home

Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focus Should Be on Osama, the Taliban and Insurgency

Received by e-mail from some Democrats on Capitol Hill:

" This morning on CNN Daybreak (scroll to bottom for transcript) Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC) directly asserted multiple times that there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq/Saddam Hussein. Last night, President Bush alluded to it 6 times and today other Republicans are asserting that evidence that no one can see exists as to the connection between 9/11 and Iraq exists.

The facts, however, completely undermine all of these fictitious assertions. Among the many sources refuting Rep. Hayes and others claiming Iraqi ties to 9/11 are:

  • President George Bush: "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th." [FNS, 9/17/03]
  • NSC Chair Condaleeza Rice: "...We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either, that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11." [ABC, 9/16/03]
  • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that [Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11th attacks]." [CNN, 9/16/03]

  • Secretary of State Colin Powell told the public that there was no "smoking gun [or] concrete evidence" of links between al Qaeda and Iraq. (New York Times, "Powell Admits No Hard Proof In Linking Iraq to Al Qaeda, 1/9/04)
  • The 9/11 Commission found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda. (Washington Post, "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed," 6/17/04)
  • "The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein." - NY Times, 6/27/03
  • U.S. allies have found no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. 'We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda,' said Europe's top investigator. 'If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.' - LA Times, 11/4/02"

Claim v. Fact by CAP and House Gov. Reform Committee's On the Record Section :

An attempt to resuscitate the 9/11-Iraq linkage should not distract people from the cruel facts on the ground:

  • Osama bin-Laden -- the man behind the 9/11 attacks - remains on the loose more than 1,800 days after the attacks
  • The Taliban appear to be regrouping in Afghanistan
  • The insurgency continues to gain new foreign supporters in Iraq.

HAYES TRANSCRIPT: From CNN Daybreak this morning

COSTELLO: But that's not what it started out, when the United States invaded Iraq.

It's changed, hasn't it?

HAYES: I don't think it's changed at all. It's very clear that terrorists are connected to what Saddam Hussein was all about. And that again faces up to the most severe threat going forward...

COSTELLO: But there is no...

HAYES: We have to do a good job explaining...

COSTELLO: ... evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to al Qaeda.

HAYES: Ma'am, I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. There's evidence everywhere. We get access to it, unfortunately others don't. But the evidence is very clear.

COSTELLO: What evidence is there?

HAYES: The connection between individuals who were connected to Saddam Hussein, folks who worked for him, we've seen it time and time again. But the issue is where are we now. Nobody disputes 9/11. They would do that again if not prevented. Preventing 9/11 wherever it might happen in America, winning the war overseas, not bringing it here to our shores, is the issue in that regard.

COSTELLO: Well, are you saying that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11?

HAYES: I'm saying that Saddam Hussein -- and I think you're losing track of what we're trying to talk about here -- Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11. Did he make the phone call and say...

COSTELLO: There's no evidence of that.

HAYES: Well, I'm sorry, you haven't looked in the right places.

COSTELLO: I must not have, because I know of no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda. And, also, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And many people writing to us this morning wanted the president to explain those things.

HAYES: Well, we would be glad to explain it. I'd love to talk to those people face-to-face because hundreds of thousands of Kurds were gassed and killed, biological weapons were used. Fortunately, nuclear weapons weren't there. That's one smoking gun we didn't find. But it's very clear he would have used it if he could. The terrorists that remain would clearly use nuclear, biological, chemical, any other kind of weapon to destroy you, me and our families.

"

< The Pre-War Period and Downing St. Memo | Thoughts on Kelo and Judicial Activism >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#1)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    Gee They are not telling the truth. Who would have guessed they would resort to that. I'm assuming the left wing MSM will club them to death over this.

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    The US did nothing when Saddam was gassing the Kurds in fact they obstructed the investigation. As far as the rest of the interview, what a pathetic attempt at spin. Do we need more than the 9-11 commission which clearly states no involvement between Iraq and Al Qaeda and 9-11?

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#3)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    hundreds of thousands of Kurds were gassed and killed Gawl, the exaggerate everything:
    the 1988 Anfal campaign amounted to an extermination campaign against the Kurds of Iraq, resulting in the deaths of at least 50,000 and perhaps as many as 100,000 persons, many of them women and children. Baghdad launched about 40 gas attacks against Iraqi Kurdish targets in 1987-88, with thousands killed.
    The terrorists that remain would clearly use nuclear, biological, chemical, any other kind of weapon to destroy you, me and our families He's scaring us again. Did little birds fly away when he goes outside, too?

