17-06-2004 11:57									#1
	Yet another Iraqi lie refuted Support Apolyton

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

quote: The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming." But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

This should put another wild contention from Bush defenders to rest

	17-06-2004 12:03									#2
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think it was always known it's about the oil.
Which is what they attack now in Iraq. Oil infastructure. Refuse/resist attitude.

	17-06-2004 12:06									#3
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Yep.

I can't wait to get my 25 cents a gallon gas.

	17-06-2004 12:09									#4
	Increase Your PM Length

well, 25c for enron, 3.25 for you

	17-06-2004 12:12									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: This should put another wild contention from Bush defenders to rest

It won't...

	17-06-2004 12:22									#6
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Cheney just this week claimed that there were links between Saddam and Al Qaida.

they are beyond hope.

	17-06-2004 12:36									#7
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The Bushoes will continue to defend the war.

They'll just finally use the only argument that is a little understandable, i.e. the humanitarian aspect. However, most won't even notice it is an extremely hypocritical one, because the humanitarian argument only cannot explain why Iraq was picked, instead of, say, Liberia (where the humanitarian crisis was worse, and the costs of intervention were much smaller).

Maybe they'll finally (and reluctantly) admit this war was done for the sake of power-playing, and for the greed of America.

	17-06-2004 12:39									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Maybe they'll finally (and reluctantly) admit this war was done for the sake of power-playing, and for the greed of America.

You're way more optimistic than I.

	17-06-2004 12:44									#9
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor The Bushoes will continue to defend the war.

They should apologize a reinstall Saddam.

	17-06-2004 12:45									#10
	Put an end to popups!

They'll say "it was in our best interests".

I mean the Bush-groupies of these boards. The actual members of the Bush team will only emphasize what can look like the moral high ground.

	17-06-2004 13:09									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I never thought that they would have these connections.
But I think that they might have appeared in the future though, for sure during the current al'qaida hunting.

	17-06-2004 13:09									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc They should apologize a reinstall Saddam.

If it was just about getting rid of Saddam, why didn't Bush and his buddies say so in the first place. Why did the Bushies tell all of these lies? Would the isolationist Republicans (and democrats for that matter) have agreed to start a war of aggression just to remove Saddam?

	17-06-2004 13:36									#13
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc They should apologize a reinstall Saddam.

That is a sure way to get rid of him. President of Iraq must be one of the most dangerous jobs in the world right now, even for someone who knows the job.

	17-06-2004 13:38									#14
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc They should apologize a reinstall Saddam.

Snooze.

Saddam only became bad when he was no longer an US lackey.

	17-06-2004 13:54									#15
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: They should apologize a reinstall Saddam.

Standard-liberal-grumble-aka-feeding-the-troll

	17-06-2004 14:11									#16
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai If it was just about getting rid of Saddam, why didn't Bush and his buddies say so in the first place.

No-one can deny that 'regime change' has always been a publicly outspoken reason.

But you are right, at some point in history "WMD weapons" became their most outspoken reason.
I think that that was done to get other countries to join the coalition.

For some regimes "Terror will hit you" is a better reason to go to war then "Children are dying"

I blame Bush and Blair for going the WMD-way.
They should kept their "regime-change" policy alife.
But I wonder if Blair ever shared that policy.....

	17-06-2004 14:12									#17
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The only justification I ever needed was to make "right" what George Bush 41 did wrong - telling Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam during the first gulf war only to turn his back when they did and got slaughtered.

But one more lie exposed by the report, that we were attacked because we are free. Hell, co-chair Lee Hamilton said on Hardball we were attacked because we are free and Chris Mathews cited Hamilton's own report to refute him seconds later. According to bin Laden, we were attacked for 2 reasons - US support for Israel and stationing troops in Saudi Arabia. Both Hamilton and McKean acknowledged these were the reasons and proceeded to state the obvious lost on so many Americans - that foreign policy, i.e., screwing around over there, has consequences.

