For those who still think osama = saddam

[richter915]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html

What shocked me the most is how this comes just a few months after Cheney claimed that Iraq and al-qaeda had ties and were related with the 9/11 attacks.

[open mind]

funny how THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE isn't in a position to say how the inteligence we went to war on turned out to be so wrong.

[cal1082]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html

What shocked me the most is how this comes just a few months after Cheney claimed that Iraq and al-qaeda had ties and were related with the 9/11 attacks.

Where did he claim this?

[open mind]

might have just over looked it.........."Rumsfeld said in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York."

[cal1082]

might have just over looked it.........."Rumsfeld said in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York."

You mean Cheney said that Iraq was involved with 9/11?

[richter915]

no he claimed that Iraq was involved with al-qaeda thus linking them to 9/11.

When asked about any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, Rumsfeld said, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

As recently as June, Vice President Dick Cheney was saying the opposite.

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview on CNBC's "Capitol Report."

"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."

[cal1082]

no he claimed that Iraq was involved with al-qaeda thus linking them to 9/11.

No, thus you linking them to the attacks on 9/11. Bush administration never said Iraq was involved with the attacks on 9/11.

[open mind]

and now they say they wasn't anything going on between the 2.

[cal1082]

and now they say they wasn't anything going on between the 2.

No, they're not. Rumsfield is saying, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

He's saying he hasnt seen. That's not saying there's no connection. If you read what members of the 9/11 commission say they agree that there was a relationship. How strong that relationship is, is what the debate is.

You're distorting what he's saying. He never said there was no connection.

[open mind]

he's the secretary of defense if he doesn't know about any hard evidence, there isn't any or he is doing a horrible job.
the 9/11 commision said there was no working relationship, which amounts to nothing going on.

[cal1082]

he's the secretary of defense if he doesn't know about any hard evidence, there isn't any or he is doing a horrible job.
the 9/11 commision said there was no working relationship, which amounts to nothing going on.

look back in old posts and you know what some of the commission said about the links:

"I must say I have trouble understanding the flak over this. The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is just what [Republican co-chairman Tom Kean] just said: We don't have any evidence of a cooperative or collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda with regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, that the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me." ------Democratic co-chairman Lee Hamilton

[commatosa]

Dude, the funny thing is that, to people who oppose Bush, this is common knowledge. And to people who support Bush, this is common knowledge, but the only difference is that Bush supporters don't want to believe that this is one of the main lies that the Bush administration used in order to convince the public to support the war. Bush supporters always say "we never said any of that." But I love seeing the footage all over the place that shows Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and the majority of this administration saying JUST THAT. Cheney, to this day, denies ever saying that, but he said it on national television on NBC. It's nice to see Rummy finally fess up but it's too little too late. It would have been way more impressive if they wouldn't have even said that.

[open mind]

look back in old posts and you know what some of the commission said about the links:

"I must say I have trouble understanding the flak over this. The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is just what [Republican co-chairman Tom Kean] just said: We don't have any evidence of a cooperative or collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda with regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, that the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me." ------Democratic co-chairman Lee Hamilton
like i said before connections don't mean anything without a working relationship, we have connections with eachother but it doesn't mean dick.

[cal1082]

like i said before connections don't mean anything without a working relationship, we have connections with eachother but it doesn't mean dick.

Then that's the argument.

[Lueda Alia]

Both Rice & Cheney did claim that Iraq WAS linked with Al-Qaeda, and that was one of the reasons that the Bush administration used to go to war.


But those two aren't the only ones anyways, a lot of Republicans claimed that. It's just hard to admit that now eh?

[Lueda Alia]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/index.html



la la la la la la

[venus/bacchus]

Both Rice & Cheney did claim that Iraq WAS linked with Al-Qaeda, and that was one of the reasons that the Bush administration used to go to war.


But those two aren't the only ones anyways, a lot of Republicans claimed that. It's just hard to admit that now eh?
no one said they didn't...we said no one ever said they were linked to 9/11...there is a difference

Again, the argument doesn't come from the fact that there was some kind of connection (we all know there was), it comes from how involved that contact was.

[cal1082]

Both Rice & Cheney did claim that Iraq WAS linked with Al-Qaeda, and that was one of the reasons that the Bush administration used to go to war.


But those two aren't the only ones anyways, a lot of Republicans claimed that. It's just hard to admit that now eh?

Didnt say they didnt. Some of you need to understand the difference between being linked to Al Qaeda and being linked to the attacks on Sept. 11th. They're claiming one and not the other. Yet some of you want to say they've claimed both.

[Lueda Alia]

Who the hell cares? The point is that.. they claimed both countries were linked somehow, or well, their leaders or whatever. Which was just bullshit.


Oh and, in the debate, when Bush insinuated Iraq was implied in the 9/11 attacks, and Kerry caught it right away? Beautiful.


Just face it, your government lied and all of those lies are slowly coming out.

[open mind]

no one said they didn't...we said no one ever said they were linked to 9/11...there is a difference

Again, the argument doesn't come from the fact that there was some kind of connection (we all know there was), it comes from how involved that contact was.
i don't see how you could argue iraq and al queda were deeply involved in any way, not even rumsfeld is willing to say they were anymore, so that's not the argument either.

[fractions]

it's kind of funny how he comes out with this now. when you're about to vote and shit.. yeah.. they fucked up and now they are denying it again..

[venus/bacchus]

Who the hell cares? The point is that.. they claimed both countries were linked somehow, or well, their leaders or whatever. Which was just bullshit.


Oh and, in the debate, when Bush insinuated Iraq was implied in the 9/11 attacks, and Kerry caught it right away? Beautiful.


Just face it, your government lied and all of those lies are slowly coming out.
Why is it bullshit to claim they're linked? There is major intelligence to support contact between the two. Even the 9/11 Commission report said that they really aren't sure. They've even acknowledge that there was probably a special meeting between some higher-ups in Prague a few months before 9/11. Also, al-Zarqawi (al-Qaeda member) had multiple training camps in Iraq. To say there is no connection is completely ignorant to the facts.

Please, pull up that Bush quote for me, I don't remember it.

Our government did not "lie" per se. If you're repeated something that your trusted friend told you, but it turns out to be untrue, it's not a lie on your part. A lie is blatantly not telling the truth.
i don't see how you could argue iraq and al queda were deeply involved in any way, not even rumsfeld is willing to say they were anymore, so that's not the argument either.
I won't argue that they were deeply involved, because I don't think they necessarily were, but I think there was some sort of involvement, and enough information out there to point to the fact that there very well could have been an involvement.

[open mind]

they're links and connections in the loosest possible sense so they amount to nothing, it sounds like there is some doubt if zarqawi is auctually al queda....But Rumsfeld Monday in his address to the CFR questioned whether al-Zarqawi is working with al Qaeda even as he seemed to have a similar agenda.

