Dick Cheney says so, again and again, in spite of there being no evidence to support the claim. The story is here: here.
Does he think that if he repeats this often enough it will become true? Or does he expect that lots of dimwits will hear him say it over and over and therefore will believe it and vote for Bush? It sometimes seems to me that he is the only one left who continues to stand by this particular lie.
Vote these bastards out.
The press conference going on right now just had Bush saying, “Zarqawi is the link”, essentially. It’s an interesting conference, Bush is very defensive. Karzai is being much more articulate.
He also just reiterated the importance of SOCAS if anybody’s keeping count.
I think he’s right in some of the basics but now that he’s done the dirty work, we need a diplomat in the slot. I plan to vote for Kerry and have for a while.
That tactic hasn’t worked out too bad for the cunts in the past.
Yes, he does. And they will. How many Americans is it that believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11 at the last count?
None that I know. Those polls are flawed sometimes–if the question is, “Did Saddam ever harbor any terrorists sympathetic to Al Qaeda within his borders?”, well, yes he did. This is far from saying that he himself supported Al Qaeda or had anything to do with 9/11. But if the answers are spun as linking Saddam and 9/11, it’s not like people can call and object that that’s not what they said.
It really bothers me that those Iraqis are so intent at shooting Role Playing Games at everyone. I was amazed to read that. Anyone who could do that, could do anything.
Savages.
This Zarqawi guy, is he who I think he is? I get confused sometimes, the different players and all. Is this the three-legged Jordanian, who had one leg amputated in Baghdad and still has two? Is he the guy who ran a state of the art poison gas facility in Kurdish controlled territory? Without the advantage of electricity or running water? Is he Osama’s pen pal, who keeps writing letters bemoaning the sorry fate of the dead-ender foreign fighter Al Queda insurgency, being surely crushed by the invincible Americans? Top secret transmissions, that get intercepted every time, and he still keeps doing it?
Is that they guy?
Repeat that enough times and you might even start believing your-own-self.
You’re having a laugh aren’t you? Just on a quick Google, this site has various polls on the subject of Iraq, including a Washington post comissioned one from August last year. The question is “How likely is it that Saddam Hussein Was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks”, which seems fairly unambiguous to me, and 69% of respondants have answered “very/somewhat likely”.
Heh. I didn’t know that’s how the questions were worded. That’s pretty bad. Although I’d feel better if it was more than 1,003 people and almost a year old.
Oh goody. Another Bush is stupid and Cheney evil thread! Yep Yep Yep!
I don’t care a rat’s ass about Iraqi oil, WMD, Al Queda links or what not – the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein was a good thing that would not have come about without the war. What the world needs is more such interventions not less, and that’s the liberal in me that speaks.
That said, there’s little doubt that Saddam and his regime were very active in support of terrorists, perhaps just not of the Al-Queda kind (the jury is still out on this one). This should be more than enough to call for his overthrow, or has the war on terror suddenly turned into the war on Al-Queda while I was away?
No, this is bullshit. The question is did SH knowingly harbor AQ? I don’t doubt that there were AQ or AQ sympathizers in Iraq, but I bet they did their best to stay off his radar. I don’t hold SH anymore accountable for AQ being within his borders then I do Bush for having AQ within ours.
Go ahead, prove me otherwise.
Bolding mine
Ah yes, those little niggling details.
We need competent teams to carry out any such tasks from now on. This last one, the GWB Admin, fucked up more and again.
Ploease note that the terrorist group most closely associated with Hussein, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, is the same one that a member of the Bush Admin, Richard Perle, was raising money for earlier this year. This should be more than enough to call for the overthrow of the GWB Admin.
Think about it.
“Niggling” Hasn’t that word been scheduled for termination under the new anal retentive PC laws? Sounds suspiciously like nigger to me.
Anyway niggling (as in trivial and unimportant) details is the correct word. One rat is as good as the next. Hamas, Islamic Jihad or Al-Queda who gives a fuck, kill them all and let Allah sort them out.
Rune, I don’t see where anyone but you used the words “Bush” and “stupid” in the same sentence. In fact, my mention of Bush was only to speculate as to the vote-getting effectiveness of the bald-faced lie that Cheney told again and has told several times in the past. He has been asked to produce evidence supporting his claim, and coveniently doesn’t provide any. Nor can anyone in the current administration offer any proof that Sadam had strong ties to Al Queada.
As to liberating Iraq from Saddam, that was not the reason we went to war. That is just one of the spins put on things by this administration. My personal view is that Saddam wasn’t a threat to the US and as for liberating the Iraquis, it wasn’t and isn’t our job to do so. And Saddam’s absence from power has sure worked peace and prosperity in Iraq, hasn’t it?
Who’s this we? That’s certainly one of the important reasons I supported (and supports) the war.
As a European there are, political speaking, few things I fear more than an isolationist America. And I think a very strong case could be made that it was morally your job to do since you had the ability.
Sure has. Compared to Saddam’s rule it sure has. Still one shouldn’t expect miracles so quick. Give it a few years, then we can see if it was a success or failure.
Are we reading the same thread here?
But Hamas and Islamic Jihad didn’t fly planes into buildings here. That is a pretty major destinction. This administration seems hell bent on establishing a relationship where there is none (Osama was on record as calling Saddam a secularist infadel and called on his ouster, so your jury won’t be coming up with any photos of SH and UBL hugging and kissing any time soon). The administration is simply grasping at any straw they can to justify the Iraq war. And they conitinue to attempt to sell a point that has been repeatedly shown to be baseless.
Ah, yes: the same Zarqawi who was camped out in the Kurdish-controlled north of Iraq in 2002, that our military proposed three different plans to kill/capture him that year, that the White House vetoed.
That Zarqawi.
Bush’s pretty defensive every time I hear him these days. Not surprising - he’s got a lot to be defensive about.
mehitabel - 1000 people is a plenty large enough sample to be accurate within a few percentage points. You can argue about the age of the poll, though, and admittedly Avenger did say ‘at the last count’, i.e. as close to now as possible. But I’d argue that the key thing is, how many people did the Administration hornswoggle into believing that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 when they were selling us on invading Iraq? If we wised up later, good for us. But if they fooled us then, shame on them.
NurseCarmen - I blame it all on the TLA* shortage.
*Three letter acronym.
Can I get a cite on that? I’d like to have it on hand for future discussions.
Rune, what do you make of Nursecarmen’s comments?