to prepare the battlefield accordingly using airpower. The fact is that the actual decision to invade Iraq was not made until CENTCOM informed the President that the conditions for a ground attack had been met through the attrition of Iraqi forces by our air power.

The fact that many of you on this board missed the reporting about the increased bombing and then failed to "connect the dots" is more a statement about your individual ability, or lack thereof, to analyize and understand what is actually happening in the world around you. Maybe if you spend more time researching what is happening in real time and less time trying to bring about the defeat of America in the war on terror and hating President Bush you might just be able to figure out what is actually happening in the world around you. The evidence is all around you but when you look at it only through liberal/anti-American/anti-Bush ideological lenses you dont stand a chance of understanding the actual truth.

Fatman

[Raladin]

The fact is the 9-11 commission documented more than a dozen instances in which Saddam and Al-queda co-operated with each other since 1992....Maybe if you spend more time researching what is happening in real time and less time trying to bring about the defeat of America in the war on terror and hating President Bush you might just be able to figure out what is actually happening in the world around you.

"The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."
***9/11 Commission Report, pg 66

Now begins the argument of semantics. I can appreciate the 'fact' that the 9-11 commission documented 'co-operation' between Saddam and al Qaeda. I invite you to also appreciate the 'fact' that they could not find evidence of any collaberation between Saddam and al Qaeda.

The real 'fact' is, no one will ever know to what degree Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda have worked together. To put it another way, we have spent time researching what is happening in real time. We can spend every waking minute trying to figuring out what is actually happening in the world around us, but will always reach the same conclusion - that given any one concrete 'fact', any two people will have two different opinions, consquently spinning said 'fact' however necessary to support their opinion. Isn't free thought great?