"In the case of al Qaeda, my impression is most of the senior people have actually sworn an oath to Osama bin Laden, and to my knowledge, even as of this late date, I don't believe Zarqawi, the principal leader of the network in Iraq, has sworn an oath, even though what they're doing -- I mean, they're just two peas in a pod in terms of what they're doing," Rumsfeld said.

[cal1082]

Who the hell cares? The point is that.. they claimed both countries were linked somehow, or well, their leaders or whatever. Which was just bullshit.


Oh and, in the debate, when Bush insinuated Iraq was implied in the 9/11 attacks, and Kerry caught it right away? Beautiful.


Just face it, your government lied and all of those lies are slowly coming out.

Zarqawi is just one example of the link. He and his network were brought up before the war in Feb. '03 in Powell's speech. Now we are beginning ot see the full scope of what his network is capable of.

[cal1082]

Thankyou Cheney for calling Edwards out on where he was wrong. Edwards, like most of you, kept insisting that Cheney has claimed Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. He never said that!!!! Everyone look for where he said it, pour over the internet and look for it. And post it up here when you find it. Also email Senator Edwards and show him.

[richter915]

oi ok...they never SAY it...yes you are right...but often times they will associate iraq and al qaeda and then link al qaeda to 9/11 confusing the public into thinking that iraq is related to 9/11...but still...back to the original article...you guys are saying that it's ok to go to war and kill thousands on weak claims with very little basis? Didn't the article say that zarqawi does not pledge allegience to al-qaeda? how're you guys arguing that he's a member?

[open mind]

Zarqawi is just one example of the link. He and his network were brought up before the war in Feb. '03 in Powell's speech. Now we are beginning ot see the full scope of what his network is capable of.
should it be pointed to as a example if people aren't sure if he's auctually al queda?

[cal1082]

should it be pointed to as a example if people aren't sure if he's auctually al queda?

I never said he was a member of Al Qaeda. He's connected to them. You want an example of the connection remember back to the letter obtained of Zarqawi's. The letter was obtained by the arrest of an Al Qaeda courier. Now........where would an Al Qaeda courier be taking a letter?????

[open mind]

so how many connections to connections does it take to be rendered irrelevant?

[cal1082]

so how many connections to connections does it take to be rendered irrelevant?

Do you remember the letter? You should read it and you'd see why it was in the hands of an Al Qaeda courier.

[open mind]

you got a link?

[cal1082]

you got a link?

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/zarkawi200402121818.asp

http://www.middleeastinfo.org/article3953.html

[open mind]

how does this link saddam to al queda again?

[cal1082]

how does this link saddam to al queda again?

oh i thought you were talking about a link between Zaraqawi and Al Qaeda. The link between Zaraqawi and Iraq is detailed in Powell's speech to the UN in Feb. 03

[open mind]

it's all connected, but saying al queda was in iraq under saddam because zarqawi was there isn't really proven, zarqawi has a real working relationship with al queda that i don't dispute, but that doesn't mean he's automatically al queda, if he's not really a member of al queda him being in iraq doesn't really link saddam to al queda.

[cal1082]

it's all connected, but saying al queda was in iraq under saddam because zarqawi was there isn't really proven, zarqawi has a real working relationship with al queda that i don't dispute, but that doesn't mean he's automatically al queda, if he's not really a member of al queda him being in iraq doesn't really link saddam to al queda.

read the powell speech

[open mind]

the powell speach is filled with bona fide bullshit, i'm not going to take it seriously.

[cal1082]

the powell speach is filled with bona fide bullshit, i'm not going to take it seriously.

Then of course your not gonna wanna listen to any US, British, Israel intelligence. That being the case how do you expect me to show you a connection from Zaraqawi and Iraq? I mean you put me in a no win situation. You want to see a connection and I point to intelligence and you say "well that's complete crap and i'm not listening to it." Not very fair.

[open mind]

find something recent that wasn't part of something that's been shown to be filled with bullshit, if that's to hard to do somethings wrong.
i did my part (although you won't admit it) so you can at least try to find the 1 thing i asked for.

[cal1082]

find something recent that wasn't part of something that's been shown to be filled with bullshit, if that's to hard to do somethings wrong.

Powell's speech is like 9 pages long. You want to sit here and tell me that whole speech is bull shit? If that's the case find me 9 specific examples that have been proven wrong in the speech. I dont want hear say or speculation of them being wrong (like the yellow cake which Britian intelligence still stands by.) All you have to show is 9 examples out of that whole speech. if that's to hard to do somethings wrong.

If you can, I'll be more than willing to find you something more recent.

[open mind]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/powelltext_020503.html
My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
The truck you also see is a signature item. It's a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong.
We know that Iraq has at lest seven of these mobile biological agent factories
The Iraqi regime has also developed ways to disburse lethal biological agents, widely and discriminately into the water supply, into the air
There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling
We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry. To all outward appearances, even to experts, the infrastructure looks like an ordinary civilian operation. Illicit and legitimate production can go on simultaneously; or, on a dime, this dual-use infrastructure can turn from clandestine to commercial and then back again
To support its deadly biological and chemical weapons programs, Iraq procures needed items from around the world using an extensive clandestine network
Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons
Let me tell you what is not controversial about these tubes. First, all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use
Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered Al Qaida safe haven in the region. After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain their today.
Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida.
Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery.
From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaida organization.

The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful

there's no problem over here. :)

[cal1082]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/powelltext_020503.html
My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
The truck you also see is a signature item. It's a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong.
We know that Iraq has at lest seven of these mobile biological agent factories
The Iraqi regime has also developed ways to disburse lethal biological agents, widely and discriminately into the water supply, into the air
There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling
We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry. To all outward appearances, even to experts, the infrastructure looks like an ordinary civilian operation. Illicit and legitimate production can go on simultaneously; or, on a dime, this dual-use infrastructure can turn from clandestine to commercial and then back again
To support its deadly biological and chemical weapons programs, Iraq procures needed items from around the world using an extensive clandestine network
Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons
Let me tell you what is not controversial about these tubes. First, all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use
Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered Al Qaida safe haven in the region. After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain their today.
Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida.
Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery.
From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaida organization.

The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful

there's no problem over here. :)

I highlighted the only 2 things I saw that are known to be wrong. Everything you put up there runs together and it's hard to read. Can you like number off the 9 statements and tell me how they've been proven false because I only see two (which i put in bold)

[cal1082]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/powelltext_020503.html
My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
The truck you also see is a signature item. It's a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong.
We know that Iraq has at lest seven of these mobile biological agent factories
The Iraqi regime has also developed ways to disburse lethal biological agents, widely and discriminately into the water supply, into the air
There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling
We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry. To all outward appearances, even to experts, the infrastructure looks like an ordinary civilian operation. Illicit and legitimate production can go on simultaneously; or, on a dime, this dual-use infrastructure can turn from clandestine to commercial and then back again
To support its deadly biological and chemical weapons programs, Iraq procures needed items from around the world using an extensive clandestine network
Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons
Let me tell you what is not controversial about these tubes. First, all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use
Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered Al Qaida safe haven in the region. After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain their today.
Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida.
Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery.
From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaida organization.

