Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community
Sign in to follow this  
igloo

A MOTHER'S LOSS by John Byrnes, Army National Guard's 2-108th Infantry Battalion.

Recommended Posts

A MOTHER'S LOSS

By JOHN BYRNES

August 15, 2005 -- IT is impossible not to feel for Cindy Sheehan, the mother of Spec. Casey Sheehan, who died in last year in Iraq. My father tells me that my own mother could never watch the news during my 10 months in Iraq.

All the parents I know say that even contemplating the loss of a child, no matter how grown up, is terribly painful. Mothers of soldiers and Marines are perhaps the most strident peace advocates in America today. They've the biggest emotional investment.

Her account of her meeting with the president — that he didn't refer to her son by name, and generally came across as cold and perfunctory — may be true. Sadly, the president has had hundreds of these meetings, and will most certainly have hundreds more. Perhaps he's fallen into a routine, or has trouble expressing his real emotions. Maybe he's just not that warm a person; I don't know.

I feel the loss of her son, who is a fellow soldier. But I wonder what consolation the president could have offered her. Would her grief disappear if President Bush had all of President Bill Clinton's warmth and charm? Or would she have felt handled and used even then? No one can know, not even Cindy Sheehan.

Mrs. Sheehan has made it her life's mission to seek a word or two with President Bush. She wants a personal meeting, where the president would be more personal in acknowledging her grief, and she wants an explanation as to why Casey had to die in a war far away. So she has camped out on the doorstep of the president's ranch in Crawford, drawing a swarm of media attention and a horde of fellow activists out to make her the new symbol of the antiwar movement.

They've largely succeeded. Along with the hundreds of left-wing nuts who have nothing better to do then camp out on the roadside and taunt the presidential motorcade with schoolyard taunts, the established left has taken up Mrs. Sheehan's banner: Arianna Huffington, Maureen Dowd and so on are gushing over her courage and tenacity.

That's a shame, though it was predictable and maybe even inevitable. The left is using Mrs. Sheehan to move its message (this war is bad — was bad from the start, is bad now, will be bad tomorrow). Their cry is: "Bring the troops home now!"

It's too bad that Mrs. Sheehan can't connect the loss of her son to the positive effects of the war. It's outrageous that her new friends, sycophants and enablers ignore the facts.

Spec. Casey helped overthrow and bring to justice a vicious dictator who will soon go on trial for the first of many counts of mass murder. He sacrificed so that 81/2 million Iraqis could vote in elections this past January. He gave his life so that foreign terrorists and Saddam's surviving cronies are kept from undermining a fledgling democracy.

He gave his final measure because he belonged to the Army of a nation that believes the people of Iraq deserve the same kind of opportunities we enjoy here.

These peaceniks who say they want to save the lives of American soldiers by bringing them home now are wrong. It's the brutality and misery of regimes like Saddam's that fostered terrorism. If the troops come home tomorrow, then what? Do we sit and watch as Iraq slides into civil war? What do we say to the critics then? That we irresponsibly allowed a democratically elected government to be destroyed because some people in our country can't find anything worth fighting for?

I'm sorry, Mrs. Sheehan. I think your son is a hero, and I've known a few. I think his death was in a noble cause. And they may not know you, or your son, but millions of Iraqis have reason to be grateful for the sacrifice that you made.

I'm not sure the president can give you the peace you seek. I know that your new friends on the left can't.

Spec. John Byrnes served in Iraq with the Army National Guard's 2-108th Infantry Battalion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parents of American fighters in Iraq say protester doesn't speak for them

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: August 17, 2005

11:45 p.m. Eastern

By Joe Kovacs

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Marine Cpl. Matthew Matula, killed in Iraq April 9, 2004

The continued focus by the nation's media on Cindy Sheehan, the so-called "Peace Mom" who's demanding a second meeting with President Bush in the wake of her son's death, is sparking a backlash from parents of other American servicemen and women in Iraq.

One Texas family of a fallen Marine became so enraged with Sheehan's use of their son's name on a protest cross, they drove from the town of Spicewood to Crawford to remove it.

"I went there and had Matthew's name taken off of there," said Matt Matula, whose son, a 20-year-old Marine, was killed by hostile fire last year. "It's fine for people to grieve their own way. It aggravates me to see them using other people's names to further their cause."

"He's not a victim, he's a hero," he told KXAN-TV, "and I think that everybody that's serving our country [are] heroes."

Cpl. Matthew Matula, whose wife, Julie, was pregnant when he was killed in action, had planned on bringing his wife and baby back from his base in Southern California to Texas to get a ranch and build a house.

Stephanie Williams, 11, Karina Lopez, 9, and Brittney Conrad, 10, pay tribute at a 2004 candlelight vigil in Murrieta, Calif., to Cpl. Matt Matula (photo: Mike Norkin/for the Californian)

He earned a host of decorations, including the Purple Heart, Combat Action Ribbon, Presidential Unit Citation, National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Operation Iraqi Freedom Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and Sea Service Deployment Ribbon. His younger brother youngest son just recently joined the military and is also heading to Iraq.

"Matthew was very proud of being a Marine and proud of his unit and what they were doing," his mother, Toni, said.

Her feelings are echoed by another war mom, Debbie from Indianapolis, who called radio host Rush Limbaugh today to say her own son was wounded in Iraq when his vehicle ran over a land mine twice in one day, and he's now serving his second tour of duty.

"I would never dishonor his actions by doing what this woman is doing," she tearfully said, referring to Cindy Sheehan. "What she's doing is not only dishonoring her son, she's dishonoring mine. ... [Casey Sheehan] didn't die for nothing, he died in the United States Armed Forces.There's nothing more honorable than that. These kids volunteered, they were not yanked from their cradle by an evil government to send them someplace they didn't want to go ... My son knew what was in store for him, and my son stepped up to the plate."

Lee Miller, who has a long list of family members in the service, wrote the China Daily newspaper to blast Mrs. Sheehan, while at the same time heaping praise on her son, Casey.

"He is a better person then you will ever be. So go home and honor his name instead of dragging it in the dirt. Make a difference instead of trying to be in the limelight. You're making an a-- out of yourself. I know your pain. I have been down that path – it hurts, but don't blame someone for a choice a person makes when it doesn't work out. Build a bridge and get over it. Your son was proud of what he did, so be proud of him."

The backlash has led to the creation of the "You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy" tour, a caravan of military family members who plan to converge on Crawford for a rally Aug. 27.

The event is being promoted by MoveAmericaForward, and is led by Deborah Johns of Northern California Marine Moms, whose son, William, is a Marine serving in Iraq.

Deborah Johns of Roseville, Calif., stars in commercial supporting her son and others fighting for freedom in Iraq

"I am deeply sorry for Ms. Sheehan's loss; however, Ms. Sheehan's actions are only causing pain to those of us who have loved ones serving in the war against terrorism," Johns said. "We understand the need to fight the terrorists overseas rather than face attack here at home. We understand that it was the terrorists led by al-Qaida in Iraq who are responsible for the deaths of U.S. service members, including Casey Sheehan."

Johns is now starring in a new television commercial she produced.

"William is helping to bring about freedom, and people are realizing that freedom is a gift," she says in the spot. "He supports what we're doing over there."

The backlash is not going unnoticed by Cindy Sheehan.

Cindy Sheehan

"The right wingers are e-mailing me and spewing filth about me on the radio and on the television saying that I am dishonoring my son's memory," she writes. "The right wingers are really having a field day with me. It hurts me really badly, but I am willing to put up with the cr--, if it ends the war a minute sooner than it would have."

She's also disputes allegations her anti-war protest is all about her.

"I was just the spark the universe chose for some reason to spark this off, because, like I said, the movement was already there."

President Bush kissing Cindy Sheehan in family photo dated June 18, 2004

As WorldNetDaily previously reported, Sheehan met with President Bush in June of last year, and even posted a photo of herself being kissed by the commander in chief on her website designed to honor her son. The photos of Bush have since been surgically removed from the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:jacked:

By Cindy Sheehan

Tuesday 16 August 2005

10:23 PM

Putting out Fires

Day 10

The Peaceful Occupation of Iraq

The right wingers are really having a field day with me. It hurts me really badly, but I am willing to put up with the crap, if it ends the war a minute sooner than it would have. I would like to address some specific concerns that have been raised against me.

The first one is about my divorce. I addressed this on my blog the other night. My divorce was in the works way before I came out to Crawford. My husband filed the papers before this all started. It just recorded last Friday. My husband didn't know that it would become public record, and public knowledge. He had told his lawyer not to serve me with the paperwork or even bother me while I was at Camp Casey. He was trying to do the right thing. He didn't want me to find out. Enough about that.

Another "big deal" today was the lie that I had said that Casey died for Israel. I never said that, I never wrote that. I had supposedly said it in a letter that I wrote to Ted Koppel's producer in March. I wrote the letter because I was upset at the way Ted treated me when I appeared at a Nightline Town Hall meeting in January right after the inauguration. I felt that Ted had totally disrespected me. I wrote the letter to Ted Bettag and cc'd a copy to the person who gave me Ted's address. I believe he (the person who gave me the address) changed the email and sent it out to capitalize on my new found notoriety by promoting his own agenda. Enough about that.

I didn't blog about the cross incident last night. I was at the Peace House when there was a big commotion and people started saying that someone had run over our Arlington Crawford display. I know this is old news because I have seen great posts about it today. This is how I feel. The right wingers are emailing me and spewing filth about me on the radio and on the television saying that I am dishonoring my son's memory. This man who ran over the crosses thinks he is a better American than we are. He thinks we are more patriotic than we are. Does he really believe that he is honoring the memories of the fallen and his country by running down 500 crosses and about 60 American flags? The Iraq Veterans Against the War who were here were also very offended. Those crosses represented their buddies who didn't make it home. And they are so aware of the fact that one of those crosses could have their name on it.

Yesterday, we had a counter protestor who played his guitar across the way from us and sang (very terribly!!!) a song that loosely went like this:

Aiding and abetting the enemy.

How many ghosts did you make today?

Google me this, Google me that,

How many ghosts did you make today?

I find it so ironic that he was singing it to me, and not to George Bush. We named the song: The Ballad of George Bush. He came back out today, but blessed be to God, he didn't bring his guitar, and he didn't sing.

We are moving to a place that doesn't have much shade and I put out an appeal for tarps and a soldier from Ft. Hood brought some to us that he "borrowed" from Ft. Hood for us to use. I have had a lot of soldiers from Ft. Hood come out and tell me to keep it up and that I am doing a good thing. We are doing this to honor Casey and the other fallen heroes in their memories. But we are doing it FOR the people of Iraq and the other soldiers who are in harm's way right now. Right after we heard about the crosses last night, a Camp Casey volunteer found out that a pen pal she had in Iraq was KIA on August 12th. This has to stop, now. We will stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By Cindy Sheehan

Tuesday 16 August 2005

12:08 AM

Misses and Miracles

We still have so many great things happening at Camp Casey. In spite of all the smears and lies, people are still coming.

