Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The liberals love to spew their mantra that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11, as if anyone has actually said they were responsible. Words have been put in GWB's mouth and the excuse for wanting to cut and run has been that Iraq isn't really "part of the war on terror." We can go back and forth on that one for quite a while, but that's not the point of my post.
Now, Democrats like Carl Levin show their true stripes as they balk about sending more troops to Afghanistan. Did something change? Were Al Qaeda and the Taliban not responsible for planning and carrying out 9/11? So why are the Democrats talking about withdrawal and not wanting to send more troops?
Regardless of your opinion on Iraq, one fact that even Obama and the Dems acknowledge is that the surge in Iraq worked as intended.
The liberals love to spew their mantra that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11, as if anyone has actually said they were responsible. Words have been put in GWB's mouth....
First in a series of responses.
Putting words in Bush's mouth, hmmmm.
"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002) - BushOnIraq.com
"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002) - Whitehouse.gov
"I think they're both equally important, and they're both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We've got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm." - President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002) - Whitehouse.gov
"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - Whitehouse.gov
"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint." - President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002) - BushOnIraq.gov
"He's had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates." - Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - BushOnIraq.com
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov
"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003) - Whitehouse.gov
Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003) - BushOnIraq.com
"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations." - President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference, White House (3/6/2003) - BushOnIraq.com
"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other." President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003) -BushOnIraq.com
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more." - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) - BushOnIraq.com
"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed." - President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003) - BushOnIraq.com
Quote:
We can go back and forth on that one for quite a while, but that's not the point of my post.
Ah, if it wasn't your post, then you shouldn't have brought it up. Once up, it needs to be addressed.
Now, Democrats like Carl Levin show their true stripes as they balk about sending more troops to Afghanistan.
What stripes might those be?
Quote:
Did something change?
8 years of neglect.
Quote:
Were Al Qaeda and the Taliban not responsible for planning and carrying out 9/11?
Yes.
Quote:
So why are the Democrats talking about withdrawal and not wanting to send more troops? Regardless of your opinion on Iraq, one fact that even Obama and the Dems acknowledge is that the surge in Iraq worked as intended.
There are some very distinct differences between Iraq and Afghanistan. One; not to overstate the point, Iraq had a history of a strong central government Afghanistan never has. Additionally, all of the Shia parties that comprise the national government also had significant, well funded and well trained, by Iran I might add, militias which formed the basis for the development of a national security force, the Afghan government does not.
As for the surge, may I point to a FoxNews report regarding a speech by Gen. David Patraeus, the author of the Surge which Bush initially opposed, regarding a surge for Afghanistan:
"But Petraeus said a large military surge like the one in Iraq would not work in Afghanistan because there is not enough infrastructure on the ground to handle one, and because it is imperative that Afghans not view coalition forces as conquerors."
The liberals love to spew their mantra that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11, as if anyone has actually said they were responsible.
Then why did we go to war with the wrong country which you unabashedly defend?
Quote:
Words have been put in GWB's mouth and the excuse for wanting to cut and run has been that Iraq isn't really "part of the war on terror." We can go back and forth on that one for quite a while, but that's not the point of my post.
Even Bush stated that there is no link between Osama, Saddam, and 9/11.
Quote:
Now, Democrats like Carl Levin show their true stripes as they balk about sending more troops to Afghanistan. Did something change? Were Al Qaeda and the Taliban not responsible for planning and carrying out 9/11? So why are the Democrats talking about withdrawal and not wanting to send more troops?
Because maybe some of them still have common sense and don't want to waste resources and American lives. By the way, what is the timeline or should we engage in another indefinite war which is the neocon's mantra?
Quote:
Regardless of your opinion on Iraq, one fact that even Obama and the Dems acknowledge is that the surge in Iraq worked as intended.
You mean the violence that we created when we created a costly and deadly vacuum by removing Saddam. You want to give credit to that after $3 trillion dollars, over 4,000 American lives, over 150,000 lives, no WMD's, and no OBL?
By all means masturbate over the success of the surge in which we initially created the parameters for violence.
The Taliban started its war against the evil communists and the Reagan Administration supplied them through radical groups like the Wahabi and people like Osama bin Laden. With US mines and anti aircraft missles like the Stinger they defeated the Soviets and took control. Right up to 9-10-01 WE weree funding their conflicts with pro Iraniian Shiite Baluchis around Herat and the Northern Alliance in the Northeast. Bin Laden and the Taliban are what we have made them.
