[zen jihad]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm

So the reasons for invasion just keep falling apart, and now from the
mouths of those who used such arguments to justify what is basically
illegal. Not that we need the likes of liar Rummie to spell out the lies for us, we can see that already, but to watch these evil-doers (TM Bush) actually admit to their manipulationb of data is just mindblowing. So now we have virually all the reasons that Bush put forward to the UN to justify an invasion of Iraq for non-compliance of UN resolutions. Now those reasons have all fallen down, all lies, not one truth, nothing. yet, we'll hear the right-wing guardians say, 'Ah, but it was the breaking of UN resolutions that justofied unilateral intervention'. Wrong, the whole case for the upholdig of sanctions was the evidence, it was the words of Bush et al, now it's all lies. It was manipulated data to force such imagery on the populace of the world, but wholly false. So we're left with Iraq who neve rhad any WMD, no links to Al-Qaeeda, nothing, but just a few broken UN resolutions. Well damn, how many nations out there have a few UN resolutions set against them? Do I hear Israel?

Look what happens though, we have the US/Uk lying to the UN, knowingly passing on false information anout the various activities of Iraq, and to lnly go against the UN's wishes in the end by invading Iraq under the giuse of the coalition of the gullable. What a farce,.

We now have an Iraq in which more Iraqis have killed under US wars/sanctions than Saddam ever killed. A nation bombed to the stoneage. All based on lies.

What's next, Iran? Oh wait, we have Isral and the US administration and fcuked up Us media throwing in our faces how Iran is the next big evil. Erm, uh huh. Iran, a country that has threatened no-one, has com,plied with the Atomic inspection agency, has denied trhe accusations of the US/Israel (what a cheek), yet we must believe the US now, since their data is utterly unquestionable. LOL. Now, by my reckoning, Iran, like any other nation has every right to develop missiles for self-defence, especially with threats from Israel and US hawks comng thick and fast. Who's doing the threatening? Who's the danger to the Mid-East? Who's the buly? Not Iran I can tell you. Only today we have hear dIran saying they will respond to any Israeli incursion into their airspace, ie. bombing ther facilities.

It's so obvious what is going on that only the truly stupid thinks this is al black and white. But let's see. Iran has signed up to various treaties, unlike Israel, which puts Iran under a spotlight. But let's say Iran has the same rights as the US, and just pulls out of them. Why not? The US, on many occasions under Bush making this world less safe. I know, the Bush lovers wil say, 'Iran's a Muslim radical unstable, blah blah country'. Get a grip in reality blnid people. How Iran is run is p to them, and certainly is no reason for attacking them.


So let's look at who is threatennig who. Israel, the US. Iran is only protecting itself, like any nation should. The US is blowing its ass just now saying they are developing nuclear weapins, so ewhat if they are? The US airforce has just announced plans to develop new antimatter bombs, why? For peace? lol. In any case, get Powell to plod in the UN with his charts of missile silos, etc. Let's see how long before they turn out to be sugar cane barrels.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
[B]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm

So the reasons for invasion just keep falling apart, and now from the
mouths of those who used such arguments to justify what is basically
illegal. Not that we need the likes of liar Rummie to spell out the lies for us, /B]

blah blah blah blah blah.

However, at least the Beeb acknowledged that what it is reporting has been clarified by their subject. In other words, he says he didn't say what they are reporting he said:

A Statement From Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld

A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.

I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

This assessment was based upon points provided to me by then CIA Director George Tenet to describe the CIA's understanding of the Al Qaeda-Iraq relationship.

Today at the Council, I even noted that "when I'm in Washington, I pull out a piece of paper and say 'I don't know, because I'm not in that business, but I'll tell you what the CIA thinks,' and I read it."

The CIA conclusions in that paper, which I discussed in a news conference as far back as September, 2002, note that:

* We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

* We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade, and of possible chemical and biological agent training.

* We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq.

* We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

* We do have one report indicating that Iraq provided unspecified training relating to chemical and/or biological matters for al Qaeda members.

I should also note that the 9/11 Commission report described linkages between Al Qaeda and Iraq as well.

Secretary Rumsfeld, October 4, 2004.

All this really shows is the extent to which the anti-war left are willing to spin and distort. Say anything and they will report it according to their agenda with screaming headlines and a little teeny note "oh by the way, this statement might not be right" buried somewhere at the bottom.

By the way, Zen, are you going to respond to anything I post? You have this way of making a wild statement and then slinking away when it is challenged. In this thread I questioned your signature that quoted an internet conspiracy theory said that Bush ordered the FBI not to investigate Al-Queda before 9/11. It's "proof" was a non-existent Presidential Decision Directive. You didn't respond, but you did change your signature.

Now in this thread you posted another thing that has been all over the far-left reaches of the web. It's supposedly a piece by a soldier in Iraq. However, I did a little googleing and it looks to me very much like the guy isn't who he says he is. Are you going to defend him?

It's a little annoying when you run away from what you post like that. This is supposed to be a discussion board. But all you seem to do is post and run. You aren't the Fedayeen, and we aren't the US Army. Come debate out in the open!

[villalobos]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
In other words, he says he didn't say what they are reporting he said:

LOL.

'To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two'

[Mrjinglesusa]

A Statement From Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld

A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.

I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

This assessment was based upon points provided to me by then CIA Director George Tenet to describe the CIA's understanding of the Al Qaeda-Iraq relationship.

Today at the Council, I even noted that "when I'm in Washington, I pull out a piece of paper and say 'I don't know, because I'm not in that business, but I'll tell you what the CIA thinks,' and I read it."

