NationStates Jolt Archive

9/11 staff: No al Qaeda cooperation with Iraq

Bush is caught now. (http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/index.html)

Told you so.

Tell me another lie to cover this one up.

Bush is not caught. While the war was initially started to "defend" the US from the imaginary WMD that Saddam Hussein supposedly had en masse in Iraq, aimed at the US, the real reason quickly became "humanitarian" and is now the liberation of the Iraqi people - and the convenient removal of Saddam Hussein from power. If a nation had the power to do that to the US and would pretend to liberate the US from its President due to its great heartfelt brothership and human love felt with the people of the country, anoutcry would go through the entire western world, rallying a massive military support to defend the US.. or so I guess.

The entire situation we have now is that international law has been invalidated, the UN are rendered powerless, the entire world is at the whim of the US, which grants itself the power to act anywhere on the planet in its sole descretion, regardless of treaties or law. That this does effectively remove the US from the community of nations on earth and impose its role as the currently sole superpower capable of commiting such acts, on all other nations in the form of hegemony coupled with imperialistic expansionism, is a sideeffect of Bush acting unilaterally against the will of the quite vocal majority of mankind.

The news is just restating the obvious. I realize that Iraq needed a change, it's just bush's aproach to the situation sucked.

Funny how most of the headlines aren't focusing on the "no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq" part but are focusing on the "Al Qaeda planned to use 10 planes" part of it.

The first story demonstrates how the Bush administration lied to get us to go to war in Iraq. The second deals with a part of the plan that Bin Laden shot down (pardon the pun) because it was impractical.

And which one is being flogged about by the "liberal media"? Liberal media, my ass.

The entire situation we have now is that international law has been invalidated, the UN are rendered powerless, the entire world is at the whim of the US, which grants itself the power to act anywhere on the planet in its sole descretion, regardless of treaties or law.
You mean like this wasn't true before?

We all already knew the war was for personal reasons. I don't need convincing. :roll:

While I don't like Bush, nor do I like the war going on... these threads are getting so tiresome.
There is more news out there than just Bush. Actually, there are actual stories going on, important ones, that people are just ignoring because they're too damn wrapped up in their little trying to convict Bush into petty little things. It's going to happen anyway, later this week. Top security aides from previous presidencies are pulling together something . It'll prolly be in the papers friday.

Hey- did you hear that 10 planes were going to be used in the original 9/11 attacks? Somehow it was diverted.
Did you hear about the massacre of 34 farmers in Colombia by marxist rebels trying to get back land they lost?

While I don't like Bush, nor do I like the war going on... these threads are getting so tiresome.
There is more news out there than just Bush. Actually, there are actual stories going on, important ones, that people are just ignoring because they're too damn wrapped up in their little trying to convict Bush into petty little things. It's going to happen anyway, later this week. Top security aides from previous presidencies are pulling together something . It'll prolly be in the papers friday.

Hey- did you hear that 10 planes were going to be used in the original 9/11 attacks? Somehow it was diverted.
Did you hear about the massacre of 34 farmers in Colombia by marxist rebels trying to get back land they lost?Bush needs to stop interfearing in Colombias internal affairs and let the people grow their poppys--death to american imperialism

It's only logical that Osama and Saddam were in league. They both hate America (because we are free) and they're in roughly the same region. Irreffutable evidence? I think so.

It's only logical that Osama and Saddam were in league. They both hate America (because we are free) and they're in roughly the same region. Irreffutable evidence? I think so.Saddam and Osama were mortal enemies--a detail you left out which makes an alliance between them very unlikely--and as bad as Saddam was he had a legit gripe against the backstabbing two-faced Bush administration

Oh yeah?! You know what i think!

i think we should all go over into that corner and party, bush is a horseman of the apocolyse as is Osama the other two i dont know, probably Nadar and some frenchman...so hell, its teh end of the world lets have a countdown and drink cognac until we cant feel the pain anymore

Oh yeah?! You know what i think!

i think we should all go over into that corner and party, bush is a horseman of the apocolyse as is Osama the other two i dont know, probably Nadar and some frenchman...so hell, its teh end of the world lets have a countdown and drink cognac until we cant feel the pain anymoreI only have 2 requirements for dying--I dont wanna know about it until after its over and I dont wanna see any sudden flashes of light in the sky before it happens either

9/11 staff: No al Qaeda cooperation with Iraq

How true

Funny how most of the headlines aren't focusing on the "no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq" part but are focusing on the "Al Qaeda planned to use 10 planes" part of it.

