"no credible evidence"

9/11 Panel Disputes Iraq Link to Attacks

Jun 16, 6:05 PM (ET)

By CURT ANDERSON


WASHINGTON (AP) - Rebuffing Bush administration claims, the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said Wednesday no evidence exists that al-Qaida had strong ties to Saddam Hussein. In hair-raising detail, the commission said the terror network had envisioned a much larger attack and is working hard to strike again.

Although Osama bin Laden asked for help from Iraq in the mid-1990s, Saddam's government never responded, according to a report by the commission staff based on interviews with government intelligence and law enforcement officials. The report asserted "no credible evidence" has emerged that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 strikes.

Al-Qaida is actively trying to replicate the destruction of that day, the report said, though the terrorist network has been weakened by losing its sanctuary in Afghanistan and many leaders to U.S. strikes and arrests. The terror organization also is trying to obtain a nuclear weapon and is "extremely interested" in chemical, radiological and biological attacks, including the use of anthrax, it said.

"The trend toward attacks intended to cause ever-higher casualties will continue," the report said.


The commission staff said that Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed initially outlined an attack involving 10 aircraft targeting both U.S. coasts. Mohammed proposed that he pilot one of the planes, kill all the male passengers, land the plane at a U.S. airport and make a "speech denouncing U.S. policies in the Middle East before releasing all the women and children," the report said.

Bin Laden rejected that plan as too complex, deciding instead on four aircraft piloted by handpicked suicide operatives. The report said the targets were chosen based on symbolism: the Pentagon, which represented the U.S. military; the World Trade Center, a symbol of American economic strength; the Capitol, the perceived source of U.S. support for Israel, and the White House. Training for the attacks began in 1999.

The attacks were planned for as early as May 2001, but they were pushed back to September, partly because al-Qaida sought to strike when Congress would be at the Capitol. A second wave of hijackings never materialized because Mohammed was too busy planning the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the report.

Under questioning, John Pistole, the FBI's top counterterrorism official, told the commission that the government "has probably prevented a few aviation attacks" in the United States since Sept. 11 but that some operatives in those plots are still at large.

The findings were released as the commission began its final two days of hearings on the terror attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. The second day will focus on the Federal Aviation Administration and U.S. air defenses. The commission's final report is due July 26.

The first day lacked the electricity of past sessions featuring appearances by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, CIA Director George Tenet, Attorney General John Ashcroft and other top officials. Like previous hearings, the audience included family members of people killed in the attacks, many bearing photographs of lost loved ones.

Commission member Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, expressed exasperation that the government did not act with greater urgency against bin Laden, given what was known about al-Qaida before 2001.

"I believe that we missed a tremendous opportunity very early in this game to inform the Congress, inform the American people who bin Laden was, what he was doing, what he had done and as a consequence I think we simply didn't rally until it was too late," Kerrey said.

The conclusions that al-Qaida and Iraq had no cooperative relationship run counter to repeated assertions by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials. The claims that bin Laden and Saddam were in league were central to the administration's justification for going to war in Iraq.

As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi president "had long-established ties with al-Qaida." And last fall he cited what he called a credible but unconfirmed intelligence report that Mohamed Atta, ringleader of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers, met in Prague, Czech Republic, with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks.

The commission concluded no such meeting occurred.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said the report's findings were evidence the "administration misled America and the administration reached too far."

"They did not tell the truth to Americans about what was happening or their own intentions." he said on Detroit radio station WDET.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, asked about the commission report, said the administration stands by its assertions that there were links between al-Qaida and Iraq.

"I think we have said, and it is clear, that there is a connection, and we have seen these connections between al-Qaida and the regime of Saddam Hussein and we stick with that," Powell said in an interview on the al-Jazeera television network. "We have not said it was related to 9/11."

The commission report said that bin Laden, then in Sudan, met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 to request space for al-Qaida training camps and assistance in obtaining weapons, "but Iraq apparently never responded." The meeting occurred even though bin Laden opposed Saddam's secular government and had sponsored anti-Saddam operatives in Iraq's Kurdish region.

The camps that were established in Afghanistan after bin Laden moved there in 1996 produced as many as 20,000 al-Qaida operatives and encouraged trainees to "think creatively about ways to commit mass murder," the report said.

Some of the ideas included taking over a missile launcher and forcing Russians to fire a nuclear device at the United States, mounting mustard gas or cyanide attacks against Jewish areas in Iran, releasing poison gas into a building ventilation system - and "last, but not least, hijacking an aircraft and crashing it into an airport or nearby city."

The Sept. 11 plot gradually evolved from Mohammed's original vision but was hardly a seamless operation, the commission report said. Mohammed, who is in U.S. custody at an undisclosed overseas location, wanted up to 26 operatives for the four-plane plot, but at least 10 were prevented from entering the United States because of visa problems, family objections and other reasons.

There was disagreement between Mohammed, bin Laden and Atta about whether the Capitol or White House should be targeted, a question the report says apparently never was resolved. Bin Laden also had to overcome objections to attacking the United States from Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader who was under pressure from his Pakistani supporters to contain al-Qaida.

Omar, like bin Laden, has eluded U.S. capture since the attacks.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040616/D838C8980.html

So...with no credible evidence of a connection between al-Qaida and the regime of Saddam Hussein,No credible evidence of any weapons of mass destruction,and no credible evidence that Iraq is a safer place in the wake of the invasion,why is America there?Did Dubbya simply start the most expensive military action this century because "they tried to kill my Daddy?" Or did his buddies in the oil industry who paid for his seat in the Oval Office put him up to it?

Either way this is proving to be a war without justification.Thousands have died needlessly.

Bush has to go.

whats that? that sound in the distance? it, it sounds like the leftist camp...damn dirt hippies...what are they saying? oh yeah

"TOLD YA SO!!!!"

Bush started the war because he was bored and needed something to do!

I believe Iraq goes back to Bush's speech on the axis of evil.

An un-just war seems like a good reason to impeach to me. To bad it won't happen.

An un-just war seems like a good reason to impeach to me. To bad it won't happen.


Explain to me why it's an unjust war!

Explain to me why it's an unjust war!

We had no good reason to invade this country. Iraq was by no means a threat.

