From the “Saddam Dossier,” FOXNews:
In this second of a three-part examination of a newly-released document captured in Iraq, [former member of the CIA-directed Iraq Survey Group (ISG) Ray] Robison offers further evidence that in 1999 the Taliban welcomed “Islamic relations with Iraq” to mediate among the Taliban, the Northern Alliance and Russia, and that the Taliban reciprocated with an invitation to Iraqi officials to visit Afghanistan.
The document appears to be a notebook kept by an Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) agent, and apparently captured in 2003. The translation is provided by Robison’s associate, known here as “Sammi.†The notebook deals extensively with the meetings between a prominent Taliban supporter and former Saddam regime officials.
It is highly probable that the man in this meeting is Fazlur Rahman, a Pakistani cleric described in an article from the BBC Profile: Maulana Fazlur Rahman as “A pro-Taliban cleric in Pakistan… one of the two main contenders for the post of the country’s prime minister.†The BBC also said “Maulana Fazlur Rahman… is known for his close ties to Afghanistan’s ousted Taliban regime.â€Â
Part One of the Saddam Dossier appeared to chronicle Rahman’s meeting with Taha Yassin Ramadan, the then-vice president of Iraq and Saddam’s chief enforcer. Part Two describes a meeting with an unidentified Iraqi official referred to as “M.O.M.,†who possibly is Tahir Jalil Habbush al Tikriti, the director of the IIS. This translation refers to the previous meeting of Maulana Fazlur Rahman and Ramadan. It also mentions a future meeting between the Maulana and Saddam Hussein. A second document captured in Afghanistan seems to confirm that a relationship existed between Saddam and the Maulana. The document is posted under the identifying Harmony number AFGP-2002-601693 at the West Point Terrorism Center.
Part One’s translation from this notebook indicated that the Taliban under the leadership of Mullah Omar was seeking Iraq’s support in mediating with Russia and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. This translation reveals that the Saddam regime had expectations of assistance from the Taliban, and that the two agreed to a secret intelligence relationship. The Iraqi official tells the Maulana that they want the Taliban to support Iraq against U.S. actions. They also discuss their common enemy: the United States.
Also mentioned in the notebook is Fazlur Rahman Khalil, a Pakistani Taliban leader and Al Qaeda associate, who does not appear to be present at this meeting. The notebook mentions Rahman Khalil on page 72, at the bottom of a list of Islamic clerics coming to Iraq: “Very important: Fazlur Rahman Khalil: Leader of the Ansar Movement. Does not have a position inside Pakistan but inside Afghanistan and Kashmir.†Khalil was a co-signatory of the infamous Usama bin Laden 1998 fatwa against the U.S.
You can read the translated document in PDF format here, from which Robison concludes:
This excerpt from the notebook indicates that both the Taliban and Saddam Regime agreed to a secret relationship involving intelligence services. We do not know the scope or extent of that operational relationship, but this notebook and other documents give us further clues. It might well be noted that if Saddam Hussein was merely looking for an Islamic voice to take up his cause, there are plenty of Arab and Muslim organizations that do not depend on violence and terrorism directed at the United States. This point is illustrated in the BBC article Anger and Dismay in South Asia:
“Saddam Hussein is a hero of Muslims,” a protester cried at a rally in the northwestern city of Peshawar, AFP reports."We want the government to give us permission to go to Iraq to fight against the U.S. forces,” another protester told hundreds of supporters.Supporters of the Islamic Jamaat-i-Islami party assembled in the eastern city of Lahore, chanting “Bush is a dog,” and “Save Iraqi children,” AFP reports."America has signed its own death warrant,” Islamist leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman said.
