GOP: "Be Afraid"

If Democrats take over the spin put out by Republicans is just a tactic.Truth is no tax increase just stopping the tax cuts to upper 2 percent. Funding for No Child Left Behind. No cuts to Brain Injury research. Oversight will happen which there has been none. No Impeachment of Bush just accountability. And will force both side to work as Congress should on a plan for Iraq. No John D not a pullout just forcing the Iraqi to take over their own Country. When that happen our Military can rearm,heal,retrain and be ready for the real war on terror.Yes John after talking to my family in Iraq we are not fighting terrorist but the Iraqi people themselfs.

No No No..The republicans would never stoop so low as to use scare tactics...would they? They will stand on their merits. Look at how they secured our borders, Disbaned the iraqi army, made the federal government smaller. Surely big oil and pharmacuetical companies won't let that happen.

The best headline: We're Back! A trial lawyer speaks out

Report: No Saddam-al Qaeda relationship before war

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/iraqreport.ap/index.html

This pretty much says it all about:

(1) The US dead and wounded in Iraq
(2) The fact that bin Laden is still at large and making threats

If the future Democrat-controlled congress can find the spine to impeach the current occupant and mr. vice, I'd say let the process start on the first day of the new congressional term. You know what? After 6 years of "President Bush", I think 2 years of "President Pelosi" would be a VERY refreshing change.

Oh, fire, brimstone, thunder, lightning!

God forbid the GOP have to deal with divided government. Such a thing sould be SOOOOO unacceptable. God forbid the Bush administration have to deal with accountability and investigations into their war and wiretapping policies. I mean, it's not like Clinton had to deal with this at all!

Democracy can be so gosh darned annoying sometimes.

The Neo-Nuts always try to scare people with"if you don't vote for us,you will have speaker Pelosi".

What's wrong with that???

The last 6 years we have had to sit by quietly,while Speaker Hastert has lock stepped with the Dubya "stay the course" boys team.

Here's a novel idea:
How about we have a Congress,and an administration who provide a checks,and balances system on each others power.

This do nothing Congress should be punished in this falls elections for allowing the Neo-Cons to run wild with Dubya's failed policys.
I think Denny Hastert falls in this category.

The Democrats are understandably giddy at the prospect of taking the Congress and maybe even the White House, given the reactionary mood of the electorate.

However, unless and until they come up with their own agenda their success will be short lived; it will amount to a minor blip before the country returns to normal.

I now await the pro forma accusations that I'm a stay-the-course KKK Republican whose dumb enough to believe that Saddam had WMDs.

Ah yes. . .the GOP's mantra "govern by fear".

So who put this little piece of propaganda together? Must be the same ones that are trying to air that ABC miniseries that’s full of lies and is obviously propaganda from the Rove slander machine. Just the same tactic used to swiftboat Kerry in ’04, they’ll say it’s just a movie, but you know there are people that will believe every word and keep repeating it like John D, and Bill

For a party that likes to strut its machismo (ala the president clearing brush or landing on an aircraft carrier), the GOP sure seems to be made up of a bunch of scaredy-cats. Afraid of the rest of the world, afraid of gays, afraid of Darwin, even afraid of Nancy Pelosi!

What a contrast from FDR's "all we have to fear is fear itself." From today's GOP: "all we have to fear is . . . EVERYTHING!"

"I now await the pro forma accusations that I'm a stay-the-course KKK Republican whose dumb enough to believe that Saddam had WMDs."

Posted by: Juanito | Sep 8, 2006 12:07:01 PM

Do you believe Saddam had WMDs that's "Direct threat to the United States of America"? I mean, the current occupant couldn't find them, even under the white house seat cusions.... funny, isn't it? Want to tell that to the families of the 3000+ US dead? Have you no sense of decency, sir?

Hey Rory, do you really think the DNC never uses political propaganda? Ever heard of that miniseries about the Reagans that was so slanderous ABC refused to air it? Propaganda? Them? Never!

Why Juanito...you said you were a republican...
I thought you were agnostic?

"The Democrats are understandably giddy at the prospect of taking the Congress and maybe even the White House, given the reactionary mood of the electorate."

Juanito,

'Reactionary' voters elect conservatives in response to 'progressive' measures taken by liberals.

Let's all keep our propaganda straight.