You may say we're helping the Iraqi people. Well yes but Iraq is not the only country that has a harse dictator. Should we invade every other country that has a dictator in command?

I do think Saddam needed to be removed by force, but Bush was stupid and went to war over the whole WMD thing instead of playing it smart and going to the UN and showing them all the atrocities Saddam did to his people and how he abused the money the UN gave him for food and medical supplies and how he killed many of his own people.

i think if Bush would've just used those as his main points for war and not acted so arrogant he would've probably gotten the UN to back him and this war would've been completely different and we would've be stuck in this horrible position.
Anywise, i think the real reason Bush went to war was that his dad had a war with Iraq and he wants to be just like his daddy! plus saddam had a assassination plan for killing his dad.

We had no good reason to invade this country. Iraq was by no means a threat.

You may say we're helping the Iraqi people. Well yes but Iraq is not the only country that has a harse dictator. Should we invade every other country that has a dictator in command?
Bingo. Now Bush got us stuck in this mess. I don't think we can just leave now. I call for an impeachment! Too bad that didn't happen sooner.

[QUOTE=spooleffect]We had no good reason to invade this country. QUOTE]


That's an opinion! What facts do you have to support this claim?

I do think Saddam needed to be removed by force, but Bush was stupid and went to war over the whole WMD thing instead of playing it smart and going to the UN and showing them all the atrocities Saddam did to his people and how he abused the money the UN gave him for food and medical supplies and how he killed many of his own people.

That rhetoric may work on the masses, but not on those whose business it is to know the truth.

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html

http://www.g2mil.com/Dec2003.htm

[QUOTE=spooleffect]We had no good reason to invade this country. QUOTE]


That's an opinion! What facts do you have to support this claim?


Give us some facts to rebuff the claim,or your arguments are just opinion too... :uhoh:

So many people with their heart set on seeing Bush go. :lol:

The war was just.

The UN should have been ignored from the outset (and still should be).

The Iraqi people are better off today then there were under Sadam and things will continue to improve.

After June 30th the Iraqis can as the US (and the other nations as well) to leave. Its up to them. If they are like some here, they'll jump at the chance, but more likely they will be like Karzi and ask us to stay and help.

So many stand around and do nothing people. Head in the sand and loving the status quo its like a conservative international policy. No changes allowed. This forum has provided so much entertainment since its inception.:lol:













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Taranaki, it's obvious that you don't like this war. Show us something else besides WMD! Saddam killed thousands, stole money, and overall was a threat to the western world.

If you don't like the way America runs things, get your citizenship and make a difference. Quit talking the big talk! :2cents:

Give us some facts to rebuff the claim,or your arguments are just opinion too... :uhoh:


Never once did I state an opinion I only asked a question! Get your shit straight and reread my post.

After June 30th the Iraqis can as the US (and the other nations as well) to leave. Its up to them. If they are like some here, they'll jump at the chance, but more likely they will be like Karzi and ask us to stay and help.

So many stand around and do nothing people. Head in the sand and loving the status quo its like a conservative international policy. No changes allowed. This forum has provided so much entertainment since its inception.:lol:
You missed the 'k' in 'ask'.:wink:

That's the problem. People standing around doing nothing. It seems as long as it doesn't affect them why should they care if people are getting tortured for having an opposing opinion.

So many people with their heart set on seeing Bush go. :lol:

I got a strong suspicion that Bush will not only win, but will take 45 or more states. Simply because John F'n Kerry is the only alternative.

Bush said that the reason for invading Iraq was because Saddam had WMD and strong ties to Al-Quaeda. Well, where are they?

Now hes shifted focus on just removing Saddam because he was a violent dictator and we are helping free the Iraqi people. Well if that is the true and real motive, then now WE NOW HAVE TO INVADE PLENTY OF OTHER COUNRTIES THAT HAVE VIOLENT LEADERS. Iraq was and is not the only country with "its people held hostage". Bush is just FOS about why we really went into Iraq.

every one who has saw what life was like in iraq before and after raise your hand. not seen on tv or read on the internet. don't say you know unless you were there.

the war is unjust every war is. what gives america the right to police the world when they can't even keep their own people happy or safe.

get off the manifest destiny kick.

...The war was just.

The UN should have been ignored from the outset (and still should be).

The Iraqi people are better off today then there were under Sadam and things will continue to improve.That reads like a mantra. :icon16:

...After June 30th the Iraqis can as the US (and the other nations as well) to leave. Its up to them. If they are like some here, they'll jump at the chance, but more likely they will be like Karzi and ask us to stay and help. Of course they will. Like Karzai, they will need the coalition around to keep their own asses from being assasinated. Also like Karzai, they will probably be limited to living within a tightly defined security perimeter. Leaders in name only.

Afghanistan is not a good example to follow, although it is probably a realistic indicator of what is in store unless something different is tried.

Watch out for the coalition withdrawing from Iraq and turning their attentions to Saudi Arabia - plan B.

Watch out for the coalition withdrawing from Iraq and turning their attentions to Saudi Arabia - plan B.

I was thinking Iran or Syria but Im sure there will be some excuse for Saudi.

I was thinking Iran or Syria but Im sure there will be some excuse for Saudi.Things have gone quiet of late regarding Iran and Syria. The deployment of Russian Sunburn (SS-N-22) and Onyx (SS-N-25) missiles as deterrents in those two countries probably has a lot to do with that.

Saudi however, is heating up.

But what could possibly be an excuse for invansion? Im sure the adminstration will whip up a good one though.

Taranaki, it's obvious that you don't like this war. Show us something else besides WMD! Saddam killed thousands, stole money, and overall was a threat to the western world.

If you don't like the way America runs things, get your citizenship and make a difference. Quit talking the big talk! :2cents:

erricer,you are right,I don't like this war.I don't like any war.

You say " Show us something else besides WMD"...Check out the subject of this thread.

How about you show us something other than Saddam?You've removed him,[killed thousands in the process,tortured prisoners and breached the Geneva Convention a hundred times over]and created a chaotic anarchy in Iraq.Saddam is not an American success,you've done more harm by removing him than by leaving him be.There are dozens of other repressive regimes around the world that Bush is too yellow to touch because he knows that THEY HAVE go the capacity to hurt the US.