The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful

there's no problem over here. :)

I highlighted the only 2 things I saw that are known to be wrong. Everything you put up there runs together and it's hard to read. Can you like number off the 9 statements and tell me how they've been proven false because I only see two (which i put in bold)

[richter915]

I highlighted the only 2 things I saw that are known to be wrong. Everything you put up there runs together and it's hard to read. Can you like number off the 9 statements and tell me how they've been proven false because I only see two (which i put in bold)
"The truck you also see is a signature item. It's a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong.
We know that Iraq has at lest seven of these mobile biological agent factories"

those trucks were found to have the ever so dangerous and harmful...water.

also...those two things you put in bold...those two statements were big big big reasons why we went to war...how can you justify the thousands dead because the United States was wrong about Saddam possessing chemical weapons at this point (note I said "at this point" he's had chemical weapons in the past but we didn't go to war over that...we wanted to find what he has NOW...and we found horse shit)

[cal1082]

"The truck you also see is a signature item. It's a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong.
We know that Iraq has at lest seven of these mobile biological agent factories"

those trucks were found to have the ever so dangerous and harmful...water.

also...those two things you put in bold...those two statements were big big big reasons why we went to war...how can you justify the thousands dead because the United States was wrong about Saddam possessing chemical weapons at this point (note I said "at this point" he's had chemical weapons in the past but we didn't go to war over that...we wanted to find what he has NOW...and we found horse shit)

Those trucks had been washed down too, for what purposes do you wash down the inside of a truck? The trucks didn't have actual weapons, but had the equipment that could produce it.

I'm not talking about reasons for war right now. We're talking about somethign different.

[open mind]

I highlighted the only 2 things I saw that are known to be wrong. Everything you put up there runs together and it's hard to read. Can you like number off the 9 statements and tell me how they've been proven false because I only see two (which i put in bold)
i put down more then 9.
1)every statement wasn't fact
2)proven to be nothing but water trucks
3)the proof that it's bullshit is that there isn't any proof it's true.
4)didn't have them
6)see 3
7)if there was no chemical or nuclear or biological weapons program how is it logical to believe they had a vast international network set up to supply said non existant programs?
8)didn't have them
9)tubes have been proven to be useless for nuclear matieral
10)disproven to the point that officials and cia won't say it's true anymore
11)nevermind that one
12)no working relationship would mean that's not true
13)see 12

[cal1082]

i put down more then 9.
1)every statement wasn't fact
2)proven to be nothing but water trucks
3)the proof that it's bullshit is that there isn't any proof it's true.
4)didn't have them
6)see 3
7)if there was no chemical or nuclear or biological weapons program how is it logical to believe they had a vast international network set up to supply said non existant programs?
8)didn't have them
9)tubes have been proven to be useless for nuclear matieral
10)disproven to the point that officials and cia won't say it's true anymore
11)nevermind that one
12)no working relationship would mean that's not true
13)see 12

1.) How were they proven to be water trucks?
2.) Where have the tubes be proven useless for nuclear material? (I have evidence that shows other wise on this).
3.) The network and supplys were there. Have you not seen what I guess it was Bremer concluded? They found the supplies, materials, and equipment to make all the weapons. They just never found the weapons.

I might dispute some other numbers but I dont know what you're referring to in nubmers 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, or 13.

[open mind]

they were found and inspected.
they were found and deemed to be unviable
what you guess?

[cal1082]

they were found and inspected.
they were found and deemed to be unviable
what you guess?

yes, they were found and inspected and from the last thing I saw were determeind to be able to produce chemical weapons. What have you seen that said they couldn't produce weapons, and who said it?

Who deemed the to be univable?

If can't see my intent I'll tell you. I want you to prove Powell's speech is completely false, since you won't take any eivdence in it for truth. Meaning I want to see evidence that proves he was wrong. This would mean you would have to prove something else is right.

[open mind]

you've got it twisted, the people who started the pre-emptive war have to prove they weren't lying.
i'll track some shit down later.

[Love As Arson]

Open Mind is correct. The burden of proof is on the Bush administration.

[cal1082]

you've got it twisted, the people who started the pre-emptive war have to prove they weren't lying.
i'll track some shit down later.

I'm not talking about who started the war. I'm simply saying if you think the entire Powell speech is wrong, than you should be able to PROVE at least 9 examples are wrong. He gave a lot of evidence in that speech, and no doubt you have some things that could be wrong for the simple fact it's just intelligence.

Saying it's a water truck doesnt prove anything. I dont know who concluded this, or even if that's what they actually concluded.

[cal1082]

Open Mind is correct. The burden of proof is on the Bush administration.

I'm not even talking about that. We're talking about he legitimacy of the Powell speech. He says he not willing to listen to ANY of it, and I just want to find out why.

[open mind]

I'm not even talking about that. We're talking about he legitimacy of the Powell speech. He says he not willing to listen to ANY of it, and I just want to find out why.
i'll track down links to prove to you what i say is bullshit is bullshit, but it should be obvious that the speach was riddled with falsehoods and unproven speculation, when at the begining of the speach it was all pronounced fact, so why would you believe it?

[open mind]

I'm not talking about who started the war. I'm simply saying if you think the entire Powell speech is wrong, than you should be able to PROVE at least 9 examples are wrong. He gave a lot of evidence in that speech, and no doubt you have some things that could be wrong for the simple fact it's just intelligence.

Saying it's a water truck doesnt prove anything. I dont know who concluded this, or even if that's what they actually concluded.
i've given you 12 you've only taken issue with 3 of them so i guess i took care of 9 already.

[cal1082]

i've given you 12 you've only taken issue with 3 of them so i guess i took care of 9 already.

No i didnt know what they other one's you numbered were referring to. Your original post was so disorganized i didnt understand all your points. So when you numbered them I had no idea what you were numbering.

Also you didnt prove anything. If you don't want to give the Powell speech any credit at all I wanted you to prove it was wrong. Simply taking quotes out of the speech proves nothing.

You could avoid doing all of this by simply looking for your own infomration on how Zaraqawi and Saddam are linked.

[cal1082]

i'll track down links to prove to you what i say is bullshit is bullshit, but it should be obvious that the speach was riddled with falsehoods and unproven speculation, when at the begining of the speach it was all pronounced fact, so why would you believe it?

It was pronounced as the intelligence they gathered. If it was all obviously fact than every country would be an idiot for not signing on to the war right away.

Powell was simply showing the intelligence they had gathered from the US, Britian, Israel, and anyone else. Some was right, some was wrong. You can't just entirely throw his speech out though, which is my point of contention.

Should we not listen to UN intelligence anymore because they got Libya's capabilities wrong? (Since Libya has opened up, the UN inspectors have discovered things they never knew existed) No, because it's intelligence, and it's hard to get 100% accurate intellignece, ecspecially when you consider it's from a regime as closed off as Iraq was.

