View Single Post
Old 04-06-2004, 10:40 PM   #30
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default RE:New polls out, Bush slip sliding away

Quote:
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
With all due respect, Mavdog, I believe the goal line is moving.

There is absolutely NO linkage between al Queda and Hussein, ...

is not the same as

They (Iraqis) were in no way connected with 9/11.

Even so, there is considerable evidence of linkage between al Quaeda and Hussein's government, dating back more than a decade, and from multiple intelligence agencies and sources, both foreign and domestic.
To quote your favorite ex-terrorism chief, Dick Clarke, here's his statement in regard to aby connection between al Queda and iraq, as well as Iraq and 9/11:

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Your link is one of the "research papers" written by the Office of Special Plans and the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group which were established by Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith and other defense hawks. These are the folks who brought us the African Uranium hoax, and the clearly incorrect "imminent threat" of Saddam Hussein's WMD.

Quote:
This is what's most maddeningly hypocritical to me--the same Dim-wits who criticize the Bush administration for not doing enough in its 8 months in office to prevent an unpreventable attack, then turn around and in the next breath criticize the Bush administration for having gone too far to avert future threats. This type of opposition is patently unprincipled and transparently political.
I don't blame Bush for 9/11. However, the invasion of Iraq does not 'avert future threats" and may very well be an unfortunate distraction from the war against terrorism.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote