Time for another NYT article on Iraq WMD (that didn't exist)

[DarrinS]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

[boutons_deux]

dubya and dickhead invaded Iraq for oil.

US/UK BigOil are the biggest producers of Iraqi oil, as Repugs intended from the 1990s

[ChumpDumper]

This justifies every action in Iraq ever.

[boutons_deux]

Why didn't the LYING Repugs scream "We found some WMDs we lied to all y'all about!" Why was it kept secret?

[Spurminator]

Is this the kind of weaponry that everyone expected when we went gung-ho into Iraq? Old chemical weapons off the black market?

Keep high-fiving yourselves.

[DMX7]

How were those a threat to the homeland? Did Iraq ever use chemical weapons against us in the first gulf war (serious question)? Also, even if they had real WMDs (like nuclear weapons) and the capacity to deliver them to the homeland, is there any evidence to suggest they would have seriously tried to? North Korea has WMDs and seemingly jokes about our destruction on a monthly basis yet we're relatively fine with that.

[Wild Cobra]

Why didn't the LYING Repugs scream "We found some WMDs we lied to all y'all about!" Why was it kept secret?

There could be several reasons to keep this secret. I suspect someone like you who despises the military could never understand though.

[Wild Cobra]

Is this the kind of weaponry that everyone expected when we went gung-ho into Iraq? Old chemical weapons off the black market?

Keep high-fiving yourselves.
We knew that there were weapons in Iraq. Who cares who had them once we found them. The fact is, they were there.

[ChumpDumper]

There could be several reasons to keep this secret. I suspect someone like you who despises the military could never understand though.
Explain them to us.

[Wild Cobra]

How were those a threat to the homeland? Did Iraq ever use chemical weapons against us in the first gulf war (serious question)? Also, even if they had real WMDs (like nuclear weapons) and the capacity to deliver them to the homeland, is there any evidence to suggest they would have seriously tried to? North Korea has WMDs and seemingly jokes about our destruction on a monthly basis yet we're relatively fine with that.

Has north Korea ever done terrorist attacks with suicide bombers or pilots? This black market seller could have sold to a terrorist that would have used them.

[ChumpDumper]

We knew that there were weapons in Iraq. Who care who had them once we found them. The fact is, they were there.lol These aren't the ones the Bush administration claimed Iraq had.

[Wild Cobra]

Explain them to us.
Go away loser. I'm not going to make a laundry list for you.

[ChumpDumper]

Go away loser. I'm not going to make a laundry list for you.Well, I don't think you even read the article in the first place so stonewalling is probably a good tactic.

[spurraider21]

seems like another one of these

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240029

[DarrinS]

lol These aren't the ones the Bush administration claimed Iraq had.

Which ones did the Bush admin claim Iraq had?


Are they different than the ones Clinton claimed they had?

[ChumpDumper]

Which ones did the Bush admin claim Iraq had?Ones produced by a claimed active WMD program. Not relics from the 80s.



Are they different than the ones Clinton claimed they had?Clinton and others also thought he had an active program, but Clinton wasn't so stupid as to invade and occupy Iraq. Bushy is the decider and solely responsible for the invasion, occupation and everything that followed because of them.

[DarrinS]

Ones produced by a claimed active WMD program. Not relics from the 80s.


Clinton and others also thought he had an active program, but Clinton wasn't so stupid as to invade and occupy Iraq. Bushy is the decider and solely responsible for the invasion, occupation and everything that followed because of them.


So, there was no vote on Iraq? Just Bush acted unilaterally?

[ChumpDumper]

So, there was no vote on Iraq? Just Bush acted unilaterally?Congress authorized Bushy to make the decision on Iraq.

The buck stops there.

Why are you so desperate to spread the blame around? You think the invasion and occupation were completely justified.

[DarrinS]

Congress authorized Bushy to make the decision on Iraq.

The buck stops there.

Why are you so desperate to spread the blame around? You think the invasion and occupation were completely justified.


Iraq invasion and occupation were completely unjustified clusterf*cks, but I don't have a cartoonish version of history where only two people are responsible.

[ChumpDumper]

Iraq invasion and occupation were completely unjustified clusterf*cks, but I don't have a cartoonish version of history where only two people are responsible.It's only one person -- he wanted it that way. He asked for the responsibility and he got it.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EAiNyips8dk/VG9jOoAGreI/AAAAAAAAHZQ/KwCII9M7eq8/s1600/im-the-decider.jpg

[Aztecfan03]

It's only one person -- he wanted it that way. He asked for the responsibility and he got it.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EAiNyips8dk/VG9jOoAGreI/AAAAAAAAHZQ/KwCII9M7eq8/s1600/im-the-decider.jpg

Would you consider Obama to be completely and solely responsible for every single clusterfuk since he took office?