You got that one right CM. Funny, "Reactionary" is the name that Mao's Red Guards used to give out to conservatives... remember "Down with Reactionary Imperialist Walking Dogs"? somehow "Down with Progressive Imperialist Walking Dogs" just doesn't have the right sound......

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/iraqreport.ap/index.html

Once again we have subliminal advertising in the media and Jack just eats it all up. Yeah, Saddam and Zarqawi no connection. We didn't go to war over Zarqawi. As Tony Snow said "this is nothing new"

Doesn't mean that there was no AL Queda/OBL/Iraq connection. There was. It's spelled out nicely in the bi partisan 9/11 Commission Report.

Not only was OBL and Al Queda invited to move their home base from Afghanistan to Iraq, they also made a deal with a proxy terrorist org. known as Ansar Al Islam to go ahead an plan terrorist activities in Iraq as long as they stayed away from Saddam's regime. Look it up.

Furthermore, Richard Clarke was so afraid that once OBL moved into Iraq, the Clinton Admin. would never be able to get him, hence the urgency to plan missle strikes in Afghanistan before a possible move to IRaq. It also was in the original indctment authorizing Operation Desert Fox in which the Clinton Administration bombed Iraq over WMD and ties to terrorism.

Jack, ever hear of the 9/11 report? Ever read the entire thing?
You'll get a new prespective that the media hasn't been straightforward about....unless your just fat and happy getting info. from CNN.

Hey, didn't the media do the same thing to get you lefties in a frenzy over the Valerie Plame thing and NSA thing?

..are you tired of them adding fuel to your left wing folklore fire?

Man they are playing you.

In short, READ THE FINE PRINT.

Jack,

Interesting,,, if I knew it, I had forgotten it.

Yes, the Republican party has used reactionary tendencies in the American voting public to win many an election.

After the civil rights gains of the 50's and 60's, Nixon (R) devised the 'Southern Strategy' which has worked more often than not in presidential elections. That's why so many Dixiecrats, (like Strom) went Republican. They knew their base real well.

Further 'reactions' against progressives have developed over women's rights (pill, right to an abortion, general freedom), environmental protection, SSS and Medicare, etc.

People fear change, and politicians, including a few Dems. know that and exploit it.

Change is hard! But we have to keep at it.

The "Bush Deficit" will be paid for by a @00%
in the "inheritence tax"

ed

J John D,

An "invitation" (if there was one) isn't the same thing as providing aid, assistance and comfort to our enemies, (AL Queda/OBL/Iraq/NFL/AFL-CIO/OU812/Et Al).

Fun (and easy too!) as catching you on the facts is, the sobering truth of the matter is that the United States military (and my nephew who's headed back for his second tour of duty) is refeering a civil war in Iraq as we post/counter-post.

The time has long since past for us to lay out a well-structered withdraw plan to leave Iraq. A series of deadlines to leave various parts of Iraq will compel the Iraqi government to get serious about getting their security house in order. Or it will be their political behinds doing the dying. P.S. (Oh True Believer, your induction date is when?)

Johnito,

"reactionary mood of the electorate"

You have got to be kidding.

If the polls showed a Democratic defeat methinks your post would say something like "the intelligence of the American voter shines through again."

Wus up here is that the American electorate has had six years of the Bush Presidency and four years of Republican stem to stern, sea to shining sea rule, and an overwhelming majority have concluded they don't like Republican policies and the direction we are going.

And that's the way it is...

Ronald Reagon Movie:

The Republicans were crying in their wine spritzers about that mini-series.

It got moved to a low rated cable channel as a result of their crying.

George W. Bush was President for nearly 2 years when 9/11 happened,Jan.2000-Sept.2001.
Bill Clinton told Dubya his most urgent concern should be tracking Osama Bin Laden.

Dubya promptly blew off his daily briefings on Bin Laden,and him,and Cheney WarMonger decided to fire up their hero Ronnie Regans old Star Wars system.

This current 9/11 movie is just Republican PROPAGANDA to shore up support for their failing "stay the course" crap that they are trying to sell to the American people.

Johhny D.....I hear you sniveling right about now.

JD

I have a copy of the 911 Commission Report. I've actually read it. Tell me, what page number are you looking at which claims the Al Queda/OBL?Iraq link?

And actually, JD, I'm guessing you're a fan of FOXNEWS (an oxymoron). While I'm no fan of CNN, at least CNN reported accurately on both sides of the aisle of the 911 Commission. I'm pretty sure FOXNEWS couldn't find the 911 Commission with a map.

