Indigenous

I'm somewhat suprised to see such a kneejerk, shortsighted reaction from you, Nibiru. Aside from that, I agree with the rest of your post.

Why leave it, when I can stay here and change it?

davemo2us

God do they teach history in school anymore? First off the President never said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. What he said was there were ties between the Bathist regime an UBL. See 9/11 commision report. And yes Iraq was a supporter of terrorists. Do you remember the money they had been paying to the suicide bombers in the West Bank? Get a clue when it comes to killing us these people are all on the same team. Remember what President Truman said? If you don't just put Kerry in there and we can go back to making it a problem for law enforcement like Clinton did and wow that worked so well. Bottom line you can never win a war by being on the defense so we went there to make sure the WMD were gone and take out a terrorist supporter. Hey two for one.

Justin

I've yet to hear anyone in the administration say Iraq was responsable for 9/11

The rest of your post was idiotic.

Justin

I'm not suprised. A person can only stand so much stupidity.

davemo2us

Amen Brother.

Jimi

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

It's neither, Indigenous. People blame the whole country, when it's not the country, but the leadership that needs the blame. You can't hate the whole country, or think the whole country sucks because of the poor leadership. The guy denounces the US, and says that it sucks.... and if he doesn't like it, there are other democratic countries that he could go to. I, personally, love my country, and don't like the leadership administration. I don't think the country as a whole sucks.

Jimi

Bush is concentrating on the wrong aspects of this war. "I am pleased with the progress." What progress? People are still getting their heads chopped off. While Bush is sitting comfy placing special-forces at oil drilling sites, people like Eugene Armstrong are still being beheaded. This is almost common-place these days. Bush's forced attacks aren't stopping these actions. He is provoking them by not doing his job. He is running around like a chicken with its head cut off worried about very miniscule factors of this war. They are not only getting video of the beheadings, but video of the training camps, among other things. I wasn't a huge fan of
Clinton. but, when the chance arose, he did use bombs with tactic against valid training camps.

Lorill

So, who ARE you a huge fan of?

Jimi

Myself, but I am too young to run for presidency.

Jimi

I like the Roosevelts, I like George Washington, Lincoln was alright, Reagan was a great president. When I look back on it, Bush Sr. wasn't ALL that bad. Bush Jr. is, as far as I'm concerned, the worst president we have ever had. It is all about personal gain for him. He is taking money away from the reconstruction of Iraq so he can work on the oil fields "to provide Iraqis with jobs". Bullshit.

bpboyz

Posts: n/a/0

Threads:

How can you say that?????? Here are some examples of the administration "never saying Iraq was responsible for 9/11"

Dick Cheney was giving a speech at the conservative Florida think tank The James Madison Institute. As part of his speech, he announced that Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with Al-Qaida."

Cheney: "The notion that there is no relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda just simply is not true," Mr Cheney said in an interview with CNBC in which he also suggested he might have more information than the panel.

Cheney:"We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s," Cheney said, "that it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems."

From the Boston Globe:

Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago."

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.


President Bush: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaida is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida."

Now, just because they have yet to say, in exact terms, that Iraq had involvment in 9/11, does not mean that they are not saying it. You can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time, and they are fooling too many people. Besides that, since when did any politician take a position that he could be proven COMPLETELY wrong about? It is their jobs to stay general about things, and let people decide what they mean by their statements.

In response to the original question, yes, I think we should get out, and allow other countries would step in with a real coalition. Countries without blood on their hands. I am not saying that we purposely targeted innocent people, but in war, shit happens. We have killed too many innocent civilians to be able to stay there without reprisal attacks from Iraqi's. Our soldiers there are dying, and unless you would put yourself or your brother in that situation, then we should get the hell out. But then again, if we do leave, we would have to weigh saving American lives, and losing our free 20 year supply of oil.

nyast

From a BBC news article:

Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two.

A recent opinion poll suggests that 70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.
------

President Bush speaking in Cincinnati, Ohio, in October, 2002, in which he laid out the threat he believed Iraq posed.

'Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.'
------

So, discounting the fact that in a previous regime-building effort we provided Saddam the biological agents (which were, btw, used in violation of international law against Iran) that Bush is so scared of, he still played on fear and ignorance to get his point across. It's apparently his most effective message.

nitro_D

Enough of our guys have died, those fuckin assholes are chopping off the heads of guys trying to rebuild the city so fuck them and the rest of the middle east ,they dont want our help.

romdos

Thank You...