The CIA conclusions in that paper, which I discussed in a news conference as far back as September, 2002, note that:

* We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

* We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade, and of possible chemical and biological agent training.

* We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq.

* We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

* We do have one report indicating that Iraq provided unspecified training relating to chemical and/or biological matters for al Qaeda members.

I should also note that the 9/11 Commission report described linkages between Al Qaeda and Iraq as well.




Yep, he had really hard, conclusive evidence to go to war over didn't he?

[James L]

Rummie forgot to mention the one, most important point:

"My president's daddy said we should go!"




I especially like the one that said that there was one time where it appeared that Iraq provided training to Al Quaeda...that means that Iraq had less involvement in the training of Osama and his boys than the US did when he was trained by the CIA in Afghanistan during the 80's.

Don't get me wrong, the US should go after any, and every, legit target that they find was related to Sept 11th. I still cannot believe people think Iraq fell into that category. And now those people justify it by saying "someone had to do it, so we did".

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

First of all, I changed my sig, not based on anything you wrote since I usually avoid reading right wing propoganda pieces, but because I thought I'd remove the accusation of murder with Bush. Once I did that, I realised the wording didn't sound so strong so I chnged it, if it make you happy I'll put it back.

Secondly. Don't even bother trying to debunk the directive i had mentioned, you'll be sorely shamed if you try. I have a copy of it right in front of me, combined with a an interview with the people behind it (Government employees), etc. I've probably done mnore research on this one document than you have by a quick Net flicky check.
All in good time, anyway, my article on this directive has been mentioned before by other, better commentators. It's been well documented, and NOT debunked by anyone, sorry. Just because you hiss n honk in here, doesn't mean you have anything more concrete to argue with. What? A bunch of Net links that are meant to impress people by your slight of hand? Having read your posts, you sound like you'll go to any lengths to protect your man Bush, I don't


As to the soldier, so what if YOU don't think it's real, I'm sure you'll do your best to try to prove it with long commentaries about blah blah blah. Thing is, I can produce a hundred of those statememts. Hell, my own very cousins in the US Marines have said such things.

Oh, your piece on Rummie here is a joke too, twisted words, say enough of them, and you might hide the truth from some.


So, I think you'll understand why I don't reply to your posts, they're not worth it, sorry. I only give apologists enough rope before i let go.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
So, I think you'll understand why I don't reply to your posts, they're not worth it, sorry. I only give apologists enough rope before i let go.

LOL!

[bamburg dunes]

Old Donald sounds a tad like Steve Ballmer of Microsoft. Now you see it, now you don't, lol. Ballmer just the other day accused iPod users of mostly having pirated mp3s on their iPods. Today he is denying it, or backtracking on it.

At least Ballmer isn't a crazy war monger though.

[Mithras]

Just for the record, here's his remarks in their entirety:

QUESTIONER: My name is Glenn Hutchins. Mr. Secretary, what exactly was the connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?

RUMSFELD: I tell you, I'm not going to answer the question. I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over the period of a year in the most amazing way. Second, there are differences in the intelligence community as to what the relationship was. To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two. There are--I just read an intelligence report recently about one person who's connected to al Qaeda, who was in and out of Iraq, and there's the most tortured description of why he might have had a relationship, and why he might not have had a relationship. There are reports about people in Saddam Hussein's intelligence service meeting in one country or another with al Qaeda people from one person to another, which may have been indicative of something, or may not have been. It may have been something that was not representative of a hard linkage.

What we do know is that Saddam Hussein was on the terrorist list. We do know they were giving $25,000 to suicide bombers. So, this is not the Little Sisters of the Poor. [Laughter.] But, what I would--to answer it, when I'm in Washington, I pull out a piece of paper and say, I don't know, because I'm not in that business, but I'll tell you what the CIA thinks, and I read it--the public version of it. If you want a--not terribly current now, but [former Director of Central Intelligence] George Tenet did testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a version of it was unclassified--declassified--later which you can get and read if you want to see the answer that he gave.

But it is--it is--the relationships between these folks are complicated. They evolve and change over time. In many cases, these different networks have common funders. In many cases, they cooperate not in a chain of command, but in a loose affiliation--a franchising arrangement almost, where they go do different things and cooperate, but they're not, in the case of al Qaeda, most--my impression is, most of the senior people have actually sworn an oath to Osama bin Laden, and even, to my knowledge, even as of this late date, I don't believe [Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi, the principal leader of the network in Iraq, has sworn an oath, even though what they're doing--I mean, they're just two peas in a pod in terms of what they're doing.

So, it is too complicated for me to try to pretend I'm the expert analyst on the subject, and for that I apologize.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
A Statement From Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
* We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

* We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade, and of possible chemical and biological agent training.

There is also solid evidence of the presence in the US of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in New York City.

There is also evidence of contact between the CIA and senior Al Qaeda members going back to 1989 and of possible terrorist training.

[zigzag]

I must say that although I'm no longer amused by Rumsfeld's spin about conditions in Iraq, I still get a kick out of his ruminations. Truth or falsity aside, there's something refreshing about a guy who's willing to stand before the press and answer questions in a blunt and uncanned fashion, and admit that he doesn't always have an answer.

[icruise]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Truth or falsity aside, there's something refreshing about a guy who's willing to stand before the press and answer questions in a blunt and uncanned fashion, and admit that he doesn't always have an answer.

I suppose, but if anyone should be able to answer these questions, it should be him, especially considering that they were the basis for the invasion of another country.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I suppose, but if anyone should be able to answer these questions, it should be him, especially considering that they were the basis for the invasion of another country.

Yeah, he should be Secretary of Conservative Philosophy or something, not Secretary of Defense.