What a tangled web Bush weaves

[Cloud9]

Wow. Like, oh my gawd, I'm soooo surprised.








Iraq: The Aftermath
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on Thu, Sep. 18, 2003

Bush: Sept. 11, Iraq not linked
`NO EVIDENCE' FOUND OF PREVIOUS CLAIM
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday that there has been ``no evidence'' that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, disavowing a link that had been hinted previously by his administration.

``No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th,'' the president said after a meeting at the White House with lawmakers.

In stating that position, Bush clarified an issue that has long been left vague by his administration. Sunday, Vice President Cheney said on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' that success in Iraq means ``we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.''

A Washington Post poll last month found that 69 percent of Americans thought it at least likely that Saddam had a role in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Polling experts said Americans held that view mostly because of an instinctive suspicion of Saddam, but Democrats and some public-opinion experts said Bush and his aides exploited that impression by implying a link.

Bin Laden link

In his May 1 speech announcing the end of major combat in Iraq, Bush said that ``the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001.'' He added: ``With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.''

Bush, while seeing no link between Saddam and the attacks, said Wednesday that Iraq was linked to Osama bin Laden's organization. ``There's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al-Qaida ties,'' he said.

Some terrorism experts dispute the extent of such ties, but the issue is not disputed as vigorously as the link between Saddam and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Sunday, Cheney revived the possibility that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer five months before the attack, saying ``we just don't know'' whether the allegation is true.

But an FBI investigation concluded that Atta was apparently in Florida at the time of the alleged meeting, and the CIA has always doubted it took place.

Cheney defends action

Cheney, speaking to a meeting of the Air Force Association on Wednesday, delivered an impassioned defense of the Bush administration's actions in Iraq, and especially of its strategy of acting pre-emptively against perceived threats.

``Some people, both in this nation and abroad, have questions about that strategy,'' Cheney said. ``Make no mistake: President Bush is acting to protect the American people against further attacks, even when that means moving aggressively against would-be attackers.''

Some analysts have concluded that the intelligence problems the Bush administration has had in Iraq, most notably not finding any weapons of mass destruction, have made future such preventive actions unlikely.

In a talk to congressional staffers this week, Andrew Krepinevich, the director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, an independent defense think tank, said that the discovery that ``there was no imminent danger'' from Iraq made it unlikely that the American people would again support such a preventive action.


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

[Imthachamp]

bush is awesome. he can do no wrong.

[bethany1982]

I think he should bomb an aspirin factory in Africa.

[swissmiss04]

Sorry he's already done that. Why doesn't he, oh, I dunno, maybe blow up a nuke factory in N. Korea? Wait, that would actually make sense...

ahem

Hippies.

that is all.

Kitso
KS 361 worthless posts this thread is going to generate

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by swissmiss04
Sorry he's already done that. Why doesn't he, oh, I dunno, maybe blow up a nuke factory in N. Korea? Wait, that would actually make sense...

That was Clinton. Though it came from the same agency. Which make you wonder.

On a side note, who's going to Miami to see Phish with me?

[The1calledTKE]

Originally posted by AggieSigmaNu361
ahem

Hippies.

that is all.

Kitso
KS 361 worthless posts this thread is going to generate

I can agree one of them is worthless.

Originally posted by zntke711
I can agree one of them is worthless.

oooo ouch.

seriously, why don't y'all just start a "i don't like Bush" thread.

Then, everytime he does something y'all don't like, you can post in it, so we don't have to put up with a myriad of threads started by liberals who get a wild hair up their butt to start another anti-bush thread.

i'll even start it for you.

Kitso
KS 361

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by AggieSigmaNu361
oooo ouch.

seriously, why don't y'all just start a "i don't like Bush" thread.

Then, everytime he does something y'all don't like, you can post in it, so we don't have to put up with a myriad of threads started by liberals who get a wild hair up their butt to start another anti-bush thread.

i'll even start it for you.

Kitso
KS 361

Oh, but he does stupid things so often that it's just more fun to start a new post every time.

[Imthachamp]

Originally posted by AggieSigmaNu361
oooo ouch.

seriously, why don't y'all just start a "i don't like Bush" thread.

Then, everytime he does something y'all don't like, you can post in it, so we don't have to put up with a myriad of threads started by liberals who get a wild hair up their butt to start another anti-bush thread.

i'll even start it for you.

Kitso
KS 361

I CONCUR

[The1calledTKE]

So when there is a democratic president you will make only one thread to do your bitching? Just because you don't agree with people, it doesn't make the topic worthless. Just to you.