The first story demonstrates how the Bush administration lied to get us to go to war in Iraq. The second deals with a part of the plan that Bin Laden shot down (pardon the pun) because it was impractical.

And which one is being flogged about by the "liberal media"? Liberal media, my ass.


It has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the media is indeed Liberal, 34% of all Journalists are liberal to only 7% that are Conservative. Pull your head out of your wide ass and accept the fact that Liberals have a iron-fisted grasp on the media and are lying to the people for their own personal gain!

It has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the media is indeed Liberal, 34% of all Journalists are liberal to only 7% that are Conservative. Pull your head out of your wide ass and accept the fact that Liberals have a iron-fisted grasp on the media and are lying to the people for their own personal gain!Proven? By whom? Cite a study, please. A link. A bit of proof outside your own statement.

I can cite studies, books, and anecdotal evidence that argues convincingly that the media is not only not liberal, it's not conservative either. The US media is corporate and concerned only with profits--it has no other agenda. That happens at present to coincide with what claim to be conservative interests at present, but that doesn't make the media conservative--just an momentary ally.

One last point--before you tell me to pull my "head out of my wide ass," you better have something better than Limbaugh-isms to back up your argument, or I will hand you your metaphorical ass on a platter. I've done it to better than you in the past and won't hesitate to do it to you.

Funny how most of the headlines aren't focusing on the "no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq" part but are focusing on the "Al Qaeda planned to use 10 planes" part of it.

The first story demonstrates how the Bush administration lied to get us to go to war in Iraq. The second deals with a part of the plan that Bin Laden shot down (pardon the pun) because it was impractical.

And which one is being flogged about by the "liberal media"? Liberal media, my ass.


It has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the media is indeed Liberal, 34% of all Journalists are liberal to only 7% that are Conservative. Pull your head out of your wide ass and accept the fact that Liberals have a iron-fisted grasp on the media and are lying to the people for their own personal gain!

Yeah, I've seen these kinds of surveys before tossed around among right-wingers. Even assuming your data to be true, you're jumping to ridiculous conclusions--since when does 1/3 of journalists being liberal signify an "iron fisted grasp"? Furthermore, this sort of statistic leaves out crucial facts like who these journalists are working for--i.e. big corporations who want to make money and avoid pissing off the guys in power, and who have far more influence over the media they own than any journalist. Let's see some statistics about what the media actually publishes and reports (from a reliable source), and then we'll talk.

Incertonia has made quite an excellent point.

I can cite studies, books, and anecdotal evidence that argues convincingly that the media is not only not liberal, it's not conservative either. The US media is corporate and concerned only with profits--it has no other agenda.

The US media is concerned only with profits, and income comes from commercials. And the more people that watch CNN the more their commecial time is worth, follow me so far?

Okay, I can't remember all the details of it, but someone in the high ranks at CNN is the son of Cheney, the VP of the USA. There is supposedly some sort of deal that would make CNN available overseas more easily. Like, American news broadcasting in foreign nations, to the public, not to overseas troops. This deal would require authorization of the executive branch, so why would CNN not help out the president? I mean, with that increase in audience, they'd be making a ton in commercial money. Plus, I mean, the son of Cheney, is he really going to work against his dad? Think about it.