THIS WHOLE CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN A PACK OF LIES.
All that has been achieved is for a tinpot dictator,unable to raise a credible defence after years of United Nations sanctions,has been swept aside to facilitate the theft of his country's assets by American interests.


As for your final comment,"
If you don't like the way America runs things, get your citizenship and make a difference." You are making big assumptions.And they are wrong.As an ex-serviceman,I have seen the realities of conflict from your side of the fence.How about you hop over to this side of the fence and take a good critical look at the lies that your buddies are dying for?

There are plenty of other leader just like Saddam throughout the world though. Should we go invade every country that has a violent dictator in control?

There are plenty of other leader just like Saddam throughout the world though. Should we go invade every country that has a violent dictator in control?


Sure why not we got nothing better to do. Lets invade every freaking country! Just think how big America can be if we conquered other nations, take all of their treasures and resources. Instead of calling this planet EARTH we can just call it America.

How about this we pull all of the American soliders from every country and have them come home. Then no more Americans will get killed. Lets keep all the American money in America, then we can fight and cure our problems instead of taking on other countries problems and ills. We should of never went to Bosnia, we should of never went into WW1 or WW2 or Vietnam. Just think about all the money, all the American lives that would of been saved! We should just let all the countries kill their citizens we can just live here in peace.

Lets shut down the United Nations afterall they are one big bunch of whining wind bags who accomplish nothing but disagreements. Who waste money talking without really getting anything done. Instead of the terrorists plowing the planes in the WTC they should of gone after the U.N. Then and maybe then the UN would finally agree on something, like putting sanctions on a country. Maybe if the majority of people that died in the WTC (I am not saying this is the reason we invaded Iraq) were french then maybe the French would still be saying we shouldn't invade iraq, lets just sit in the blown up UN building and talk about this. Oh I got it the French would demand to slap Osama's wrist and say you bad boy.

I say all the people in jail lets forget about trials, they cost money. Just take them out back and shoot them, which would save a lot of tax payers dollars. Why not.


Lastly Naki I have no problem with you being against Bush agaist the war, its your right, its your opinion. Just thank god that you can express these thoughts without the risk of death or jail.

[QUOTE=taranaki]breached the Geneva Convention a hundred times over]and created a chaotic anarchy in Iraq.[QUOTE]


The Geneva convention is for prisoners of war! Have you seen or read anywhere that they are prisoners of war? Do you see any pics of these prisoners in there orange jumpsuits with POW written on them. No they are not prisoners of war they are terrorists, enemy combanats but not POW's.

And American never declared war in Iraq so how can they be called POW's? Don't you need war to call them POW's? And isn't war between at least two sets of soliders? Only solidere I have seen were American.

America went to war against Iraq.Dress it up however prettily you like,but when you drob a shitload of missiles on a country and then drive your tanks through to their capital city,you are at war with them.

Pretending that it is a defensive action and referring to your priisoners of war as 'detainees' spits square in the face of your allies and friends in civillised countries who are signatories to the Geneva Convention.It's gutless,yellow,and cowardly,the kind of mealy-mouthed propaganda that the likes of George Bush would condemn in his enemies.It's time to face facts.Most of the 'reasons' given for this campaign have been false.Whether they are false due to incompetence,or sheer bloody-minded determination to invade Iraq at any cost,only history will tell.Bush and Cheney are liars,and should be dismissed.

America bombed the crap out of Iraq for inadequate reasons.The world knows this to be an act of war.If you choose to keep kidding yourself that it's not,keep dreaming.

Pretending that it is a defensive action and referring to your priisoners of war as 'detainees' spits square in the face of your allies and friends in civillised countries who are signatories to the Geneva Convention.It's gutless,yellow,and cowardly,the kind of mealy-mouthed propaganda that the likes of George Bush would condemn in his enemies.It's time to face facts.Most of the 'reasons' given for this campaign have been false.Whether they are false due to incompetence,or sheer bloody-minded determination to invade Iraq at any cost,only history will tell.Bush and Cheney are liars,and should be dismissed.


So what's your point? I'm not seeing it. BTW all people in government are liars, when we vote in America we always vote for the best liar. Bush needs some lessons in lying.

O.K.....you label your prisoners of war as terrorists,I'll throw a question back at you.How many of them have been proved guilty in front of a jury?

Next question.Combatants,when spelt correctly,is another term for soldiers.Surely you just contradicted yourself when you implied that the enemy soldiers held prisoner [a year after Bush declared the bulk of the fighting to be over] are not prisoners of war?

Third question...You claim to have only seen one "set of soldiers"[the common term for which is an army] fighting in Iraq,and that they were American.....So all those young men in uniform that they bombed the crap out of were civilians?I think not.And what happened to the infamous "Republican Guard",the ultra-loyal Saddamist forces who were allegedly blackmailing hundreds of thousands of conscripts to fight the American occupation against their will?Did they simply vanish into thin air along with the alleged WMD?


The republicans love to criticize Bill Clinton for his lie over a certain blue dress.Nobody ever died for that little fib,Compare that to the thousands of Americans and Iraqis who have died for the yellow bastard in the Oval Office,and you should be BEGGING Clinton to come back and start some damage control.

...you should be BEGGING Clinton to come back and start some damage control.

Not without administrating lots of hallucinogenic drugs. :screwy: Clinton did a lot more lying then about his deeds with Monica. I’m not going to list them out because I feel lazy today. Clinton wouldn’t win an election now even if he could run. The people I know who voted for him are fed up with him. He could probably win a state or two, but he’s going down the path of Carter. People are happy hes out of office and will like him more and more the longer he has been removed from it.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

As for your final comment,"
If you don't like the way America runs things, get your citizenship and make a difference." You are making big assumptions.And they are wrong.As an ex-serviceman,I have seen the realities of conflict from your side of the fence.How about you hop over to this side of the fence and take a good critical look at the lies that your buddies are dying for?
What lies? We found ties between Iraq and Alqueda, We know that saddam was a threat and a sworn enemy, and we are still looking for wmd. Why hop over when I like where im at. Like I said, get your citizenship and make a difference, otherwise quit talking the big talk! :2cents:

Not without administrating lots of hallucinogenic drugs. :screwy: Clinton did a lot more lying then about his deeds with Monica. I’m not going to list them out because I feel lazy today. Clinton wouldn’t win an election now even if he could run. The people I know who voted for him are fed up with him. He could probably win a state or two, but he’s going down the path of Carter. People are happy hes out of office and will like him more and more the longer he has been removed from it.
:1:

What lies? We found ties between Iraq and Alqueda, We know that saddam was a threat and a sworn enemy, and we are still looking for wmd. Why hop over when I like where im at. Like I said, get your citizenship and make a difference, otherwise quit talking the big talk! :2cents:

Do you actually KNOW what those ties are,erricer,or are you happy to accept the word of a white house liar?