Damn right I'm an isolationist... I just wish we could divide the country up so the next time the Democrats and Republicans piss someone off my family isn't targeted.

	17-06-2004 14:21									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Well, the country is already divided up: Liberal Leftistan, Conservative Republic, and Canada.

	17-06-2004 14:35									#19
	Support Apolyton

BTW, 8/10 to DD's troll.

Short, to the point, and excellent bait (4 reactions in a row!)
The only thing that prevents a perfect 10 is that it could have been more witty and original. Nonetheless, it's a troll definitely worth imitating

	17-06-2004 14:38									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

BTW, does anybody here remembers the damning evidence found by the Telegraph right after the war. I wonder why these so-called "experts" couldn't look in the newspapers. I mean, the Telegraph would only publish absolutely rock-solid evidence, and not something doubtful, won't it?

	17-06-2004 18:35									#21
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Saddam only became bad when he was no longer an US lackey.

Exactly the reason they should apologize and put him back in power. It's the only way we can expunge the wrong done in the name of justice.

	17-06-2004 18:37									#22
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Not to pick sides, but lack of evidence doesn't necessarily refute something, it just means it can't be proven.

	17-06-2004 18:39									#23
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

And Bush, Cheney and Blair have all reiterated their claims of a Iraq-Al Qaeda connection in the past few days. Seems like there's still more to this story than we know.

	17-06-2004 18:46									#24
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

when you have a few people with direct access to all the knowledge we have telling a huge mass of people what the truth is, you're going to inevariably have one group who makes up what best suits them and says everyone else is interpreting the facts wrong.

	17-06-2004 19:01									#25
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

While lack of evidence is not proof against, the burden of proof falls upon the ones making the claim, so lack of evidence makes their claim an unsubstantiated one.

As for Drake's assertion, one would think that the WH would have made all evidence available to this panel if it had anything to show such links-why on earth would they stiff a bipartisan commission of such evidence?

Utter incompetence? Misplaced secrecy? Political cynicism? Becuase there is none?

Which reason seems best?

	17-06-2004 19:03									#26
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GePap While lack of evidence is not proof against, the burden of proof falls upon the ones making the claim, so lack of evidence makes their claim an unsubstantiated one.

I would say "refuting" the claim would be providing evidence to the contrary, not citing a lack of evidence.

	17-06-2004 19:15									#27
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

They made a Claim of CERTAINTY, lack of evidence refutes the CERTANTY of the claim, at best they may have speculated correctly but they definatly LIED about their being CERTAIN that their Claim was correct. A hanging offence in my books.

Oh and I belive Bush when to war primarily to avenge his Fathers falure then to obtain Oil (though that may have been a nice side benifit along with being a "war president" a status Conservatives thing makes them imune to critisism (like more so then they normaly consider themselves))

	17-06-2004 19:17									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

He shoots and ............

I believe the administration has said that Saddam's Iraq had ties and/or associations with AQ.

I do not beleive they ever said that Saddaam collaborated with AQ wrt 9/11.

Good try UR.

	17-06-2004 19:23									#29
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Asher I would say "refuting" the claim would be providing evidence to the contrary, not citing a lack of evidence.

Given the original claim is unsubstantiated,m no need to refute.

Though Ogie is correct, the admin. has never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 itself-the prez. has said that multiple times. But the report does not only say Saddam had 0 to do with 9/11, as the admin. said. It cast doubts on the admin. contention that there were any active links.

The admin. better put up something fast- besides articles in the National Review by people not in the WH commonly used by people without arguements, specailly a certain cut and paste artist we all know.

	17-06-2004 21:28									#30
	Increase the size of your Attachments

The commission study was regarding 9/11 links firstly and if otherwise is outside the scope fo the 9/11 comittee. The contention of whether there were links is not contended either by this study.

The extent of collaborative links is in question and by this study says none existed at the point prior to or of 9/11. This is not to say that new relationships were formed subsequently or that the likelihood of collaboration in the future was not a possibility.