Pentagon report on AQ ties to Sadam

[Said1]

These are public quotes.

They are then contrasted by the known intell of the time.

The fact that you are unable to accept this is very telling.

Telling of what? It simply says that I don't buy into asmmetrical propaganda with resepct to war?

Still waiting for you to quote what I believe to be the truth or paraphrase, I'm not that picky.

The fact that you won't do it is very telling, too.

[truthmatters]

Propaganda?

I think you dont know what propaganda is.

They said these things. It is in the record. The intell we had at the time did not back their statements. They had access to the intell. They spoke contrary to what the intell said at the time.

[Said1]

Propaganda?

I think you dont know what propaganda is.

They said these things. It is in the record. The intell we had at the time did not back their statements. They had access to the intell. They spoke contrary to what the intell said at the time.

Do you know what asymmetrical propaganda is? Judging by the above, I'd say not.

Anyway, still waiting for you to quote or paraphrase what I believe to be the truth. As I said, your unwillingness (or should I say INABILITY) to do so is very telling and typical. And what does your assumption tell about me, remeber you said 'is very telling' and then I asked 'telling of what?". You said it, now explain yourself. Or would you rather make an exit now?

[truthmatters]

Why dont you tell me what makes this anykind of propaganda?

What it is telling of is that you will refuse facts to retain your views.

America can never move forward and will fail at everything it attempts if facts are not paramount.

[Said1]

Why dont you tell me what makes this anykind of propaganda?

Um. No, I won't repeat myself. I already explained this above. Not my fault you don't get it.

What it is telling of is that you will refuse facts to retain your views.

This makes no sense.

America can never move forward and will fail at everything it attempts if facts are not paramount.

Blah, blah.

Where is your evidence of my beliefs?

[retiredman]

The fact is, we had every right to invade Iraq for no other reason except that they broke the cease-fire agreement from the First Gulf War in 1991. Everything else is just gravy.

having the right to do something not mean that it was the right thing to do.

having the right to invade does not mean that, with Al Qaeda still very much on the loose, America would have supported invading Iraq if there had not been the stated certainty of Saddam's WMD stockpiles and the implied connection with Al Qaeda and the further implication that those weapons would be given to Osama to use against us.

America would not have supported a diversion in the war against Islamic extremism to go punish Saddam for breaking a twelve year old ceasefire. period. Hence the need for the misleading "spin".

[truthmatters]

Um. No, I won't repeat myself. I already explained this above. Not my fault you don't get it.



This makes no sense.




Blah, blah.

Where is your evidence of my beliefs?

Cant answer huh?

[5stringJeff]

That's simply not true in my opinion.... here is why:

Constitutionally we do not invade or go to war with anyone unless we are in an imminant threat and delcare war with 2/3's of the senate and house voting yea. No executive should EVER be allowed to make the decision to go to war....without the declaration of war by Congress. Sure we have tried to dance around this for decades.....it does NOT in anyway make it constitutional or right.

Whether it is constitutional or not, it's how the US has gone to war since 1945. Will you also state that American involvement in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq (2003) were unconstitutional?

AND imo president Bush's doctine of going to war with countries that are not an imminent threat is the worst policy any president has put on to us, on to our soldiers and our soldier's families. We should not force a soldier to die for us for any other reason than an imminent threat.

Your opinion is noted.

And the cease fire agreement was between Kuwait and Iraq......NO WHERE on this agreement was the USA a signatory.

Actually, GEN Norm Schwarzkopf signed the cease-fire agreement, and the US voted for UN Resolution 687, which was the "official" UN resolution mandating a cease fire.

Thirdly, the UN who monitored the cease fire agreement between Saddam and Kuwait was against the retribution that the USA chose to take unilaterally.

The fact that the UN would not act to enforce the cease-fire does not mean that Gulf War coalition member nations could not act. As a signatory to the military cease-fire agreement that Iraq signed at Safwan in 1991, which Iraq violated, the US had every right under international law and the law of war to resume military operations.

[Said1]

Cant answer huh?

Can't answer what?

Again, state my beliefs. Can't answer, huh?

[5stringJeff]

having the right to do something not mean that it was the right thing to do.

I won't argue with that point in general. However, calling the war completely unjustified is, well, unjustified.

[jimnyc]

Cant answer huh?

I'm still waiting for answers from you for nearly a year now! The Queen Retard of "run when I can't answer to facts" has the audacity to ask for answers!

I belong to at least a dozen political boards. They all have their share of conspiracy theorists, knuckleheads, trolls and downright idiots. But you, easily, without a trace of doubt in my mind - take the title of dumbest poster who wouldn't know facts if they bit her in her big 'ol mushy ass!

[retiredman]

I won't argue with that point in general. However, calling the war completely unjustified is, well, unjustified.

it may have been technically justified.... and I have never said otherwise.

being technically justified does not mean that it was, therefore, not a terribly ill-advised, counterproductive thing to do.

[truthmatters]

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Check page 63.

Personal insults do not make facts go away.

[Said1]

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Check page 63.

Personal insults do not make facts go away.

Who is this post for?

And again:
Can't answer what?

State my beliefs.

Evasion does not make your lies go away.

[truthmatters]

Its for anyone who cares about the truth of what happened.

You will have to deside if it for you by yourself.

There were no ties to AQ and Rumsfeld said clearly there were. There was no evidence of it. He lied.