[open mind]

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1351
a bit on the tubes.

[open mind]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.no.labs/
one instance of bullshit labs, there's more, i'll get them.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html

[open mind]

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/06/70581.html

[richter915]

what I'm going at is like...how can you start a war on any false information? You can't say "oh some of it was true" or "it was true at the time" to justify a war

[open mind]

your third question didn't make sense because it wasn't really a question, i'm not going to look around for something you guess someone said.
also it's bullshit to say that the case for war and powells speach aren't one and the same.

[open mind]

It was pronounced as the intelligence they gathered. If it was all obviously fact than every country would be an idiot for not signing on to the war right away.

Powell was simply showing the intelligence they had gathered from the US, Britian, Israel, and anyone else. Some was right, some was wrong. You can't just entirely throw his speech out though, which is my point of contention.

Should we not listen to UN intelligence anymore because they got Libya's capabilities wrong? (Since Libya has opened up, the UN inspectors have discovered things they never knew existed) No, because it's intelligence, and it's hard to get 100% accurate intellignece, ecspecially when you consider it's from a regime as closed off as Iraq was.
at the very begining of powells presentation he said everything he said was fact, he didn't say it was inteligence.

[open mind]

No i didnt know what they other one's you numbered were referring to. Your original post was so disorganized i didnt understand all your points. So when you numbered them I had no idea what you were numbering.

Also you didnt prove anything. If you don't want to give the Powell speech any credit at all I wanted you to prove it was wrong. Simply taking quotes out of the speech proves nothing.

You could avoid doing all of this by simply looking for your own infomration on how Zaraqawi and Saddam are linked.
surely you can read line by line, it's not some secret fucking code, don't be so dense.
you asked me to show you 9 instance of bullshit and i did, the things you've taken issue with i've gotten links to show you why powell was full of shit.
zarqawi apparently isn't al queda so the whole argument is bullshit (that's the topic remember? the al queda/iraq connection) and i don't know if you've kept up with recent developments, but the cia has backed off from the claims that saddam knew zarqawi was in iraq, and more or less the rest of the supposed connection between al quda and iraq.

[UndefinedBoy]

surely you can read line by line, it's not some secret fucking code, don't be so dense.
you asked me to show you 9 instance of bullshit and i did, the things you've taken issue with i've gotten links to show you why powell was full of shit.
zarqawi apparently isn't al queda so the whole argument is bullshit (that's the topic remember? the al queda/iraq connection) and i don't know if you've kept up with recent developments, but the cia has backed off from the claims that saddam knew zarqawi was in iraq, and more or less the rest of the supposed connection between al quda and iraq.

I think you've made your point. All the supposed reasons for going to war have turned to bullshit and in time conservatives may come to accept this, or not. I guess hindsight isn't 20/20 for republicans.

[cal1082]

surely you can read line by line, it's not some secret fucking code, don't be so dense.
you asked me to show you 9 instance of bullshit and i did, the things you've taken issue with i've gotten links to show you why powell was full of shit.
zarqawi apparently isn't al queda so the whole argument is bullshit (that's the topic remember? the al queda/iraq connection) and i don't know if you've kept up with recent developments, but the cia has backed off from the claims that saddam knew zarqawi was in iraq, and more or less the rest of the supposed connection between al quda and iraq.

You showed 9 that you thought were bull, but never showed how they were bull factualy. When we some people learn if you want to make bold statments like-----> (Powell's entire speech is wrong) be prepared for someone to ask you to back your bold statement up with bold facts. That doesnt mean copy and pasting parts of Powell's speech. That means showing where he was wrong, and how he was wrong.

If your not willing to do this, then simply don't make bold, ignorant statements. I keep away from bold statments as much as possible because people will call you out on them and ask for evidence.

It's nothing new. I just ask that you explain yourself with evidence and facts, and until this point all you've done is copy and past parts of Powell's speech without explaining how and why he was wrong.

[cal1082]

I think you've made your point. All the supposed reasons for going to war have turned to bullshit and in time conservatives may come to accept this, or not. I guess hindsight isn't 20/20 for republicans.

If that's the case why did David Kay, who led the hunt for WMD's say that he thought Iraq was more dangerous than we first thought? Apparently he didnt feel they turned to bull shit.

[Lueda Alia]

If that's the case why did David Kay, who led the hunt for WMD's say that he thought Iraq was more dangerous than we first thought? Apparently he didnt feel they turned to bull shit.

I do not understand what the hell you people need anymore so that you can freakin admit that the Bush administration DID lie. Seriously.

[cal1082]

I do not understand what the hell you people need anymore so that you can freakin admit that the Bush administration DID lie. Seriously.

First you need someone who is a logical and rational thinker who can look beyond the simple "Bush Lied" mentality. If you want to break down our whole foreign policy effort with Iraq to the simple solution "Bush Lied" I think you have a lot to understand.

Once again, that's a bold statement. I expect someone who want to claim that to be able to show me he lied. Show me how you know, he knew that Iraq really had no weapons. Yet wanted us all to believe they did. Show me the lie?

[UndefinedBoy]

If that's the case why did David Kay, who led the hunt for WMD's say that he thought Iraq was more dangerous than we first thought? Apparently he didnt feel they turned to bull shit.

And how exactly were they more dangerous?

[UndefinedBoy]

First you need someone who is a logical and rational thinker who can look beyond the simple "Bush Lied" mentality. If you want to break down our whole foreign policy effort with Iraq to the simple solution "Bush Lied" I think you have a lot to understand.

Once again, that's a bold statement. I expect someone who want to claim that to be able to show me he lied. Show me how you know, he knew that Iraq really had no weapons. Yet wanted us all to believe they did. Show me the lie?

I no longer care about conservatives agreeing that "bush lied." Right now it's more important to admit simply "Bush was wrong." I've found very few republicans can even admit that...

[cal1082]

And how exactly were they more dangerous?

you'll have to read what david kay said.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2004/n01292004_200401295.html

[cal1082]

I no longer care about conservatives agreeing that "bush lied." Right now it's more important to admit simply "Bush was wrong." I've found very few republicans can even admit that...

Wrong on what extent though. Was the intelligence wrong? Obviously some of it was but you can't blame Bush for the intelligence. But do I think the decision to get rid of Saddam was wrong.......No. I think Bush should have used more force after Saddam was out to stop looting, and people like Sadr, so that's another thing I disagree with Bush on.

When you say you want people to admit Bush's wrong you have to be specific because I dont think he was wrong on a lot of stuff and some stuff I feel he was wrong on.

[richter915]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20041006/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_weapons_041006215929

no WMD's since 1991.

[Lueda Alia]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20041006/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_weapons_041006215929

no WMD's since 1991.
YOU LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[UndefinedBoy]

Wrong on what extent though. Was the intelligence wrong? Obviously some of it was but you can't blame Bush for the intelligence. But do I think the decision to get rid of Saddam was wrong.......No. I think Bush should have used more force after Saddam was out to stop looting, and people like Sadr, so that's another thing I disagree with Bush on.

