More Iraq-WMD-Terrorism links for the lefties to deny

Where does it mention Saddam and his cronies were putting up the 50k? Where does it say Saddam and his cronies had any clue Zarqawi was in Baghdad? Or that if they did know, they gave a sh!t or in any other way were involved?

Didn't see any mention of it when I read the article. Hmm...

 

That's great, but Bush has always made de facto links between Saddam and 9/11 to drum up support for war.

 

Well this is a fine state of affairs you've got us into, Ollie.

How do you like this logical syllogism:

Cowboy Dubya rides into Iraq to save us from the supposed Saddam WMD thread.
In reality, there was no WMD threat under Saddam.

Post-Saddam, we have a WMD threat.

 

I love this part:

'"The four decided to tie up the owners of the liquor stores, threaten them with their weapons and destroy their shops," the charge sheet said. On Jan. 2, the four men approached two liquor stores in the capital but could not attack them because of the presence of security patrols in the area, according to the charge sheet. On their third visit to a liquor store, the charge sheet added, the four men were arrested by a security patrol unit that became suspicious of their motives.'

 

Boy, thank God we removed Saddam, so Zarqawi has no support or base anymore.

"More" links. This one so conclusive, Bush didn't even bring it up during a speech designed to shore up support for the war. I'll file this alongside the Bekaa Valley revelations.

 

The September 11th hijackers did a lot of planning in the US. They took flying lessons in the US.

This just in: US has ties to 9-11 hijackers!

 

LOL

McCracken is desperate.

 

You misspelled "I".

 

Say, would this be the same Zarqawi that George Bush had the chance to strike against back in 2002, but refused in order to pump up support for the Iraq invasion?

EDIT - Dante beat me to it, damn blast and thunder. Instead, here's some light music.

"Yesterday....all my troubles seemed so far away....now if looks as though they're here to stay....oh, I believe....in yesterday"

 

Are you seriously unaware of how rediculous you are making yourself seem here?

Even ITN has made better arguments than this lately.

 

No, his base was not in the no-fly zone.
http://damon.typepad.com/otherside/2003/03/why_is_the_us_b.html
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iraq_kurdish_areas_2003.jpg

 

And he's been his usual self of late, so that's saying a whole lot.

 

Didn't all but one Democratic Senator agree back in late '02 that Saddam supported terrorists? (ok, that wasn't the exact wording, but something to that effect)

And isn't that why Clinton was lobbing missiles into the desert and/or "WMD" manufacturing plants in Iraq back in 98 or 99?

My memory is fading so correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Hate to bump my own comment, but I'm wondering what the "lefts" take on the above is.

Or, is it just "there's no connection between Iraq and 9-11"? "We admit there were ties to terrorism"?

And, someone wake me up if the world ends when O'connor resigns.

 

That was funny!!!! Boom..and the sky full of pills!

 

At the time, I figured it was just a bunch of Democrats throwing their collective testicles out the window (well, they didn't have much to begin with, but you know...) for political survival. No, I think it was that Saddam posed a serious threat, not that he had ties to terrorism.

I also quite distinctly remember mocking Powell's PowerPoint at the UN and joking about the "empty warhead" in the White House.

I thought it was for violating the no-fly zone and to distract attention from Monica, but my memory is fading as well. Such is old age.

 

Under your rationale, America is a terrorist haven as well, and George Bush is directly responsible.

For as we all know, meetings among terrorists occured on American soil prior to 9/11. And it would be ridiculous, seriously, not to blame George simply because he didn't know of, or condone, those actions.

 

I think what he was pointing out is that the terrorist areas were not within the "no-fly-zone", because that zone was specifically north of the 36th parallel, and as you see from the map, the "Islamist Area", around Halabjah, is below that parallel.

However, that area was NOT under the control of Saddam (see on map the limit of Iraqi forces), and those terrorists had specifically set up shop there BECAUSE Saddam was not in control of that area (there being a long history of the terrorist groups actively opposing Saddam, the secularist, especially given their ties to Iran). So, it was more appropriately called "the northern, Kurdish-controlled areas of Iraq", not "the no-fly zone".

The intent was correct, though - the terrorists were in an area not under Saddam's control.