Akaveli said:
do I really need to throw up links where the Bush administration denies his part in any of 9/11? or where Cheney blames the media for drawing conclusions that weren't there? or the 9/11 report that expunges Saddam from culpability?ghostP5 said:
the other thing I noticed about a lot of those stories was that information came from unidentified sources or Iraqi dissidents. the majority of Iraqi dissidents have been proved to have lied and were full of s***; i.e. Chalabi's Iraqi Congress. I just have to think that the intelligence community had to find it odd that everything those people said was exactly what we wanted/needed to hear in order to further our reasons to go to war with Saddam. maybe we just thought that we were that good, but I'd imagine that it was more along the lines that they were treated like the American public has been, if you question or disagree with the policies/objectives of this administration you are either deaf, dumb or a terrorist. I like that they were so focused on making the world a better place, but doing so with blinders on is irresponsible and contrary to the entire process...ZoomZoomH said:um, the majority of those links came from the same source, which just happens to be a 'conservative news forum'. gee i wonder which side of the story they will take
well, yes, everyone will support their own agenda, I do it, you do it, but I appreciate what you're saying because when they do it, people die.
Phreak.. I accidentally hit edit instead of quote and changed your post.. very sorry and I think its back to normal.. anyway this is what i wanted to sayPhreakMP5 said:
(cool) np(headbang)katsmp3 said:
facts are facts, I agree. though news is not always facts. my point was to point out that a number of the articles referrenced used sources that some journalists would not consider to be printable in a major publication and others that have since been proven false. do I think that Saddam was involved with al Qaeda? yeah, especially in the philosophy of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' but Saddam's culpability seems to have stopped before 9/11 and that makes sense in the respect that he was a 'survivor' doing just enough to stay off of major radars and keep power. he had to know that any links between himself and a direct attack on Americans/American soil would lead a 'war-mongering, Cold War-era cabinet' (gotta fuel the fire, ya know!katsmp3 said:
) to a second war that he couldn't win. there are verifiable reports out there that Saddam was 'warring' with al Qaeda and the two groups didn't like each other. Saddam believing that al Qaeda was too brash and confrontational, al Qaeda believing that Saddam was not a true believer and overly complacent with being dominated by the Western world...