Jack,
No I do not believe that Saddam had WMDs at the time of the invasion (though not for lack of trying). I also don't even know what the catch phrase, "stay the course" means exactly. I never said these things. Nevertheless, those are the standard accusations around here if anybody dares to ask questions of the Democrats.

C. Morris,
The voters are indeed in a reactionary mood. A lot of people are saying "ANYBODY but these bums" aren't they? Right wingers (or Left) aren't the only reactionaries in the world. There's nothing propagandistic about my saying that.

A little less emotionalism and a little more calm thought would help the conversation.

Let's not forget that the Reagan documentary wasn't aired on network TV because it was too harsh on poor Ronnie and that's just not fair! WAAHHH! Apparently the "liberal media" had enough conservative influence in that case. The corresponding action would be for ABC to not air their propaganda either. Let's see what happens and maybe we'll finally realize the truth about media in this country by the actions of the networks and not the blabberings of conservative pundits.

"Why Juanito...you said you were a republican..."

No bill r. I never said that. Because I'm not. I am not a partisan of either of these parties.

You and many other people here assume that I must certainly be a Republican because I relentlessly point out the faults of the Democrats. Because that's how you "advocate" for the Democrats.

Why can't you see what's so wrong about the tack of your debate? "The Republicans have done [fill in the blank] wrong" is not an argument in favor of your party. At best it's only half an argument.

JohnE,

Get a calendar. President Bush was elected in November, 2000 and took office on January 20, 2001. He was behind in getting a staff together because he had to waste time fighting the Democrats baseless Florida election charge.

As far as the 9/11 miniseries this weekend, it will have a lot more truth to it than Farenheit 911.

Lets remember that the democrats whined about a documentary that would have shown John Kerry in a bad light before the last election and had it pulled.

Dam Terry you just hurt Republican know your facts please before posting. The Republican Controlled Congress stopped every Terrorism bill that Clinton sent. Clinton odered the Spc. Ops to kill bin Laden but your President Buddy took over and stopped it by a military coup. NIC reports went to Bush showing that we were about to be hit. Bush said to his staff it would be overseas.By the way Lott ,Hastert and Wagner called Clinton's agenda on terrorism Wag the Dog. History is fact not talking points. Read the 9/11 Commission report and Terry I am Republican who will not put up with halftruths. I have Family in Iraq on lies by this President

Jack,

No I do not believe that Saddam had WMDs at the time of the invasion (though not for lack of trying).

Posted by: Juanito | Sep 8, 2006 5:04:22 PM

(1) So tell me exactly why did we invade Iraq? (2) And what exactly do we tell the families of the 3000+ US dead from that misadventure?
(3) What do we tell the families of the 3000+ US dead from WTC attacks about Osama bin Laden?

If Bill Clinton did what the current occupant did with Iraq, I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with having him impeached. And removed from office. The problem is, he didn't.

JD,
Ansar al Islam was formed in 2001 when a number of smaller groups joined forces to oppose the PUK, a U.S backed organization that sought a free and independent Kurdistan.
http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/nactors.htm
This report puts Ansar al Islams numbers at around 200 in 2001, against a PUK force of about 15000.
Bear in mind that Hussein effectively had no control over this region since 1991, but wished to see the PUK defeated. It is not refuted that Ansar al Islam received backing fron Al Qaeda, but Hussein could not have been complicit in this scheme, as Hussein had no control over Al Qaedas funds, nor was Hussein interested in much if any of Al Qaedas goals. Hussein was essentially using Ansar al Islam to do his bidding against the PUK, in an area that he had no control over.
Finally, the 9/11 Report that you rely heavily on to support a Hussein/Al Qaeda connection, concludes that Iraq/Hussein and Al qaeda had no connections to speak of. Here is the pertinent paragraph.

"Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76"

Should the public believe that Iraq was a hotbed for Al Qaeda before our invasion as the administration asserts, based on the flimsy evidence presented in the 9/11 Report?
The evidence strongly suggests they should not.
In short, the violence and terrorist activity in Iraq today is a direct result of the error in judgement to invade Iraq, and even more so, Rumsfelds bungling of the occupation.

Terry,

You are correct sir,Bush had been in office for 9 months when 9/11 happened, my mistake.

