Ted Re.. have gone over twice the recent exchange of posts between Ten and myself. I see no statement like the one above.
Really, Yes it could be tough to remember every tall tale.
To:Tenchusatsu who wrote (181924)
From: tejek Saturday, Jan 31, 2004 3:24 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 182013
Was that knowledge alone worth the price we paid? Definitely not, but there were many other benefits of taking out Saddam, a well-known supporter of terrorism and a major source of anti-American sentiment.
There is absolutely no evidence that he was "a well known supporter of terrorism". I can not believe you say it over and over and over again in the hopes that you will convince us and yourself that its true. Its isn't and it never will be.
ted
...................................
Hello! Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 act. Therefore, they have been my number one concern.
So, your concerns only seem to include the Dem. concerns, as the Dems see fit; hardly something a president should pattern himself after; especially considering the Dems have gone from owing the presidency, and both houses of congress, to 0 in ten yrs. At the pace you are going, the liberal party will win more seats in 20 yrs.
Secondly, you dems, really are missing the vision thing, if you can't see a connection between terrorism and Al Qaeda; and why it is important to get rid of all terrorism; and how Iraq fits in that picture.
Thirdly, the dems seem to have no idea about the importance of the middle east, and oil, and why it could be devastating if our enemies get control of the big three oil countries. Must be the vision thing again.
You might also start to ask yourself why Al Qaeda is blowing up Iraqi civilian targets, the UN building, the bomb at Najaf, if they are trying to bomb americans. Al Qaeda certainly sees a danger, in Iraq becoming a democratic state, controlled by the Shias, and is doing everything it can to stop it.
However, that is not the reason that was given by Bush to launch a pre emptive war.
What preemptive war. You do know, that the US and Iraq never signed a peace agreement after the 91 Gulf War, and technically, we were still at war with Iraq, until the US agrees Saddam lived up to the terms of the agreement; and can then sign a peace treaty. Saddam defied 17 UN resolutions, so the US decided to finish the war, which should please you, because you hate war so much.
Bush, Powell, Cheney and Rice all said that Saddam was linked to al Qaeda. That link has never been validated. Bush, Powell, Cheney and Rice lied!
First, GW et al only lied, if they knew the CIA reports were false. Secondly,you, and/or the dems, can't even prove yet, they were false. Just because it hasn't been validated yet, doesn't necessarily mean they lied. It just means it hasn't been proven yet. If a person robs a bank, and they never catch the robber, does that mean the bank hasn't been robbed. You do know that several Al Qaeda uppity ups have been captured in Iraq the last several days.
Presumably so but al Qaeda is just one of several terrorist groups.
The chief Wahhabbi cleric didn't confine himself to just Al Qaeda. He said all terrorists, and gave no exceptions.
There has been a $25 million dollar bounty on OBL and his son for almost three years......and no one has turned him in. You really think that some Wahabi smuck cleric will make a difference in that scenario. Maybe but I doubt it.
So, now you want to call the head Wahhabbi cleric, a smuck cleric. Lots of luck with that one, as in you better hope that smuck cleric doesn't hear about it, and decides to call a jihad, against someone who would defame him. With the head cleric calling for an end to terrorism as a tool to spread Wahhabbi style Islam, the minor fanatical clerics are suppose to follow his edicts. Which means, I presume, that they could be killed for going against the edicts of Islam.
The recent al Qaeda bombings in Riyadh have forced them to rethink their position
Those bombings were 6 months ago. Possible, but it would be more likely the whole crosscurrent of events, including the Riyadh bombings, which caused him to change his tune. Al Qaeda hasn't been able to muster any large scale bombings against western targets, in close to a yr, besides Riyadh, and Al Qaeda seems to be spending most of its energy blowing up civilians in Iraq. Which could be dangerous to their health, if Sistani, and the Shias gain control in Iraq; which seems likely now. Most of the NRO article that Ten posted was BS. When they start telling the truth and basing their allegations on substance and not because they want to protect Bush, then I will be glad to read their articles.
Yeah right. Like CNN, BBC and the NYtimes are less biased. AFAIK NRO has never been accused of playing up a brutal dictator, such as CNN did with Saddam, nor has the NRO ever been accused of telling lies, to try and disgrace, and oust a duly elected president, such as the BBC did. |