The most amazing thing today was learning that Camp Caseys are opening and spreading all over the country. They have been set up in Boston, Portland, Seattle, and elsewhere. If you can't make it to Camp Casey, set up your own version. Camp Caseys are amazing places full of love and hope. I am so gratified that the movement is spreading.

There is a meeting tomorrow at the County Commissioner's meeting to vote on closing Prairie Chapel Road and then evicting us. We were all worried about that and planning on being arrested when we got the best news yet. The property owner who owns property near Bush's ranch and right across the street from Bush's church will let us move Camp Casey there!! He has property on both sides of the road ... a full acre for us to camp! We are so excited!!! We can fit more people and we will be closer to the ranch. Miracles, miracles.

Mike Rogers from Tokyo showed up today and a dear woman from Australia who was a human shield in Iraq and knows that the Iraqi people are not jumping for joy that the policies of Bush destroyed their country.

This is an extremely short post today ... I am exhausted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By Cindy Sheehan

Monday 15 August 2005

3:44 AM

I apparently am the sacrificial lamb of the peace movement. I don't care about myself. Putting myself in the forefront and daring to challenge the president on his lies left myself open to the attacks. Which are, of course, half truths and distortions.

When they start sliming my home life and my family, that's where I draw the line. Yes, my husband has filed for divorce and yes he filed before I left for the VFP Convention and this trip to Crawford and yes IT IS BETWEEN MY HUSBAND AND I.

Having Casey murdered in Iraq by George Bush's reckless policies has been hard enough on my family, but me setting off on my holy war to bring the troops home, my constant absences, and all of the media attention has put additional stresses on my family.

I chose my path after Casey died. The rest of the family has chosen theirs. We all still love each other and support each other in anything that we do. We didn't want Casey to join the Army, but once he made that decision, we supported him and even encouraged him through boot camp.

We are a normal American family who have had good times, bad times, and terrible times. We hope the good times will come back. We hope that we will be able to laugh with abandon together like we used to one day. We hope that the troops come home and no other families have to go through what we are going through.

It isn't about politics for us. No one asked Casey what political affiliation he was before they sent him off to die in Iraq and no one asked us who we voted for in 2000 before we were handed a folded flag from Casey's flag-draped coffin.

I am not perfect and I never even claimed to be perfect. My family isn't perfect, but we are pretty special ... especially the children. We all miss Casey so much and it is George Bush and his neocon cabal who is at fault. The people who are dragging my family through the mud need to grow up and look at themselves. The Christ said: "He who is without sin, cast the first stone."

If everyone followed Jesus's advice, the world would be a much better place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By Cindy Sheehan

Saturday 13 August 2005

10:00 PM

The Peaceful Occupation of Iraq

Day 8

WOW!!!

It is not often that I, Cindy Sheehan is at a loss for words. I will try and describe today, though. It was the most incredible, fantastic, fabulous, amazing, powerful, miraculous event I have ever been apart of. I was so humbled and honored at the outpouring of love and support that arrived in Camp Casey today.

It was a busy morning of interviews and problem solving. I had interviews with some network shows and a photo shoot for the Vanity Fair article. Almost all of the reporters ask me if I have accomplished anything at Camp Casey and I think we really have. We have brought the war onto the front pages of the newspapers and the top stories of the mainstream media. It is really incredible that we are doing so well in the media because I keep telling all of the reporters that I am doing their jobs. I am asking the tough questions of the President that they don't ask.

We are also gathering people together in this country who believe that this war is a mistake and our troops should come home. I know people have been frustrated, either sitting on the fence or apathetically sitting on the sidelines. I know before Casey was killed, I didn't think that one person could every make a difference in the world. Now I know that isn't true. Not only can one person make a difference, but one person, with millions behind her can make history. I really believe that this movement that began in Crawford, Texas (does the irony escape anyone) is going to grow and grow and transform the world. Like I said last night in my blog: hope is blossoming in Crawford, because WE have the power.

The CBS reporter whom I met last Saturday when I began this Holy War against the War of Terrorism that George Bush is waging on the world told me that he has interviewed me 4 times this week already. He told me that he has never, ever interviewed anyone 4 times, let alone four times in one week. I was joking with the reporters that were here last week that they should have brought me flowers on our one week anniversary.

The most fantabulistic (I needed a new word, none of the old ones fit) thing happened in Crawford today. There was a very insignificant counter protesters across the way. At first the Sheriffs let them stand in the street, until we politely pointed out to the Sheriffs that we had to stay in the ditch last week. So they made them move into the ditch. Since we are supposedly in Bush country, the counter protest was so small and weak. They had signs that said "Stay the Course." I appreciated that. I really believe they were telling me to stay the course. I will.

We also met a man whose son was KIA in Iraq in November of 2004. He still loves George Bush and thinks we are doing great things in Iraq. By the end of the day we were drinking beer together and telling each other "I love you." I am telling you miracles are happening here in Crawford.

Anyway, back to the fantabulistic thing that happened to day. We had a rally downtown in Crawford. Then the people caravanned up to Camp Casey. I was told to come down to the point of the triangle to greet them. While I was walking down to the point, I had a great view of Prairie Chapel Road. There was car, after car, after car!!! I started sobbing and I felt like collapsing. The cars kept on coming. It took almost a full hour for them to all get to Camp Casey, it was a miraculous sight to see. It was identical to Field of Dreams.

People came from all over the country to be here. We are building a movement and they are coming.

We don't have a full count of all the people who were there, but I would say hundreds. It was amazing and awesome. I felt the spirits of all of our needlessly killed loved ones in the presence of Camp Casey. I felt their strength and the wisdom of the ages with me in that wonderful place.

Today was George Bush's accountability moment, and he lost. Two young ladies from San Diego drove all night to get to the rally and they had to leave tonight to get back home. One of them said: "Wow, we can drive all the way from San Diego just to meet you and he can't even come down to the end of his driveway to meet with you."

George Bush: you work for me. I pay your salary. Come out and talk to me. Anyway, I have a feeling you are about to be fired!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Nation Rocked to Sleep

By Carly Sheehan

Sister of Casey KIA 04/04/04

Sadr City, Baghdad

Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?

The torrential rains of a mother's weeping will never be done

They call him a hero, you should be glad that he's one, but

Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?

Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries?

He must be brave because his boy died for another man's lies

The only grief he allows himself are long, deep sighs

Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries?

Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brother's grave?

They say that he died so that the flag will continue to wave

But I believe he died because they had oil to save

Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brother's grave?

Have you ever heard the sound of a nation being rocked to sleep?

The leaders want to keep you numb so the pain won't be so deep

But if we the people let them continue another mother will weep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Douchebag,

Just as Cindy Sheehan has a right to voice her opinion, so do others. Especialy those families who have members serving or have given their life, for something they believe in.

Or do you believe that what they believe in is not as important, or worthy, as Cindy Sheehan. Because she is anti-war, her opinion carries more weight than a military family who is pro-war, or pro-Bush? Those who disagree with Cindy Sheehan do not have a right to speak up? Why?

Cindy Sheehan has a right to say whatever she wants, although I find some of her statements to be repulsive and baseless. However, she has aligned herself with some extreme groups, and some who are downright clueless. And Michael moore and moveon.org are counting on useful idiots like you to continue to exploit the exploitation they have already reprehensibly started.

The "bring the troops home now" mantra that you clueless imbeciles are barking is intellectually bankrupt, and serves absolutely no useful purpose other than to embolden those who we are fighting, and solidfying their belief that the only way to beat the U.S. is to appeal to the useful idiots with no resolve, and the lack of will to see the fight through. They are fiucking counting on it, and have been since the 90's, and you idiots jump aboard.

I find the left, or extreme left, and the media disgusting in how they exploited this situation. ANd I will equally find the right repulsive if they attack this woman personally (although I disagree with her actions and words). But perhaps you should take a break you fucking Moore sheep from regurgiating the bullshit you do, and expand that feeble little mind of yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Douchebag,

Just as Cindy Sheehan has a right to voice her opinion, so do others. Especialy those families who have members serving or have given their life, for something they believe in.

That's true. Isn't this how democracy works?

Or do you believe that what they believe in is not as important, or worthy, as Cindy Sheehan. Because she is anti-war, her opinion carries more weight than a military family who is pro-war, or pro-Bush? Those who disagree with Cindy Sheehan do not have a right to speak up? Why?

Falsity iggypoo. As the son of a WW2 dad, I honor their services as it is my duty as an American citizen to honor them no matter how diverse or opposite my opinion is on this war and my opposing view on Bush.

I never said that those who disagree with Cindy Sheehan have no right to speak up. In a democracy, people have the right to speak out for or against, no matter what. Isn't this how freedom of speech works. A two way street?

Cindy Sheehan has a right to say whatever she wants, although I find some of her statements to be repulsive and baseless.

Exactly. Just as you feel that her statements to be repulsive and baseless, you have the right to believe that and express it. In a free society, you have that entitlement, however repulsive and baseless or not is only a matter of opinion. You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion of her is the opposite and we are both entitled to it. Free country, right?

However, she has aligned herself with some extreme groups, and some who are downright clueless.

Prove their extremity without propaganda from the Fox News club for the brainwashed and useless.

And Michael moore and moveon.org are counting on useful idiots like you to continue to exploit the exploitation they have already reprehensibly started.

Your lying propagandists and leaders you support continue to exploit the exploitation they have already reprehensively started. I wonder about you.

The "bring the troops home now" mantra that you clueless imbeciles are barking is intellectually bankrupt, and serves absolutely no useful purpose other than to embolden those who we are fighting, and solidfying their belief that the only way to beat the U.S. is to appeal to the useful idiots with no resolve, and the lack of will to see the fight through. They are fiucking counting on it, and have been since the 90's, and you idiots jump aboard.

The bring the troops home now mantra you clueless imbeciles are trying to mock is because we do not want anymore blood spilled on iraqi soil. We do not want more american lives murdered at the hands of a president who sent them there on false pretenses. WMD. Where are they? The so called connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda is exactly what it is. Non existant. Such as the WMDs Bush lied about. We want to save both American and iraqi lives. So to you, to avenge the loss of loved ones who served honorably we must "stay the course" we must send more of our sons and daughters to their deaths at the expense of Bush's lies? Enlighten me lemming, since we know Bush lied about WMDs and lied about the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, what noble cause did they die for?

Tell me sheepboy, would you enlist and go to war? Would you let your kids enlist and go to war? Since you support this war, why won't you?

I find the left, or extreme left, and the media disgusting in how they exploited this situation.

Freedom of the press is wonderful. Isn't it?

ANd I will equally find the right repulsive if they attack this woman personally (although I disagree with her actions and words).

But both the right and yourself ARE attacking her. With lies. Maybe not in front of her face (personally) and I find that repulsive. Are you afraid to confront her? Like the propagandists you copy and paste here? Do you and your propagandist friends like bashing grieving mothers of lost ones who died in a war based on deceptions knowing you and your propaganda whores cannot defend your arguements? By lying? How disrespectful of you, your propaganda whores. How deplorably disrespectful of you and your propaganda whores to dishonor our fallen soldiers who paid the ultimate sacrifice. It's you, your propaganda whores and Bush who have the blood of both Americans and Iraqis on your hands. Shame on you!