For every single day of the 9 months Dubya was in office he was told about Osama Bin Ladin,and Bill Clinton personally told him as he was leaving office to keep an eye on Bin Ladin.

Dubya dropped the ball.He,and Cheney wet the bed,and as usual Dubya,as he has his entire "silverspoon" life, blames it all on Bill Clinton,and refuses to take any persanal responsibility.

Terry,

There is a big difference between showing someone in a "bad light" and flat out lying and Karl Rove knows the difference e.g Max Cleland depicted as anti-American, John McCain depicted as having a black child out of wedlock etc. Now, the American people know the difference too and Rove has gone to that tainted well too many times for it to be effective. It is time for a change. No more stolen elections - let's do it fair and let the voters decide, not the hacks like Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell.

For more on the Iraq-terrorist conenctions, see
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/670bsucx.asp

which eviscerates the claims of the anti-war crowd in Congress and at the Swamp.

JohnE.

How many opportunities did President Clinton have to either capture or kill Osama bin Laden?

Non_Partisan,

I noticed you listed two Republicans as examples, show much for being non-partisan.

As far as elections being stolen, I couldn't agree more that the fraud that was perpatrated in St. Louis in 2000 and Milwaukee in 2004 is a shame.

Katherine Harris is a political hack, although she performed duties as perscribed in the 2000 election. Ken Blackwell, I have no problem with.

The socialist moonbats from the Democrat party are here in full force. I guess it hurts when Fahrenheit 9/11 is challenged as the ultimate arbiter of truth. Of course the following irony will be lost on the anti-American liberals. During 8 years of the Clintonistas rule in the U.S. the only overt response to Islamo-fascists as perpetuated by the 1993 WTC bombing and the attack upon the U.S.S. Cole was the bombing of Iraq. What were Bill Clinton's words to America on December 16, 1998 as the U.S. and Britain bombed Iraq, "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

Joe Lieberman, the man who according to moonbats the world over had the Vice Presidency "stolen" from him, the man who if we'd had eight years of Gore would presumably be the heir apparent to the Demo Presidential nomination in '08 is in full support of the administrations foray into Iraq.

Here's the bottom line. If Bush and the GOP fully embraced the socialist utopia advanced by loser libs we'd hear nary a peep about Iraq. Instead in their misguided attack upon the GOP's socio/economic platform we see Democrat traitors who are more than willing to roll over while Islamo fascists perpetuate terror with increasing veracity upon Western targets and institutions. All because the disapprove of an administration that echo's the voice of the American majority in it's opposition to homosexual marriage, abortion on demand, abridgement of 2nd amendment rights and taxation levels that exceed those of former Soviet Republics.

Democrats and particularly liberal Democrats are shallow pseudo intellects with less common sense than could fit into a thimble. In your short sighted goal of "saving the country" you will help destroy humanity.

Bruce,
Two interviews with Hussein underlings hardly "evicerates" the findings of the 9/11 Commission or the U.S Senate.

(1) So tell me exactly why did we invade Iraq?

(2) And what exactly do we tell the families of the 3000+ US dead from that misadventure?

(3) What do we tell the families of the 3000+ US dead from WTC attacks about Osama bin Laden?

If Bill Clinton did what the current occupant did with Iraq, I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with having him impeached. And removed from office. The problem is, he didn't.

Posted by: Jack | Sep 8, 2006 9:01:00 PM

Jack,
(1) Invading wasn't my idea. I was against it. Maybe you should direct your question to all of the Republican and Democratic politicians who signed off on the Idea.

(2) I grieve for them and I don't have ready soothing answer for them. Again, direct your question to the responsible parties. BTW, I also grieve for the 100,000+ Iraqi dead.

(3) I don't understand the point of that question.

What I'm driving at is that the Democrats as the opposition party are poised to benefit solely because the electorate is dissatisfied with the Bush administration, not because they have a plan to deal with the current geopolitical crisis. I think it might be a good idea for them to come up with an agenda, don't you? If not the party as a whole, than at least the presidential hopefuls.