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    Funny, the reagan administration chalked the anfal campaing to suppressing insurgents.

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    I think the old adage applies...if you repeat a lie often enough, you start to believe it yourself. What a wicked web they weave.

    They will stop at nothing to justify what they have done. first it was WMD's then it was "God's will that everyone be free." Now it's this. Im not surprised at all.

    "oh What a Tangled Web we weave/ when first we practice to deceive.." --Walter Scott "But when we've woven for some while/ How vastly we improve our style.." --attributed to Lord Acton

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#9)
    by SeeEmDee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    More and more, this Administration's motivation for the invasion of Iraq is sounding like a petulant, inarticulate child's attempt to justify their actions with "Because!". Tens of thousands of "Eye-rackees" slaughtered..."because!". Nearly two thousand American troops killed..."because!". Our treasury looted and the National Debt ballooning, the principal of which is being held by nations like China with aspirations of their own (that may not include America as "Number One" any longer than it suits them)..."because!". And when the finmancial shoes finally start dropping, will we hear the explanation for the eventual Crash as being "because!"?

    et al... Let me see if I can explain it one more time. Did Saddam actually fund or plan 9/11? NO. Nobody EVER claimed he did. Did he help other terrorist activities (groups) via safe harbor, rewards for suicide bomber families...etc..etc... YES. Are the two related ... that is to say they are united in their hate for America and wish to see as much harm on us as possible.... YES! Is closing down a country like that and rounding up most of the US haters in one spot where we can fight them outside the US a good thing? Again the answer is YES! Any clearer now?

    'Because' because it wouldn't do to mention the FIFTEEN AIRBASES and the plan to dismantle Iraq so that they can stay there permanently. It also wouldn't do to mention the massive Qatar airbases, or the many airbases in Afghanistan which guard Cheney's new oil and gas pipelines. It also wouldn't do to note that USPNAC illegally transfered Afghanistan-invasion funding to the Iraq illegal invasion, including transferring troops and specialists from the Hunt for Bin Laden to the Airbase-invasion of Iraq. Or that the Bush-fuhrer only put 2,000 troops in the Hunt in the first place, compared to 130,000 into disarmed (and therefore prone) Iraq. Or that Bin Laden was allowed to escape Tora Bora, by relying on Taliban warlords, his allies, to guard his escape. Indeed, there is no good evidence available that Bin Laden was ever willing to live in the mountains on gruel for his religion. He is rich; his family is rich; he could care less; mission accomplished. Bin Laden is back home in the land of Saud, living it up, and the Mossad and USPNAC are laughing the whole way to the bank. Bush's smirk is just the icing on the cake of lies.

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#12)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    BB... such a plan needs to be workable and affordable. On-the-ground UN inspections would have cost some hundreds of millions of dollars a year; US invasion and occupation is running up a bill in excess of hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars a year. Dubya's daddy complained about tax-and-spend democrats; dubya's toadies are cut-and-charge-it possť members.

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#13)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    Any clearer now?
    No. Their reasons for invasion and occupation remain as murky as ever.

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    please provide links for your delusions. All the 9/11 commission and inspectors before, during, after the war said saddam did not harbor terrorists and had nothing to do with 9/11. The muslim extremists didn't like the secular hussein. the terrorists weren't these until after we invaded, see cia report that iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorists. 'breeding' means they weren't terrorists before. we've certainly assured that there are a lot more people in the world who hate the US now.
    Saddam actually fund or plan 9/11? NO. Nobody EVER claimed he did.
    Do you ever actually read the posts? the ahole hayes said " Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11."

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    Did Saddam actually fund or plan 9/11? NO. Nobody EVER claimed he did.
    "If we're successful in Iraq, we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."
    OOoooo... Who told this fib, was it Satan? Or was it Dick Cheney?