But perhaps you should take a break you fucking Moore sheep from regurgiating the bullshit you do, and expand that feeble little mind of yours.

But perhaps you should shut the fuck up you fucking Bill O'Reilly sheep from regurgitating the bullshit you do, and expand that CLOSED feeble little mind of yours.

Better yet. Take maddox's tips on how to kill yourself that I have linked here before and execute one of them.

PS. running over make-shift memorials of our fallen soldiers who served this country with a pickup truck like one of your fellow Bush supporting sheep did at Camp Casey is not the way to honor our fallen soldiers. Is that the reason why that couple plucked the cross of their son from the memorial? To spare his? Because they conspired with the jerkoff who ulitmately plowed down the remaining crosses? Because Bush encouraged it, which I won't even doubt? Plucking a cross of a fallen soldier from a memorial is also dishonoring to the fallen soldiers. Obviously, that couple dishonors their own as Bush dishonors the many who paid the ultimate sacrifice on the count of his lies.

LEAVE THE CROSSES ALONE!

And like that scum in a pickup truck, Bush dishonors the fallen soldiers. Ignoring his responsibility and obligation to the people by brushing off Cindy is proof he is a coward and is afraid of her and he dishonors our fallen soldiers and the grieving families who have to endure the pain and suffering he has inflicted on them because of his lies. You see, unlike Bush we don't have to cower in a corner and hide. We are Americans (like the majority of Americans who now disagree with Bush on the war) who actually disagree with him and WE are right in front of his face to actually see for himself. This time he cannot avoid us. We won't let him avoid us. We are going to be a thorn on his side for as long as he lives. We're here. Right in front of his ranch.

And in his face. We don't need to hide, sheepboy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, seek professional help. Nice job with all your bullshit spin. It didn't work. I have told you a thousand times, you are not smart enough to pull it off. I guess you do have to stick to regurgitating Michael Moore talking points. You do not have the IQ to do anything else, obviously.

So, I am attacking her, how is that? By saying she has a right to say what she wants? Again, seek professional help.

I am attacking her like the propagandists I posted here? You mean the two posts I pasted from those in the military, and those from military families? Again, seek professional help.

And of course, the "Bush Lied about WMD" mantra--the rallying cry straight from the chambers of Michael Moore's ball sack. This is about as baseless as your pitiful existence. Give it up already, it is bad enough you do not have a shred of credibility, but to continue to hang on to that chant does nothing but cement your status as a schmuck blowhard.

Of course, I stand corrected if your definition of "Bush Lied about WMD " includes those in the Clinton Administration, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, Congress, the intelligence services of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, the United Nations, former weapons inspectors including Blix, etc. Did they all lie too?

I guess the fact that Iraq never PROVED they did not have WMD in the run-up to the war is lost on you, even though they were required too by U.N. sanctions. I guess it was lost on you that it was incumbent on the Iraqi regime to show they had no WMD, but instead they did the opposite. I guess that when Iraq kicked out weapons inspectors in 1998, but said they still had stockpiles that we never verified were destroyed is lost on you. I guess it also lost on you that when the U.N. passed the final resolution, it stated "disarm or face serious consequence"- does "disarm" mean anything to you.

I guess the Iraqi Liberation Act passed in 1998 was another lie by Bush. Wait a second, was Bush passed that as Governor? Or the plant that Clinton bombed in the Sudan was another Bush lie, even though it was suspected to be a joint Al Qaeda-Iraq chemical weapons plant, and the target was recommended by Richard Clarke. Oh wait, Bush lied about the Al Qaeda-Iraq connections. I forget simpletons like you were expecting to see a photo of Bin Laden and Saddam looking at plans of the WTC. In the murky world of ME intelligence, terrorist groups, and state sponsors, you needed to see them taking a bath together. But I guess the numerous terrorism experts and investigative journalists who have uncovered connections, they lied too. I guess Bill Clinton lied too, because he thought there were connections. Will Hillary's stated belief on the connections derail her 2008 bid for the Presidency? BTW--connections simpleton. That is the reality in the intelligence world. I can provide overwhelming data for you to read on the subject, but it would be lost on an imbecile like yourself.

And please SHUT THE FUCK UP with your spin that your intellectually BANKRUPT chant of "bring the boys home now" is for their safety, and they are there for Bush lies. You are a fucking jerkoff with not a once of intelligence. Your little chant, driven into your sheep head by Michael Moore and the like, does nothing but further endanger the troops in the field now, and advocating that absurd action would only further endanger the lives of Americans tenfold going forward. So again, you feeble minded little boy, I suggest you simply shut the fuck up, or find something else to give your pathetic little existence some false meaning.

Bush lied, Bush lied, blah, blah........jesus, shut the fuck up already. It is so tired. Someone in your life needs to point out to you that although you are dumb, you would be better served by staying off of lefties extreme websites and find yourself a home outside of Michael Moore's brown eye.

And why are we in Iraq-I thought you knew that answer when you posted the talking points straight form moveon.org (thanks for the laugh BTW).--...Wasn't one of them because Saddam tried killing Bush's daddy?......Of course, it was lost on you that this was a former President of the United States, and that Clinton bombed Iraq for days because of it. I guess that little fact did not appear in your sheep alarm from Moore.

Oh, that's right--oil. Of course. War for Oil. Laughable. Should I bring up democracy in Iraq? I mean, the antiwar crowd loves to now ignore that as one of the tenets for the President's justification of war, but at the times they mocked him for this "idealism"...Interesting.

But wait, this was an illegal war too, according to you. It didn't matter that Iraq violated the 1991 ceasefire, or did not adhere to U.N. sanctions, or Iraq was firing at out planes daily, or that you didn't have a problem when we went to war in Kosovo without U.N. approval, or the very same U.N. who you count on for legality was running a corrupt Oil for Food scam, or that we have been at a state of war for over a decade...none of that matters....the only thing that matters is France and Germany would not vote for war.....hhhmmm, I wonder why.

Should we talk about Saddam Hussein and his two sons at all...nah, better not...would probably get the usual misguided moral equivalency from jerkoffs like you. I mean, jerkoffs like you like to ignore that the President brought up the "humantarian" element to this, including in his first speech to the U.N....but Bush didn't mean it, he just said those words....

After all, you jerkoffs who pretend to care so much for teh Iraqi peope were in the streets protesting Saddam Hussein and his regime? You marched on the U.N. HQ's and demanded action be taken against this brutal dictator and murderer? You demanded

So, you choose to ignore all the facts of why we went to war, choose to ignore all the reasons we went to war, in favor of your baseless babble and sophomoric rants...Well, perhaps your Bush Blinders are casuing that--that is obvious. You want to look at what Congress put out,stating the 23 reasons for a cause of action against Iraq, you may want to ask Bill Clinton why the Iraqi Liberation Act, you may want to ask Saddam why he behaved in the manner he did, or maybe you want to take the words of an Iraqi:

Akila al-Hasemi, the Iraqi Governing Council member, who according to the New York Times, "admonished the French not to try to drive a wedge between the U.S. and the new Iraqi government by offering a tempting plan for quick sovereignty."

It is al-Hasemi's parting words to her French hosts that bear repeating: "Don't think the Iraqis will ever forget what the Americans did in liberating them. We will not allow the Americans to fail."

Destruction...you are a fucking asshole.....you do not have a clue what the fuck you are talking about, and are just a little boy sheep with the IQ of a gnat......but more sadly, is you don't give a fuck about Cindy Sheehan, you don't give a fuck about her son, and you don't give a fuck about our troops. Sheehan was exploited by leftist groups with an agenda, and you are a useful idiot pawn in this repulsive game.

Don't bother responding with any more of your idiocy, baseless talking points you get from your little michael moore sites, tired rants and chants, and little "transalations" that define your social deficiencies and cut and pastes from moveon.org...you are a bore, and an undecuated one at that......

if your goal in life was to be a blowhard, you have succeeded...but sadly, jerkoffs like you think this is a fucking game, and think that your repsulive words and actions do not have negative consequences for the people and country who are fighting for the right for you to be a blowhard....

Your noise and bullshit detract from those who have legitimate points to make, and offer dissent with honest, credibility, merit, and integrity.....these are the poeple who need to be heard from, not useless plebes like yourself and the peope and groups you get your education from

Sad....trust me, it would be better to either get an education and professional help...if that does not work, kill yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said, seek professional help. Nice job with all your bullshit spin. It didn't work. I have told you a thousand times, you are not smart enough to pull it off. I guess you do have to stick to regurgitating Michael Moore talking points. You do not have the IQ to do anything else, obviously.

So, I am attacking her, how is that? By saying she has a right to say what she wants? Again, seek professional help.

I am attacking her like the propagandists I posted here? You mean the two posts I pasted from those in the military, and those from military families? Again, seek professional help.

And of course, the "Bush Lied about WMD" mantra--the rallying cry straight from the chambers of Michael Moore's ball sack. This is about as baseless as your pitiful existence. Give it up already, it is bad enough you do not have a shred of credibility, but to continue to hang on to that chant does nothing but cement your status as a schmuck blowhard.

Of course, I stand corrected if your definition of "Bush Lied about WMD " includes those in the Clinton Administration, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, Congress, the intelligence services of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, the United Nations, former weapons inspectors including Blix, etc. Did they all lie too?

I guess the fact that Iraq never PROVED they did not have WMD in the run-up to the war is lost on you, even though they were required too by U.N. sanctions. I guess it was lost on you that it was incumbent on the Iraqi regime to show they had no WMD, but instead they did the opposite. I guess that when Iraq kicked out weapons inspectors in 1998, but said they still had stockpiles that we never verified were destroyed is lost on you. I guess it also lost on you that when the U.N. passed the final resolution, it stated "disarm or face serious consequence"- does "disarm" mean anything to you.

I guess the Iraqi Liberation Act passed in 1998 was another lie by Bush. Wait a second, was Bush passed that as Governor? Or the plant that Clinton bombed in the Sudan was another Bush lie, even though it was suspected to be a joint Al Qaeda-Iraq chemical weapons plant, and the target was recommended by Richard Clarke. Oh wait, Bush lied about the Al Qaeda-Iraq connections. I forget simpletons like you were expecting to see a photo of Bin Laden and Saddam looking at plans of the WTC. In the murky world of ME intelligence, terrorist groups, and state sponsors, you needed to see them taking a bath together. But I guess the numerous terrorism experts and investigative journalists who have uncovered connections, they lied too. I guess Bill Clinton lied too, because he thought there were connections. Will Hillary's stated belief on the connections derail her 2008 bid for the Presidency? BTW--connections simpleton. That is the reality in the intelligence world. I can provide overwhelming data for you to read on the subject, but it would be lost on an imbecile like yourself.

And please SHUT THE FUCK UP with your spin that your intellectually BANKRUPT chant of "bring the boys home now" is for their safety, and they are there for Bush lies. You are a fucking jerkoff with not a once of intelligence. Your little chant, driven into your sheep head by Michael Moore and the like, does nothing but further endanger the troops in the field now, and advocating that absurd action would only further endanger the lives of Americans tenfold going forward. So again, you feeble minded little boy, I suggest you simply shut the fuck up, or find something else to give your pathetic little existence some false meaning.