Okay, I can't remember all the details of it, but someone in the high ranks at CNN is the son of Cheney, the VP of the USA. There is supposedly some sort of deal that would make CNN available overseas more easily. Like, American news broadcasting in foreign nations, to the public, not to overseas troops. This deal would require authorization of the executive branch, so why would CNN not help out the president? I mean, with that increase in audience, they'd be making a ton in commercial money. Plus, I mean, the son of Cheney, is he really going to work against his dad? Think about it.
Ted Turner married Jane Fonda, does that mean that CNN would therefore be a raving liberal network intent on demeaning our troops and supporting communists?

Bush is not caught. While the war was initially started to "defend" the US from the imaginary WMD that Saddam Hussein supposedly had en masse in Iraq, aimed at the US, the real reason quickly became "humanitarian" and is now the liberation of the Iraqi people - and the convenient removal of Saddam Hussein from power. If a nation had the power to do that to the US and would pretend to liberate the US from its President due to its great heartfelt brothership and human love felt with the people of the country, anoutcry would go through the entire western world, rallying a massive military support to defend the US.. or so I guess.

The entire situation we have now is that international law has been invalidated, the UN are rendered powerless, the entire world is at the whim of the US, which grants itself the power to act anywhere on the planet in its sole descretion, regardless of treaties or law. That this does effectively remove the US from the community of nations on earth and impose its role as the currently sole superpower capable of commiting such acts, on all other nations in the form of hegemony coupled with imperialistic expansionism, is a sideeffect of Bush acting unilaterally against the will of the quite vocal majority of mankind.

Thats total crap.

You cant "liberate" people who wish you would go away.

Yesterday. heres the news:

On page ONE of my local paper...

PISTONS WIN!!

On page FIVE.....


"Humvee vehichle blown up in Bahgdad, citizens parade around dead soldiers' bodies."

They dont want us there....how on earth are we "liberating them", when all we'll end up doing is installing another Karzai, like in Afghanistan.
A President who will do whatever the White House wants him to.

9/11 staff: No al Qaeda cooperation with Iraq

Bush is caught now. (http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/index.html)

Told you so.

Tell me another lie to cover this one up.
This confirms exactly what many others, including myself have stated all along. There was no connection period!!!! Many people also did not buy into the WMD garbage either, especially after Bush kicked out the UN inspectors who were doing a credible job. Bush lied to the American people and lied to the world.

He is a dangerous man and hopefully he will be removed from office in November.

Al Qaeda got no help from Iraq, says 9/11 panel

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1087382972253_163?hub=TopStories

The U.S. commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks against the United States says it has found "no credible evidence" that al Qaeda and Iraq cooperated in the attacks.

The 10-member commission said in a report Wednesday that it has learned through research and interviews that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994, hoping for co-operation with then-Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

Bin Laden reportedly requested space to establish training camps, as well as help in procuring weapons. But the meeting appears to have produced no result.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report says.

The panel's findings appear to contradict the assertions of President George Bush's administration that Hussein had "long-established ties'' with al Qaeda.

There is, in fact, no evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda before Sept. 11, the report says, though the group did find "fertile fund-raising ground" in Saudi Arabia.

I wonder if they did a poll in the US after this article has been out for a week, how many people would STILL associate Iraq with al Qaeda. Just a thought.

Funny how most of the headlines aren't focusing on the "no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq" part but are focusing on the "Al Qaeda planned to use 10 planes" part of it.

The first story demonstrates how the Bush administration lied to get us to go to war in Iraq. The second deals with a part of the plan that Bin Laden shot down (pardon the pun) because it was impractical.

And which one is being flogged about by the "liberal media"? Liberal media, my ass.


It has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the media is indeed Liberal, 34% of all Journalists are liberal to only 7% that are Conservative. Pull your head out of your wide ass and accept the fact that Liberals have a iron-fisted grasp on the media and are lying to the people for their own personal gain!
And i suppose the remaining 59% are Communists?