When you say you want people to admit Bush's wrong you have to be specific because I dont think he was wrong on a lot of stuff and some stuff I feel he was wrong on.

Of course the intelligence was wrong, but yes I do blame Bush for acting on bad intelligence. If he's willing to risk pre-emptive war, he has to be willing to take responsibility if something goes wrong. That's what it means to be in charge of everything, he's also responsible for everything.

If it was a Democrat in the office now, Republicans would be ripping him apart about this.

[richter915]

YOU LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
now I can be president!

[open mind]

You showed 9 that you thought were bull, but never showed how they were bull factualy. When we some people learn if you want to make bold statments like-----> (Powell's entire speech is wrong) be prepared for someone to ask you to back your bold statement up with bold facts. That doesnt mean copy and pasting parts of Powell's speech. That means showing where he was wrong, and how he was wrong.

If your not willing to do this, then simply don't make bold, ignorant statements. I keep away from bold statments as much as possible because people will call you out on them and ask for evidence.

It's nothing new. I just ask that you explain yourself with evidence and facts, and until this point all you've done is copy and past parts of Powell's speech without explaining how and why he was wrong.
i gave you the facts on the ones you took issue with or did you miss the links i posted?

[open mind]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/powelltext_020503.html[/url]
1)My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
even you can admit this wasn't true right?
2)The truck you also see is a signature item. It's a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong.
i gave you several links.
3)We know that Iraq has at lest seven of these mobile biological agent factories
covered by above links and the fact that none have been found
4)The Iraqi regime has also developed ways to disburse lethal biological agents, widely and discriminately into the water supply, into the air
i'll find something, but for now where are these things?
5)There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling
i don't think we need a link for this
6)We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry. To all outward appearances, even to experts, the infrastructure looks like an ordinary civilian operation. Illicit and legitimate production can go on simultaneously; or, on a dime, this dual-use infrastructure can turn from clandestine to commercial and then back again.
proof would be the lack of proof
7)To support its deadly biological and chemical weapons programs, Iraq procures needed items from around the world using an extensive clandestine network
no program means no need for support of a weapons program
8)Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons
bullshit
9)Let me tell you what is not controversial about these tubes. First, all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use
gave you a link
10)Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered Al Qaida safe haven in the region. After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain their today.
no one is willing to say this is true anymore
11) Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida.
this is true in the loosest possible sense, what exactly was forged when the iraqis didn't even give them answers?
12)Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery.
no collaborative relationship would mean this didn't happen
13)From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaida organization.
see 12
14)The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful
see 12
there's no problem over here. :)

[cal1082]

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1351
a bit on the tubes.

I actually think your right on the actual tubes themselves. I think I remember hearing something about them. It becomes a mute point though when you consider part of the centirfuge (which is what the US thought these tubes would be used for) was found buried in the backyard of an Iraqi scientist.

[cal1082]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.no.labs/
one instance of bullshit labs, there's more, i'll get them.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html

You're right on the mobile weapons lab. I had not heard those had been proven wrong.

[cal1082]

Ok I looked through your long post, three posts above this one and from what I've seen you haven't proven or were wrong on points #'s 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13

Now the reasons why you haven proven these false on each of them:

#4 --- You say yourself you'll find something later. I'd like to point out the bombs that were found by the UN a month or so prior to the war. These had holes in them that were intended for chemical weapons use. They were from the Gulf War and were suppose to be destroyed but never were. If I also remember right they found drones that could spray chemical weapons (I'm not sure on that one though.)

#6 --- They have found plants for producing chemical and bio weapons. If you look at the David Kar report he reports they've found:

"A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research."

"Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS)."

#7 --- Is pretty much your same accusation from #6

#10 --- You simply said no one is willing ot say this is true. Yet the fact he's operating in Iraq and has had refuge there since the start of the war suggests it is true. So you havent proven it wrong.

#11 --- 9/11 commission even says there were ties.

#12 --- You say no collaborative relationship means this is not true. How many times have I pointed out that they are talking about a collaborative relationship solely on the attacks on 9/11. They didn't look at the entire relationship.

#13 --- See the above, and same for #14.



Now........... lets look at 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9

#1 --- Of course it's not gonna all be factual. It's intelligence. I understand Powell said it is "fact". You have to understand Powell is trying to get all the other nations on board. What's he gonna say, "Well most of this is true, but there's a chance some of it's wrong." Yeah I'm sure that would have been the ticket to get everyone on board.

#2 --- You were correct

#3 --- Is the exact same assertion as #2, you just gave it an extra number.

#5 --- You'd be correct. We have not found and they have concluded that there are no bio weapons.

#8 --- You'd be correct. We have not found, and they have concluded that there are no chem weapons.

#9 --- The tubes did not seem to be for a centerfuge, but like I said when you find a partial centerfuge in a scientist backyard it makes this a mute point.


So in summary you are correct on 4 of your assertions. You are wrong about #'s 4, 6 and 7 are the same thing, and 11. So if you can prove #'s 10, 12, and 14 you can be right on those.

Right on ----- 4
Wrong on ---- 3
Havent proven --- 3

***You should really read the David Kay report, unless you think it's wrong too.***

[open mind]

you asked for 9 times powell was wrong it doesn't matter if they're repeats of the same lie each one is a time he was wrong.
#4,6,7 you have a link for that report?
#10 if no one is willing to say it's true it must not be true, or is that just CRAZY talk?
#11 like i said it's true in the loosest possible sense
#12,13 i'm not only talking about the 9/11 commision (although it's absurd for you to say they only investigated 9/11 which i've said plenty of times), look at what the cia has said recently.http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/Saddam_alQaeda_041005-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

you said i was right on 6 things, concerning number 9 it's still was wrong don't change what you asked for.

[cal1082]

#12,13 i'm not only talking about the 9/11 commision (although it's absurd for you to say they only investigated 9/11 which i've said plenty of times), look at what the cia has said recently

look back in old posts and you know what some of the commission said about the links:

"I must say I have trouble understanding the flak over this. The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is just what [Republican co-chairman Tom Kean] just said: We don't have any evidence of a cooperative or collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda with regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, that the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me." ------Democratic co-chairman Lee Hamilton

The only thing that's absurd is you arguing other wise. :lipsrseal

[cal1082]

you asked for 9 times powell was wrong it doesn't matter if they're repeats of the same lie each one is a time he was wrong.
#4,6,7 you have a link for that report?
#10 if no one is willing to say it's true it must not be true, or is that just CRAZY talk?
#11 like i said it's true in the loosest possible sense
#12,13 i'm not only talking about the 9/11 commision (although it's absurd for you to say they only investigated 9/11 which i've said plenty of times), look at what the cia has said recently.http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/Saddam_alQaeda_041005-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

you said i was right on 6 things, concerning number 9 it's still was wrong don't change what you asked for.

