Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Iraq al-Qaeda Connection

Oh, that antagonistic Osama. Throughout the entire presidential election season, we kept hearing that there was no connection between Iraq and the war on terror. Now, along comes a Washington Times article stating in fact that there is a connection.

Recent intelligence reports showed that bin Laden contacted Abu Musab Zarqawi,
al Qaeda's senior operative in Iraq, and urged Islamists there to shift from
attacking U.S. targets in that country to targets in the United States, said
officials familiar with the reports.

Just an observation.


At 2:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder how many reasons they are going to give for going to war with Iraq. The first reasons given were nuclear (or as Bush says, "nucyelar") weapons. Of course they never found any, so had to attack in order to find them, despite the UN's insistence that there were none. Then, finding none, the US spins another great yarn about Liberation, and Human Rights, and connection with Osama bin Laden. I wish they would just be honest and say, "Look, we saw an opportunity to seize more control of oil by totally bullshitting our way through this, and so we jumped on the chance!"

It would be refreshing to at least hear the truth, even though it is just as disgusting as being lied to.

At 8:01 PM, Blogger Ol' BC said...

Oh, but nuclear weapons were only a concern. The chemical and biological weapons were confirmed.(See the mass graves of the Kurds and Shiites). The mass graves fall under the human rights banner, or at least right to life banner. However, I'm not saying all the other crap didn't play into the decision. But Bush did cower to the UN to be a stand up guy in the eyes of the world, but the UN lacked the backbone to do anything about Iraq thumbing their nose at all the UN resolutions.

The truth IS refreshing, even when it stings a little.

At 8:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny. I didn't know the world saw Bush as a "stand up guy". And, yes, the exisence of chemical weapons in the past was a fact, but these were not found either.

At 10:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, perhaps a historical fact may help...

There were at least seven other reasons we went to war with Iraq.

1. Iraq's harboring of Al-Queda terrorists
2. Iraq's support for International Terrorism
3. Iraq's "brutal repression" of its citizens
4. Iraq's failure to repatriate or give information on non-Iraqi citizens detained and captured during Gulf War I, including an American serviceman;
5. Failing to properly return property wrongfully seized during the Kuwait invasion
6. The attempted assassination of former President Bush in 1993
7. America's national security interests in restoring peace and stability to the Persian Gulf (This is the actual resolution passed by both houses of Congress authorizing force in Iraq. That makes it democratic. It also means everyone was perfectly aware of the reasons before the war.)

As for the "nucyelar" smear... Are you concerned Jimmy Carter says the same thing? Does this make him weird? (Oh, those silly US presidents, they can't say nuclear, ha ha ha...)

As for lying. A lie is an intentional misrepresentation of the truth. Therefore, you have to prove Bush et al "intentionally" misrepresented the truth.

Can you do this? If so, WOW, I am impressed you have access to top level meetings. You must be really important.

Every single country in the world (France, Germany, Russia, England, US, Australia, and even the UN security council) said Iraq had WMD. Therefore, if Bush believed them and said they had them, he would not be lying, but mistaken. A mistake is not a lie.

For example, I believe you are a semi-uneducated left wing political hack. If it is not true, I am mistaken, not lying, since I don't have any information to the contrary.

I hope this helps clear up a few things. You may want to consider suing your boyhood school system, as they don't seem to have taught you much...

At 7:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that you resort to personal attack in your speech. I find this method of debate in poor taste and indicative of a man who is a little too afraid and angry about something...


Post a Comment

<< Home