Leave it to the Liberal reporters to ferret out the TRUTH!! :shock:

This isn't a "War on Al-Qaeda". It's a "War on Terrorism". And Iraq was supporting terrorists. To the tune of $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. You know, the kind of person who would do this (http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?format=wm&s=C9CE3CEBD341410FACBEFAABD8F66FE0&ci=22958&ak=null&ClipMediaID=28655). No money for this one though, since the Sugar Daddy was hauled out of his hole.

Okay, I can't remember all the details of it, but someone in the high ranks at CNN is the son of Cheney, the VP of the USA. There is supposedly some sort of deal that would make CNN available overseas more easily. Like, American news broadcasting in foreign nations, to the public, not to overseas troops. This deal would require authorization of the executive branch, so why would CNN not help out the president? I mean, with that increase in audience, they'd be making a ton in commercial money. Plus, I mean, the son of Cheney, is he really going to work against his dad? Think about it.
Ted Turner married Jane Fonda, does that mean that CNN would therefore be a raving liberal network intent on demeaning our troops and supporting communists?If it would have made a difference in theory, then it wouldn't matter in practice, since by the time Turner married Fonda, he was no longer in charge of the day to day at CNN--hasn't been for a number of years as a matter of fact.

This isn't a "War on Al-Qaeda". It's a "War on Terrorism". And Iraq was supporting terrorists. To the tune of $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. You know, the kind of person who would do this (http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?format=wm&s=C9CE3CEBD341410FACBEFAABD8F66FE0&ci=22958&ak=null&ClipMediaID=28655). No money for this one though, since the Sugar Daddy was hauled out of his hole.Actually, it is a war on al Qaeda. There's no way to have a war on terror, because terror isn't an enemy. It's a tactic. It's like trying to declare a war on justice or on sneak-attackism--it can't happen.

Actually, it is a war on al Qaeda. There's no way to have a war on terror, because terror isn't an enemy. It's a tactic. It's like trying to declare a war on justice or on sneak-attackism--it can't happen.
Did you cut and paste that? Here's an example of a war on a tactic. The War on Piracy fought and won by the British.

I doubt that Piracy has been defeated.

:roll: This gets tiresome. Of course Saddam was a dispicable tyrant, but there are plenty of other dispicable tyrants in this world who are not being invaded. It gets harder to hide the fact that this war was for other reasons as more facts come to light and more bodies are shipped home. The current American administration was hoping that Iraq would be thrilled to be rid of Saddam and everyone would be all hugs and smiles after he was ousted and no one would question the reasoning for the invasion.

Of course they assumed that American values were exportable and would be welcomed in that part of the world.

Welcome to reality.

I doubt that Piracy has been defeated.
It was defeated, if by "defeat" we mean that it was reduced from endemic to nuisance levels. If it has made a resurgence 250 years later (to levels slightly above nuisance) that's hardly a reason to say that it wasn't defeated then.

If we reduce terrorism from endemic to nuisance levels for only 250 years I'm going to go ahead and call that a victory.

9/11 staff: No al Qaeda cooperation with Iraq

Bush is caught now. (http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/index.html)

Told you so.

Tell me another lie to cover this one up.


The war was necessary only to secure the safety of 1 nation. Israel, the top US government officials even recently admitted it, let me go get the link.


Saddam was in his own words "firm but fair". And in practice, he was indeed "firm but fair". Keep in mind, Iraq is no easy country to rule.

that's hardly a reason to say that it wasn't defeated then

If its not totally gone, then no, its not defeated. Reduced yes - but you cant defeat things that are not persons, living things or countries. As long as piracy can return it will - and it has, because it is a way of fighting, just like terrorism.

Terrorism is not endemic. It is a nuisance level right now - on a worldwide scale, but it might very well grow to endemic levels, with the US acting as if the world was owned by it. The invasion of Iraq has functioned as a catalyst to increase terrorism in Iraq by a thousand times and I doubt that it will end when the US have returned the country to the people of Iraq.