What I find most funny and ironic of all is that your lauding Powell for getting stuff wrong and you out of 12 things got 3 wrong right off the bat. :lol2:

[open mind]

What I find most funny and ironic of all is that your lauding Powell for getting stuff wrong and you out of 12 things got 3 wrong right off the bat. :lol2:
what's even funnier is that you're wrong, you said the first 3 things i mentioned were right. :lol2:

[open mind]

look back in old posts and you know what some of the commission said about the links:

"I must say I have trouble understanding the flak over this. The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is just what [Republican co-chairman Tom Kean] just said: We don't have any evidence of a cooperative or collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda with regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, that the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me." ------Democratic co-chairman Lee Hamilton

The only thing that's absurd is you arguing other wise. :lipsrseal
vice president? when were we talking about the vice president?
that's not all that's been said.

[cal1082]

what's even funnier is that you're wrong, you said the first 3 things i mentioned were right. :lol2:

They were correct, and then you proceeded to get 3 other one's wrong.

[open mind]

They were correct, and then you proceeded to get 3 other one's wrong.
you haven't proven anything wrong.
but guess what? even if i did get 3 wrong that leaves more then 9 correct, which is what you asked for.

[cal1082]

vice president? when were we talking about the vice president?
that's not all that's been said.

I dont care if they're tlaking about the VP, Rice, Powell, or jeb bush. Look at what they say in regards to the "collaborative relationship" and "9/11".

We don't have any evidence of a cooperative or collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda with regard to the attacks on the United States.

If you want to seem credible you have to be able to admit when you're wrong, and it's hard to argue with when it's plain as day above ^^^^^

[cal1082]

you haven't proven anything wrong.
but guess what? even if i did get 3 wrong that leaves more then 9 correct, which is what you asked for.

No it doesnt. You obviously didnt take the time to read my post. Hell all you had to do was read the last line. Tell you what I'm not gonna bother taking time to post to your long B.S. if you're not gonna bother reading mine.

Here's what I said on the last line. Plain as day again..........."Right on ---- 4". Get some reading comprehension skills please.

[open mind]

I dont care if they're tlaking about the VP, Rice, Powell, or jeb bush. Look at what they say in regards to the "collaborative relationship" and "9/11".

We don't have any evidence of a cooperative or collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda with regard to the attacks on the United States.

If you want to seem credible you have to be able to admit when you're wrong, and it's hard to argue with when it's plain as day above ^^^^^
now your the one who won't listen to what the intelligence community says.

[cal1082]

now your the one who won't listen to what the intelligence community says.

We don't have any evidence of a cooperative or collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda with regard to the attacks on the United States.

I even underlined it for you.

[open mind]

No it doesnt. You obviously didnt take the time to read my post. Hell all you had to do was read the last line. Tell you what I'm not gonna bother taking time to post to your long B.S. if you're not gonna bother reading mine.

Here's what I said on the last line. Plain as day again..........."Right on ---- 4". Get some reading comprehension skills please.
i read it, and your trying to wiggle out of shit, you asked me to point to 9 instances of bullshit, i did, you decided some didn't count (because suddenly a lie repeated doesn't count as a lie for some reason) and took issue with others, the ones you took issue with i further explained and asked for a link.
maybe i'm not the one with a reading comprehension problem.

[open mind]

We don't have any evidence of a cooperative or collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda with regard to the attacks on the United States.

I even underlined it for you.
i'm talking about a collaborative relationship PERIOD.

[open mind]

find something recent that wasn't part of something that's been shown to be filled with bullshit, if that's to hard to do somethings wrong.
i did my part (although you won't admit it) so you can at least try to find the 1 thing i asked for.

[cal1082]

You still only proved 4 wrong, but that's fine. It really didnt matter because there's no way you would believe the Powell speech even had you only proved 1 wrong.

Here's your reading material for Zarqawi/Iraq connection:

http://www.terroranalysis.com/story/38512.html
http://www.iraqinews.com/org_ansar_al-islam.shtml
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/levitt/levitt040104.htm


If you can read those links and dispell the connection between Zarqawi :: Jund al-Shams :: Ansar al-Islam :: and Iraq then go for it.

[richter915]

again I repeat...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20041006/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_weapons_041006215929

no WMDs since 1991.

[cal1082]

Of course the intelligence was wrong, but yes I do blame Bush for acting on bad intelligence. If he's willing to risk pre-emptive war, he has to be willing to take responsibility if something goes wrong. That's what it means to be in charge of everything, he's also responsible for everything.
If it was a Democrat in the office now, Republicans would be ripping him apart about this.

Thankyou God.......Someone has a legitimate, debatable argument. Openmind, MorningStar, Commotosa, Love Arson, and whoever else is on board the "Bush Lied" bandwagon take not of this post.

He actually raises a legitimate argument. He see's that a lot of the important intelligence that was gathered is wrong (this keeps you off the BUSH LIED boat and makes you more credible). On the other hand he blames Bush for acting on the bad intelligence.

THAT'S A FAIR COMPLAINT!!!!!!!!! (I would disagree because I think it's the job of the President to act on the intelligence he's given, but still it's a fair argument.)

Once again, thankyou God someone was able to make a legitmate point, and not simply make bold, assertions and assumptions they are unable to prove. Please Openmind, MorningStar, Commotosa, Love Arson.

This would go for the other side as well. Those who are on the "Kerry doesnt deserve his metals"---Uneccesary attacks on his wife --- attacking his patriotism, etc...... If you'd spend less of your time attacking things in the past, and making statements that are unprovable you could get your point out much better.

[richter915]

Thankyou God.......Someone has a legitimate, debatable argument. Openmind, MorningStar, Commotosa, Love Arson, and whoever else is on board the "Bush Lied" bandwagon take not of this post.

He actually raises a legitimate argument. He see's that a lot of the important intelligence that was gathered is wrong (this keeps you off the BUSH LIED boat and makes you more credible). On the other hand he blames Bush for acting on the bad intelligence.

THAT'S A FAIR COMPLAINT!!!!!!!!! (I would disagree because I think it's the job of the President to act on the intelligence he's given, but still it's a fair argument.)

Once again, thankyou God someone was able to make a legitmate point, and not simply make bold, assertions and assumptions they are unable to prove. Please Openmind, MorningStar, Commotosa, Love Arson.

This would go for the other side as well. Those who are on the "Kerry doesnt deserve his metals"---Uneccesary attacks on his wife --- attacking his patriotism, etc...... If you'd spend less of your time attacking things in the past, and making statements that are unprovable you could get your point out much better.
ya well that's politics for you.

undefinedboy would be the worst politician in the world if he went by those comments.

but we're not politicians...we're human...I dunno about the others but what undefinedboy said hits the nail on the head...he didn't "lie" (if I said that before I am wrong)...but he did help spread false information and started a war on SOME (not all) weak assumptions...he should accept that he was mistaken and I think he can be given SOME (not all) the blame for those who've died serving in this war.