Bush lied, Bush lied, blah, blah........jesus, shut the fuck up already. It is so tired. Someone in your life needs to point out to you that although you are dumb, you would be better served by staying off of lefties extreme websites and find yourself a home outside of Michael Moore's brown eye.

And why are we in Iraq-I thought you knew that answer when you posted the talking points straight form moveon.org (thanks for the laugh BTW).--...Wasn't one of them because Saddam tried killing Bush's daddy?......Of course, it was lost on you that this was a former President of the United States, and that Clinton bombed Iraq for days because of it. I guess that little fact did not appear in your sheep alarm from Moore.

Oh, that's right--oil. Of course. War for Oil. Laughable. Should I bring up democracy in Iraq? I mean, the antiwar crowd loves to now ignore that as one of the tenets for the President's justification of war, but at the times they mocked him for this "idealism"...Interesting.

But wait, this was an illegal war too, according to you. It didn't matter that Iraq violated the 1991 ceasefire, or did not adhere to U.N. sanctions, or Iraq was firing at out planes daily, or that you didn't have a problem when we went to war in Kosovo without U.N. approval, or the very same U.N. who you count on for legality was running a corrupt Oil for Food scam, or that we have been at a state of war for over a decade...none of that matters....the only thing that matters is France and Germany would vote for war.....hhhmmm, I wonder why.

Should we talk about Saddam Hussein and his two sons at all...nah, better not...would probably get the usual misguided moral equivalency from jerkoffs like you. I mean, jerkoffs like you like to ignore that the President brought up the "humantariam" element to this, including in his first speech to the U.N....but Bush didn't mean it, he just said those words....

After all, you jerkoffs who pretend to care so much for teh Iraqi peope were in the streets protesting Saddam Hussein and his regime? You marched on the U.N. HQ's and demanded action be taken against this brutal dictator and murderer? You demanded

So, you choose to ignore all the facts of why we went to war, choose to ignore all the reasons we went to war, in favor of your baseless babble and sophomoric rants...Well, perhaps your Bush Blinders are casuing that--that is obvious. You want to look at what Congress put out,stating the 23 reasons for a cause of action against Iraq, you may want to ask Bill Clinton why the Iraqi Liberation Act, you may want to ask Saddam why he behaved in the manner he did, or maybe you want to take the words of an Iraqi:

Akila al-Hasemi, the Iraqi Governing Council member, who according to the New York Times, "admonished the French not to try to drive a wedge between the U.S. and the new Iraqi government by offering a tempting plan for quick sovereignty."

It is al-Hasemi's parting words to her French hosts that bear repeating: "Don't think the Iraqis will ever forget what the Americans did in liberating them. We will not allow the Americans to fail."

Destruction...you are a fucking asshole.....you do not have a clue what the fuck you are talking about, and are just a little boy sheep with the IQ of a gnat......but more sadly, is you don't give a fuck about Cindy Sheehan, you don't give a fuck about her son, and you don't give a fuck about our troops. Sheehan was exploited by leftist groups with an agenda, and you are a useful idiot pawn in this repulsive game.

Don't bother responding with any more of your idiocy, baseless talking points you get from your little michael moore sites, tired rants and chants, and little "transalations" that define your social deficiencies and cut and pastes from moveon.org...you are a bore, and an undecuated one at that......

if your goal in life was to be a blowhard, you have succeeded...but sadly, jerkoffs like you think this is a fucking game, and think that your repsulive words and actions do not have negative consequences for the people and country who are fighting for the right for you to be a blowhard....

Your noise and bullshit detract from those who have legitimate points to make, and offer dissent with honest, credibility, merit, and integrity.....these are the poeple who need to be heard from, not useless plebes like yourself and the peope and groups you get your education from

Sad....trust me, it would be better to either get an education and professional help...if that does not work, kill yourself.

:lol3:

Lies, lies and more lies. Go ram down some more crosses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lies, lies and more lies. Go ram down some more crosses.

Hurry up, go google up some talking points, or cut and paste some bullshit from your little education centers, or grab a chant from a t-shirt sheepboy......is it time for the Michael Moore blog hour yet-your normal venue for your "thoughts"...

Kill yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hurry up, go google up some talking points, or cut and paste some bullshit from your little education centers, or grab a chant from a t-shirt sheepboy......is it time for the Michael Moore blog hour yet-your normal venue for your "thoughts"...

Kill yourself

The immature childish things neocons like yourself say when they know their backs are up against the wall knowing they cannot defend their arguements. So they throw lies to try to discredit them but eventually fail. Like the way they have failed numerously to discredit Cindy Sheehan with their slanderous attacks. You are no better.

Got anymore lies about me? Come here and say them to my face instead of cowering yourself in the front of that computer screen. You must be feel mighty brave knowing you can spew your shit remotely. Pussy. Try saying your shit to Cindy Sheehan and the other parents of fallen soldiers and the IRAQ WAR VETERANS from both IVAW and FORT HOOD who are also there rallying right behind her. Say it to them. Are you afraid you might get knocked down the same way your Bush supporting friend in a pickup truck knocked down the crosses? I promise, I would most definately knock you down if you ever said that vomit to me.

Why haven't you answered my questions? And I repeat, since we know Bush lied about WMDs and lied about the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, what noble cause did they die for?

Tell me sheepboy, would you enlist and go to war? Would you let your kids enlist and go to war? Since you support this war, why won't you?

Answer them, or advance your cowardess by avoiding the questions.

Bush didn't lie about a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda?

WRONG!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html

Bush: No Link Between Iraq, Sept. 11 Attacks

WASHINGTON — Deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (search) may have not been involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, but he definitely is linked to the terrorists who did commit those crimes, President Bush said Wednesday. "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks, Bush said at the start of a meeting with congressional lawmakers discussing new energy legislation. But, he added, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties."

The White House expressed consternation earlier in the day over reports that members of the administration have led the public to believe a link exists between Saddam and the attacks on the United States.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that in no way did Vice President Dick Cheney (search) suggest in interviews over the weekend that there was evidence of Saddam's participation in the attacks. Bush never came to that conclusion either, the spokesman said.

McClellan could offer no clear explanation as to why recent public opinion polls indicate that 70 percent of Americans think there is a tie between Iraq and the attacks.

In an appearance on a Sunday newsmaker show, Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in a Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.

"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," Cheney answered.

Cheney said on Sunday that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld (search) said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's deposed leader, Saddam Hussein, had a hand in Sept. 11.

At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld was asked about the Post poll.

"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that," Rumsfeld said.

He added: "We know he [saddam] was giving $25,000 a family for anyone who would go out and kill innocent men, women and children. And we know of various other activities. But on that specific one, no, not to my knowledge."

The Bush administration has asserted that Saddam's government had links to Al Qaeda (search), the terrorist network led by Usama bin Laden that conducted the Sept. 11 attacks. And in various public statements over the past year or so, administration officials have suggested close ties.

In a television interview Tuesday night, White House National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (search) said that one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged."

Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-11."

She continued: "What we have said is that this is someone who supported terrorists, helped to train them, but most importantly that this is someone who, with his animus toward the United States, with his penchant for and capability to gain weapons of mass destruction, and his obvious willingness to use them, was a threat in this region that we were not prepared to tolerate."

Cheney said he recalled being asked about an Iraq connection to Sept. 11 shortly after the attacks, and responded that the time that he knew of no evidence at that point.

"Subsequent to that, we have learned a couple of things," he said.

"We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s; that it involved training, for example, on [biological warfare] and [chemical warfare]; that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems, and involved the Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the Al Qaeda organization."

Bush and others have stressed that the war in Iraq is part of the overall war on terror. The war was also aligned with Bush's preemption policy, or first-strike doctrine, which says the United States will not stand by and wait to be attacked before it takes action to root out those who wish to do harm to Americans.

"This is a new kind of war against a new enemy," Cheney said at an Air Force Association National Convention in Washington on Wednesday. "In addition to taking on terrorists, we're also going after the states that sponsor terror."

While many were critical of suggestions Saddam had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks, most people agree that Saddam himself terrorized his own people and others.

Officials maintain that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and/or was in the process of building them. Those weapons could at some point be used against Americans, officials have said.

Coalition forces in Iraq have been hunting for those weapons for months and administration officials have expressed confidence that some will eventually be found.

But former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix told an Australian radio station Wednesday that he thinks Iraq destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago, but kept up the appearance that it had them to deter a military attack.

"The more time that has passed, the more I think it's unlikely that anything will be found," Blix said.

McClellan responded on Wednesday that the president stands by his warnings before the war. He added that Iraq's threat was documented in resolution after resolution at the U.N. Security Council (search).

At his Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld reiterated his belief that U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq are making satisfactory progress in stabilizing the country.

He said it was an "open question" whether the United States would get the 10,000 to 15,000 additional international troops it seeks to create a third multinational division for security duty in Iraq. The Pentagon hopes to get at least that many additional troops from Turkey, Pakistan or other friendly countries to beef up security and possibly to allow some of the 130,000 U.S. troops there to go home next year.

"It would relieve some of the pressure on our forces," Rumsfeld said. "Whether or not there will be a [united Nations] resolution and whether or not — even if there were a resolution — we would get that number of troops is an open question."

Rice acknowledged that if commitments for more troops are gained, it "could be months" before they were in place.

Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who appeared with Rumsfeld, said there are more than 210,000 coalition troops in Iraq: 130,000 American troops, 24,000 British and other international troops, and 60,000 Iraqi police, border guards and members of civil defense forces.

Bush didn't lie about WMD? He admitted there were no WMD and the Duefer Report confirms that Saddam dismantled them after the Gulf War.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

Since then, the Bush Administration abandoned the search. So what is your argument/insult now?

I don't support Cindy Sheehan? I don't care about her son, I don't care about our troops? You are lying and you know it.

That is the avenue you obviously travel because based on your propaganda and insults, it is you who cares less about her, her son and the troops. If I didn't care about the troops, I would not have cared for my WW2 dad. That was a very arrogant and ignorant statment you made. Your lies amaze me.

And about my WW2 dad. Are you gonna say I dishonor him next? Go ahead. Trash my wartime dad like you do me, Cindy Sheehan and her son. You will be met by serious repercussions and your head will roll because he is dead. Watch your step. You will get hurt.

Go run down some more crosses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as Cindy Sheehan has a right to voice her opinion, so do others. Especialy those families who have members serving or have given their life, for something they believe in.

I find the left, or extreme left, and the media disgusting in how they exploited this situation. .

wow iggy , maybe you should remember the first part everytime you respond to some one who doesnt share your opinion as well

2nd part = anything like the extreme right and the handling of the Schaivo case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The immature childish things neocons like yourself say when they know their backs are up against the wall knowing they cannot defend their arguements. So they throw lies to try to discredit them but eventually fail. Like the way they have failed numerously to discredit Cindy Sheehan with their slanderous attacks. You are no better.