Will you sttill be shuffling around in the sand 20 years from now,hoping to trip over a huge stash of WMD to vindicate your untenable position?There are no WMD.If there had been,and Saddam was as evil as Bush and his cronies made out,he WOULD have used them.

I have no need nor want of American citizenship,I'd rather live in a free country,thank you.New Zealand has no Patriot Act or anything like it,does not treat its military as expendable pawns in the race for oil and is a far more tolerant of diversity than any other place that I have hung my hat.

On your final point,what makes you think that only American citizens are allowed to 'talk the big talk' ?I'd be offended if I wasn't laughing so much at your dumb patriotic naivety.

Once again we are mislead by some in the press.

I know some of you complain about me, but it’s on days like this that you should appreciate the No Spin Zone.

The 9/11 Commission (search) has come to some conclusions and Thursday newspapers across the country blared headlines.

The New York Times wrote: "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq tie."

The Washington Post put forth: "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed."

The Los Angeles Times opined: "No Signs of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties Found."

And even the conservative Wall Street Journal trumpeted: "No Iraq-al Qaeda Link."

But if you read below the headlines you see the Commission said something a bit different: That there was no a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda regarding Sept. 11. That's true, but there were certainly links and ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda and that's provable.

The smoking gun is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search), an Al Qaeda leader who found his way to Baghdad after being severely wounded fighting against American forces in Afghanistan.

Zarqawi arrived in Iraq in May of 2002 and had surgery in an Iraqi hospital, run by -- are you ready -- Uday Hussein. I believe that might be a tie, but there's more.

Next, the Al Qaeda big shot -- who was wanted by the USA -- traveled to Lebanon to meet with leaders of Hezbollah.

A short time after that meeting, in October of 2002, Lawrence Foley, an American official, was assassinated in Jordan. The arrested killers said Zarqawi was involved in the plot.

Zarqawi wound up back in Iraq after the assassination of Foley and met up with the Ansar al-Islam group, which operated in Northern Iraq and is affiliated with Al Qaeda.

In January 2003, several Ansar terrorists were arrested in Britain and charged with planning to put Ricin in the military food supply. Some of those terrorists fingered Zarqawi in the plot.

Right now, Zarqawi is believed to be in Fallujah working with some of Saddam's former generals in planning terror attacks. Just last week he took credit for killing 13 people in a bombing.

I believe that's a lot of links and ties between Saddam, Iraq and Al Qaeda. But again, I believe the Commission when it says Saddam was not directly involved with Sept. 11. That’s true.

Faced with the misleading headlines ... President Bush said this Thursday:

“The reason that I keep insisting that there’s was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda.”

So, what we have hear is spin. Some in the press used the Commission's report -- which is accurate -- to suggest Bush mislead the public about Saddam and Al Qaeda.

I do not believe that is true.

And that's The Memo.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123067,00.html


I don't think that you have to be an American to talk the big talk. But you do have to be an American to play a roll in our politics. I don't mind you living in New Zealand, but quit criticizing the U.S. if you are not willing to do something about it besides rant!

I do believe you called my recent post a dumb patriotic naivety. I do believe that was a personal attack. And I do believe that a personal attack is not tolerated in Automotive forums. I was banned for a week for such remarks, why shouldn't you?

and what we're all overlooking:

in the 1980's, the american government funded bin laden and his cronies as they fought a soviet invasion of afganistan, and he created al-queda with our knowledge.

and even better

1959: saddam hussein enters CIA payroll as an agent in the attempted assassination of then current Iraqi Prime Minister Abd al-Karim Qasim. a little later on down the road, we put him in power, and then funded him (including giving him anthrax) when he fought Iran.

yay, look at us, supporting terrorists just like everyone else. regime change starts at home

I do believe you called my recent post a dumb patriotic naivety. I do believe that was a personal attack. And I do believe that a personal attack is not tolerated in Automotive forums. I was banned for a week for such remarks, why shouldn't you?

Because it is not a personal attack.I do not believe that you are wilfuly dumb,or patriotic,or naive,it's just the way that things are.Some people are smarter than others,plain fact.And clearly,you fall into the second group,otherwise you wouldn't come out with such codwallop as "I don't mind you living in New Zealand,but quit criticizing the U.S. if you are not willing to do something about it besides rant"

Do tell me what a Cheesemaker from New Zealand can do when confronted with the worst American government in living history,other than exercise his right to free speech?I can't even vote against the dirty little shitbag who is temporarily squatting in the Oval Office.But I can tell you,in plain English,that there is a significant body of decent centre right Christian-thinking people who are utterly disgusted with the lies,the murders,and the invasions that "President"Bush has committed in the name of anti terrorism.If he wants to catch the vilest,dirtiest most cowardly terrorist on the planet,he can find the guy any time.All he has to do is look in the nearest mirror.

.But I can tell you,in plain English,that there is a significant body of decent centre right Christian-thinking people who are utterly disgusted with the lies,the murders,and the invasions that "President"Bush has committed in the name of anti terrorism.
:grinno: :grinno:

You have no idea what you are talking about!

O.K.....you label your prisoners of war as terrorists,I'll throw a question back at you.How many of them have been proved guilty in front of a jury?

Next question.Combatants,when spelt correctly,is another term for soldiers.Surely you just contradicted yourself when you implied that the enemy soldiers held prisoner [a year after Bush declared the bulk of the fighting to be over] are not prisoners of war?

Third question...You claim to have only seen one "set of soldiers"[the common term for which is an army] fighting in Iraq,and that they were American.....So all those young men in uniform that they bombed the crap out of were civilians?

The republicans love to criticize Bill Clinton for his lie over a certain blue dress.