[boutons_deux]

Would you consider Obama to be completely and solely responsible for every single clusterfuk since he took office?

... which clusterfucks are those?

dubya was a Useful Idiot for the dickhead, neocons, etc. His ignorance about what he was lying the USA into in Iraq is no excuse.

[ChumpDumper]

Would you consider Obama to be completely and solely responsible for every single clusterfuk since he took office?Which ones?

I can't recall his directly ordering anything as disastrous as the invasion of Iraq, but if you have something in mind please state it.

[Spurminator]

We knew that there were weapons in Iraq. Who cares who had them once we found them. The fact is, they were there.

We were told the Hussein regime was actively manufacturing and hiding thousands of chemical and biological weapons. That was how it was very specifically sold in to the UN Security Council, and that's why Congress authorized it. Read Colin Powell's speech to the UN, the full text is readily available. Or continue to be a revisionist cheer-leading shill.

[Infinite_limit]

"The extraordinary arms purchase plan"

Okkkay Americans

[Wild Cobra]

We were told the Hussein regime was actively manufacturing and hiding thousands of chemical and biological weapons. That was how it was very specifically sold in to the UN Security Council, and that's why Congress authorized it. Read Colin Powell's speech to the UN, the full text is readily available. Or continue to be a revisionist cheer-leading shill.
How about linking it and quoting the relevant passages then.

Besides, who furnished the information? Wasn't Powell just doing his job?

World intelligence agencies agreed on several things, and others were conjecture.

I challenge you to furnish the complete text of the speak. Not edited snippits, but the complete text.

[Spurminator]

How about linking it and quoting the relevant passages then.

Besides, who furnished the information? Wasn't Powell just doing his job?

World intelligence agencies agreed on several things, and others were conjecture.

I challenge you to furnish the complete text of the speak. Not edited snippits, but the complete text.


Link: https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=colin+powell+wmd+speech+text&gws_rd=ssl

[Wild Cobra]

Link: https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=colin+powell+wmd+speech+text&gws_rd=ssl

Well, it would have been nice if you quoted the "money quote."

You said its there, but you're going make us find it?

What a lazy mo-fo...

[Spurminator]

Relevant passages:


The facts on Iraqis' behavior - Iraq's behavior demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort - no effort - to disarm as required by the international community. Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction.


There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction.


Second, as with biological weapons, Saddam Hussein has never accounted for vast amounts of chemical weaponry: 550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents. If we consider just one category of missing weaponry - 6,500 bombs from the Iran-Iraq war - Unmovic says the amount of chemical agent in them would be in the order of 1,000 tons. These quantities of chemical weapons are now unaccounted for.

Plenty more.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, it would have been nice if you quoted the "money quote."

You said its there, but you're going make us find it?

What a lazy mo-fo...


Relevant passages:







Plenty more.

Need your hand held anymore, WC?

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I copied all three link pages into word and did key word searches. I cannot validate you claim.

Please quote the appropriate paragraph.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa

[Wild Cobra]

Need your hand held anymore, WC?

No, but how about better context:


What you will see is an accumulation of facts and disturbing patterns of behavior. The facts on Iraqis' behavior - Iraq's behavior demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort - no effort - to disarm as required by the international community. Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction.

Let me begin by playing a tape for you. What you're about to hear is a conversation that my government monitored. It takes place on November 26 of last year, on the day before United Nations teams resumed inspections in Iraq.

The conversation involves two senior officers, a colonel and a brigadier general, from Iraq's elite military unit, the Republican Guard.

(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE) Speaking in Arabic.



In 1995, an Iraqi military officer, Mujahid Sali Abdul Latif (ph), told inspectors that Iraq intended the spray tanks to be mounted onto a MiG-21 that had been converted into an unmanned aerial vehicle, or a UAV. UAVs outfitted with spray tanks constitute an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons.

Iraq admitted to producing four spray tanks. But to this day, it has provided no credible evidence that they were destroyed, evidence that was required by the international community.

There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling.

Unmovic already laid out much of this, and it is documented for all of us to read in Unscom's 1999 report on the subject.