Since the Iraqi official in this meeting is not named, we can not be certain with whom the Maulana is meeting. But there are clues. First, it is clear Rahman has high level access and would most likely be meeting with a senior member of the government, a department head. This official talks about an intelligence based relationship indicating this might be the chief of the IIS, the former Iraq Intelligence Service. The Maulana says, “I already met with Mr. the Vice President and the previous head of the directorate, may God rest his soulâ€Â. This may indicate he is speaking to the current head of the directorate. An excerpt from the website Global Security provides insight:
One killing believed to be politically motivated included that of Intelligence Chief Rafa Daham Mujawwal Al-Tikriti, Saddam Hussein’s second cousin and the former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey. Rafa died Oct. 11, 1999, three days after he was removed from his post. Government explanations for his death included both that he had died in a car crash and that he had suffered a heart attack
So it seems possible the IIS Chief died just prior to this meeting and the Maulana is meeting with the new IIS chief. The new IIS chief would have been Tahir Jalil Habbush al Tikriti, who according to the Multi-National Forces’ Iraq Web site as of January, 2006 is still listed as “at large.†Of course, if he has not been captured, it is reasonable to assume he has not been interrogated.
Tahir Jalil Habbush al Tikriti came to public attention in December, 2003 when the Telegraph UK reported Terrorist Behind September 11th Strike was Trained by Saddam:
Details of Atta’s visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in U.S. history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day “work programme” Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal’s base in Baghdad.
In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta “displayed extraordinary effort” and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be “responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy”.
Atta, of course, led the 9/11 attacks. It is interesting to note in this new context of an intelligence based relationship between the Taliban and Saddam regime, orchestrated by Pakistani contacts, specifically Maulana Rahman, that the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a Pakistani passport holder arrested in Pakistan in 2003. It also is worth noting that Mustapha Ahmed al-Hawsawi, who officials say sent cash to lead 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta, also was arrested in Pakistan with Khalid. Both of these men were arrested in the home of a member of Pakistan’s largest religious political party, Jamaat Islami, of which Maulana Fazlur Rahman is a leader. A further translation from this notebook indicates that in another meeting, again believed to be with the Maulana, joint military training between the Taliban and the Iraqi military is proposed.
Due to the information provided in this notebook, we see a possible secret, intelligence based, operational relationship between the Taliban and the Saddam regime via Maulana Fazlur Rahman. We can discern that the Maulana most likely is meeting with Habbush al Tikriti, implicated in documents published by the Telegraph newspaper in reference to the training of Atta in Iraq. We also have an annotation that indicates Pakistani Fazlur Rahman Khalil, a known bin Laden associate, Al Qaeda terrorist and a 1998 fatwa co-signatory, also was traveling to Iraq in 1999. A further translation from this notebook indicates that in another meeting, again with the Maulana, the Taliban proposes joint military training with the Iraqi military.
[My emphases]
You’ll note that this report doesn’t really contradict the 911 Commission’s findings that there is no evidence of operational ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, a bit of information that dedicated anti-war ideologues succeeded first in turning into “no ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda,” then finally into no connection between Saddam and terrorism—both of which are objectively false assertions, as Stephen Hayes and others have long reminded us.
But the information tide is beginning to turn, it appears, and history may well yet come to uncover “evidence” of “operational ties” between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and al Qaeda, who was operating out of Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban.
Does it necessarily follow that because Hussein’s Iraq had an operational intelligence connection with the Taliban, that they had an operational connection to Al Qaeda? I suppose not—at least not technically.
Still, the connections are beginning to align in such a way that soon, those who have remained dubious about Saddam’s ties to al Qaeda may find it increasingly difficult to maintain that denial.
Notes Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee:
Saddam to al Tikriti to Atta. A strong link from Iraq to 9/11. Add this to evidence that Saddam gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, the 1993 World Trade Center bomb builder, and I’d say that you’re looking at evidence that Saddam was linked to attacks on the World Trade Center not once, but twice.
“Illegal war?”
I think not.
Asks Ace:
Have you ever considered precisely how naive the belief is that Saddam had no connections with Al Qaeda? Why would he not? They had a common enemy and common goals.