Naki

They are terrorists, I know not all of them are terrorists some have been released. How many have been proven guilty? None have yet, but I am sure when they are you will find something to use to call Bush a liar. And why should they get a trial? Are you talking about a criminal, civil or miltary trial? And haven't you ever heard of a non-jury trial? Who would serve in the jury? Would it be Americans, New Zealanders or the French?

So sue me take me to trail because I mis spelled "Combatants" Did you know what I meant? Word play carries no weight in my book. I'll try to run spell checker on my future posts with you. And thank you for fixing my spelling error.

No the bombs killed terrorists mostly. Terrorists wear no uniforms, terrorists have represent no country they just push their own adgendas.

Concerning Bill Clinton he got up on the stand took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth. When asked if he had sex with Monica he said "I have not had sexual relations with that woman" WTF he got his pecker sucked, stuck a cigar up Monica's whazoo and smoked it. I dunno know but that's sex. Telling your wife you never cheated on her is a lie. Taking an oath to tell the truth, standing before a judge and lying is criminal. If I was on the stand and lied like Clinton I would be sitting in jail for it. What Clinton did with MOnica isn't criminal but lying on the stand is!

:grinno: :grinno:

You have no idea what you are talking about!

Ever been outside the US,Pick?

Judging by your comments,and your lack of depth,I'd be surprised if you had.

Ever been outside the US,Pick? Judging by your comments,and your lack of depth,I'd be surprised if you had.
Naki, still at it, eh?
I don't know of Pick's passport status but I've been to 5 of the continents and only two of those were while in the military. Yes, exposure to different cultures certainly broadens your view but that doesn't limit your right to an opinion. Pick may be very well read on other cultures despite what your opinion of his posts may be.

As for Iraq...
Saddam DID have WMD's at one point, ask any Kurd...
Saddam DID operate terrorists training camps...
Saddam DID fund terrorists...
Saddam DID bribe French, German, and even UN officials to have them support his regime against the U.S....
Saddam DID provide a haven for international terrorists...
Saddam DEFINITELY had ties to al-queda leadership...
Just because Saddam wasn't DIRECTLY involved with the 9/11 attacks doesn't mean he was an innocent bystander...

No, I never felt an invasion of Iraq was warranted. And yes, we should have looked deeper into Putin's warnings of an imminent attack after 9/11 from Iraqi terrorists. Our intelligence sucked and we now know that. We didn't at the time this war was being coordinated and planned. How can you directly attack Bush for getting bad intel? Mr. Clinton diverted resoures and funding from CIA and NSA for years and you blame Bush for the results?
Also, you mention the "Patriot Act" as being some overbearing, Orwellian "big-brother" taking our freedoms... Name anyone falsely accused under this law or someones rights falsely trampled by this act...

Bush WILL be re-elected, we WILL destroy al-queda, and we WILL open the door to democracy for Iraqis. Whether they fight for freedom as a people after we leave is up to them.
Honestly, I don't think they have it in them and that they will end up with another despot at the helm.

Ever been outside the US,Pick?

Judging by your comments,and your lack of depth,I'd be surprised if you had.
As a matter of fact, I just got back from Trinidad a couple weeks ago. :smile:

As for Iraq...
Saddam DID have WMD's at one point, ask any Kurd...


I disagree,and so does the CIA. :grinno:

http://www.rense.com/general30/blair.htm


Bush WILL be re-elected,Fortunately,this is looking increasingly unlikely
we WILL destroy al-queda,Somehow I doubt it.
And we WILL open the door to democracy for Iraqis.they don't want your democracy,they JUST WANT YOU TO LEAVE.

Whether they fight for freedom as a people after we leave is up to them.
Honestly, I don't think they have it in them and that they will end up with another despot at the helm.

Great.So America runs a failed campaign,based on lies about WMD,and when it all turns to shit,blame the victims.Good one Murco.

The invasion of Iraq has been a fiasco from start to finish.It has wiped out thousands of innocent Iraqis,found no WMD,and replaced a stable but inadequate dictatorship with anarchy.The man who should bear the responsibility for this ridiculous charade [which has cost ordinary Americans BILLIONS of dollars]should step down.Unfortunately he is a worthless worm with the morals of a dog turd.Not only will he not step down,he will try to tell America that he has done you a favor by wasting your money on slaughtering half a nation because his buddies in the oil industry saw an upside.

Our intelligence sucked and we now know that. We didn't at the time this war was being coordinated and planned. How can you directly attack Bush for getting bad intel? Mr. Clinton diverted resoures and funding from CIA and NSA for years and you blame Bush for the results?

actually, the government knew their intellegence was faulty when they presented it to ther UN as reasons for going to war. maybe you cant blame W for bad intel, but you can blame him for telling us it was fact anyways.

Also, you mention the "Patriot Act" as being some overbearing, Orwellian "big-brother" taking our freedoms... Name anyone falsely accused under this law or someones rights falsely trampled by this act...

there are quite a few actually, do you really want the names, because i doubt youll care. and its not so much that people have abused it, but that they can. we claim to be fighting for freedom and democracy, but our senators pass a bill they didnt even read that disentegrates our basic freedoms. its ridiculous. i invite you to do some research on the subject.

Bush WILL be re-elected, we WILL destroy al-queda, and we WILL open the door to democracy for Iraqis.

actually, last i checked bush's numbers werent doing to well. and no, he wont destroy al queda. thats a load of shit, and i feel sorry for you that you believe that. and we may open the door for the iraqi's, but it will be closed quickly and they will destroy the government we gave them. bush was told that going in. and he didnt care.

actually, the government knew their intellegence was faulty when they presented it to ther UN as reasons for going to war. maybe you cant blame W for bad intel, but you can blame him for telling us it was fact anyways..
Putin's boys in Russia also had intel that Saddam was planning an attack within the US. If I got the same intel from 2 separate governments I would probably consider it accurate and it would be hard to disprove the information. Should we have called Saddam and asked him of his future plans?

its not so much that people have abused it, but that they can. i invite you to do some research on the subject..
Being desribed on this board at one point as a "right-wing, redneck with a gun" you can bet I'm all over any kind of legislation that infringes on my rights. Yes, these powers can be abused but the threshold of proof that must be presented before any actions can be taken is far beyond that of any other criminal investigation. And, I have researched the subject... 32 investigations have been authorized under this act and have resulted in 23 prosecutions to date with 7 pending. It seems the "bad guys" are the only ones who should sweat this law...

actually, last i checked bush's numbers werent doing to well. and no, he wont destroy al queda. thats a load of shit, and i feel sorry for you that you believe that. and we may open the door for the iraqi's, but it will be closed quickly and they will destroy the government we gave them. bush was told that going in. and he didnt care.
Time will tell about Bush and al-queda. Don't feel sorry for me, save your pity for those people oppressed by brutal dictators, and who remain that way because to the PC crowd it's wrong to try and free them.