Got anymore lies about me? Come here and say them to my face instead of cowering yourself in the front of that computer screen. You must be feel mighty brave knowing you can spew your shit remotely. Pussy. Try saying your shit to Cindy Sheehan and the other parents of fallen soldiers and the IRAQ WAR VETERANS from both IVAW and FORT HOOD who are also there rallying right behind her. Say it to them. Are you afraid you might get knocked down the same way your Bush supporting friend in a pickup truck knocked down the crosses? I promise, I would most definately knock you down if you ever said that vomit to me.

Why haven't you answered my questions? And I repeat, since we know Bush lied about WMDs and lied about the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, what noble cause did they die for?

Tell me sheepboy, would you enlist and go to war? Would you let your kids enlist and go to war? Since you support this war, why won't you?

Answer them, or advance your cowardess by avoiding the questions.

Bush didn't lie about a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda?

WRONG!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html

Bush didn't lie about WMD? He admitted there were no WMD and the Duefer Report confirms that Saddam dismantled them after the Gulf War.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

Since then, the Bush Administration abandoned the search. So what is your argument/insult now?

I don't support Cindy Sheehan? You are lying and you know it. That is the avenue you obviously travel because based on your propaganda and insults, it is you who cares less about her. Your lies amaze me.

Go run down some more crosses.

Son...wow......I am serious, get some medical attention, because you need medication.......this post was your rebuttal? Hope you didn't strain yourself, because you are a schmuck...do you even read the things you post?

What is wrong with you? Were you dropped on your head as a baby? Chemical imbalance? Bi-polar? Just plain stupid? All of the above?

Son, go get an adult and have them walk you through this.....match up the ass kicking I delivered to you with ease, and then your rebuttal (used lightly).....ask them to read you full statements, and pay close attention to timeframes...but that is the only hints I will give you......if you can't figure it from there, then I am afraid you have to come to the realization about the level of your idiocy....

And son, if there is an extremist on this board, it is you.......you are not fooling anyone with your lame remarks, weak-ass spin, taking statements out of context, your little transalations, and applying bullshit meaning to what was actually said....to repeat, you are smart enough to pull it off

Son, really shut the fuck already...you are lame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Son...wow......I am serious, get some medical attention, because you need medication.......this post was your rebuttal? Hope you didn't strain yourself, because you are a schmuck...do you even read the things you post?

What is wrong with you? Were you dropped on your head as a baby? Chemical imbalance? Bi-polar? Just plain stupid? All of the above?

Son, go get an adult and have them walk you through this.....match up the ass kicking I delivered to you with ease, and then your rebuttal (used lightly).....ask them to read you full statements, and pay close attention to timeframes...but that is the only hints I will give you......if you can't figure it from there, then I am afraid you have to come to the realization about the level of your idiocy....

And son, if there is an extremist on this board, it is you.......you are not fooling anyone with your lame remarks, weak-ass spin, taking statements out of context, your little transalations, and applying bullshit meaning to what was actually said....to repeat, you are smart enough to pull it off

Son, really shut the fuck already...you are lame.

Translation:

I have not an argument I can defend. Slander is all I have left.

The sources I used were Fox News and the actual document from the CIA itself. How can you deny this is true? How can you call that spin? The same right wing extremists like yourself who play the spin card are the ones who are doing the spin.

Once again, you got owned Igloo.

And about my WW2 dad. Are you gonna say I dishonor him next? Go ahead. Trash my wartime dad like you do me, Cindy Sheehan and her son. You will be met by serious repercussions and your head will roll because he is dead. Watch your step. You will get hurt.

Go run down some more crosses. Loser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Translation:

The sources I used were Fox News and the actual document from the CIA itself. How can you deny this is true? How can you call that spin? The same right wing extremists like yourself who play the spin card are the ones who are doing the spin.

Once again, you got owned Igloo.

And about my WW2 dad. Are you gonna say I dishonor him next? Go ahead. Trash my wartime dad like you do me, Cindy Sheehan and her son. You will be met by serious repercussions and your head will roll because he is dead. Watch your step. You will get hurt.

Go run down some more crosses. Loser.

Retard...your stupidity is annoying.

You used a FNC article in which Bush states: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties."

That is no spin....so again, I repeat, do you even read the things you post? And in the same article, it states Blix as saying Iraq kept up the appearance they had WMD. and yet Bush still lied?

Even so, are you fucking kidding me hanging your hat on that----it is bad enough you got destroyed, but to come back with that nonsense as a rebuttal just makes matters worse....just take the ass kicking like a man liitle sheep boy

Son, you are a moron of gigantic proportions. To repeat, your Bush Lied mantra is as baseless as your existence. There is overwhelming data that exists from reputable sources detailing the connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and crushing your "dream" that Bush lied about WMD.....

And you fucking retarded imbecile that boggles the mind, if anything, the Deulfer report destroys your Bush Lied arguement, you stupid schmuck.....take the weekend to google up some more baseless bullshit...

Douchebag, seriously--shut the fuck up, unless you enjoy hanging yourself....that is the danger with retards like you, who get their education from headlines and Michael Moore......Take my advice: get an adult to help you, because it is embarassing to wacth you hang yourself

AND GET SOME MEDICATION....your shit ass putting words in people's mouth and twisting things to suit your sick little game is so fucking lame it is indescribable.......

I look forward to your next post of make believe....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wow iggy , maybe you should remember the first part everytime you respond to some one who doesnt share your opinion as well

2nd part = anything like the extreme right and the handling of the Schaivo case?

I have no problem when people express their opinion when it has foundation, merit, or true dissent ...I have a problem when blowhards spew unedcuated, baseless bullshit............big difference son. Just because you have the right to spew bullshit does not mean you have to.

Extreme left-Extreme right......equally, well, extreme...

Yankee fan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

August 18, 2005, 9:20 a.m.

The Real Meaning of the Cindy Sheehan Vigils

Yes, the protesters oppose the war in Iraq. But they opposed war in Afghanistan, too.

Birmingham, Alabama — Jim Douglass is against war, period. As a young Catholic activist in the 1960s and 1970s he protested the war in Vietnam, once organizing a "resistance Mass" at the University of Notre Dame in which, according to an account in The National Catholic Reporter, he and a few other men "ripped up draft cards and placed them in the chalice as part of the presentation of the gifts."

In the 1980s, Douglass moved to the Seattle area, leading protests at the U.S. Navy's Trident submarine base. When he and his wife Shelley found a house close to the railroad tracks that led into the base, they chose to live there, amid the rumbling and the noise, so they could protest as so-called "white trains" brought nuclear warheads to the subs.

Douglass founded an organization called the Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action, and for years he was a leader in anti-Trident demonstrations. But then, in 1989, after a Trident base opened in Kings Bay, Georgia, Douglass left the Pacific Northwest. He found another house hard by the railroad tracks — this one in Birmingham, Alabama, along a route that weapons traveled on the way to Kings Bay. There, in Birmingham, he became involved in a variety of causes but continued to protest the Trident program, which he once wrote "seemed to epitomize all the violence of our society."

In 1991, Douglass headed to Iraq, just after the end of the Gulf War. As part of the Catholic peace organization Pax Christi, he went three more times in the 1990s, opposing the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations. In 2001, he protested against the war in Afghanistan. And in 2003, he fasted in St. Peter's Square before heading back to Iraq with a "Christian peacemakers team" to be in Baghdad during the "shock and awe" attack. After each protest, he returned to Birmingham.

And it was there, on the city's south side, by a fountain in the Five Points neighborhood, that Douglass stood Wednesday night, a candle in his hand, in yet another antiwar vigil, this one in support of Cindy Sheehan, the woman who is protesting outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. For Douglass, it was routine; he has organized hundreds of vigils in Birmingham. He used to hold them once a month, but ever since the September 11 terrorist attacks, he has been holding them twice each week — Wednesdays at noon and Saturdays at 5 P.M. "We felt the urgency of peace and justice work because of the attacks on 9/11," he explained Wednesday night. "I personally oppose all war."

The Sheehan vigil, officially sponsored by MoveOn.org, along with the liberal groups TrueMajority and Democracy for America, was part of a nationwide series of protests Wednesday night. According to MoveOn, there were 1,627 such meetings, with a total attendance of at least 50,000 people. The Birmingham crowd — in the heart of one of the nation's reddest states, where George W. Bush defeated John Kerry 63 percent to 37 percent last year — was significantly larger than the attendance at Douglass' usual vigils. Although 50 people had signed up to come, it appeared that the crowd actually numbered between 60 and 75.

On its website, MoveOn offered protesters what amounted to a pre-fab vigil kit, including talking points, a "sample media advisory," and pre-designed signs — placards that read MOMS FOR PEACE and MEET WITH CINDY and, apparently for pet lovers, DOGS FOR CINDY....hhmmm, silly destruction...so transparent

But the Birmingham protest appeared a bit more homegrown. People carried signs that said WE ARE ALL SISTERS AND BROTHERS: LOVE YOUR ENEMIES. And as they stood around — there were no speeches — they expressed opposition not just to the controversial war in Iraq, but also to the war in Afghanistan, which polls indicate was overwhelmingly supported by the American people.

Several felt that in the days after September 11, the United States went too far by attacking Afghanistan. "It was the Taliban and Osama bin Laden," said one woman. "So why didn't we just go after him? Why did we attack the whole country?"

"I didn't like us doing that," said another woman.

"I'm opposed to war generally," added a third woman. "I believe that both of those wars [Afghanistan and Iraq], but Iraq especially, are wrong."

Their statements echoed the words of Cindy Sheehan herself, who on Monday was asked by MSNBC's Chris Matthews, "If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?" Sheehan answered, "I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing."

"But Afghanistan was harboring the Taliban, was harboring al Qaeda, which is the group that attacked us on 9/11," Matthews said.

"Well, then we should have gone after al Qaeda and maybe not the country of Afghanistan," Sheehan said.

Sheehan's words, in turn, echoed statements made by the leaders of MoveOn opposing the war in Afghanistan. What that suggests is that the vigils across the country last night were only partly about the war in Iraq. Yes, that is the focus of the protesters' passions today. And yes, they support Cindy Sheehan. But the antiwar movement is also about opposition to the very foundation of the war on terror — the war in Afghanistan and the U.S. response to the 9/11 attacks. Last night, the signs and the slogans were about Cindy Sheehan. But the protest was about much more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retard...your stupidity is annoying.

You used a FNC article in which Bush states: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties."

No question is one of his big lies, especially when the 9/11 commission confirmed there are no ties. You totally ignore the first part of the article where Bush admitted there is no evidence quite conveniently to further your right wing agenda.

That is no spin....so again, I repeat, do you even read the things you post? And in the same article, it states Blix as saying Iraq kept up the appearance they had WMD. and yet Bush still lied?

I read entirely before I post.

BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727471.stm

Leaked report rejects Iraqi al-Qaeda link

Osama Bin Laden

Bin Laden 'does not agree with Saddam's regime'

There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report seen by BBC News.

The classified document, written by defence intelligence staff three weeks ago, says there has been contact between the two in the past.

His [bin Laden's] aims are in ideological conflict with present day Iraq

Leaked intelligence document

But it assessed that any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible ideologies.

That conclusion flatly contradicts one of the main charges laid against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein by the United States and Britain - that he has cultivated contacts with the group blamed for the 11 September attacks.