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#16)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    BB, according to the CIA chief, who says he has "an excellent idea" of where Osama bin Laden is, he is somewhere near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. And nobody has ever claimed that he was anywhere near Iraq. So if you want to round up "terrorists who hate America", what are 250,000 troops doing in Iraq? Why aren't they scouring the mountains of Afghanistan? Why is it up to the Pakistanis to (pretend they want to) look for him? The Bush spin appears to be that Saddam and the 9-11 terrorists have an ideology in common. That's not even true. You can accuse Saddam of a lot of things, but not of being an Islamic fundamentalist. Bush doesn't have a leg to stand on. The question is, how many people are still willing to believe anything he says?

    ok..ok..one at a time.... Darryl P On-the-ground UN inspections would have cost some hundreds of millions of dollars a year; And would have been totally ineffective. Wasn't it the UN that just kept giving Saddam a pass on the sanctions against him? Sailor.... All the 9/11 commission and inspectors before, during, after the war said saddam did not harbor terrorists Yeah... that's why several were found living there!!! Who's delusional Sailor? the ahole hayes said " Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11." Who the hell is hayes? Besides..that's a true statement. Saddam, by way of helping terrorists (rewarding them & giving them safe heaven), is very much to blame! desertswine... I just love the way you guys quote stuff but totally miss the point. Just like Big Dick Durban here in Illinois. Quote the 'words' and spin them all you want. We all know what he meant. The Middle East is & has been a hot bed of terrorism for decades and Saddem (who terrorized his own people - not to mention those in neighboring Kuwait) is right in the middle of that hot bed! Al... Why aren't they scouring the mountains of Afghanistan? Umm Al...they are and have been. Don't worry... they'll get him. He can't hide forever. The Bush spin appears to be that Saddam and the 9-11 terrorists have an ideology in common. They do! They all hate & want to see the US fall. See my comment about "hot bed" above. That's good enough for me Al. Eventually you all will realize this is about kill or be killed.

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    Ok I will bite, please provide me a list of Iraqi suicide bombers prior to 9-11 and all Iraqis accused and or tried for terrorism. Also, please provide a list of terrorists that Saddam harbored. As far as I know, Al Zarqawi lived in Iraq but was not harbored by Hussein. He did not live in a palatial estate nor did he receive special accomodations or protection. As I recall the people that attacked us were overwhelmingly Saudi and definitely harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Prior to 9-11 there is not one recorded incident of an Iraqi suicide bomber. Nor has any evidence been presented that Saddam was harboring terrorists. There is no question that he was sending money to palestinian suicide bombers' families, but not evidence again of Iraq being a haven for terrorists. If you are going to cast spurrilous allegations, you ought to at least provide a list of terrorists he was harboring, lists of terror activities he financed, lists of terror incidents he planned and coordinated and evidence to substantiate. Until then, the allegation should and will be considered false.

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#19)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    On-the-ground UN inspections would have cost some hundreds of millions of dollars a year; And would have been totally ineffective. Wasn't it the UN that just kept giving Saddam a pass on the sanctions against him?
    ...there were NO "weapons of mass destruction" to find. Dubya gave a laundry-list of WMD's in his 2003 State of the Union. The barrelhead remains empty accept for the bill and the blood (and our humanity, our grace, and our compassion). I used to characterize Iraq as a surgery patient with a healthy appendix..., now I see Iraq as Terry Schiavo: dead and everybody's still arguing over the breathing corpse. These. are. dark. days. indeed.

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    bb, once again, provide links for your delusions. BTW, I have 'several' terrorists living in my state. Does that mean bush is responsible for terrorism?

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#21)
    by krazycory on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    BB iraq did harbour terrorists so with that mentality i guess we should invade new jersey and florida!!! with that mentality the usa harboured the people that flew the planes on 9-11

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#22)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    No BB, there are 250,000 troops in Iraq who are not scouring the mountains of Afghanistan. The Pakistani army is in charge of finding Osama. And they are doing a lousy job. Why are all the American troops in Iraq? It's all very well to say "Don't worry, he can't hide for ever", but why have thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars been wasted in not looking for him? The occupation of Iraq has now lasted what, over two years? What has been achieved? Bush said very clearly in his speech that the loss of lives had been worth it. I really beg to differ. Show me how this imperial enterprise has been worth the destruction and the carnage.