Naki, still at it, eh?
I don't know of Pick's passport status but I've been to 5 of the continents and only two of those were while in the military. Yes, exposure to different cultures certainly broadens your view but that doesn't limit your right to an opinion. Pick may be very well read on other cultures despite what your opinion of his posts may be.

As for Iraq...
Saddam DID have WMD's at one point, ask any Kurd...
Saddam DID operate terrorists training camps...
Saddam DID fund terrorists...
Saddam DID bribe French, German, and even UN officials to have them support his regime against the U.S....
Saddam DID provide a haven for international terrorists...
Saddam DEFINITELY had ties to al-queda leadership...
Just because Saddam wasn't DIRECTLY involved with the 9/11 attacks doesn't mean he was an innocent bystander...

No, I never felt an invasion of Iraq was warranted. And yes, we should have looked deeper into Putin's warnings of an imminent attack after 9/11 from Iraqi terrorists. Our intelligence sucked and we now know that. We didn't at the time this war was being coordinated and planned. How can you directly attack Bush for getting bad intel? Mr. Clinton diverted resoures and funding from CIA and NSA for years and you blame Bush for the results?
Also, you mention the "Patriot Act" as being some overbearing, Orwellian "big-brother" taking our freedoms... Name anyone falsely accused under this law or someones rights falsely trampled by this act...

Bush WILL be re-elected, we WILL destroy al-queda, and we WILL open the door to democracy for Iraqis. Whether they fight for freedom as a people after we leave is up to them.
Honestly, I don't think they have it in them and that they will end up with another despot at the helm.


sounds like more bs

Naki since you were so kind in posting a web site that basicly states Iraq never used WMD please read my links. The first one is from the Human Rights News at hrw.org.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/iraq0117.htm

Washington Times

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030821-105244-2160r.htm


The BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2855349.stm

If you need more links I will gladly post more.

Here's your evidence:

Saddam Hussein is supported by the CIA in his rise to power in Iraq, effectively becoming a US empowered and supported Iraqi dictator.

Saddam Hussein nationalises the Iraqi oil industry so that his people get $3/barrel for their oil instead of the 3c/barrel they got from the foreign oil companies. The foreign oil interests are furious.

April Glaspie gives Saddam the diplomatic message that the US has no interest in Kuwait, after Saddam informs them he intends to annex a part into Iraq.

Emboldened by the US reaction of no interest in Kuwait (green light), Saddam invades Kuwait completely.

He is subsequently ejected from Kuwait by a UN coalition under US command, followed by a decade of crippling sanctions and bombing. Hundreds of tons of depleted uranium is distributed throughout Iraq.

UN weapons inspectors are increasingly satisfied that no WMD remain in Iraq - so that no reason remains to continue the sanctions. Additionally, Saddam has switched his oil trading to Euros, delivering a hit to US$ hegemoney of oil trading.

The US continues to veto attempts within the UN to lift the sanctions on Iraq.

Saddam is accused of many things including genocide, aiding terrorists and planning to attack the USA. These accusations have yet to be proven.

Iraq is invaded by a US led coalition without UN backing.

US empowered Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is ousted.

US appointed USAn dictator Paul Bremer is installed. Oil trading currency promptly switched back from Euros to US$.

US appointed Iraqi dictator will be installed on 30th June '04.

Ask yourself.........

Let me have this one :lol: I like it when people break out the synonyms.

Here's your evidence:

Saddam Hussein is supported by the CIA in his rise to power in Iraq, effectively becoming a US empowered and supported Iraqi dictator.

Dont foget that he was armed by the Soviet Union and France.

Saddam Hussein nationalises the Iraqi oil industry so that his people get $3/barrel for their oil instead of the 3c/barrel they got from the foreign oil companies. The foreign oil interests are furious.

Only people that supported him. The others were gassed, tortured and killed in a variety of ways. I realize that its not important who or how many he killed, but it is important to realize how well he treated those he had under his thumb.

April Glaspie gives Saddam the diplomatic message that the US has no interest in Kuwait, after Saddam informs them he intends to annex a part into Iraq.

In the same way we have no interest in Sri Lanka, Luxemburg or Romania. Perhaps its a good thing Saddam didn't invade them. And its a good thing that dictators announce their plans ahead of time. Just like Japan did prior to Pearl Harbor. Pleanty of time for everyone to decide on a course of action.

Emboldened by the US reaction of no interest in Kuwait (green light), Saddam invades Kuwait completely.

Yup - its a good thing that he his permission slip. He'd never take any action on his own.

He is subsequently ejected from Kuwait by a UN coalition under US command, followed by a decade of crippling sanctions and bombing. Hundreds of tons of depleted uranium is distributed throughout Iraq.

UN weapons inspectors are increasingly satisfied that no WMD remain in Iraq - so that no reason remains to continue the sanctions. Additionally, Saddam has switched his oil trading to Euros, delivering a hit to US$ hegemoney of oil trading.

Increasingly satisfied? Wow - you'd think if they were satisfied they wouldn't have passed a dozen more resolutions to have him give them up. He wouldn't have kicked out the inspectors and wouldn't have bombed him any more. They sure showed how convinced they were!

The US continues to veto attempts within the UN to lift the sanctions on Iraq.

France and Russia - the supporters of Saddam wanted the sanctions to end. The US and Britian said no. When Saddam was removed, Britian and the US wanted sanctions lifted and France and Russia said no. Its clear that France and Russia have Iraqs best interest at heart the way they flip flopped on sanction lifting - but then again, they do so like having their dictator in place.

Saddam is accused of many things including genocide, aiding terrorists and planning to attack the USA. These accusations have yet to be proven.