The report emerges even as Washington was calling Saddam a liar for denying, in a television interview with former Labour MP and minister Tony Benn, that he had any links to al-Qaeda.

Peace prospects

It also comes on the day US Secretary of State Colin Powell goes to the United Nations Security Council to make the case that Iraq has failed to live up to the demands of the world community.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is also ratcheting up the rhetoric in the ongoing crisis over Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, saying the prospect of a peaceful outcome was "diminishing" by the day.

He said he could not believe the Iraqi regime would be "this stupid" not to disarm.

If we had a relationship with al-Qaeda and we believed in that relationship, we wouldn't be ashamed to admit it

Saddam Hussein

Saddam denies al-Qaeda links - click here for full story

The defence intelligence staff document, seen by BBC defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan, is classified Top Secret and was sent to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and other senior members of the government.

It says al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden views Iraq's ruling Ba'ath party as running contrary to his religion, calling it an "apostate regime".

"His aims are in ideological conflict with present day Iraq," it says.

Gilligan says that in recent days intelligence sources have told the BBC there is growing disquiet at the way their work is being politicised to support the case for war on Iraq.

He said: "This almost unprecedented leak may be a shot across the politicians' bows."

Iraqi co-operation

Mr Straw insisted that intelligence had shown that the Iraqi regime appeared to be allowing a permissive environment "in which al-Qaeda is able to operate".

I personally had not believed that the Iraqi regime could be this stupid

Jack Straw

"Certainly we have some evidence of links between al-Qaeda and various people in Iraq," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

But he conceded: "What we don't know, and the prime minister and I have made it very clear, is the extent of those links.

"What we also know, however, is that the Iraqi regime have been up to their necks in the pursuit of terrorism generally."

He added: "The use of force to enforce the will of the UN, now, I'm afraid, is more probable, but it is not inevitable and the choice essentially is one for Saddam Hussein and his regime."

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw

It seems increasingly clear that Saddam will never voluntarily relinquish his weapons

Jack Straw

French President Jacques Chirac, as he met Mr Blair on Tuesday, called for UN weapons inspectors to be given more time, saying "there is still much to be done in the way of disarmament by peaceful means".

But Mr Straw said "endless" calls for more time were "futile" and risked being a "cop-out".

Both the US and UK are pushing for a second UN Security Council resolution soon, which could authorise force against Iraq.

Colin Powell has said the dossier of evidence against Iraq he is presenting to the Security Council will be "a straightforward, sober and compelling demonstration" that Baghdad is deceiving UN weapons inspectors and failing to disarm.

Saddam Hussein himself denied on Tuesday having any weapons of mass destruction.

He told Mr Benn in the interview broadcast by Channel 4 News: "These weapons do not come in small pills that you can hide in your pocket.

"These are weapons of mass destruction and it is easy to work out if Iraq has them or not."

Denying any connection with al-Qaeda, he said: "If we had a relationship with al-Qaeda and we believed in that relationship, we wouldn't be ashamed to admit it."

Even so, are you fucking kidding me hanging your hat on that----it is bad enough you got destroyed, but to come back with that nonsense as a rebuttal just makes matters worse....just take the ass kicking like a man liitle sheep boy

^^more insults.

Washington Post and the 9/11 commission:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

The Iraq Connection

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank

Washington Post Staff Writers

Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The finding challenges a belief held by large numbers of Americans about al Qaeda's ties to Hussein. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found."

As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq.

Bush's Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), sought to profit from the commission's finding. "The administration misled America, and the administration reached too far," Kerry told Michigan Public Radio. "I believe that the 9/11 report, the early evidence, is that they're going to indicate that we didn't have the kind of terrorists links that this administration was asserting. I think that's a very, very serious finding."

A Bush campaign spokesman countered that Kerry himself has said Hussein "supported and harbored terrorist groups." And Cheney's spokesman pointed to a 2002 letter written by CIA Director George J. Tenet stating that "we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade" and "credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression." Cheney's office also pointed to a 2003 Tenet statement calling Zarqawi "a senior al Qaeda terrorist associate."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the commission finding of long-standing high-level contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq justified the administration's earlier assertions. "We stand behind what was said publicly," he said.

Bush, speaking to troops in Tampa yesterday, did not mention an Iraq-al Qaeda link, saying only that Iraq "sheltered terrorist groups." That was a significantly milder version of the allegations administration officials have made since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the meeting could not be proved or disproved.

Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted: "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."

In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Speaking about Iraq's alleged links to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney connected Iraq to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by saying that newly found Iraqi intelligence files in Baghdad showed that a participant in the bombing returned to Iraq and "probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven." He added: "The Iraqi government or the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s."

Son, you are a moron of gigantic proportions. To repeat, your Bush Lied mantra is as baseless as your existence. There is overwhelming data that exists from reputable sources detailing the connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and crushing your "dream" that Bush lied about WMD.....

And you fucking retarded imbecile that boggles the mind, if anything, the Deulfer report destroys your Bush Lied arguement, you stupid schmuck.....take the weekend to google up some more baseless bullshit...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html#sect1

Key Findings

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

  • Saddam totally dominated the Regime’s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq’s strategic policy.

  • Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

  • The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.
  • By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq’s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.

  • Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam’s view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi’a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

  • The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

Douchebag, seriously--shut the fuck up, unless you enjoy hanging yourself....that is the danger with retards like you, who get their education from headlines and Michael Moore......Take my advice: get an adult to help you, because it is embarassing to wacth you hang yourself

AND GET SOME MEDICATION....your shit ass putting words in people's mouth and twisting things to suit your sick little game is so fucking lame it is indescribable.......

Translation:

Again, I cannot defend my argument. Again, I must resort to personal attacks and slander. I know it's ignorant but it makes me feel good especially when my propaganda bullshit has been knowingly rammed back up my asshole. I cannot debate. All I can do is trash my advarsaries, Cindy Sheehan and her son when knowingly owned by my adversaries. Why, because I am an imbecile. An adult with the mentality of a 7 year old.

Seriously son, your arrogance, insults and slanderous tendencies as well as ignorance to the facts are your weakness. It also show your immaturity. Time to grow up and smell reality. Your spin once again has been despun.

I look forward to your next post of make believe....

Your propagandish articles are posts of make believe. You live in a world of make believe.

J00 HAV3 833N PWN3D!!!!!!!!!111111111

Resistance is futile.

Since you made the fallacious accusation that I don't care about Cindy Sheehan and his son, then explain why I have been defending her from ignorant losers such as yourself to show my support for her? Explain why I have her picture in my sig? Contridcting to your lies. You make no sense.

Again, you avoid my questions, showing evidence you are running away.

Again... since we know Bush lied about WMDs and lied about the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, what noble cause did they die for?

Would you enlist and go to war? Would you let your kids enlist and go to war? Since you support this war, why won't you? Chickenhawk.

Why do you dodge these questions?

Answer or they are going in my sig. And I will haunt you with them every time you post, no matter where.

I have also compiled your posts over the past several years to use against you to expose you as the liar that you truely are. I intend to use them.

Oh BTW snot miner, a neighbor of Bush volunteered one acre of his own property to let the protesters do their thing. It is one mile from the Bush ranch and directly across the street from the church Bush attends. Sunday service isn't going to be the same for him. :D

What are doing besides winning the war on your playstation? Why don't go to the recruitng center and enlist and fight this illegal war since you get a hardon and shoot your load over it?

%7Boption%7Dhttp://www.meetwithcindy.org/img/cindy_link.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Son, once again you demonstrated there is no end in sight for your endless stupidity....and douchebag, you simply keep hanging yourself...

Once again, I suggest you read what you post, and not grab headlines you fucking stooge...thanks for proving every single once of my points simpleton...

The beginning part of Bush's quotes was "no evidence ties Iraq to 9-11" jerkoff.....once again, you are a fool, and exposed as mentally retarded. YOU are the moron who posted it jerkoff, as your big find that "Bush lied", yet failed to read the entire article past the headline you stupid fucking schmuck. If you did, you woudl have seen the whole quote, and I referenced the second part to point out how dumb you are. Yet you continue to reference something that destroys your own arguement, on something you posted. Mind boggling stupidity. There is no doubt there is something mentally wrong with you.

The Duelfer report PROVED Bush was not lying about WMD you stupid fucking idiot....SERIOUSLY, get some professional help loser.....to keep on this track shows you have serious mental defects.....and of course, you completely ignored the FACTS I laid oiut for you when I kicked the shit out of your dumb ass.

But keep going---you must enjoy hanging yourself with your own rope.....fucking stooge. But I notice that you like to throw around the words lies and propoganda a lot, and it has become clear you do not have the slightest idea what they mean schmuckboy......

The "Bush Lied about WMD" rallying cry is one of the great fabrications of all time, yet you have fallen victim to that lie, and the propoganda of the anti-Bush brigade in pushing that baseless platform...and interesting little thing.....you are a CLASSIC useful idiot...you must be so proud.

But thanks for posting the report stooge, a report that of course came out AFTER a U.S. invasion, when teams had unfettered access to Iraqi sites.....it was enjoyable watching you hang yourself........like I said, and you ignored, until you make a case that the Clinton Administration, Hillary, Kennedy, Kerry,CIA officials, foreign intelligence services, and the U.N. all lied too, then simply shut the fuck up already .......interesting too how you coveniently ignore the facts and reality I laid out for you, yet still keep barking your bullshit.....another classic example reading steps from the "how to be a clueless blowhard in 3 days" manual....

Amazing how dumb you are.....it is embarassingly ridiculous to have to epxlain it to you....headpusher was correct, it is like debating with a two-year old.

"Iraq keeps saying they don't have weapons of mass destruction, which nobody believes. ...If you have no weapons of mass destruction, why you have kept the inspectors out for four years?"

-Kofi Annan, November of 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

- Madeline Albright, Feb. 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb., 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Sadism continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct. 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"

-Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to Miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his

continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Let me continue with the ass kicking, but I will shorten it up because you are a stooge, it is no fun kicking the snot out of a retard, and I simply point you to the first ass kicking on this thread I gave you to answer your questios you keep asking, but ignore the answers smacking you in your retarded face.

The 9/11 Commission said no ties huh? Are you sure about that? Did you read the report, or just the analysis sent to you from moveon.org....I could post analsys on from both sides on the debate about the wording the 9/11 commission report used to describe the relationship, but again that would be lost on you....but for you to say teh report concluded there was no connections is an absolute lie........BTW--since you obviously did not read it, and I did, I would like to point out page 128 of the report.

You may want to check that out, because I am pretty sure moveon.org and Michael Moore left that section out on their sheep sirens to you....a little hint: Clarke's belief of a relationship, and a sealed indictment in 1998 that concluded that Iraq-and Al Qaeda reached an agreement, in which Al Qaeda would not work against the Govt of Saddam in turn for cooperation on WMD assistance.

Maybe you can read some of this:

uly 23, 2004, 8:35 a.m.

Boogie to Baghdad

What the 9/11 Commission says about Iraq and al Qaeda.

The publication of the September 11 Commission report may force a reassessment of the now-conventional wisdom about the links — or, as critics of the Bush administration contend, the absence of links — between Iraq and al Qaeda.