Kurt,
Thats a very nice screed you've written about the un-American, traitorous left that would prefer to see all humanity perish because they really, really want gays to marry and keep abortion legal.
Rather than wildly speculate as to what travesties to mankind would occur under a Democtratic administration, why not examine the successes and failures of the current administration?
1) Iraq - not going very well, is it? Dead soldiers - 2,667, $500,000,000,000.00 spent
, four years, and no end in sight.
2) Afghanistan - Taliban forces alive and well, negotiating with our "friend" Pakistan. Oh, plenty of opium trade to fuel the war on drugs here in the homeland as well.
3) Al Qaeda cells operational in 40 or more countries, and OBL is still sending Terror-O-Grams
to our country.
4) Iran and North Korea - zippity, except for some weak, ineffective economic sanctions the administration was forced to use - by their own admission the military is stretched drum tight in Iraq and they have few or no options.
4) Non defense discretionary spending (you know, the spending the Republican controlled Congress and the President have control over)has increased
by 50% since Bush has been in charge. Nice job done by the fiscal conservatives in the administration.
5) The recovery from Katrina is still bogged down, N.O is still loaded with refuse, but hey, at least the checks given directly to Halliburton, Bechtel and the rest of the "free market", have been cashed, with little or no expectation from the administration of seeing anything in return.
6) Ports, borders, transportation infrastructure, nuclear facilities remain largely un-defended and open to attack.
7) Not much to report in the way of progress on the domestic front, either. No Child Left Behind
- the administration left the funding behind. Medicare reform - what elderly person can even comprehend that mess? Immigration Reform - the Republicans disagree on just about everything
related to it. Yes, the tax cuts - very nice move on the presidents part, except the average working person has seen a decline in real income over the last six years and the middle class is facing the same fate as the dinosaurs - extinction.
8) The state of the enviroment - too long a list, but none of it has been kind to the planet we live on.
Very stellar list of achieved goals, isnt it? But what un-American, traitorous lefty really looks at all of these positive accomplishments - they are too busy celebrating gay weddings and abortions to notice. Right, Kurt?

Its funny how a photo of Rummy and Saddam gets you guys all riled up, but acutal evidence of Iraqi and Al Queda ties from a bi partisan commission gets you all defensive.

Even in this latest report refuting Zarqawi and Saddam ties, Saddam admits members of his govt. met with OBL/Al Queda (which stongly suggests that they had ties, unless they were just on a blind date)
and it also verifies that Zarqawi was in Iraq before the 2003 U.S. Invasion. Yes, Saddam said he had no ties, but hmmmmmmm... Now how do you suppose he got there and was able to set up shop? Did he hitch hike there and sleep in a bus station? Doubt it.

You guys love to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. Why, I'll never know.

Brian, pg 66 and 67 have some interesting stuff. After reading both pages, I don't know how anyone could claim that Iraq, Saddamm, OBL, and Alqueda did not have ties. Not specific 9/11 ties, but ties. Pg. 61 has some good stuff on Ansar Al Islam including OBL meeting with senior Iraqi intelligence officers. The formation and indications that Saddam tolerated and even may have help Ansar Al Islam with a common enemy (Kurds) debunks the lefty myth, that OBL, and Saddam has too many differences to cooperate.

Sudan also acted as an intermidiary between Iraq and OBL. Yes, the very Sudan that all the lefties want us to step in on the prevent the genocide in Darfur.

So let's recap. Sudan, a soverign nation, with oil and suspected ties to Al Queda and suspected WMD is ok, according to the left, to put forces in to stop the govt. sponsored genocide.

OK.

I hope there is a cure for Bush Derrangemnet Syndrome soon.

Also, if Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, and the people involved with 9/11 (not 9/11 itself, but the people involved). Why are they even discussed in the 9/11 report?

Why bother?

Kurt,
I would hope you're not involved in local politics
in any real way, particularly Republican politics.
The Illinois GOP has enough problems on its hands at the moment, and I am sure the last thing they need is having to defend another compatriot in the vain of Alan Keyes.

John F. Read the two paragraphs above what you cut and pasted. Its spells it out clearly.

I don't know what is wrong with you guys.

All verified and in print. Even Saddam amitted this in the latest report that you guys are going crazy over.

How much more clearly can it be spelled out?

(Yes, no 9/11 specific collaboration), but definite documented and verified ties, meetings, invitations, offers, common themes......HEEELLLLLLOOOOOO

JD,

"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."

Do you mean this part?

The more distracted I am from reading some of these posts, the poorer the spelling, punctuation and grammar becomes. Vein, not vain.

no John F. The two paragraphs that start the page.