    Jlvgstn... Ok I will bite, please provide me a list of Iraqi suicide bombers prior to 9-11 Who said anything about Iraqi suicide bombers? Besides..most of these idiots aren't even Iraqi! Also, please provide a list of terrorists that Saddam harbored. I don't remember their names. (they all sound the same to me) One of them was the guy that masterminded the Italian Cruise ship hijacking (Accili Lauro...sp?) when an American tourist was pushed overboard in his wheelchair. Remember that? OF course you don't ...like most libs your memory is selective. Anyway, you can Google can't you? I'm not going to waste my time providing you links that you won't look at or won't believe if you do. Al Zarqawi lived in Iraq but was not harbored by Hussein. He did not live in a palatial estate nor did he receive special accomodations or protection. OK.. I'll bite... please provide a link for this delusional statement! Prior to 9-11 there is not one recorded incident of an Iraqi suicide bomber. Again a link please? And ... what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Your point is what exactly? There is no question that he was sending money to palestinian suicide bombers' families, but not evidence again of Iraq being a haven for terrorists. Again... link please? Oh...I'm sorry. So he was just kinda wrong? He only sent money so we are wrong in blaming him at all? You are willing to let that first 'minor' detail go? Are you listening to what you are saying? Until then, the allegation should and will be considered false. Yes indeed! That goes double for you!

    Darryl P... ...there were NO "weapons of mass destruction" to find. Yes there were. He used them on his own people. Are you a teenager? If not, you should be old enough to remember that? Plus, every major intellegence agency also said so. Most of the Dem party even agreed. Do you remember any of this? I mean I know libs have very selective memories but Jeeeez! Dubya gave a laundry-list of WMD's in his 2003 State of the Union. Yes...and Saddam had them all. The fact we didn't find much evidence doesn't mean he didn't have them.

    Sailor... BTW, I have 'several' terrorists living in my state Link please? I can play the 'link' game too. If I have to explain the difference between an unknown somebody 'living' in a place... and a known 'bad person' being given a place to stay... We are in for a long session. Does that mean bush is responsible for terrorism? I can't believe I'm actually explaining this...but... Yes, if one of the 9/11 hijackers lived and was granted a place in the US to live...then Yes... GW would be guilty. Got it?

    krazycory... Yes, you are crazy... Please see my anser to Sailor above.

    Al... No BB, there are 250,000 troops in Iraq who are not scouring the mountains of Afghanistan Al...there are still thousands of troops in Afghanistan too. but why have thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars been wasted in not looking for him? Because Al... Osama is just a figurehead. Would we like to get him? Sure. But getting him isn't going to stop anything that's going on now. The guys actually in Iraq causing problems are a higher priority now...don't you agree? Spending all that time a money looking for him would be "the waste" you are refering to. The occupation of Iraq has now lasted what, over two years? What has been achieved? Iraq is now a free country...has held elections. Thousands of crazy extremists are dead... other countries in the ME are now very aware that if they aid and harbor terrorists they are in danger too....and last but not least.. there has been no more terrorist attacks in the US. Any more questions?

    Paul in LA La Dude...put the crack pipe down... please! Nice (delusional) talking points...but alas...no links (something all you guys are quick to ask for every time) And BTW...I'm very proud of you not mentioning the "stolen election" until point #11. You are getting better aren't you?

    Yes there were. He used them on his own people. Are you a teenager? If not, you should be old enough to remember that?
    Are you old enough to remember that we sold him the stuff and supported him at the time?? By the time we invaded the WMD had been long gone. C'mon, man you can do better than that, can't you?

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#31)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    BB, you remind me of Bush's own flip-flopping over the importance of OBL. Joel Connelly puts it succinctly:
    Two days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our No. 1 priority, and we will not rest until we find him." Six months later, laying political groundwork for the Iraq war, the president said: "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
    I think you will find, BB, that most people here are pretty savvy about current affairs, and you can't simply spew propaganda and expect anyone to take you seriously. Statements like "put the crack pipe down" are just childish. There must be someone on the right who can put together a reasoned argument?

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#32)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    Since bb refuses or is unable to provide any liks for his allegations I suggest just ignoring him. Maybe he'll go away;-)

    Nice try on the spin, BB, but you are an idiot. "...there were NO "weapons of mass destruction" to find." "Yes there were. He used them on his own people." O'Reilly! Too bad for this kind of logic, WMD of the sort Hussein used in the Anfal were USELESS by 1995. You want to justify the illegal invasion on that? A-HA-HA-HA. What a dope you are. Shelf life doesn't just affect WMD, it clearly has affected your brain. Not only that, you're a troll.