After the commission's last hearing, in mid-June, the Washington Post published a front-page story headlined "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link is Dismissed." The New York Times ran a page-one story — topped by a four-column headline — called "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie." Both reports strongly suggested that Vice President Dick Cheney had been wrong when he said on many occasions that there were extensive links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

The reporting, and the commentary that followed, so angered Cheney that he said, on June 18, "What the New York Times did today was outrageous. The fact of the matter is, the evidence [of an Iraq-al Qaeda link] is overwhelming." Further coverage and commentary criticized Cheney for stubbornly sticking to his position.

Both the Times and the Post based their reporting on a single paragraph, written by the staff of the September 11 Commission, which conceded a few ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda but said there was no "collaborative relationship" between the two. The findings, revealed in the commission's last hearing on June 17, were preliminary, and the apparent rush by some in the press to deny any Iraq-al Qaeda relationship left commission vice-chairman Lee Hamilton baffled. "I must say I have trouble understanding the flack over this," Hamilton told reporters. "The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. So it seems to me the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me."

Now, with the release of the commission's final report, it is clear what Hamilton and Cheney were talking about. The final report details a much more extensive set of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda than the earlier staff statement. It also modifies the original "no collaborative relationship" description, now saying there was "no collaborative operational relationship" (emphasis added) between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And it suggests a significant amount of contact and communication between the regime of Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization headed by Osama bin Laden.

The report describes a time in 1996 when bin Laden, newly arrived in Afghanistan, could not be sure "that the Taliban would be his best bet as an ally." In 1997, the report says, bin Laden began making his Taliban sponsors nervous with a number of flamboyant and militant statements. At the time it seemed possible that bin Laden, who had gone to Afghanistan after being forced out of Sudan, might find himself at odds with his new hosts. What then? The report says bin Laden appears to have reached out to Saddam Hussein:

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.

Since Saddam wasn't interested, the report says, nothing came of the contacts. But by the next year, Saddam, struggling under increasing pressure from the United States, appeared to have changed his mind, and there were more talks:

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

The meetings went on, the report says, until Iraq offered to formalize its relationship with al Qaeda:

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States.

The report goes on to say that the September 11 investigators found "no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship." It also says that the commission did not find any "evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

Nevertheless, top U.S. officials were so worried about the possibility of an Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration that they took care not to provoke bin Laden into a closer relationship with Saddam. In February 1999, for example, the CIA proposed U-2 aerial-surveillance missions over Afghanistan. The report says that Richard Clarke, then the White House counterterrorism chief, worried that the mission might spook bin Laden into leaving Afghanistan for somewhere where it might be even more difficult for American forces to reach him:

Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him asylum." Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.

National-security adviser Sandy Berger suggested that the U.S. send just one U-2 flight, but the report says Clarke worried that even then, Pakistan's intelligence service would warn bin Laden that the U.S. was preparing for a bombing campaign. "Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad," Clarke wrote in a February 11, 1999 e-mail to Berger. The report says that another National Security Council staffer also warned that "Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad."

The details found in the report — which in footnotes are attributed to a variety of secret U.S government intelligence documents — suggest a new way of thinking about Iraq and al Qaeda. Bin Laden had been forced out of Sudan and into Afghanistan. When it appeared he might have trouble with the Taliban, he looked to Iraq as a possible source of assistance. Iraq, at the time interested in closer ties with the Saudis, said no. Later, as his troubles with the United States grew, Saddam reconsidered, and offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. This time, bin Laden turned Saddam down, not because of any conflicts with Iraq but because he thought he had a better deal in Afghanistan.

With that background in mind, the reasoning employed by American policymakers in early 2002 as they planned the next step in the war on terrorism, comes into clearer focus. The U.S. had toppled the Taliban but had not caught bin Laden and some of his top aides. Without a friendly regime in Afghanistan to protect al Qaeda, where might bin Laden and his band of terrorists go next? One possibility — a quite reasonable possibility — would be a place that had offered them haven in the past: Iraq.

Almost none of this information was included in the preliminary staff report, and thus was not part of the reporting last month that proclaimed no relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Because of that absence of information, in late June and early July, the idea that there was no Iraq-al Qaeda link became the conventional wisdom in the press, and that thinking has guided virtually all subsequent reporting. On June 20, for example, the Post ran another front-page story on the topic, this one headlined, "9/11 Panel's Findings Vault Bush Credibility To Campaign Forefront." Later, the paper ran yet another page-one piece headlined "As Rationales For War Erode, Issue of Blame Looms Large."

OR THIS

Yes, There Is a Connection

The 9/11 Commission confirms Iraq-al Qaeda ties.

by Daniel McKivergan

07/22/2004

With the release of the September 11 Commission report, some media outlets may ignore or mischaracterize the fact that the report offers more confirmation of Iraq-al Qaeda ties. It is especially noteworthy, however, that the previous staff report's finding of no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda has been significantly modified. While the commission found no evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship" for "carrying out attacks against the United States," they did find that the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda to be more extensive than many critics of the administration have been willing to admit. And, as the CIA's Counterterrorism Center previously remarked: "any indication of a relationship between these two hostile elements could carry great dangers to the United States."

According to the September 11 report:

* With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Laden himself met with senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Laden is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request . . . [but] the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. (p.61)

* In March 1998, after Bin Laden's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Laden. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these

meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. (p.66)

* Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Laden or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. (p.66)

In addition, two other recent accounts have shed more light on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection. A June 25, 2004 New York Times article, "Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says," reported on the contents of a mid-1990s Iraqi intelligence document believed to be authentic. According to the article,

* bin Laden "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative."

* the Iraqi regime agreed to bin Laden's request to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda.

* bin Laden "requested joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. had a strong troop presence in Saudi Arabia at the time.

* following bin Laden's departure from Sudan, Iraq intelligence began "seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship."

* the Iraqi Intelligence service believed "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."

* a Sudanese official in 1994 told Uday Hussein and the director of Iraqi Intelligence that bin Laden was willing to meet in Sudan.

And, on July 7, 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee reported:

* That George Tenet provided the Senate Intelligence Committee this assessment in a closed session on September 17, 2002: "There is evidence that Iraq provided al Qaeda with various kinds of training--combat, bomb-making, [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear] CBRN. Although Saddam did not endorse al Qaeda's overall agenda and was suspicious of Islamist movements in general, he was apparently not averse, under certain circumstances, to enhancing bin Laden's operational capabilities. As with much of the information on the overall relationship, details on training are [redacted] from sources of varying reliability."

* That according to a CIA report called Iraqi Support for Terrorism, "the general pattern that emerges is one of al Qaeda's enduring interest in acquiring chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) expertise from Iraq."

* That the Iraqi regime 'certainly' had knowledge that Abu Musab al Zarqawi -- described in Iraqi Support for Terrorism as "a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner" -- was operating in Baghdad and northern Iraq.

Or this:

The 9/11 Commission Describes the Link

From the August 2, 2004 issue: Its final report demolishes the claim that there is no evidence of Iraqi support for al Qaeda.

by Stephen F. Hayes

08/02/2004, Volume 009, Issue 44

"THERE WAS NO QUESTION in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

Those are the words of Thomas Kean, the Republican co-chairman of the September 11 Commission. He made the statement on July 22, 2004, 10 days after a New York Times headline declared, "9/11 Report Is Said to Dismiss Iraq-Qaeda Alliance," and a month after another headline in the same paper blared, "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie."

The second of those stories came as part of the wide wave of media coverage that dismissed the Iraq-al Qaeda connection after a 9/11 Commission staff statement concluded that the available evidence did not suggest a "collaborative relationship." The staff statement was poorly worded and vague, and reporters long dubious of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship trumpeted the findings as definitive proof that the Bush administration had exaggerated the connection. The Los Angeles Times reported that the staff statement was the "most complete and authoritative dismissal" of the Bush case on Iraq-al Qaeda.

But the commission's final report presents a much more complicated picture. It cites repeated "friendly contacts" and details numerous high-level meetings between the regime of Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda terrorists. It demolishes the claims of former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke that there was "no evidence" of Iraqi support for al Qaeda--in part by publishing excerpts of internal White House emails in which Clarke himself directly makes an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. The final report also amends the staff statement in two important ways, finding only

no "collaborative operational relationship" and specifying that these contacts did not indicate "that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

The report provides details of several of the "friendly contacts," including meetings throughout the mid-1990s which suggest the outreach between Iraq and al Qaeda went both ways. In March 1998, "two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence." The public learns for the first time of a trip taken by Iraqi officials to Afghanistan in July 1998 in which they met first with representatives from the Taliban and later with bin Laden. According to the report, "sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, [Ayman al] Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis." (THE WEEKLY STANDARD reported in November 2003 that Zawahiri met with Saddam Hussein in 1992. And, according to an interrogation of a senior Iraqi Intelligence official, Zawahiri received $300,000 from the Iraqi regime in 1998.)

This new information is helpful. But the report contains several gaping holes with respect to the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. Its overview of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center makes no mention of Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who has admitted mixing the chemicals for that attack. And in seeking to rule out any Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attacks, the panel allowed its conclusions to race ahead of the available evidence by relegating the intriguing story of Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi present at a key 9/11 planning meeting, to a single, dismissive footnote.

"We have found no relationship whatever between Iraq and the attack on 9/11," asserted Kean. "That just doesn't exist."

Kean may end up being correct. But his categorical statement is premature.

The commission's final report offered the most detailed official account so far of Mohammed Atta's alleged meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague, first reported by Czech intelligence. According to the commission, the Iraqi in question was not in Prague at the time of the alleged meeting. The commission doesn't reveal how it knows this, and given its credulous reporting of al Ani's denial of the meeting, one hopes this account of al Ani's whereabouts did not come from the Iraqi intelligence officer himself. Still, the commission's decision to address the question of the Prague meeting directly is admirable.

THE SAME cannot be said about Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. The details of Shakir's activities in late 1999 and early 2000 are familiar to readers of this magazine. They were summarized in the Senate Intelligence Committee's recent report on pre-Iraq war intelligence:

The first connection to the attack involved Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi national, who facilitated the travel of one of the September 11 hijackers to Malaysia in January 2000. [Redacted.] A foreign government service reported that Shakir worked for four months as an airport facilitator in Kuala Lumpur at the end of 1999 and beginning of 2000. Shakir claimed he got this job through Ra'ad al-Mudaris, an Iraqi Embassy employee. [Redacted.] Another source claimed that al-Mudaris was a former IIS [iraqi Intelligence

Service] officer. The CIA judged in "Iraqi Support for Terrorism," however, that al Mudaris' [redacted] that the circumstances surrounding the hiring of Shakir for this position did not suggest it was done on behalf of the IIS.