It’s just beyond ludicrous that Saddam and Al Qaeda sought to avoid working together simply to cause political problems for George Bush from 2004-2006.
To which the likely anti-war reply remains: “That’s a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT, wingnut! We never said that Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda; what we said was there was no evidence of operational ties—meaning, we couldn’t find a signed agreement in which Saddam promised to finance or supply an al Qaeda operation. And in the absence of absolute proof, it was illegal to attack him unilaterally and preemptively. So you see? We’re not the ones who lied. The liar was Bush. BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED AND ABU GHRAIB AND HADITHA AND WILLY PETE YEEEEAAAAARGGGGHHH….!
“Which is not to say we’re not serious about protecting the country—just that, unlike Bush, we believe in the rule of law. So the proper procedure for taking down Saddam would have been to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate him. Then, if it turned out he’d withheld information from a reporter, or misled a grand jury, we’d have every reason to condemn him. Hell, I bet even Kerry spokesman Dave Wade would be happy to see him ripped from power and cornholed for such an offense as that.”
At least, that’s what I’m guessing they’d say—though perhaps I’m being unfair. After all, these are mostly sensible people we’re talking about.
Will this latest in dot connecting cause the unravelling of the (provisional / contingent / media-sanctioned) narrative that Iraq, insofar as it had no operational dealings with al Qaeda, was not a threat to the US, and so our invasion of Iraq was illegal? Doubtful.
But it certainly pressures the increasingly thin threads holding that narrative together…
Who was it that first invented the “Saddam the secular tyrant and Osama the religious tyrant wannabe would never have anything to do with each other, ‘cause, like, they got nothin’ in common and are, like, you know, natural philosopical enemies and stuff” canard?
*philosophical*
Crap.
Although “ideological” would’ve been a better choice…
You would like that, wouldn’t you, pasty? You want your buddies at Halliburton and Beneton, who are profiting from child slave labor in Iraq’s oppressed Sunni quarter, to rake in another billion and to steal paste resources from the starving African and Middle Eastern countries?
Have you no soul, man?
It is clear as the nose on your face: Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were ENEMIES. Saddam was a secular dictator that made the trains run on time and did great things for women’s rights and the Christ-botherers.
The Taliban were misunderstood and driven to religio-nuttism by the evil heel of Rove, Cheney, and BushCo. But they were not as evil as the Christoban who want to ruin the lives of living, breathing women by padlocking their vaginas.
And besides, the Islamic Taliban and the secular Saddam HATED each other.
I mean, there’s no evidence of it, but if you close your eyes, you can just see Mullah Omar and Saddam, shirts off, locked in mortal combat.
Wait until November, wingers. The Democratic platform of higher taxes, massive spending, and ‘redeployment’ all of our troops’ asses back to Leavenworth will SO clean your clocks. Bitches.
But Rumsfeld shook Saddam’s hand.
QED.
or something.
In moonbat land.
This is true. Saddam was always keying the Taliban’s car. And although we don’t know for sure, it seems fairly obvious that the Taliban had something to do with the mysterious disappearance of Saddam’s cat.
The notion of collaboration between opposing ideologues is also borne out by history. The German terrorists of the 1960s started out in protest of the incomplete de-Nazification of Germany, in total sympathy with the Jews and, perhaps more importantly, their own shame at the Holocaust. Within five years, Baader-Meinhof were training in the Bekaa with Arafat’s boys, buying guns from Neo-Nazis in Germany and jihacking planes with the early jihadis–all groups who didn’t, um, like Jews too much. This happened because the bad guys always have the guns and money. The ends always justify the means with terrorists and dictators.
That only Fox News will talk about the connections makes me fear that we are near civilizational implosion, but that’s another story.
You know, maybe Mohammed Atta was in Prague meeting with his Iraqi case officer after all.
Verc: Three tabs today, huh?
Did Vercingetorix just copy and paste Jeff’s italicized comment or is it just me?