Come on,...you can do it. You can read something that proves, along with Saddam's latest admission, that there were ties, meetings, etc... with Saddam's govt. and OBL and Al Queda, including the offer of safe haven.

Its ok John f. The truth won't hurt you.

Just because they didn't collaborate with 9/11, doesn't mean that they didn't have connections with each other, which is cleary laid out in the commission report. My guess is you haven't read it, and are just cutting a pasting whatever you've read on the internet.

The report is free to download Johnf.

"4) Iran and North Korea - zippity, except for some weak, ineffective economic sanctions the administration was forced to use - by their own admission the military is stretched drum tight in Iraq and they have few or no options."

Tell me Johnf. you use this "point" as a negative against Bush.

What would you want us to have our military ready for Iran and North Korea for?

What would be your justification of using military force? Why do you view them as a threat?

Just curious.

JD,
Iran and North Korea are very serious threats - far more serious than Husseins Iraq ever was, even if the WMDS would have been found.
There were certainties about Iran and North Koreas threat to the U.S that should have compelled Bush to focus on those nations first and foremost, but that option has been lost to history since we invaded Iraq.
Here is an interesting article about the strong likelyhood that the limited sanctions the U.N Security Council are proposing will not be strong enough to force Iran to cease its enrichment program, and the reasons why China and Russia do
not wish to see stronger sanctions used.
In the event that sanctions do not work, and that is very likely (I pray they do), the U.S has one choice - military force.
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/09/iran_sanctions_a_necessary_ste.php
Bush had two cards to play in dealing with Iran and North Korea - sanctions and military force.
Unfortunately, the conflict in Iraq has severely diminished the U.S ability to use military force against either Iran or North Korea, leaving the U.S to play the weaker of the two cards.

About the two paragraphs - yes, there were alleged contacts between the two ( remember the "may" ),
but why do you refuse to comprehend the the conclusion to those paragraphs JD?
Here it is again:

"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."

BTW, I have downloaded the report and have indeed read it - all of it - particularly the CONCLUSION
the commission arrived at regarding the Hussein/AlQaeda relationship.

Re: GOP be afraid;

I just read an update that the Maliki/Iran visit is on.

TeamBush has put a pro Iranian/Hezbollah government in power in Iraq through 'democracy'.

It's now just a matter of time until it's formalized in some way.

This is one of the ultimate outcomes predicted by the expert critics of the war in Iraq before the invasion; a pro Iranian elected Iraqi state.

Be afraid, yes, but of whom?

"Earlier Contacts" Johnf. It's even in the sentence that you think clears Saddam.

What does that mean to you? "Earlier contacts." What does "contacts" mean to you?
What do you think they discussed during these multiple "contacts?" Camel recipes?

NO collaboration for 9/11 attacks yes, but CONFIRMED meetings. NO "may" CONFIRMED reports. No "alleged"

Even Sadaamm confirmed them in the latest Zarquawi story that you hold in such high regard.

Are you that stubborn that you won't admit they had ties? Even after reading they did?

How does that happen to someone?

Also, hmm, Iran is worse than Iraq huh? OK.

Iran, no WMD, no nukes...may get them, but they claim they are for peaceful purposes. No 9/11 attackers were Iranian or N. Korean. (don't get me wrong, I know they are a threat, but I 'm playing lefty devil's advocate) What if we do something about Iran is costs us 2500 + lives and $500 billion dollars, like your earlier infintile shot against the Iraq war? Would you still support it? Hey, they have oil too!

"Unfortunately, the conflict in Iraq has severely diminished the U.S ability to use military force against either Iran or North Korea, leaving the U.S to play the weaker of the two cards."

Yeah, you're right. Before we had nothing in the region, now we have almost 200K troops, bases, and equipement in two countries that surround Iran.

You're right, sounds like we're in a bad spot.

Are you sure you're not realted to John E.?

Charles,
Saw that item about Maliki as well. Deafening silence from the right about it.
I also read Iran is willing to hold talks about the enrichment program, which might yield some very positive results, but I still am wary of their integrity. Sponsoring of terrorism will probably just continue whether they have nukes or not.