This chronology omits several details, according to sources familiar with the intelligence on Shakir. The three-day meeting in Kuala Lumpur was a key planning meeting for both the attack on the USS Cole and September 11. Al Mudaris, the Iraqi embassy employee, controlled Shakir's schedule at the airport. Shakir left his job two days after the al Qaeda meeting. More striking still, when Shakir was detained in Qatar on September 17, 2001, he was in possession of contact information for several high-ranking al Qaeda terrorists. These contacts included Zaid Sheikh Mohammed, the brother of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, and Musab Yasin, an Iraqi and the brother of Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the first World Trade Center attacks. Shakir was known to U.S. intelligence because he had received a phone call in 1993 from the safehouse where planning for the first WTC bombing took place. After his release from custody in Qatar, he was detained in Jordan as he attempted to travel to Baghdad. According to several officials with firsthand knowledge of the intelligence on Shakir, the Iraqi regime demonstrated a keen interest in Shakir's release. After being held for three months, he was released and is believed to have returned to Iraq. His current whereabouts are unknown.

The Senate concluded the "CIA's reluctance to draw a conclusion with regard to Shakir was reasonable based on the limited intelligence available and the analyst familiarity with the IIS."

But the 9/11 Commission did not mention Shakir in the body of its report, despite his having escorted hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar to the Kuala Lumpur meeting. Although the commission's account of the Kuala Lumpur meeting is otherwise exhaustive, the only reference to Shakir comes in a footnote on page 502 of the 567-page report. The commission does not address the substantive reporting on Shakir's activities. Instead, the footnote seeks only to clarify confusion resulting from public reports that a lieutenant colonel in the Saddam Fedayeen had a name similar to Shakir's.

Here is the relevant part of that footnote:

Mihdhar was met at the Kuala Lumpur airport by Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi national. Reports that he was a lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi Fedayeen have turned out to be incorrect. They were based on a confusion of Shakir's identity with that of an Iraqi Fedayeen colonel with a similar name, who was later (in September 2001) in Iraq at the same time Shakir was in police custody in Qatar.

Had the lieutenant colonel been the same Shakir as the one in Kuala Lumpur, the intrigue surrounding his activities would have certainly been heightened. But the fact that there appear to have been two different Shakirs, while interesting, does nothing to explain the activities of the Shakir described in the Senate report. (The sourcing of the 9/11 Commission report on the two Shakirs inspires little confidence. The commission cites a report in the Washington Post co-bylined by Walter Pincus, whose unbridled cynicism on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection is well known.)

Several commission sources report that commissioners and the staff had access to this same chronology of Shakir's activities.

The question, then, remains: Who was Ahmed Hikmat Shakir? The answer is, we don't know.

In an interview, commissioner John Lehman, who supports the findings of the final report, says he wants to know more about Shakir.

LEHMAN: The Shakir in Kuala Lumpur has many interesting connections that are so multiple in their intersections with al Qaeda-related organizations and people as to suggest something more than random chance.

HAYES: With respect to both al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime?

LEHMAN: Yes. Both.

The commission's report was equally incomplete in its three-page treatment of the 1993 World Trade Center attacks. The account provides many specifics about the plot and its perpetrators. But one name is conspicuously absent: Abdul Rahman Yasin.

Yasin, an Iraqi, came to the United States in September 1992. He has admitted on national television in the United States--in a 2002 interview with 60 Minutes--that he mixed the chemicals for the bomb. He was detained twice by the FBI and, despite his intimate knowledge of the plot, was twice released. According to an overview in the Senate Intelligence Committee report, Yasin "fled to Iraq with Iraqi assistance." A reporter for Newsweek magazine and ABC News spotted Yasin in Baghdad in 1994 and reported that he was operating freely. A neighbor told the reporter that Yasin was working for the Iraqi government. Documents recovered in postwar Iraq indicate that Yasin received not only safe haven in Iraq, but also funding from the former Iraqi regime.

The commission report makes no mention of Yasin and, remarkably, praises the efforts of law enforcement. "The FBI and the Justice Department did excellent work investigating the bombing."

OTHER PARTS of the report and the public statements of commissioners do, however, broaden the public understanding of the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. Taken together, they render laughable the arguments of those who still maintain there was "no connection."

Of particular interest are assessments of the Clinton administration and former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, whose credibility is reaching Joe Wilson lows. It was Clarke who famously declared on March 21, 2004: "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda. Ever."

The report notes that the Clinton Justice Department included the Iraq-al Qaeda connection in its spring 1998 sealed indictment of Osama bin Laden. That indictment came before the al Qaeda attacks on U.S. embassies in East Africa--after which numerous Clinton officials cited an Iraqi connection to the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, destroyed by the United States in response to those al Qaeda attacks. The relevant paragraph of the indictment reads:

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.

According to the 9/11 Commission report, quoting from an email from Clarke to former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger on November 4, 1998:

This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was "probably the direct result of the Iraq-al Qida (sic) agreement". Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the "exact formula used by Iraq."

No evidence? Ever?

In February 1999, when Berger recommended going after bin Laden with a U2 flight over Pakistan, Clarke objected. The flight would have to be approved by Pakistan, he reasoned, whose intelligence services were close to bin Laden and would likely warn him of the coming attacks. In an email to Berger on February 11, 1999, Clarke writes: "Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad."

At the press conference held to unveil the final report, Commission cochairman Kean fielded two questions about the Clinton administration's linking of Iraq to al Qaeda.

QUESTION: Former Defense Secretary William Cohen testified before your commission to the effect that the Clinton administration believed that Osama bin Laden and Iraq collaborated on the construction of a nerve gas factory in the Sudan. And it was on that basis that the factory was bombed on August 20th, 1998.

What I'd like to know is, given your finding that there was no collaborative operational relationship, what was it about that testimony and that issue that caused you not to give weight to Secretary Cohen's testimony before you?

KEAN: We gave weight to the testimony. And it's the same belief that President Clinton had, the same belief that Sandy Berger has. But there are a whole bunch of people on the other side who dispute that finding, who say there is no independent collaborative evidence that those chemicals were there.

And this is a debate that goes on. We were not able to come to a conclusion on that debate. We could say that there is no evidence that we found--independent evidence--that those chemicals were there. But I can tell you that the belief of people we all respect, from the president of the United States, President Clinton, down through Sandy Berger and down through Cohen, believe very, very strongly that they were right to target factory and in fact it was what they thought it was.

Curious, then, that President Clinton would tell the BBC in an interview on June 22, 2004 that the CIA "never believed that Saddam had any ties to al Qaeda." On March 23, 2004, Cohen testified under oath that he had seen intelligence indicating that an executive from the al Shifa plant "had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."

Commissioner Lehman, who demonstrated a keen interest in the Iraq-al Qaeda connection in his questioning of commission witnesses, expects to learn more about that relationship.

"There may well be--and probably will be--additional intelligence coming in from interrogations and from analysis of captured records and so forth which will fill out the intelligence picture," he says. "This is not phrased as, nor meant to be, the definitive word on Iraqi Intelligence activities."

I could also post scores of articles that were written about the connections......but this is a pretty bad ass kicking, and even I can have mercy on a blowhard like you.....Give it up already.........and I see you reverted back to the "chickenhawk" talking point......standard stuff from the anti-war movement when their bullshit gets stuffed back up their asses....and another one of those blatant attacks.....

Good timing, very good piece addressing that fucking lame-ass chickenhawk bark from you blowhard. It must have been a broadcast sheep call sent to you since you have been using much lately.

Why the 'Chickenhawk' argument is un-American: Part I

Ben Shapiro (archive)

August 17, 2005 | Print | Recommend to a friend

Who is qualified to speak on matters of national security? According to the American left, only pacifists, military members who have served in combat and direct relatives of those slain in combat or in acts of terrorism. The rest of us -- about 80 percent of voters -- must simply sit by silently. Our opinions do not matter. You want disenfranchisement? Talk to the political left, which seeks to exclude the vast majority of the American populace from the national debate about foreign policy.

The bulk of the left in this country refuses to argue about foreign policy rationally, without resorting to ad hominem attack. The favored ad hominem attack of the left these days is "chickenhawk." The argument goes something like this: If you believe in any of the wars America is currently fighting, you must join the military. If you do not, you must shut up. If, on the other hand, you believe that America should disengage from all foreign wars, you may feel free not to serve in the military.

This is the argument made by hate-America radicals like Michael Moore, who defines "chickenhawk" on his website thus: "A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person's youth." The "chickenhawk" argument was the implicit centerpiece of John Kerry's presidential campaign -- Kerry hyped his military service and denigrated George W. Bush's military service, all the while focusing on the fact that he, unlike President Bush, was anti-war. Kerry's campaign underling, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, made the argument explicit during April 2004: "They shriek like a hawk, but they have the backbone of the chicken," he said of the Bush Administration. "The lead chickenhawk against Sen. Kerry [is] the vice president of the United States, Vice President Cheney." Not coincidentally, Lautenberg utilized Moore's exact "chickenhawk" definition in making his point.

The "chickenhawk" argument is dishonest. It is dishonest because the principle of republicanism is based on freedom of choice about behavior (as long as that behavior is legal) as well as freedom of speech about political issues. We constantly vote on activities with which we may or may not be intimately involved. We vote on police policy, though few of us are policemen; we vote on welfare policy, though few of us either work in the welfare bureaucracy or have been on welfare; we vote on tax policy, even if some of us don't pay taxes. The list goes on and on. Representative democracy necessarily means that millions of us vote on issues with which we have had little practical experience. The "chickenhawk" argument -- which states that if you haven't served in the military, you can't have an opinion on foreign policy -- explicitly rejects basic principles of representative democracy.

The "chickenhawk" argument also explicitly rejects the Constitution itself. The Constitution provides that civilians control the military. The president of the United States is commander-in-chief, whether or not he has served in the military. Congress controls the purse strings and declares war, no matter whether any of its members have served in the military or not. For foreign policy doves to high-handedly declare that military service is a prerequisite to a hawkish foreign policy mindset is not only dangerous, but directly conflicts with the Constitution itself.

The "chickenhawk" argument proves only one point: The left is incapable of discussing foreign policy in a rational manner. They must resort to purely emotional, base personal attacks in order to forward their agenda. And so, unable or unwilling to counter the arguments of those like Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and President Bush, they label them all "chickenhawks." By the leftist logic, here are some other "chickenhawks": John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton.

American soldiers fight for the right of all Americans, regardless of race, class or past service, to speak out on foreign policy issues. If they fight for the right of pacifist anti-military fifth columnists like Michael Moore to denigrate their honor, they certainly fight for the right of civilian hawks to speak up in favor of the highest level of moral and material support for their heroism.

Son, I would suggest you throw in the towel. This was a bluedgeoning from the start, and it is just getting worse. Perhaps find a Dr. Suess messageboard, because you can't even handle a club messageboard. Silly little bafoon.

And listen, it is obvious you are straining yourself with your last post. Give it up---no one should have to work that hard to generate babble baked in idiocy. This relentless pursuit of stupidity by you in actually become painful to watch. Wow- a Bush neighbor gave up an acre--now your position has credibility! Jerkoff.

You don't give a fuck about Sheehan, her son, or the troops. Oh, that's right- you have her pciture in your sig (your stupidity is exhausting). You are just a useful idiot in the moveon.org network who is party to the exploitation of the situation. You siply found a group of misfits like yourself looking to fill their empty lives with some pathetic false sense of purpose.

Kill yourself,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×