I suppose that the Dems are going to win in Novemeber based on their unified voting records or possibly the Republican culture of corruption that is responsible for Jefferson having to involve himself in illegal business with Nigerians.
Very, very good satire!
What I often wonder is, if Saddam & AQ had no connections, why didn’t a single elected Democrat in America say so before 2001?
They certainly didn’t assure us of this
factlie when the Clinton Administration alleged it.Funny, huh?
Oh, it looks like there are several zionists come here to collect their weekly stipend from head neo-con, Jeffy-poo Pasty-foot, Elmer’s Wood Bond Connoisseur.
It’s not very surprising to me that you guys just do not get it that Saddam was an ALLY in the War on Terror. After all, you guys BELIEVED Bush-Damien, He of the Tenth and Most Dumbest Layer of Hell, when he said that Saddam could nuke New York city in twelve minutes flat.
But then again, you guys live in fly-over country with your ten pregnant sisters and go hunting on the reunions and weddings and funerals, which is really cool when your family tree is a circle. Hakuna Matata.
Listen, wingnuts
aw, isn’t Vercingetorix CUTE?
Pull the string and it types away!
I have an idea. Jeff can change the name of his blog to “Pseudo-Intellectual Circle Jerk Forum”.
Nah. Too tough to spell correctly with any consistency.
Plus, protein wisdom just screams “JISM”! And I’m all about that, brother!
McGehee sez:
I have it on good authority (multiple sources I cannot yet reveal) that Saddam’s cat was the target of a Mossad operation.
Indictments are forthcoming.
Maybe we should ask Jeff about Saddam’s COCK.
Seems you cannot walk five feet without tripping over some man-gina in here.
Pablo wrote:
They helped the cat defect.
I nominate America Rules! (@toeweedjihadi) for pivot man!
SB: face
not in the
Who thinks he really has an idea? I think it’s a bluff.
At this point Saddam Hussein could personally produce a dumptruck full of proof that he worked with al`Qaeda including footage from hidden cameras, tapes, and personal testimony and the left would dismiss it and the legacy media would continue to bury and ignore it. This is a matter of faith now, folks, it’s fanaticism, not facts that drive the radical left.
Dude, you’re kinky.
If you only knew, Patricia.
If you squint your eyes tight enough, you can see Saddam giving Omar kidney punches, as Omar cuts Saddam’s back with his nails. Rarrrrrrrrr, says the gay lion.
Rarrrr.
So when St. Patrick Fitzgerald got the 1998 grand jury indictment against bin Laden, alleging that al Qaeda worked cooperatively with Iraq in weapons development, he wasn’t describing an operational relationship?
I guess Saddam and bin Laden developed weapons together, but when bin Laden said he wanted to use them against us, Saddam went, “Whoa! What are you smoking, man? No way! Forget that! Count me out!”
In other words, Saddam was actually pro-American. Okay, I get it now.
I don’t remember ever hearing about this. Has this ever been authenticated? It must have been dismissed by the 9/11 Whitewas..er Commission because I don’t remember it being discussed in the media.
If true I can’t imagine most sane people would need any further justification for the Iraq War. Terrorist supporting countries need to know that if we get hit and you were in any way helping the terrorists who attacked us you become a legitimate target and all gloves are off. This standard that has evolved which says that we have to find absolute proof, in the form of a signed, notarized authorization, that a certain country planned and approved the attack before we can retaliate is suicidal.
Time-wasting, paste-eaters. There’s no purpose in your opinions (that are damn close to being hate-speech as it is).
EVERYONE knows that Bush lied, people died.
You’ve been told this now for too damn long to think you can get away with introducing “evidence” to the contrary. Don’t become inconvenient – you won’t like the consequences.
Accept the fact that the facts have been decided upon by those who speak Truth, and that the remainder of your existence will be determined by your betters.
It’s now the time of the Other. Get over it and get with it.
That’s debatable.