I know what you mean. Those graves with hundreds of thousands of bodies are clearly not enough evidence. Those disfigured Kurds and photos of the dead villages aren't quite enough to prove anything. They must have did it themselves to make it look like Saddam was a meenie.

Iraq is invaded by a US led coalition without UN backing.

Now thats the first fact you've actually had. And its a good thing to. The US should be out of the UN. I've documented numerous reasons why the UN is a bysmal failure and the US should stop supporting that corrupt organization.

US empowered Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is ousted.

Again the with US empowered. Considering the Soviet Union supplied 70+% of his money and equipment and the French were over 20% you'd think that the blame should fall on the US's 10% or so. Because its clear that that 10% was the evil percentage.

US appointed USAn dictator Paul Bremer is installed. Oil trading currency promptly switched back from Euros to US$.

And I completely forgot that everything the US does has to be in support of Europe. If they don't approve - no country in the world should blink.

US appointed Iraqi dictator will be installed on 30th June '04.

Ask yourself.........

The last time I checked the vaunted UN liked the guy. The leading cleric in Iraq likes the guy. But, because the US also likes the guy and supports his appointment, he must have the label Dictator. We all know that anyone the US supports in power must have that label. Sorry Vicente, Bush likes you so you must now be known as the Dictator of Mexico!

Yup - that list of facts you brought up sure are undeniable and rock solid. Not a single piece of propaganda or opinion in there. I can only hope that I can grow up someday to see the world through such wide and thoughtful glasses. :rofl:













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

:1: one of the most thought-through posts I think ive seen :thumbsup:

I know what you mean. Those graves with hundreds of thousands of bodies are clearly not enough evidence. Those disfigured Kurds and photos of the dead villages aren't quite enough to prove anything. They must have did it themselves to make it look like Saddam was a meenie.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yogs,

This is for you. Not that you need it I just thought you would like it.

http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/500/117112IRAQ.JPG

Let me have this one :lol: I like it when people break out the synonyms.

A masterpiece of a response!
:1:

Kinda of strange the two countreis that sold more weapons to Saddam are the two that opposed the invasion the most.

actually, its not because they had arms contracts that they opposed it, its because they stood to lose huge in oil business if america took over that they opposed it.

i thought everyone knew that?

^of course the oil thing is the only reason they opposed the invasion right? :rolleyes:

actually, its not because they had arms contracts that they opposed it, its because they stood to lose huge in oil business if america took over that they opposed it.

i thought everyone knew that?

They were doing a LOT of illegal business with them. Just like all the other UN nations who opposed the invasion. Especially the French and the Germans.

Yogs,

This is for you. Not that you need it I just thought you would like it.

http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/500/117112IRAQ.JPG

What do you think they were shooting with, back at us in Desert Storm, and currently in this conflict? Slingshots? What were they supposed to equip their military with? Blow-darts?

Now that you've researched those numbers, tell us what part of those percentages above included weapons-grade plutonium/uranium, or the components of bio or chemical weapons? I'll answer for you: 0%.

Not saying that I don't believe Iraq had WMDs...no, not that. I am just saying that that presentation is wholly irrelevant, as the WMDs Iraq had, were from the underground (or self manufactured), not from his open arms sources.

What do you think they were shooting with, back at us in Desert Storm, and currently in this conflict? Slingshots? What were they supposed to equip their military with? Blow-darts?

Now that you've researched those numbers, tell us what part of those percentages above included weapons-grade plutonium/uranium, or the components of bio or chemical weapons? I'll answer for you: 0%.

Not saying that I don't believe Iraq had WMDs...no, not that. I am just saying that that presentation is wholly irrelevant, as the WMDs Iraq had, were from the underground (or self manufactured), not from his open arms sources.

That was for Yogs.I thought I said that at the beginning of my post but it must have been overlooked. Sorry you had to see it. So your thoughts on it's relevance is not a concern of mine.

Let me have this one :lol: I like it when people break out the synonyms.Duh, what's a synonym?
Dont foget that he was armed by the Soviet Union and France.After he was already in power and before the UN resolutions forbidding it. Anything subsequently supplied was not on the open market. And as someone else pointed out, what kind of weapons did each country supply.
Only people that supported him. The others were gassed, tortured and killed in a variety of ways. I realize that its not important who or how many he killed, but it is important to realize how well he treated those he had under his thumb. Under Saddam's rule Iraq had the best and most accessable health system in the world. He trained more doctors than any US president ever has. Hmmn, isn't there another demonized dictator lurking on an island off the coast of the US who has trained so many doctors that they actually export them? What was his name.....ummmm......Castro or something like that I think. Education in Iraq was also on the same track.

The ones tortured, gassed and killed?
Are you referring to the Kurdish and Shia uprisings that were encouraged during Gulf War I then left stranded when they were quelled?
Or do you mean the thousands of remains that were found during the most recent invasion which turned out to be a mutual agreement with Iran to exchange the remains of the fallen from the Iran-Iraq war, returning them to their own countries for burial with dignity?
Or do you mean the Kurds gassed at Halabja which the US Army War College determined were actually killed by Iraninan bio-weapons and not by Iraqi bio-weapons?
Or are you referring to the spin, psy-ops and fabrications generated by the Rand Corporation during and after Gulf War I? (You know the ones - rape rooms, soldiers throwing babies onto the nursery floors, that it was the Iraqis and not the coalition that set the Kuwaiti oil fields ablaze.....ad nauseum.)


In the same way we have no interest in Sri Lanka, Luxemburg or Romania. Perhaps its a good thing Saddam didn't invade them. And its a good thing that dictators announce their plans ahead of time. Just like Japan did prior to Pearl Harbor. Pleanty of time for everyone to decide on a course of action.Are you denying that Saddam informed the US of his intentions and sought a response prior to invading Kuwait? Your response lurks all the way around it, attempting to imply it, but it doesn't actually come out and say it.

C'mon, stick your neck out and say it in plain language instead of beating around the bush.