    Well, nevermind about being a troll. With your talking points, being a troll is about all you can be. You can do the research yourself, but what, pray tell, do you consider suspicious? Because in the SIX consecutive posts of BLATHER, you didn't bother to use YOUR links to dispute ANY of those points. What, are you taking non-responsive lessons from Jim?

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    BB buy a dictionary and look up harboring, it will do you argument a world of good. Secondly, 3 terrorists living in Iraq does not equate to harboring. Multiply that number by 10000 and you have Saudi Arabia or Sudan or Indonesia. Suicide bombing is one of the primary weapons of terrorists and I have done the research, prior to 9-11 there were no, count them zero, Iraqi suicide bombers. Your argument is futile at best and once again clearly demonstrates and proves that many who support this war have no friggin clue as to what the facts are. Just because Rush or O'Reilly say, don't make it so.

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    BB as an aside, the burden of proof falls on you, you are making the allegations of a terrorist state which was a primary reason for the war. A lack of WMD, which we were "certain" to find were never located, nor was there any evidence of harboring of terrorists. Sounds to me as if you are too lazy to do some actual research and are content with taking information disseminated from your party and media choice as gospel. It is a shame but not surprising as most of your arguments are consistent with that of a dolt.

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#37)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:45 PM EST
    with aplogies to JVL, Shorter JVL:Since bb refuses or is unable to provide any liks for his allegations I suggest just ignoring him. Maybe he'll go away;-)

    Re: Don't Fall for the 9/11 Bait and Switch: Focu (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:45 PM EST
    you are right sailor, i am only feeding a troll

    Ernesto... Are you old enough to remember that we sold him the stuff and supported him at the time?? I know we supported him against Iran...but as far as "selling" him chemical weapons.... let's see a link! All you guys are soooo hyped up on links & my lack of supplying them, how about practicing what you preach. By the time we invaded the WMD had been long gone. Well Ernesto ... you need to get a job with some intel agency...because every major one on earth said differently! You obviously have info they don't!

    Al.... BB, you remind me of Bush's own flip-flopping over the importance of OBL. In a war...things change. What was important ...(an Island or base)when the war starts might not be so important as the war goes on. Why is it you guys have such a hard time grasping that? Al Zarcowi (sp?) is much more of a threat now than Osama is. Why isn't that clear to you? I think you will find, BB, that most people here are pretty savvy about current affairs, That maybe so...but most of you have a very selective (read that to be "crappy") long term memory. And besides, if you are getting all your info on current affairs from the very biased news media...you're missing alot. When was the last time any news had anything positive to say about Iraq? But they'll sure show you the latest bombing won't they?

    Sailor... Since bb refuses or is unable to provide any liks for his allegations I suggest just ignoring him. I ask for links too & never get them...So? Most of you just can't stand another point of view... so ignor away.

    bb hey dude, here's your link on giving Saddam chemical and biological technology in the 80's... And the broader strokes here on the whole Iran debacle... enjoy...

    Paul in La La O'Reilly! Too bad for this kind of logic, WMD of the sort Hussein used in the Anfal were USELESS by 1995. You want to justify the illegal invasion on that? You are so smart ...sorry I'm just an idiot. So that's it... Paul sez anything he had was useless by 1995! Man o man...where do you get your info. I guess the Government should hire you huh? Dude...where's the link on this outstanding news? Oh that's right, a Rhode Scholar like you can spout any drivel you want & not supply one huh? (then jump on me for not supplying one)...LOL Amazing!

    Don't forget to check the link on giving Iraq WMD's in the 80's, bb...and hurry back... We'll all be waiting to see what sauce you put on your crow pie before you consume it...

    Jlvgsntn.... A lack of WMD, which we were "certain" to find were never located, nor was there any evidence of harboring of terrorists. How many times do you guys need to be reminded that ALL THE MAJOR INTEL AGENCIES AGREED HE HAD THEM before you guys get it? So many references to Bush lying & how we did this & we didn't do that, when the rest of the world agreed with us. But that's ok...just close your eyes to the "facts" and keep spouting hate for GW... that will get you guys far. Sorry to bust your bubble... but all that evidence is there...you (& your kind) just fail to believe it. BTW...Bush was re-elected by a MAJORITY of the Amwerican public...so who are the dolts?