“I have an idea. Jeff can change the name of his blog to “Pseudo-Intellectual Circle Jerk Forumâ€Â.
Ahhhh, the left FINALLY comes up with an idea.
About what I expected…
TW: Do those tin foil hats pick up radio reception?
Thanks a lot Verc, that’s two pairs of underwear I’ve soiled on this thread alone. I see them wearing wrestling singlets about two sizes too small. Whoops one of Saddam’s testicles just popped out the crotch of his singlet. Naughty dictator, dirty, dirty dictato…Oh shit, make that three pairs of underwear.
Oh Christ New York Minute just came on TV, looks like Big E is doing laundry today. Bastards
You’re assuming intellectual honesty. That’s not a safe assumption.
Cardinal as in Red, right?
If, by some miraculous turnabout by the MSM, this gets traction on the news, the retort will come back as: “Bush didn’t have these documents, so they aren’t proof he didn’t lie! LIAR!”
The sound of strawmen moving goalposts – the air will be thick with it.
I don’t need no stinking proof of “operational connections” between Saddam and AQ. I got all the facts I need and needed to support getting rid of Saddam and his minions: Tons of weaponized anthrax, verified by inspectors and unaccounted for by Iraq and the inspectors.
I remember what a few ounces of that shit did to this country, including the impact it had on the economy. Hell, they even closed down the Congressional offices. Imagine what a five gallon bucket of that stuff, dumped off of the Empire State Building or the Sears Tower, would do.
Among others, like Saddam was a murderous bastard that deserves to die, the anthrax was reason enough for me to go to war.
Oh…I forgot..Verc, I really think you should stop posting until you are sober…or the acid wears off.
Dude…where’s the luv at? And the weed…
Hey, it getting harder to recognize the difference between people pretending to be leftie trolls and the real (hamsherits, atroits, et al) thing.
I guess the scary thing is that they are that uni-dimensional.
TW: natural as in selection
Verc is not a troll. He just has their lines down so well that it’s scary, frankly.
But it looks like it must require serious weed to reach that point.
WTF? Have I missed something else to smoke? I hope it’s not like the jimsonweed I tried in ‘86. {shudders}
Paraphrasing Grim in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy, which is on TV way too much in this house, “I’m not a troll! I’m the exact opposite of a troll!” And concerning the ever-incisive Verc, truer words were never spoken.
My personal, if circumstantial, evidence for strong ties between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda was and is the speed with which al Qaeda operatives managed to settle in in Iraq after the invasion. They appeared to move right in among the Ba’athist military defectors and sympathizers and start producing IEDs and other terror stuff right off the bat. How do you do that if you haven’t paved the way in advance?
Of course, I’m not a spy or any other variety of secretive type who knows how you go about such things, but it just stands to reason, I think.
if you head up a couple threads America Rules! claims that everybody in the area was friendly with the Taliban/AQ. big whoop. why single out Iraq?
But we didn’t attack Iraq because of ‘operational ties’ to Al Quaeda. It was the imminent threat of the weapons of mass destruction. You know, all those weapons labs and Nigerian uranium that mysteriously evaporated.
Lo Ping Wong,
That’s a lie. And after you and the left got done screaming about the tens of thousands of American soldiers who would be killed by Saddam’s mighty army and poison gas, you’ve got a lot of damn gall to be spreading it.
Regards,
Ric
“That’s a lie.”
Then why don’t you refute it with facts, Cubby?
“And after you and the left got done screaming about the tens of thousands of American soldiers who would be killed by Saddam’s mighty army and poison gas”
I’m not sure what ‘the left’ screamed about, but I never had any doubts that the US would easily prevail over Saddam’s army. My personal concerns were the claims about (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction, and the distraction from the real fight, to wit: Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts in Afghanistan. Say, where -is- ‘dead or alive’ Bin Laden, anyway?
tw: french, i.e., the French were right.