[cal1082]

ya well that's politics for you.

undefinedboy would be the worst politician in the world if he went by those comments.

but we're not politicians...we're human...I dunno about the others but what undefinedboy said hits the nail on the head...he didn't "lie" (if I said that before I am wrong)...but he did help spread false information and started a war on SOME (not all) weak assumptions...he should accept that he was mistaken and I think he can be given SOME (not all) the blame for those who've died serving in this war.

Again that's a fair assesment. I think you have to remember as well that it wasn't just Bush that was fooled. Many (like the people I listed earlier) well have you believe the intelligence was purposely made up, but if you want to believe this you also have to believe Israel, Great Britian, Saudi Arabia, etc......helped in making up this intelligence because a lot of it came from these countries. Also the UN was fooled. You have to remember there is still a lot of unaccounted for WMD's from Iraq when the inspectors were there. Iraq never said what happened to them and never showed documentation about what happened to them. Up until November of 2002 everyone who signed the last resolution believed Iraq had WMD's. It was just Bush crafting a scheme. For as stupid as many think he is, you sure do give him a lot of credit here.

[open mind]

You still only proved 4 wrong, but that's fine. It really didnt matter because there's no way you would believe the Powell speech even had you only proved 1 wrong.

Here's your reading material for Zarqawi/Iraq connection:

http://www.terroranalysis.com/story/38512.html
http://www.iraqinews.com/org_ansar_al-islam.shtml
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/levitt/levitt040104.htm


If you can read those links and dispell the connection between Zarqawi :: Jund al-Shams :: Ansar al-Islam :: and Iraq then go for it.
you are full of shit, but i've know that for a long time.
not recent, the cia has cast doubts about the zarqawi iraq connections much more recently.
not al queda (remember we're talking about the iraq/al queda connection here) and not recent.
doesn't say anything about pre-war assertions on the iraq al queda link.

[open mind]

Thankyou God.......Someone has a legitimate, debatable argument. Openmind, MorningStar, Commotosa, Love Arson, and whoever else is on board the "Bush Lied" bandwagon take not of this post.

He actually raises a legitimate argument. He see's that a lot of the important intelligence that was gathered is wrong (this keeps you off the BUSH LIED boat and makes you more credible). On the other hand he blames Bush for acting on the bad intelligence.

THAT'S A FAIR COMPLAINT!!!!!!!!! (I would disagree because I think it's the job of the President to act on the intelligence he's given, but still it's a fair argument.)

Once again, thankyou God someone was able to make a legitmate point, and not simply make bold, assertions and assumptions they are unable to prove. Please Openmind, MorningStar, Commotosa, Love Arson.

This would go for the other side as well. Those who are on the "Kerry doesnt deserve his metals"---Uneccesary attacks on his wife --- attacking his patriotism, etc...... If you'd spend less of your time attacking things in the past, and making statements that are unprovable you could get your point out much better.
when did i say bush lied?
your delusional, i've backed what i've said,
never underestimate the power of denial.

[UndefinedBoy]

Thankyou God.......Someone has a legitimate, debatable argument. Openmind, MorningStar, Commotosa, Love Arson, and whoever else is on board the "Bush Lied" bandwagon take not of this post.

He actually raises a legitimate argument. He see's that a lot of the important intelligence that was gathered is wrong (this keeps you off the BUSH LIED boat and makes you more credible). On the other hand he blames Bush for acting on the bad intelligence.

THAT'S A FAIR COMPLAINT!!!!!!!!! (I would disagree because I think it's the job of the President to act on the intelligence he's given, but still it's a fair argument.)

Once again, thankyou God someone was able to make a legitmate point, and not simply make bold, assertions and assumptions they are unable to prove. Please Openmind, MorningStar, Commotosa, Love Arson.

This would go for the other side as well. Those who are on the "Kerry doesnt deserve his metals"---Uneccesary attacks on his wife --- attacking his patriotism, etc...... If you'd spend less of your time attacking things in the past, and making statements that are unprovable you could get your point out much better.

Glad I could make your day!

I would also agree that sometimes it is the presidents job to act on intelligence he's been given. I won't say for sure if this is one of those times because I was never in his position, but it seems now he shouldn't have without further investigation and planning. But what this administration has yet to do is admit error in this whole mess. All they have done is pass the blame to anyone below them they can. As I said before, if you're going to be in charge, you have to be responsible.

God says your welcome! :lol2:

[UndefinedBoy]

undefinedboy would be the worst politician in the world if he went by those comments.

You're right, good thing I'm not looking to go into politics!

[cal1082]

you are full of shit, but i've know that for a long time.
not recent, the cia has cast doubts about the zarqawi iraq connections much more recently.
not al queda (remember we're talking about the iraq/al queda connection here) and not recent.
doesn't say anything about pre-war assertions on the iraq al queda link.

you simply asked for something recent that linked Zarqawi and Iraq. 2 of those are from march and april of this year.

[open mind]

you simply asked for something recent that linked Zarqawi and Iraq. 2 of those are from march and april of this year.
march and april aren't recent, the cia in the few weeks said they don't really think there was a connection. http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/Saddam_alQaeda_041005-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
also none of those links say zarqawi is al queda

[cal1082]

march and april aren't recent, the cia in the few weeks said they don't really think there was a connection.
also none of those links say zarqawi is al queda

April was 4 months ago?

Also it's funny how you use the CIA here to back your assertions (i haven't read the recent CIA reports you refer to), but yet Colin Powell's speech is completely wrong? And most his info. came from the CIA.

That's kinda strange and ironic.

[open mind]

April was 4 months ago?

Also it's funny how you use the CIA here to back your assertions (i haven't read the recent CIA reports you refer to), but yet Colin Powell's speech is completely wrong? And most his info. came from the CIA.

That's kinda strange and ironic.
april isn't recent (and it's more then 4 months ago :lipsrseal ) something in the last month is recent, which i've given you a link to.
you realize that can be easily flipped to you right?
i never said powells speach was completly wrong i said it was filled with bullshit.

[cal1082]

april isn't recent (and it's more then 4 months ago :lipsrseal ) something in the last month is recent, which i've given you a link to.
you realize that can be easily flipped to you right?
i never said powells speach was completly wrong i said it was filled with bullshit.

the powell speach is filled with bona fide bullshit, i'm not going to take it seriously.

But you take seriously a CIA report you have yet to read? Seems fair......

[open mind]

yes that's what i said and i think i showed how it was filled with bullshit (you've yet to prove me wrong on any of my statements), notice that i didn't say it was completly wrong?
i thought you said it was stupid to doubt what your intelligence community tells you? :lipsrseal

[cal1082]

yes that's what i said, notice that i didn't say it was completly wrong?
i thought you said it was stupid to doubt what your intelligence community tells you? :lipsrseal

It is, and this report hasnt even been released. We have no idea what all it says.