Let me set the stage with three key points that all of us need to keep in mind: First, Saddam Hussein has used these horrific weapons on another country and on his own people. In fact, in the history of chemical warfare, no country has had more battlefield experience with chemical weapons since World War I than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Second, as with biological weapons, Saddam Hussein has never accounted for vast amounts of chemical weaponry: 550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents. If we consider just one category of missing weaponry - 6,500 bombs from the Iran-Iraq war - Unmovic says the amount of chemical agent in them would be in the order of 1,000 tons. These quantities of chemical weapons are now unaccounted for.


So...

How did Cheney lie? I don't see it.

For one, having the capacity to do something doesn't mean it's actively being done.

[ElNono]

Looks like the NYT translated the documents...

[Spurminator]

Well, it would have been nice if you quoted the "money quote."

You said its there, but you're going make us find it?

What a lazy mo-fo...

LOL, says the guy who won't read.

[Spurminator]

Well, I copied all three link pages into word and did key word searches. I cannot validate you claim.

Please quote the appropriate paragraph.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa

Nah, it's more fun to watch you deny the quotes when they're right in front of you. Keep doing it.

[ChumpDumper]

No, but how about better context:








So...

How did Cheney lie? I don't see it.

For one, having the capacity to do something doesn't mean it's actively being done.That isn't Cheney's speech.

Do you read anything?

[DarrinS]

Relevant passages:

Plenty more.[/FONT][/COLOR]



Nothing that hadn't already been said by others.

[Spurminator]

Nothing that hadn't already been said by others.

Right. So this finding that conservatives are celebrating as justification for the Iraqi invasion is a small fraction of the stockpiles of WMD's described by Powell and others when making the case for our sending troops into Iraq.

[DarrinS]

Right. So this finding that conservatives are celebrating as justification for the Iraqi invasion is a small fraction of the stockpiles of WMD's described by Powell and others when making the case for our sending troops into Iraq.

Bad intel, tbh

[ChumpDumper]

Bad intel, tbhAlso discredited intel that the administration decided to use anyway since it met their ends.

[spurraider21]

It's only one person -- he wanted it that way. He asked for the responsibility and he got it.
he asked for authorization for military force in iraq. he got it.

was called "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" and not "Authorization for Bush to have full responsibility resolution"

[ChumpDumper]

he asked for authorization for military force in iraq. he got it.

was called "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" and not "Authorization for Bush to have full responsibility resolution"The decision to use force was his and his alone. Sure, Congress abdicated its responsibility, that was the whole point.

What is so difficult to understand about this?

[spurraider21]

The decision to use force was his and his alone. Sure, Congress abdicated its responsibility, that was the whole point.

What is so difficult to understand about this?
Congress passed a resolution authorizing use of military force against iraq. He needed permission, they gave it. They could just as easily have said no.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

[ChumpDumper]

Congress passed a resolution authorizing use of military force against iraq. He needed permission, they gave it.The legal finding produced by his staff said he didn't, but it was nice of him to ask.


What is so difficult to understand about that?Since you got it wrong, nothing -- but none of that changes the fact that the decision to use force was Bush's and Bush's alone.

[spurraider21]

The legal finding produced by his staff said he didn't, but it was nice of him to ask.

Since you got it wrong, nothing -- but none of that changes the fact that the decision to use force was Bush's and Bush's alone.
Didn't Congress, in a resolution, authorize the use of military force in Iraq?

And had Dubya used military force in Iraq prior to said resolution?

It's really not as complicated as you're making it out to be.

[ChumpDumper]

Didn't Congress, in a resolution, authorize the use of military force in Iraq?Sure.


And had Dubya used military force in Iraq prior to said resolution?Absolutely.


It's really not as complicated as you're making it out to be.It sure isn't complicated. You are regularly getting simple facts wrong.

[Th'Pusher]

Didn't Congress, in a resolution, authorize the use of military force in Iraq?

And had Dubya used military force in Iraq prior to said resolution?

It's really not as complicated as you're making it out to be.

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States) "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security) of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

You understand that authorization and use use of military force are not the same thing, right?

[spurraider21]

Sure.

Absolutely.

It sure isn't complicated. You are regularly getting simple facts wrong.
The Iraq resolution was reached in October 2002. When did dubya use military force in Iraq prior to that?

[spurraider21]

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States) "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security) of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

You understand that authorization and use use of military force are not the same thing, right?
Yeah, so long story short Bush said "i want to use military force in iraq" and then congress issues a resolution saying "bush can use military force in iraq" full well knowing that it is exactly what he will do. they could have just as easily issued a resolution saying "bush shall not use military force in iraq" or they could have done nothing.