It was the imminent threat of the weapons of mass destruction
Go ahead and source this claim.
Please do.
Please.
You know, all those weapons labs and Nigerian uranium that mysteriously evaporated.
Um, dum-dum, nobody claimed Saddam had Uranium from Niger.
Isn’t it funny how you ignorants must lie or create strawmen to “argue” your points?
I wonder why that is, given you are so “smart” and all…
Oh yeah, I was kinda doubtful about the whole “they’ll greet us as liberators, and pave the streets with flowers” thing, too.
Then why don’t you refute it with facts, Cubby?
Um, dumbass, why don’t you go ahead and back your silly claims with so evidence.
Please.
My personal concerns were the claims about (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction, and the distraction from the real fight, to wit: Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts in Afghanistan. Say, where -is- ‘dead or alive’ Bin Laden, anyway?
First, this can not be authenticated and given you’ve typed 3 other false statements, this “concern” is assumed to be false.
Um, can you tell us when you attended the Naval or Army War Colleges? I mean, since you think you know what the “real fight” is and in a bit of stunning news, OBL’s whereabouts, you should be able to give us dates and your current or former rank.
Thanks in advance, dumbass.
Lo Ping Wang, do IQs over on yonder port-side just hit the bottom of the screen and scroll again in free fall from the top, like Asteroids or Centipede?
Where the fuck were you during the whole “imminent threat versus pre-emptive strike” debate?
Hey, jackass, we launched a pre-emptive strike because we did not and would not WAIT for an imminent threat.
Let me do this: PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE. NOT IMMINENT THREAT.
Are you paying attention yet?
Yes, but to whom? It matters, you know.
Oh yeah, I was kinda doubtful about the whole “they’ll greet us as liberators, and pave the streets with flowers†thing, too.
Um, this actually happend.
Yet another stunning bit of ignorance.
Don’t worry stupid, I’m not surprised.
BREAKING NEWS! SADDAM’S MISSING CAT FOUND! WAS KIDNAPPED AND IS NOW LIVING IN CHINA! DEVELOPING….
and again today, i have tears in my eyes.
“Go ahead and source this claim.
Please do. “
I’d be happy to:
“The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today—and we do—does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?” President Bush, Monday, October 7, 2002
“Saddam’s removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction”
George Bush, t 18 March, 2003
“One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.”
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003
“Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.”
Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003
“The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”Condoleeza Rice, CNN, Late Edition, Sunday, September 8, 2002
“Saddam’s removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction.”
Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003
I could go on, but my point is made; the war was sold to the American people on the basis that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which posed an imminent threat to us.
Oh yeah, I was kinda doubtful about the whole “they’ll greet us as liberators, and pave the streets with flowers†thing, too.
Well, nobody but you ever said “pave the streets with flowers” but this is interesting:
Yeah, way to run full-on into contradicting your own point.
We DO NOT call the above an example of an imminent threat. It proves the EXACT OPPOSITE.
I could go on, but my point is made; the war was sold to the American people on the basis that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which posed an imminent threat to us.
You mean other than the fact nobody ever used the terms “immenent threat” right?
Or do you mean despite the President saying this:
(Hint: he’s clearly stating the threat isn’t imminent, you obtuse moron).
Oh, and by the way dipshit, without a link, I’m going to presume what you posted was false as again, you’re here typing false statements.
the war was sold to the American people
By Jack Straw?
Oh, you really can’t parody these idiots anymore.
Honestly…
You get that you fucking retarded drone? Believe it or not in the world of people who actually make decisions, there can be multiple reasons for an action, and not all of them are the same priority.
WMD were A factor. Not the PRIMARY FACTOR, and certainly not the ONLY FACTOR.
What a pity Loping Wang can’t be bothered to read the AUMF. It had, what, a half dozen or more reasons to remove Saddam?
Or to read the Iraq Liberation Act, or the president’s statement at the signing. In part:
Hmmm… then there was the choice of the name “Operation Iraqi Freedom”.
oh please, that was just a lame disguise thought up by Darth Rove.
I think i’ve discovered Verc’s secret…..
Hey, lo, I’ve got a quote for you:
The person who uttered those words wasn’t George W. Bush. Three guesses as to who it was, and the first two don’t count
How am I supposed to build a funny cigarette out of serious weed?
TW “straight”
““Operation Iraqi Freedomâ€Â.”
Hey, they had to name it something. “Operation finish the job my daddy didn’t” doesn’t have the same ring, right? Call me all the names you want, boys. It only makes me look better, and doesn’t change the fact I’m right. The WMDs were the reason we went to war, and when that didn’t pan out they decided we actually went to war to ‘liberate’ the Iraqi people. Question: Saudi Arabia has closer ties to terrorism than Hussein ever did. Why didn’t we liberate the Saudi people?
so, you admit to not paying attention? AUMF, because you seem to have missed it, or did congress pass it because they were all brain washed?
Really? So we’re going to war with the other fifty countries that have WMDs also, Loping Wang?
Like Great Britain and France, Russia and China, or is it ooooooooooooh a teensy bit MORE complicated than that?
I’ll help you out. It was WMDs AND, huh, come on, pokey puppy, you can do it.
WMDs AND ??? Saddam Hussein? Well, congratulations, Trotting Penis, you’ve learned to keep TWO whole ideas in that brain housing group of yours. Congrats, I mean it.
heh, declaring victory and going home?
After having his virtual ass handed to him, no less.
Yes, and Talk Left STILL says Iraq has nothing to do with fighting terror.
Sum Ting Wong sez:
But that’s only in your eyes, dipshit, and we’ve proven that you have no idea what you’re talking about nor an ability to discern fact from fiction. That would be the part where “right” means whatever it is you want it to mean.
So, that whole looking better thing doesn’t really amount to much.
SumYung Guy says:
Hell, even the fookin Iraqis thought they had Chem weapons(Read WMD)
CNN
Again with ACTUAL facts
Note the scintillating intellect here. We went to war only to find WMDs, we got there and found none and then did we decide we were going to liberate the Iraqi people. THEN we retroactively named the war Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The left has truly hit bottom.
You have to realize that these Manchurian lefties all sound brainwashed because they are. Personally, I grieve for Low I Que’s parents, who unwittingly spent a fortune to have it done. He could’ve had his mind cast into that mold for much less.
Hey, they had to name it something.
Right dumbass, and so they had to name it “Iraqi Freedom”?
You are so incoherent & stupid you don’t even see how this refutes whatever silly point you’re ineptly trying to make.
The WMDs were the reason we went to war, and when that didn’t pan out they decided we actually went to war to ‘liberate’ the Iraqi people.
False and false.
Isn’t it funny you don’t have any evidence for these silly claims?
Question: Saudi Arabia has closer ties to terrorism than Hussein ever did. Why didn’t we liberate the Saudi people?
Another strawman.
Good job, I wasn’t sure if you’d top of the out & out lies with a strawman, but you did.
This thread alone is exhibit A of why this news story doesn’t matter to the radical left. No amount of evidence, data, fact, or truth will alter their stance at this point. Note how there’s not the slightest attempt to refute or repudiate what’s said, they simply say “not true, who cares, you’re all hypnotized idiots” and move on without even bothering to look at the information.
They are glassy-eyed zealots for the religion of Bush hatred, nothing will change their position on this.
Verc,
“Trotting Penis”?
That’s pretty good. That’s worthy of a special acknowlegement
Thanks, Capt Joe, it was either that or Sauntering Johnson. Ehhhh
and i would have missed that Verc, sauntering who?
tw: small
[…] have we heard that President Bush called the Iraq threat “imminent,” that there were no connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda, et al., that Bush declared “Mission […]
This is cool :) I think I’m going to try it for work tomorrow.