Otherwise, read this:
Prelude to the 1991 Gulf War

The war with Iran left Iraq in ruins. When Saddam Hussein launched his eight year war against Iran, Iraq had $40 billion in hard currency reserves. But by the end of the war, his nation was $80 billion in debt. Iraq was pressed to repay the $80 billion to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, with interest. While Iraq was distracted by its war, Kuwait had accumulated 900 square miles of Iraqi territory by advancing its border with Iraq northward. This was presented to Iraq as a fait accompli and it gave Kuwait access to the Rumaila oil field. The Kuwaiti Sheik had purchased the Santa Fe Drilling Corporation of Alhambra, California, for $2.3 billion and proceeded to use its slant drilling equipment to gain access to the Iraqi oil field.

The main source of earnings for Iraq was petroleum whose price fluctuated depending on international production levels. By 1990, Kuwait, under U.S. tutelage had increased its oil production to undermine OPEC quotas thereby driving the price of Iraqi oil down from $28 per barrel to $11 per barrel and further ruining the Iraqi economy. Appeals from Iraq, Iran, Libya, and other countries to the Emirates, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to stick to OPEC production levels were met with increased naval activity in the Persian Gulf by the United States. In February 1990, Saddam Hussein spoke at the Amman summit on the relationship between oil production and the U.S. navy buildup and warned that the Gulf people and the rest of the Arabs faced subordination to American interests.

Following this speech the Western press carried stories of Saddam's missiles, chemical weapons and nuclear potential. The Israeli press speculated about pre-emptive strikes such as the Israeli attack on Iraq's nuclear power plant in 1981. In spite of Iraqi diplomatic appeals, Kuwait and the Emirates increased oil production, harming their own economic interests, but damaging Iraq's even more so. Kuwait refused to relinquish Iraqi territory it had acquired during the Iran Iraq war which Kuwait had helped finance. Kuwait also rejected production quotas and rejected appeals to cease pumping oil from Iraq's Rumaila oil reserve. It refused to forgo any of Iraq's debt.

On September 18, 1990, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry published verbatim the transcripts of meetings between Saddam Hussein and high level U.S. officials. Knight-Ridder columnist James McCartney acknowledged that the transcripts were not disputed by the U.S. State Department. U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie informed Hussein that, "We have no opinion on...conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait." She reiterated this position several times, and added, "Secretary of State James Baker has directed our official spokesman to emphasize this instruction." A week before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Baker's spokesperson, Margaret Tutwiler and Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly both stated publicly that "the United States was not obligated to come to Kuwait's aid if it were attacked." (Santa Barbara News-Press September 24, 1990 cited in [1]).

Two days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly testified before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee that the United States has no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country." The New York Daily News editorialized on September 29, 1990, "Small wonder Saddam concluded he could overrun Kuwait. Bush and Co. gave him no reason to believe otherwise."
Source: http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html
Increasingly satisfied? Wow - you'd think if they were satisfied they wouldn't have passed a dozen more resolutions to have him give them up. He wouldn't have kicked out the inspectors and wouldn't have bombed him any more. They sure showed how convinced they were!Hmmn, wasn't there a report by UN weapons inspectors prior to the latest invasion that there were no useable WMD in Iraq left?,

and then another report by a little known man called Hans Blix saying there were none,

and then several requests from the UN for more time to prove conclusively to a disbelieveing Bush administration that there were none left?

Seems some people have short memories.
France and Russia - the supporters of Saddam wanted the sanctions to end. The US and Britian said no. When Saddam was removed, Britian and the US wanted sanctions lifted and France and Russia said no. Its clear that France and Russia have Iraqs best interest at heart the way they flip flopped on sanction lifting - but then again, they do so like having their dictator in place.Pot to kettle....
The difference is that the countries that wanted the sanctions lifted before the war were looking at a sovereign nation that had satisfied the conditions required to remove those sanctions - whereas after the war they were looking at a sovereign nation that had been occupied by a foreign power which was fast tracking a fire sale of Iraqi national assets and resources.
I know what you mean. Those graves with hundreds of thousands of bodies are clearly not enough evidence. Those disfigured Kurds and photos of the dead villages aren't quite enough to prove anything. They must have did it themselves to make it look like Saddam was a meenie.Links please?............maybe closer examination of this evidence will prove revealing as to what many people think happened against what actually happened.
Now thats the first fact you've actually had. And its a good thing to. The US should be out of the UN. I've documented numerous reasons why the UN is a bysmal failure and the US should stop supporting that corrupt organization.pffft.
Again the with US empowered. Considering the Soviet Union supplied 70+% of his money and equipment and the French were over 20% you'd think that the blame should fall on the US's 10% or so. Because its clear that that 10% was the evil percentage.What kind of weaponry was that 10% again? Something unconventional perhaps? maybe even unsavoury? but surely not evil, surely not!
And I completely forgot that everything the US does has to be in support of Europe. If they don't approve - no country in the world should blink.No-one said they should support Europe. That's not the point - as you well know. The point is that the US$ hegemoney of world oil trading is achieved at gunpoint. The point is that a message is sent to all other non-superpower oil producers that they better stick to the US$. That message is meant for people like Chavez who maintains popular support despite all of the foreign interference being inflicted upon his nation.The last time I checked the vaunted UN liked the guy. The leading cleric in Iraq likes the guy. But, because the US also likes the guy and supports his appointment, he must have the label Dictator. We all know that anyone the US supports in power must have that label. Sorry Vicente, Bush likes you so you must now be known as the Dictator of Mexico!When the candidates have to be pre-approved by the occupying powers, the choices become very limited. Any such candidate requires the continued presence of the coaliton forces in Iraq not the least to prevent getting an IED enema.
Yup - that list of facts you brought up sure are undeniable and rock solid. Not a single piece of propaganda or opinion in there. I can only hope that I can grow up someday to see the world through such wide and thoughtful glasses. :rofl:Resorting to sarcasm Yogs? Maybe I gave you too much credit.

I wish you all the best in your endeavours to grow up and offer you a tip to help you - get the optically flat clear lenses - the tainted and curved lenses are doing you absolutely no good at all, except to make you feel better about yourself. :loser:

They were doing a LOT of illegal business with them. Just like all the other UN nations who opposed the invasion. Especially the French and the Germans.They had agreements to develop the Iraqi oil reserves and industry in place due to commence AFTER the sanctions were lifted - not before.

The US, OTOH,was persona non grata as far as Iraq was concerned. They were effectively locked out of all that wealth and the power that comes with it.

One side was using diplomacy, while the other used the force trump - simple eh?.