Sean Hannity...propaganda minister

[christiefan915]

Yeah I know...you keep rehashing LONG DISPROVEN neocon/Shrub propaganda. That's okay....willfully ignorant necons don't know any better. Carry on.

I guess you could say "one of the bombers in the first attack on the WTC was living in Baghdad and getting a monthly stipend from the Saddam regime..." if you consider living in prison and having your "visit" paid for by the state a stipend.

... Kenneth Pollack of the State Department stated that there was no CIA information tying Iraq into the 1993 WTC bombing.

With Yasin reportedly being held as a prisoner in Hussein's Iraq, Leslie Stahl of CBS interviewed him there for a segment on 60 Minutes on May 23, 2002 (see below). Yasin appeared in prison pajamas and handcuffs. It was claimed that Iraq had held Yasin prisoner on the outskirts of Baghdad since 1994. Stahl also interviewed US Attorneys who acknowledged they had agreed to release Yasin to Iraq. [2] Yasin is believed to still be in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Yasin

"alQaeda terrorists were training in Salman Pak, Iraq."Wonder if Dix believes his RW rags over the U.S. Military.

On March 2, 2004, Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay, and John Walcott of Knight Ridder's Washington bureau reported the same thing: "Iraqi defectors alleged that Saddam's regime was helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at a site called Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. The allegation made it into a September 2002 white paper that the White House issued. The U.S. military has found no evidence of such a facility."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200409280011

 

[Taichiliberal]

I guess you could say "one of the bombers in the first attack on the WTC was living in Baghdad and getting a monthly stipend from the Saddam regime..." if you consider living in prison and having your "visit" paid for by the state a stipend.

... Kenneth Pollack of the State Department stated that there was no CIA information tying Iraq into the 1993 WTC bombing.

With Yasin reportedly being held as a prisoner in Hussein's Iraq, Leslie Stahl of CBS interviewed him there for a segment on 60 Minutes on May 23, 2002 (see below). Yasin appeared in prison pajamas and handcuffs. It was claimed that Iraq had held Yasin prisoner on the outskirts of Baghdad since 1994. Stahl also interviewed US Attorneys who acknowledged they had agreed to release Yasin to Iraq. [2] Yasin is believed to still be in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Yasin

"alQaeda terrorists were training in Salman Pak, Iraq."Wonder if Dix believes his RW rags over the U.S. Military.

On March 2, 2004, Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay, and John Walcott of Knight Ridder's Washington bureau reported the same thing: "Iraqi defectors alleged that Saddam's regime was helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at a site called Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. The allegation made it into a September 2002 white paper that the White House issued. The U.S. military has found no evidence of such a facility."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200409280011

You're a better person than me, Christie....you do the homework for these willfully ignorant neocon parrots more than often. When I challenged the joker for proof of his claim, I got BS in return.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
No, what you presented was a distortion of context, and did NOT show Bush said Saddam was responsible for 9/11, as Liberals have often inferred. In fact, Bush, Cheney, and others, OFTEN clarified just the opposite.

TCL: Now you're just being stubborn to the point of insipidness. Bush clearly connects Hussein to 9/11.

No, he most certainly didn't, and you haven't posted anything to show he did.

In his October 29, 2003, President Bush has tried to revive the false link between 9-11 and Iraq claiming that the suicide bombers in Iraq were “probably both Ba’athists and foreign terrorists”, explaining that “it’s the same mentality, by the way, that attacked us . . . on September 11th, 2001. . . . And Iraq is a central part of the war on terror.”

Suicide bombers in Iraq are not the 9/11 attacks, dumbass! Ba'athists and foreign terrorists are not the 9/11 attackers, dimwit! You are taking a statement completely out of context, and inferring your own meaning to it, and trying to claim that is what was said, which is a completely dishonest lie.

What makes you so pathetic is your penchant for insulting people when clearly you don't comprehend what you read. The "dumbass" and "dimwit" was your lord & master the Shrub, genius. HE was the one that made those erroneous connections in his address to the nation, not me. Nothing I posted was taken out of context. If you did your homework, you'd have read the address yourself and seen what I said was true. So unless you can factually and logically prove that I'm not reporting the truth here, you're just blowing smoke as usual.

In his October 7, 2002 address to the nation, Bush Iraq-Al Qaeda connections “go back a decade.”

And they DO go back a decade! Again, "connection to alQaeda" does not equal "connection to 9/11 attacks!" There were as many as eight meetings.... I posted this already... the people MET, you retard! Now, if they MET... THAT WAS CONNECTION! It's physically impossible to MEET and NOT make a connection! You want to argue, since they didn't work out a collaborative deal (which no one claimed they did) that this means there was never any connection, and that is patently untrue. There WAS a connection, it has been established. They did not (as far as we know) collaborate on the 9/11 attacks together, and no one has ever made that claim.

Let me dumb it down for you: making the statement without the following information is MISLEADING. A CIA report found that there were some contacts between Iraq and bin Laden in the early 1990s (when Al Qaeda was in its infancy), the report concluded that the early contacts had not led to any continuing high-level relationships. ---Pincus – Washington Post 06.22.03); Axheswe – Los Angeles Times 07.10.03

When you tell HALF THE STORY, and then continue with similar half truths, you create a false impression.....which is what the Shrub & company did. And you are CLUELESS or IN DENIAL as to White House claims of Hussein/9/11 connections. The Shrub made a few, but Cheney made a LOT. But let's keep focused on your unwillingness to accept reality.

As of September 2003, the Bush administration still couches the war in Iraq as part of the war against terrorism. The administration claims “Iraq is now the central front” in that war.

www.bushlies.net

Well, your source explains a lot of your fucking insanity! How can you, with a straight face, post shit from a pure left-wing propaganda outlet, and pass it off as some kind of 'credible information' to the rest of us? You know, if someone on the right tried to get away with this shit, they'd be run completely off this board! Get real dude, if you're going to post information, at least post stuff from some recognized major news source!

And Oh BY THE FUCKING WAY.... In a video speech from September, 2007... It is OSAMA BIN LADEN who declares Iraq as "the central front" in the war on western civilization (aka: War on Terror). NOT GEORGE BUSH!

Oh wipe the drool off your mouth, toodles. You're not impressing anyone because despite all your diatribes YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY OR FACTUALL DISPROVE ONE ITEM FROM THE FOREMENTIONED SITE. All you do is just rant, "it's not true", which means nothing in leiu of the official record of the State of Union address and press conferences by the Shrub. If you had bothered to READ, you'd note that all the quotes and counters are REFERENCED to valid news sources, White House statements and press releases. But alas, you are just a proudly ignorant neocon parrot squawking loudly.

Oh, and if you had paid attention, you'd note that Bin Ladin's statement comes FOUR YEARS after the invasion/occupation. A day late and a dollar short on what the Shrub & company were saying from the git go. And my quote on this point said the "administration". Here genius, take note from the lying lips of Dead Eye Dick Cheney and the Shrub:

On November 7, 2002, President Bush said that Saddam Hussein” is a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaeda. . . . A true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaeda-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint.”

On July 24, 2003, Vice President Cheney cited Iraq’s “ties to terrorist groups” as a justification for the war.
In his “victory” speech on the USS Lincoln, Bush proclaimed “We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda.”

In September 2003, Cheney claimed US success in Iraq is “a major blow right at the heart of the . . . geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11.”

I DEFY YOU TO FACTUALLY DISPROVE 1 OR ALL 3 OF THESE ITEMS. IF YOU CAN'T THEN DON'T WASTE TIME AND SPACE WITH MORE DODGY BS.

DONE DONE AND DONE! All you've "done" is give more of your worthless supposition and conjecture and denial, as I've proven above. Moron! Yes, you are....but I have hope that even YOU can learn.

You further take out of context, the findings of the 9/11 commission, when congressmen sitting in Washington, looking at papers and documents only, said “no credible evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.” 1.) It doesn't mean one never existed. 2.) No one ever claimed a "collaborative relationship" existed, nor would it have to exist for Saddam to be giving aid to alQaeda terrorists.

Newsflash: YOUR supposition and conjecture doesn't cut when historical fact is available. Of course YOU edit out this tidbit that would have prevented your BS The 9-11 Commission found “no credible evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.” The Commission stressed that “it had access to the same information [that Vice President Cheney] has seen regarding contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks.”

Again... credible evidence of collaboration found by the CIA, does not mean there was no connection. It only means there was no evidence found of collaboration! That doesn't even mean there wasn't collaboration, just that no credible evidence was found, and no one ever claimed they did collaborate! But there certainly WAS a connection, it is patently IMPOSSIBLE to MEET with each other, and not CONNECT! Dumbass!

You're babbling......by your "logic" if there was a connection, then despite LACK of CREDIBLE evidence, there is collaboration. Pay attention....no one denied the meetings....what is evident is that Dick Cheney went before Congress and the public saying that collaboration was a certainty. The Commission said that they had the same information, and the evidence didn't support that claim (as did the CIA on many an occasion). If you want to believe otherwise, go ahead...because we've seen the results of military action based on belief and not on credible evidence....which is why Cheney created his Office of Special Projects...which gave him the evidence he wanted, not what was logically concluded. History has shown Cheney to be a liar, as well as the Shrub....the Commission was right.

You conveniently left out some other facts as well, which means your entire argument is out of context and dishonest. FACT: One of the bombers in the first attack on the WTC was living in Baghdad and getting a monthly stipend from the Saddam regime. Really? How long did he live there. Where's your proof of this? What was the guy's status while living in Iraq. I gave sources, where are yours?

He lived there from Feb. 26, 1993, when he fled the US. His name is Abdul Rahman Yasin, and the CIA has a whole great big file on him, as he was the only '93 WTC bomber who was never caught.

On February 26, 1993, Yasin boarded Royal Jordanian flight 262 to Amman, Jordan. From Amman, Abdul Rahman Yasin went on to Baghdad. An ABC news stringer saw him there in 1994, outside his father's house, and learned from neighbors that he worked for the Iraqi government. In Baghdad, Iraq, Yasin lived freely for at least a year. Pointing to Saddam Hussein regime's involvement in World Trade Center bombing was evidence it gave money and housing to Yasin. The Iraqi government later claimed he was arrested and put in prison. After the invasion of Iraq, the financial records of Saddam's regime confirmed he had been paid by the Iraqi government.

As usual, you leave out these little details. Hussein was not a part of the WTC bombing in 1993 nor were they "funding" the Blind Sheik or Yasin to that effect. Yasin was arrested when he returned in 1994, and the Iraqi's offered him to the Shrub. The Shrub refused.

http://www.democracynow.org/2003/9/16/cheney_suggests_iraq_is_linked_to

FACT: On eight occasions, representatives of alQaeda met with representatives of Saddam's regime. No shit sherlock! And domestic and foreign intelligence agencies concluded that there was no truce or workable liason that resulted from these meetings.

The argument is NOT whether there was a collaboration! You are claiming there was NO CONNECTION TO alQaeda, and there WAS! Again.... physically IMPOSSIBLE to MEET and not CONNECT! It doesn't matter if there was a collaborative effort, or workable liaison, that is not the argument! Had that been the case, it would have directly implicated Saddam Hussein in the 9/11 attacks, and again, no one has ever claimed that to be the case.

I wish you would get your lies straight......YOU kept carrying on that the Shrub & company never publically made a direct connection between Iraq and 9/11. Now when I proved they did, you now claimed, you are trying to claim that is NOT the case. Let me dumb it down for you: The Shrub and company were not just pointing to meetings, they were stating that the meetings resulted in collaboration and/or support for Al Qaeda (i.e., 9/11). They stated such, claimed such, alluded to, insinuated, alleged and implied PUBLICALLY. That is a matter of facts and history...so no matter how you try to split that hair, the root is the same.

Yeah I know...you keep rehashing LONG DISPROVEN neocon/Shrub propaganda. That's okay....willfully ignorant necons don't know any better. Carry on.

No, what we have is a continued distortion of the facts and deliberate ignorance of the truth from you. Nothing has been "disproven" by you or your left-wing propaganda blogs. You've not scored a single point in this debate, and you should really consider shutting up and moving on at this point, because I have made you look completely incompetent.

And yes... don't worry, I plan to carry on!

Please do....because you're in total denial.. You're convoluted logic and half truths fail in the face of documented facts and the recorded posts. You make a lot of accusations, but produce half truths and a load of your worthless convoluted logic to back up your assertions. The posts show this. So continue to waste space with your nonsense...you just keep making my case with each post. Carry on, my insipidly stubborn Confederate flag waving clown!