    Don't be a bloody fool, livingstone...we all know Bush kicked the inspectors out of Iraq before the invasion and the most recent and accurate info was that there was nothing left...and Bush still went in...so don't use years-old intel to justify a new war... And it's funny you point out how everyone else had the same intel... And what did everyone else do? And what did America do? Case closed...

    Oopss that was for bb not jliv...sorry j... Hey bb, you still haven't got back to us on that WMD's to Saddam not proven... Are you still spelling the big words out?

    uh, bb, that quote is from Blagh's blog on how Iran's new Prez is old friends with George's Daddy...here's the quote from the first link, ok? It talks about Rumsfeld He served in nearly a dozen special postings of one sort or another from 1982 to 2000. Perhaps the most memorable of these roles came during the Reagan administration, when Rumsfeld was named special presidential envoy to the Middle East. According to the Washington Post and others, Rumsfeld was a major proponent of the Reagan administration's support of Iraq and its dictator Saddam Hussein. As a conciliatory gesture, the U.S. removed Iraq from its list of state sponsors of terrorism in 1982, paving the way for Rumsfeld to visit Baghdad in 1983, about the midpoint of the decade-long Iran-Iraq war. At the time, intelligence reports indicated the Iraqis were using illegal chemical weapons against Iran "almost daily." During several trips to Iraq, Rumsfeld told government officials that the U.S. would consider an Iraqi loss to Iran a major strategic defeat. In a personal meeting with Saddam Hussein in December 1983, Rumsfeld told the Butcher of Baghdad that the U.S. wanted to restore full diplomatic relations with Iraq. In 2002, Rumsfeld tried to put a gloss on this meeting by claiming that he warned Hussein against using banned weapons, but that claim was unsupported by the State Department's notes on the meeting...."

    Let us know how that pie tastes, bb...

    And bb, before you shoot down Blag's blog as partisan, have you provided any proof that anything in the blog is incorrect? 'Cause otherwise, you've got egg all over your face..

    Blagdaddy... Well it certainly isn't any secret what side of the fence you are on...So I'm SURE all the stuff on your site is ALL factual... that aside... At the time, intelligence reports indicated the Iraqis were using illegal chemical weapons against Iran "almost daily." OK..so those "intelligence reports" are believed by the left, but the ones that said Saddam had WMD's are all BS? Intersting... I'd call that selective reasoning, wouldn't you agree? BTW... nothing you gave me has any reference to the US giving or selling these weaposns to Saddam... and in fact mentions that Rumsfeld warned Saddam against using them! Again..thanks for the effort, but it proves nothing!

    Sorry, bb, Blaghdaddy didn't even include the most important paragraph which followed the paragraph on the bogus Rumsfeld claim: As a result of the openings created by Rumsfeld's diplomatic triumphs, U.S. companies were recruited and encouraged, both covertly and overtly, to ship poisonous chemicals and biological agents to Iraq, by the administrations of both Reagan and George Bush Sr.. Care packages to Saddam included sample strains of anthrax and bubonic plague, and components which would be used to develop nerve poisons like sarin gas and ricin..." bb, you're damned fool, and now the whole world knows it too...

    That Reagan and Bush41 gave WMD technology to Saddam is a proven fact, people, and only a damned fool would ask for the proof when it's all over the internet...funny those who don't like the truth can never find it when they Google... but lies lies lies from Limbaugh, Coulter et al, they find very quicly to spread around, don't they?

    So the golden question, bb, is not did Saddam have WMD's at one point...we all know he did...the Question is: If it was a "just cause" to invade Iraq 'cause he "had them," what should be done, do you think, to the people who gave it to him? Especially in light of the fact that the U.S. and Iraq have just announced that they are not going to try Saddam for using gas...the same reason they invaded?? And why, bb, do you think he won't be prosecuted for the same "crimes" he was supposed to have committed? Are you going to answer that, or have you run to hide in embarrassment?

    People, Blaghdaddy has a hunch that we've all got front-row seats to the "Unravelling of a Presidency." Fools like PPJ and bb won't be around this site much longer, as their smug gloating over Republican control of America is about to end...the only question is how long it will take before George moves permanently back to Crawford...or Guantanamo, since it's such a nice place for prisoners... Many called Blaghdaddy a fool when he predicted after Terri Schiavo that Bush had run out of propaganda fuel to maintain his grip on power... Blagh's still taking bets... And bb, Blagh hopes you'll at least have the good grace to admit you're an idiot if you intend to keep commenting here...