JD,
What exactly is your point?
Here are mine.
Whatever relationship Iraq had with Al Qaeda - according to the 9/11 report there was not much there - can not be used to explain away the sectarian violence in Iraq today, nor the recruiting billboard for terrorists that Iraq has become, no matter how much the administration would like it to.
The decision to topple Hussein made by the President and Congress, and events subsequent to that, namely the execution of the mission led by Rumsfeld, have proven to be a destabilizing force in the Middle East.
I have stated many times before in my posts that I believe,and I am not alone in my belief by any measure, that the decision to depose Hussein was a very poor, misguided one. My belief is not based on any admiration, respect, or fondness I have for Hussein. Quite the contrary, JD. The past three years are all I need to make a decision about the purpose and effectiveness of this conflict.
Irans nuclear aspirations, and the definitive evidence that Iran actively supported and financed terrorism before the invasion of Iraq, should have painted a very clear picture for the president that they, not Iraq, were the most formidable threat to the U.S. This is not to imply the U.S should have used military force against Iran in 2003. Here is an interesting piece that gives very good insight into the relationship Iran, the U.S and Russia had regarding Irans nuclear aspirations
at that time.
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2004/issue1/jv8n1a7.html
Essentially, Bushs choice to invade Iraq has allowed Iran to very effectively call Islamic terrorists in the Middle East to arms against U.S forces and gain some needed time to advance their nuclear enrichment program. In addition, the diplomatic leverage the U.S has to confront Iran with has been weakened by it as well.
My earlier post stated that the stronger hand would be the use of military force against Iran. I would like to clarify that somewhat.Military force
becomes, rather than is, the stronger of the two options, as diplomatic solutions decrease. The
U.S is dangerously close to that point now.
JD, if the U.S did need to use force against Iran, how would the 136,000 troops in Iraq be deployed to Iran without leaving Iraq in shambles? Sounds like draft time to me.
Finally JD, there is nothing infantile in mentioning the lives lost, and much less importantly the dollars spent, when assessing the
performance of the Bush administration, which was what I was doing. Holding Bushs feet to the fire over their deaths is the very least I can do for them now.

My point is that Iraq and Al Queda had ties and connections. Not specifically for 9/11 but documented meetings, offers etc....

I'm not talking about how it realtes to Iraq today, but to refute your claim bleow.

"concludes that Iraq/Hussein and Al qaeda had no connections to speak"

Is offering safe haven considered "no connection to speak?"

You were wrong.

As far as Iran/Iraq. Iraq had been looking to have a nuclear plan for years. Ask the Israli's how real it was in 1981.

Supporting terror? Nahhhh, Saddam would never do THAT. Ansar Al Islam, meetings with Taliban and Al Queda, Hey, there were just forming a fantasy football league I guess. Also suspected of financing suicide bombings in Israel, firing Scud missles into Israel, invading Kuwait, Plot to assasinate President Bush 1, Vowing revenge on the U.S. Praising 9/11 and the Challenger disaster, Mustard Gas use, but NEVER supporting terror??

Is that just too much of a strech for you?

Why does Saddam always get the benefit of the doubt with you guys?

Why can you conceptually see Iran as a threat because of a desire to have nukes, and support terror, etc.... yet you can't say the same about Saddam?

JD,
"Also suspected of financing suicide bombings in Israel, firing Scud missles into Israel, invading Kuwait, Plot to assasinate President Bush 1, Vowing revenge on the U.S. Praising 9/11 and the Challenger disaster, Mustard Gas use, but NEVER supporting terror??"

Yes JD, all terrible deeds, no question about it, but they pale in comparison to a nuclear weapon, dont they?

"concludes that Iraq/Hussein and Al qaeda had no connections to speak"

JD, the first part of that sentence was:

"Finally, the 9/11 Report that you rely heavily on to support a Hussein/Al Qaeda connection, concludes that Iraq/Hussein..."

If you differ in opinion with their conclusion and wish to see more emphasis placed on the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection, write the drafters of the 9/11 report and express your misgivings about it to them.

Just to be clear, F911 was not a docu-drama. Its lead actor was George W. Bush and words were not put into his mouth; he read his own script. Unlike the fake ABC film, F911 showed real footage of Bush sitting frozen in front of schoolchildren for 7+ minutes, swinging his golf club proudly, and lying about an Iraq/al qaeda connection to the nation, among other highlights.

F911 was also in movie theaters, meaning you would have to pay money and choose to see the film, as opposed to free television.

How this documentary compares with either The Reagans or Path to 9/11, I have no idea.