Reply With Quote
focus. My point is Iraq was not a part of the war on terror until we invaded.
Have the statute of limitations expired?
focus. My point is Iraq was not a part of the war on terror until we invaded.
Jesus- ing-Christ, Yoni!
Just make a ing link to the material you site everyday. Why is that a problem for you? You go thru all the trouble of quoting and bolding and italicizing, but you cant open and close an URL tag?
Are they in the pipeline behind Joe Wilson's?
I did link to the article and he didn't read it. I was just posting excerpts.
So, Jesus- ing-Christ, can't you people just admit that you're wrong.
Can't you just admit that your memories are so ing short that Richard Clarke can say there was a connection in 1998 and then claim there wasn't in 2005 and you're too stupid to call him on it?
I don't know, maybe the NYTimes will find a leaker to clue you in.
Media quoting Clinton administration officials, you mean. Officials that have changed there story since, by the way.
I don't know, try me. I'd love to see an authoritative refutation of just this one article from the Weekly Standard. Go ahead, if you can.
It might help your case if you did.
Hey we're at war now. You're a coward if you let these traitors run free.
What's the holdup?
And mine was that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda that made it a part of the war on terror. Oh, and backed up by sources from the Clinton administration.
You know, the President that signed a policy stating that regime change, in Iraq, was the official U. S. objective there. That guy.
Apparently the damage is done, maybe they'll lead to those who leaked the information if given the chance.
The damage is done? That's all you got? No punishment? Not much of a "law and order" guy, are you? If you think a crime has been committed, indict. What are you afraid of?
Like I said, have the statute of limitations run out?
First, you're treating me as if I were in a position to make that decision. (But, if I were, I would prosecute). Second, you believe this administration needs to work according to your time-table. Too bad, you're just going to have to be frustrated on that, I believe.
The one who thought better of invading the country? I would hope that your boy bush would have more up to date intel than what slick willy used but considering you base your whole argument on what clinton said I guess you think the guys is not as dishonest as most of your cohorts.. you are a fan of clintons now?
Wow you used conservative websites to justify bush's rationale for going war..Let me guess you can find many Fox News articles to back it up huh?
what if we had more up to date information than you used? Is that possible? Is it possible that Bush had information that refuted his rationlae for war? Is it possible he withheld more up to date information than what clinton used 1998? Now I am surprised that you support invading a country using 5 yr old intel.. I would hope the president had a little more up to date info..
I used information from the 90's to refute the claim that there has never been a relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq. Many, you have trouble staying on topic, don't you?
Do you have proof that he had intelligence that refuted the belief that al Qaeda and Iraq had a relationship?
Newsweek, ABC, and NPR are hardly "conservative" sources.
Go get your hair trimmed so you can get your head out of your butt. NYT
is wrong as two left feet. You know it, the NYT knows it and everyone
else knows it. So stop the Bush administration BS.
So, upon what evidence did Richard Clarke change his tune about al Qaeda and Iraq? Or, about Iraq having WMD's for that matter?
Then, show me what changed the minds of Madelaine Albright and others from the Clinton administration that were, until after the invasion, equally convinced of Iraq's weapons and of their relationship with al Qaeda.
What damn link. How many do you want. You don't read or what. DR
are you that dense. No, you aren't. You just don't want to admit you are
wrong. And you are.
The clock is ticking.
The only legal action Bushie is going to take is pardoning Scooter on his last day in office, maybe along with some Enron goofs -- some posthumous.
Book it.
Frankly, I suspect the NYT has been hiding Saddam's WMD's and has tapes of all of the conversations between Iraqi government officials and al Queda operatives. The NYT also probably has "writers" who are serving as snipers and making IED's in various Iraqi provinces.
All you bunch that want to trash the Bush administration keep running the same
old BS by everyone and it has all been established as BS. It wont fly folks. You
got caught doing the same old junk. Iraq was up to their eyebrows in the whole
thing. '
And now you want to invade N. Korea. And for what. Are they involved in
all this?
What a bunch you all are. If you had a brain you would take it out and play with
it.
Well considering they were out of office and were not privy to the Daily Presidential briefs I cannot show you.. You what amazes me is the Bush can end all of this 'lying' about Iraq if he just came out and said to the American people that Congress had everything he had when they voted for the war.. looked straight into the camera and publicly stated that he gave them every bit of evidence he had both pro and con... funny how he hasn't .. Please take notice that when he comments on the intel he goes out of his way to say congress saw what he saw.. not that they saw everything he did.. very nuanced..
So, while they were in office nad privvy to the information they believed Iraq had WMD's and a relationship with al Qaeda? But, after they no longer had access to the intelligence they were certain that no WMD's existed and that there never was a relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq? Wow, that's some logic you're employing there.
He said that.
No, not funny -- since he's already said it.
Huh?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
