Rush Limbaugh is ON POINT

[Mike]

but the fact is, they still harbor more than iraq did regardless of what they're trying to do.

[Kaan]

but IF they are actively trying to catch and defeat terriorist... we dont have to invade, we just lend aid...

I <3 Mikey rules

[Mike]

why don't we lend aide with all of our force then? wouldn't that be a better use of them?

current number of active troops in those countries that i cited as supporting terrorism more than iraq:

saudi arabia - 231
algeria - 10
yemen - 12
iran - no data
pakistan - 31
egypt - 363
iraq? 185000

source: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/history/hst0305.pdf">http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/h ... st0305.pdf</a><!-- m -->

[G.Irish]

he didnt say Iraq supported Al Queda... he said they supported terrorism... way to fall for the liberal media and the lies

Ahem, from Bush's 2003 State of the Union address:

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/">http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/ ... ranscript/</a><!-- m -->

The overwhelming majority of his case against Iraq in that address is WMD's. No getting around that. And he was also making the case that Al Qaeda and Saddam were in cahoots. It is true that people from Saddam's regime had made contact with Al Qaeda operatives but no collaboration occurred according to the 9/11 commission as well as other intelligence sources.

Even if Bush's real reason for going into Iraq was to ferret out and destroy potential terrorist ties the fact remains that this was not the major pillar of his case for war. Bush could not have gotten the support for the war that he did without the WMD's. "We don't really have any good evidence that Saddam has WMD's but he's still a bad guy and could possibly have terrorist ties. Even though removing him from office and the ensuing nation-building will cost upwards of $200 billion I believe it will be a worthy cause." Yeah I don't think many people would have bought that.

Be that as it may Bush was simply trying to be proactive and send a message to would be terrorist supporting regimes or rogue nations. Also, the value of having a stable democratic government sympathetic to US interests in the region was not lost on him.

Actually scratch that, I think it was a gamble and there has been precedent for it, but I think the way the whole case came together was of dubious merit.

[Kaan]

it says "including members of Al Qaida..." that means it only takes two of them hiding in iraq together at any given time for the statement to be true even if he didnt know about them

[G.Irish]

Now if that isn't political spin I don't know what is. So you mean to say that we possibly went into Iraq because 2 Al Qaeda guys could have been hiding out there?

[Kaan]

i was just stating the minimum needed to make that statement true. where as the rest of you guys would say its absolutely false... when the minimum isnt out of the reach of possibility.

[Kaan]

btw save all this... it might help you liberals defeat me when i start running for office

plus as surrounded by washington politics as i have been while growing up... i should be a professional spin doctor. yes i met Regan and both Bushes. Now if i could only get at the twins

[Evan]

ick, a CNN link? Come on.

There was in fact proven communication and meetings between Al Qaeda top level terrorists and several Iraqi Army generals. On several occasions. It was not an official alliance, which the media spun to distort it as "no relation" but in fact there were "operational agreements" in place to the effect of aiding and helping al qaeda.
There was also at least 1 seized terrorist training camp in Iraq (complete with full scale airliner)

[G.Irish]

ick, a CNN link? Come on.

Umm, it was a transcript of Bush's State of the Union address. How exactly is that biased?

If there are any links with Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda feel free to post them.

[Feersty]

Now if i could only get at the twins

They frequent Saloun and Third Edition in Georgetown on the weekends. Friends of mine have seen them at both places.

[Mike]

thirds is balls :thumbdown: don't go there for them.

[Andy]

In regards to the Seminoles issue, I can't watch the Rush vid because I'm at work but the Seminoles that approve are a small minority of the actually Seminole nation, most of which were forced marched to Oklahoma in the 1800's.


In regard to the Iraq issue, read Bob Woodward's book, Bush at War and Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies, our invasion of Iraq appeared to have been on the agenda before 9/11 and if you look at the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), the main justification for war was WMD's and possible links to Al Qaeda i.e. Ansar al-Salaam and that was the main reason the public supported the war effort. It was only after WMD's weren't found that the President began using spreading freedom as the main justification.