The same could be said for the present government and it's Army which are as cuthroat a bunch as Pol Pots Khmer Rouge. General Dotsum personally supervised the murder of over 1,200 prisoners in one day. His idea of an electrol irregularity is running over the opposition with a tank. This is NOT Nation Building. These people are worse than the Taliban
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,772,368 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311
The liberals love to spew their mantra that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11, as if anyone has actually said they were responsible. Words have been put in GWB's mouth and the excuse for wanting to cut and run has been that Iraq isn't really "part of the war on terror." We can go back and forth on that one for quite a while, but that's not the point of my post.
Now, Democrats like Carl Levin show their true stripes as they balk about sending more troops to Afghanistan. Did something change? Were Al Qaeda and the Taliban not responsible for planning and carrying out 9/11? So why are the Democrats talking about withdrawal and not wanting to send more troops?
Regardless of your opinion on Iraq, one fact that even Obama and the Dems acknowledge is that the surge in Iraq worked as intended.
The Taliban ran Afganistan and provided sanctuary to Al Queada and Ben Laden. My view is that we never should have engaged the Taliban or removed them from power. We should have invaded Afganistan, found and killed those responsible including Ben Laden and packed up and left. Only those Taliban who got in our way in going after Ben laden and Co should have been engaged and killed. I am totally opposed to "regime change" and "nation building". I am for going after the enemy, killing them and then getting the hell out.
"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002) - BushOnIraq.com
..................
Ah, if it wasn't your post, then you shouldn't have brought it up. Once up, it needs to be addressed.
and look at you post NO WHERE did Bush say anything about Iraq being connected to 9/11
he did say iraq and alqeada
so did clintons admin in 1999
Associated Press
February 13, 1999
Bin Laden reportedly leaves Afghanistan, whereabouts unknown
Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday.
Taliban authorities in the militia's southern stronghold of Kandahar refused to either confirm or deny reports that bin Laden had left the country.
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.
Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities.
The Taliban did promise that bin Laden would not use Afghanistan as a staging arena for terrorist activities.
------------------------
The Guardian
August 6, 1999
Saddam link to Bin Laden
By Julian Borger
Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.
The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.
News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use."
------------------------
US State Department
November 4, 1999
Bin Laden, Atef Indicted in U.S. Federal Court for African Bombings
New York -- Usama bin Laden and Muhammad Atef were indicted November 4 in Manhattan federal court for the August 7 bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and for conspiring to kill Americans outside the United States.
Bin Laden's "al Qaeda" organization functioned both on its own and through other terrorist organizations, including the Al Jihad group based in Egypt, the Islamic Group also known as el Gamaa Islamia led at one time by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and a number of other jihad groups in countries such as Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Somalia.
Bin Laden, the US Attorney charged, engaged in business transactions on behalf of Al Qaeda, including purchasing warehouses for storage of explosives, transporting weapons, and establishing a series of companies in Sudan to provide income to al Qaeda and as a cover for the procurement of explosives, weapons, and chemicals, and for the travel of operatives.
According to the indictment, bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah with the goal of working together against their common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.
Beginning in 1992, bin Laden allegedly issued through his "fatwah" committees a series of escalating "fatwahs" against the United States, certain military personnel, and, eventually in February 1998, a "fatwah" stating that Muslims should kill Americans -- including civilians -- anywhere in the world they can be found.
in fact clinton signed the POLICY ti change the iraqi regeme
Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by President Clinton, states:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
I believe you are forgetting that Bill Clinton himself signed off on funds that were going directly to the Taliban in the mid to late 90s. Because of Clinton's actions, and naturally Unocal's plans for their oil pipeline through Afghanistan, we had the embassy bombings, and 9/11.
It is also no secret that Bill Clinton and Al Gore both openly endorsed regime change in Iraq, as well as admitting there was evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that he was willing to use them.
I know there are a lot of mouth breathers who will deny reality, so why not watch some videos to refresh said memories:
The liberals love to spew their mantra that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11, as if anyone has actually said they were responsible. Words have been put in GWB's mouth and the excuse for wanting to cut and run has been that Iraq isn't really "part of the war on terror." We can go back and forth on that one for quite a while, but that's not the point of my post.
Now, Democrats like Carl Levin show their true stripes as they balk about sending more troops to Afghanistan. Did something change? Were Al Qaeda and the Taliban not responsible for planning and carrying out 9/11?
The liberals love to spew their mantra that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11, as if anyone has actually said they were responsible. Words have been put in GWB's mouth and the excuse for wanting to cut and run has been that Iraq isn't really "part of the war on terror." We can go back and forth on that one for quite a while, but that's not the point of my post.
There is no "going back and forth", the neocons lied us into a disastrous war in Iraq that has outed the United States not as a country of laws, but a country that uses military force and torture to take what it wants from others.
Thats all factual. All you had to do was be awake over the past 8 years to know this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