[ChumpDumper]

The Iraq resolution was reached in October 2002. When did dubya use military force in Iraq prior to that?February 2001.

You seriously didn't know this?

[Th'Pusher]

Yeah, so long story short Bush said "i want to use military force in iraq" and then congress issues a resolution saying "bush can use military force in iraq" full well knowing that it is exactly what he will do. they could have just as easily issued a resolution saying "bush shall not use military force in iraq" or they could have done nothing.

So Bush was the sole decider to use military force in Iraq. Thanks for the confirmation.

I'm concerned you're not going to be a very good lawyer, tbh.

[spurraider21]

February 2001.

You seriously didn't know this?
that was unrelated to the iraq war which this thread is about

[spurraider21]

So Bush was the sole decider to use military force in Iraq. Thanks for the confirmation.

I'm concerned you're not going to be a very good lawyer, tbh.
how did you get to the "sole decider" conclusion when congress issued a resolution allowing for military use? if he was the sole decider, he wouldn't have waited for congress, nor would they have bothered issuing a resolution

[ChumpDumper]

that was unrelated to the iraq war which this thread is aboutI answered the questions you asked.

I didn't post your questions.

You seriously didn't know this?

[spurraider21]

I answered the questions you asked.

I didn't post your questions.

You seriously didn't know this?
i did. i merely assumed we were staying within the scope of this thread... the whole WMD thing followed by the 2003 invasion. why else would i bring up a 2002 congressional resolution

[Th'Pusher]

how did you get to the "sole decider" conclusion when congress issued a resolution allowing for military use? if he was the sole decider, he wouldn't have waited for congress, nor would they have bothered issuing a resolution

He asked for AUMF. He got it, with a provision explicitly stating military force could be used as Bush determines to be necessary and appropriate. Just concede the point and move on.

[ChumpDumper]

i did.Sure you did.


i merely assumed we were staying within the scope of this thread... the whole WMD thing followed by the 2003 invasion. why else would i bring up a 2002 congressional resolutionWhy would you write such a terribly worded question?

Anyway, history is replete with presidents' using force without Congressional approval. You're acting like it's completely necessary.

Since you like simplistic arguments -- it's not necessary at all.

The end.

[spurraider21]

He asked for AUMF. He got it, with a provision explicitly stating military force could be used as Bush determines to be necessary and appropriate. Just concede the point and move on.
Sure, I'll concede that congress made the decision to allow for military use in Iraq. And that they are putting the commander in chief in charge to run the operation.

[spurraider21]

Sure you did.
:tu


Why would you write such a terribly worded question?
no reason


Anyway, history is replete with presidents' using force without Congressional approval. You're acting like it's completely necessary.
never said it was. but in the instance of the iraq war, congress approved and thus were part of the decision making progress. they could have said no and put the onus on bush to act anyway, if they wanted to keep their hands clean. or they could have said nothing at all.

without congressional support, it isn't clear if we'd have the same full scale invasion as we did.

[ChumpDumper]

:tublue font.



no reasonI suspect there's a reason.



never said it was.So what are you actually arguing here?

The decision to invade Iraq was solely Bush's to make.

He made it.

That's all I said. Nothing you posted refuted any of that.

[Th'Pusher]

Sure, I'll concede that congress made the decision to allow for military use in Iraq. And that they are putting the commander in chief in charge to run the operation.
And as CIC, with the authorization to use military force, Bush could have elected not to use military force, correct?

[spurraider21]

And as CIC, with the authorization to use military force, Bush could have elected not to use military force, correct?
sure. but then that's like saying every use of military force ever in US history was the sole decision of the president. there is more than one checkpoint

[ChumpDumper]

sure.Well we all agree.

[spurraider21]

Well we all agree.
of course. i think we all agree bush made a horrible decision to push for military force in iraq, and congress made a horrible decision to get behind him and give the green light

[ChumpDumper]

of course. i think we all agree bush made a horrible decision to push for military force in iraq, and congress made a horrible decision to get behind him and give the green lightYep, Bush asked for all the responsibility and Congress was more than happy to give it away.

[Th'Pusher]

of course. i think we all agree bush made a horrible decision to use military force in iraq.

FIFY.

That's it.

[spurraider21]

:lol "that's it"

if you say so

[RandomGuy]

Go away loser. I'm not going to make a laundry list for you.

Because, giving things like facts and reasoning to back up claims is so, like, hard 'n' stuff.