We already know why the war was fought. For Israel.




http://www.rense.com/general50/warforisrael.htm

Iraq War Launched To
Protect Israel - Bush Adviser
By Emad Mekay
Inter Press Service News Agency
3-30-4


WASHINGTON (IPS) -- Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about "the unstated threat" during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.

He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.

The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.

The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the "war on terrorism" it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States.

Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion dollars.

Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role.

Known in intelligence circles as "Piffy-ab", the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make.

The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as "code word" that is higher than top secret.

The national security adviser to former President George H.W. Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office.

Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and email messages from IPS for this story.

Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration.

Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president's transition team in January 2001.

In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganising and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritising its work.

Richard A. Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings, said Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000.

Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany.

Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official -- Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the "Muslim Middle East".

Aside from his position at the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of the Miller Centre of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia.

His close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative body.

In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of "scarce hard currency" to harness "communications against electromagnetic pulse", a side-effect of a nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications.

That was "a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange -- they (Iraqi officials) were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis", according to Zelikow.

He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the United States, and that those weapons could have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking Hamas.

"Play out those scenarios," he told his audience, "and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it".

"Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel'? Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant."

To date, the possibility of the United States attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the administration.

Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said they are concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up.

"Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component," said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. "But this is a very good piece of evidence of that."

Others say the administration should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq.

"They (the administration) made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it," said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East.

But he downplayed the Israel link. "In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat," he said.

Still, Brown says Zelikow's words carried weight.

"Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than Wolfowitz, or Rice or Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made," Brown said.

This isn't a "War on Al-Qaeda". It's a "War on Terrorism". And Iraq was supporting terrorists. To the tune of $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. You know, the kind of person who would do this (http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?format=wm&s=C9CE3CEBD341410FACBEFAABD8F66FE0&ci=22958&ak=null&ClipMediaID=28655). No money for this one though, since the Sugar Daddy was hauled out of his hole.
The most damaging element of the recent findings by the 9/11 Commission is that it exposes as blatant lies Bush&Co.'s specific, repeated assertions about a supposed link between Saddam's regime and Al-Qaeda.

As for Arab financial support for Palestinians who kill your co-religionists, that sounds like a wonderful pretext to invade Saudi Arabia (which, incidentally, supplied most of the 9/11 hijackers), and UAE, and Kuwait ...yet somehow Iraq had been proclaimed the hub of Islamist terrorism. -- But not to worry: with no Saddam to repress the fanatics and American occupation of the country providing plenty of fodder for their propaganda machine, your wish might yet come true. Won't that be great? :evil:

As for Arab financial support for Palestinians who kill your co-religionists
Huh?
that sounds like a wonderful pretext to invade Saudi Arabia (which, incidentally, supplied most of the 9/11 hijackers), and UAE, and Kuwait
They'll get their turn, Insha'Allah.

As for Arab financial support for Palestinians who kill your co-religionists
Huh?
that sounds like a wonderful pretext to invade Saudi Arabia (which, incidentally, supplied most of the 9/11 hijackers), and UAE, and Kuwait
They'll get their turn, Insha'Allah.
Really? I heard somebody has ~150,000 heavily armed troops in the vicinty. Surely, a quick dash for Riyad, Kuwait City, Dubai and Abu-Dhabi would be no problem at all?
What, concerned about pissing off even more Moslems and the possibility that Saudis might blow up the oil installations (clusterfarking industrialised economies in the process)? Well, that might indeed be a problem. But do not lose faith: neo-cons are very smart and will surely find a way. After all, they are doing so splendidly in Iraq. :twisted:

Since Bush lied to start an unjust war in Iraq in order to loot it recruitment for al queda has shot thru the roof--so since this is the case it logically follows that Bush is part of the terrorism problem and the war against terrorism must extend to fighting him as well

This topic!

http://www.thenetbear.com/phpbb2/images/smiles/emote_deadhorse.gif

This topic!

http://www.thenetbear.com/phpbb2/images/smiles/emote_deadhorse.gifit can never be said enuf--as long as Bush remains in power ALL our lives are a grave risk