[open mind]

It is.
so you think there really wasn't a saddam/zqrqawi link then right?
we do have an idea what it says, someone from the intelligence community said what to expect.

[richter915]

holy crap...you guys totally jacked my thread...oh well have fun...I like reading this whole thing.

[cal1082]

so you think there really wasn't a saddam/zarqawi link then right?

No, I think there was. I've yet to read this new CIA report.

You never did dispell the connection of these Zarqawi :: Jund al-Shams :: Ansar al-Islam :: and Iraq .......... go for it

[open mind]

holy crap...you guys totally jacked my thread...oh well have fun...I like reading this whole thing.
we're still talking about the alleged iraq/al queda link

[cal1082]

so you think there really wasn't a saddam/zqrqawi link then right?
we do have an idea what it says, someone from the intelligence community said what to expect.

from what i understand an unamed senior US official said what to expect.

[open mind]

No, I think there was. I've yet to read this new CIA report.

You never did dispell the connection of these Zarqawi :: Jund al-Shams :: Ansar al-Islam :: and Iraq .......... go for it
have you read the intelligence reports powell saw and then used to make the case for war?

[cal1082]

No, I think there was. I've yet to read this new CIA report.

You never did dispell the connection of these Zarqawi :: Jund al-Shams :: Ansar al-Islam :: and Iraq .......... go for it

like i said you go on the intel you have. when new intel comes out you exam it.

[richter915]

we're still talking about the alleged iraq/al queda link
it's all good in the 'hood amigo.

[cal1082]

have you read the intelligence reports powell saw and then used to make the case for war?

i read what the cia gave him about Zarqawi, because it was in his speech.

[open mind]

like i said you go on the intel you have. when new intel comes out you exam it.
have you examined the intelligence reports powell based his speach to the u.n. on?

[cal1082]

You're not catching me in any double talk. I've said from the beginning you act on the intelligence you have. If this new cia report comes out and says that they now have doubts about the connection then you take a step back and look at all your information again.

What you're trying to say is there is no connection at all according to this new CIA document, which you havent read. If you wish to go by what the unnamed source says then you would see he says there's no definitive answer. He's not saying there's no connection though.

[cal1082]

have you examined the intelligence reports powell based his speach to the u.n. on?

no

[open mind]

i read what the cia gave him about Zarqawi, because it was in his speech.
so you haven't read most of what the intelligence powell was given, yet you accepted it as fact.

[open mind]

no
but you believed all of it.

[cal1082]

so you haven't read most of what the intelligence powell was given, yet you accepted it as fact.

the intelligence the CIA gave Powell was used in his speech, so in essance, yes we've all seen what the intelligence was that was given to Powell. But have I read the actual documents, no, and I doubt I'll ever have the chance to for many years.

[cal1082]

but you believed all of it.

believed all of Powell's speech? Yes, when he gave his speech I took what he said for being mostly correct. Like I've said time and time again you have to realize it's intelligence and things can be wrong though. You still have to act on your intel though.

[open mind]

the intelligence the CIA gave Powell was used in his speech, so in essance, yes we've all seen what the intelligence was that was given to Powell. But have I read the actual documents, no, and I doubt I'll ever have the chance to for many years.
so you didn't read the inteligence reports but you accepted them as fact, now you say that can't be done.

[cal1082]

so you didn't read the inteligence reports but you accepted them as fact, now you say that can't be done.

What the hell are you talking about? I saw the intelligence because it was in Powell's speech. We havent seen any new intelligence from this new CIA document. Have you, because it hasnt been released and no one has commented on the intelligence in the document that i've seen?

[commatosa]

What the hell are you talking about? I saw the intelligence because it was in Powell's speech. We havent seen any new intelligence from this new CIA document. Have you, because it hasnt been released and no one has commented on the intelligence in the document that i've seen?

Cal, this is totally off the subject (and might seem like a stupid question). But do you go to Texas A&M? Cause I've loved the aggies football since I was a little kid. I was born in Ft. Hood and grew up in Killeen, TX. Just curious.

[cal1082]

Cal, this is totally off the subject (and might seem like a stupid question). But do you go to Texas A&M? Cause I've loved the aggies football since I was a little kid. I was born in Ft. Hood and grew up in Killeen, TX. Just curious.

Yep, and we actually seem to have a decent team this year.

[commatosa]

Yep, and we actually seem to have a decent team this year.

Good, I've always pulled for them. I hope they bring back the old powerhouse.

[venus/bacchus]

to continue this off top convo...hook 'em horns!

Major Applewhite!

[cal1082]

to continue this off top convo...hook 'em horns!

Major Applewhite!

It's my dirty secret but I like Texas football. Always have.

[commatosa]

It's my dirty secret but I like Texas football. Always have.

Awe, you sellout :lol2: I should have suspected that you guys like UT. We are arch-rivals on everything. Well, my preferred school is Washington State University. Who, by the way, whooped the Longhorns in the Holiday Bowl last week :waglleybo

[commatosa]

I mean last YEAR.

[cal1082]

Awe, you sellout :lol2: I should have suspected that you guys like UT. We are arch-rivals on everything. Well, my preferred school is Washington State University. Who, by the way, whooped the Longhorns in the Holiday Bowl last week :waglleybo

Oh, at the A&M UT game last year I was rooting for the aggs. I just grew up watching UT football.

[commatosa]

Oh, at the A&M UT game last year I was rooting for the aggs. I just grew up watching UT football.

I can relate. I always liked the Huskies (UW). Then my brother went to WSU and I've been a die hard Cougar fan since. Anyway, I've always loved the Aggies.

[venus/bacchus]

Awe, you sellout :lol2: I should have suspected that you guys like UT. We are arch-rivals on everything. Well, my preferred school is Washington State University. Who, by the way, whooped the Longhorns in the Holiday Bowl last week :waglleybo
I actually don't like UT at all anymore...I just watched when Major Applewhite played (needless to say I was pissed when he got benched for Simms)...and I liked TJ Ford

I'm a die hard Michigan fan

[commatosa]

I actually don't like UT at all anymore...I just watched when Major Applewhite played (needless to say I was pissed when he got benched for Simms)...and I liked TJ Ford

I'm a die hard Michigan fan

YES! Go Wolverines. That's another school I love. I HATE OSU.

[richter915]

college football...in MY thread??? I think not....

[venus/bacchus]

YES! Go Wolverines. That's another school I love. I HATE OSU.
maize and blue all the way baby

I live in Toledo (Ann Arbor's only 45 minutes away, but we're in Ohio), so it's madness with the OSU-UM game rolls around. I'd say it's about 50/50 UM - OSU fans, so it's obviously the best time of year.

[open mind]

What the hell are you talking about? I saw the intelligence because it was in Powell's speech. We havent seen any new intelligence from this new CIA document. Have you, because it hasnt been released and no one has commented on the intelligence in the document that i've seen?
it looks like someones seen this new report.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041004/pl_nm/iraq_usa_rumsfeld_dc_2