I understand man. We shouldn't have to base our opinions and worldview on facts, especially when those facts might not make us feel better about ourselves. That would just be inconvenient.

There is so much more uniformity in just going along with things, because someone told you to. It's so much easier that way.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0


These munitions were remnants of an Iraqi special weapons program that was abandoned long before the 2003 invasion, and they turned up sporadically during the American occupation in buried caches, as part of improvised bombs or on black markets.

So, bad supply chain management on the part of a military that was barely competent, leads to old shit from badly managed or abandoned stockpiles turning up in the chaos afterwards.

Again, not the smoking gun you want it to be.

No one would dispute that the Iraqi military had some programs in the past, indeed they used them on the Iranians and Kurds.

The problem is that this shit turns up, and gives mental gnats like yourself some intellectual cover to justify the actions of the Republican/conservative president you like.

It doesn't say what you seem to think it does about our reasoning for going in.

We were still lied to, and if you can't admit that, you are being a fucktard of the highest order.

[Winehole23]

in rough, chronological order:



http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3986

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28281

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33594

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35285

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44568

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61026

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172468

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185823

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=209701

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240029
(http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240029)

[Winehole23]

basically, a few loudmouths will still be shouting long after the rest of the world has moved on

they've been shouting for ten years that it's been proven they were right all along.

[Wild Cobra]

That isn't Cheney's speech.

Do you read anything?

LOL...

Time warp.

OK, Powell....

just goes to show I'm colorblind.

---

I'm definitely going to the liquor store now. I need to add an Irish Whiskey to my collection. Thinking of this:

http://www.bevmo.com/Media/Images/ProductImagesFull/97079.jpg

http://www.bevmo.com/Shop/ProductDetail.aspx/Spirits/Irish-Whiskey/Redbreast/Redbreast-12-Yr-Cask-Strength/36790

Suggestions?

Hurry if anyone has one, because I plan to leave within the hour.

[Wild Cobra]

Because, giving things like facts and reasoning to back up claims is so, like, hard 'n' stuff.

I understand man. We shouldn't have to base our opinions and worldview on facts, especially when those facts might not make us feel better about ourselves. That would just be inconvenient.

There is so much more uniformity in just going along with things, because someone told you to. It's so much easier that way.

Does or does not, the speech agree with the claim that Powell said that Iraq was actively making weapons?

[boutons_deux]

Does or does not, the speech agree with the claim that Powell said that Iraq was actively making weapons?

Powell? He was lied to in the "data" he was provided for his UN speech.

He and he staff knew it, but he, being a "good (German) soldier", went ahead and LIED to the world anyway.

Mobile Weapons Labs! :lol

[DarrinS]

So, bad supply chain management on the part of a military that was barely competent, leads to old shit from badly managed or abandoned stockpiles turning up in the chaos afterwards.

Again, not the smoking gun you want it to be.

No one would dispute that the Iraqi military had some programs in the past, indeed they used them on the Iranians and Kurds.

The problem is that this shit turns up, and gives mental gnats like yourself some intellectual cover to justify the actions of the Republican/conservative president you like.

It doesn't say what you seem to think it does about our reasoning for going in.

We were still lied to, and if you can't admit that, you are being a fucktard of the highest order.



Iraq invasion and occupation were completely unjustified clusterf*cks, but I don't have a cartoonish version of history where only two people are responsible.

[boutons_deux]

"only two people are responsible."

:lol the two war criminals in the WH were the headliners, but there were plenty of accomplices in the WH, NSA/CIA, Repug Congress, deep state/MIC, BigOil, PNAC

[RandomGuy]

Does or does not, the speech agree with the claim that Powell said that Iraq was actively making weapons?

http://i720.photobucket.com/albums/ww210/Travlla/Tanks/English_b1e9c1_2989491_zps7aed32db.jpg

[Nbadan]

Powell? He was lied to in the "data" he was provided for his UN speech.

He and he staff knew it, but he, being a "good (German) soldier", went ahead and LIED to the world anyway.

Mobile Weapons Labs! :lol

Not only that..the Bush administration actively suppressed CIA data and information that didn't fit their predisposition for war in Iraq......and tried to intimidate people like Valarie Plame who spoke out against this treason...

[Nbadan]

The fact remains that the bogus WMD strategy was the third time the Bush Administration tried to move the goal post after they had already drawn up war plans in association with PNAC....anyone remember the iraq 'imminent threat"? bogus....the Saddam association with Al Queda? Bogus.......remember those? Yeah, the GOP hopes you don't remember those either...