And by the way mosy liberals are not hippies. Maybe I care about the environment and if we are at war that doesn't make me a tree hugger. I didn't go protest. I just don't agree with most of what Bush has done. Bush should use that 87 billion to create jobs and give money to health care instead of funding his Iraq project.

Originally posted by zntke711
So when there is a democratic president you will make only one thread to do your bitching? Just because you don't agree with people, it doesn't make the topic worthless. Just to you.

And by the way mosy liberals are not hippies. Maybe I care about the environment and if we are at war that doesn't make me a tree hugger. I didn't go protest. I just don't agree with most of what Bush has done. Bush should use that 87 billion to create jobs and give money to health care instead of funding his Iraq project.

honestly man,

should one of the dems win next november, you probably won't see all that kind of crap from me. During the Clinton thing yes, becasue that man was a disgrace to the office.

Secondly, i meant worthless in that i knew that this thread was going to generate nothing but throwaway posts. Posts exactly like mine. I mean seriously, put it all on one thread and have yourselves a huge discussion about it. That way you can all formulate the spiels you're gonna use to convince people to vote against him next november.

I care about the enviornment too. But i still think that 87 billion to solidify the situation in iraq, then move on to Syria and Iran is a worthwhile option. I would rather my children grow up in a safe land with less National Oil Reserves than one where we are constantly concerning ourselves with where the next terrorist threat is coming from.

Kitso
KS 361 times that i will ALWAYS be a Texan and NEVER a south dakotan Tom(i'm not responding on the other thread cuz i promised i wouldn't)

[The1calledTKE]

Originally posted by AggieSigmaNu361

During the Clinton thing yes, becasue that man was a disgrace to the office.

Yes he lied under oath. I do agree that was wrong. Not enought to lose his office. He lied about cheating on his wife. I am sure most men probably do lie about that. He only had to do it under oath because he was president. No he was not the most moral man but he did the job well.

If our presidents must be moral we would not have had alot of presidents , even W. If morality was a issue he would never would have ran due to his drug, alcoholic, and inside trading past.

Yes Nixon did lie and resign but he was tring to affect an election not lieing about sex.

I think Reagan was a good president but he lied about Iran Contra.

The bad thing about politics is we pick and choose what is horrible or not depending on our party beliefs.

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by AggieSigmaNu361


I care about the enviornment too. But i still think that 87 billion to solidify the situation in iraq, then move on to Syria and Iran is a worthwhile option. I would rather my children grow up in a safe land with less National Oil Reserves than one where we are constantly concerning ourselves with where the next terrorist threat is coming from.

But we already do spend way too much energy concerning ourselves with where the next terrorist threat is coming from, in spite of that 87 billion dollars. We're a country that has "national terrorist alert" levels divided into colors that we check before work everyday. Every time a country says something negative about us we accuse them of terroristic sentiment and contemplate invading them. Those are not the actions of a country which's citizens feel safe.

I certainly don't feel any safer because he's spent almost 90 billion extra dollars on "rebuilding" Iraq. I didn't feel like Iraq was a legitimate threat before the war, and even if I had, I feel like we have more to fear now after "pre-emptively" attacking them than we did when we just let them be.

Plus -- and this is the point the article posted above is trying to make -- I certainly don't feel like I can trust a president who has tried to make us believe there was a link between Saddam and Osama in order to create more support for his anti-Iraq agenda. How can you trust a president who has led you to believe something that isn't true in order to further an agenda that is actually going to increase anti-American sentiment around the globe (and presumably increase terroristic mindsets as well)?

Originally posted by zntke711
Yes he lied under oath. I do agree that was wrong. Not enought to lose his office. He lied about cheating on his wife. I am sure most men probably do lie about that. He only had to do it under oath because he was president. No he was not the most moral man but he did the job well.

If our presidents must be moral we would not have had alot of presidents , even W. If morality was a issue he would never would have ran due to his drug, alcoholic, and inside trading past.

Yes Nixon did lie and resign but he was tring to affect an election not lieing about sex.

I think Reagan was a good president but he lied about Iran Contra.

The bad thing about politics is we pick and choose what is horrible or not depending on our party beliefs.

blah blah, Nixon also finally got us out of the Vietnam Conflict. Something that JFK started and LBJ couldn't solve.

Reagan brought down communism in eastern Europe.

They all have their good point's and bad points. to me Clinton's are far worse, Lewisnky, Whitewater, Somalia, blah blah blah.

Kitso
KS 361 times you're not gonna convince me and i'm not gonna convince you, so lets just agree that i'm right and move on