Al Qaeda seeking nuclear kit for attacks-UK official

[kaydee457 13]

What is not true? That Bush chose not to pursue a diplomatic route? That he chose to go it alone without proper mandate? That he violated the obligations this nation has a signatory to a certain document? Which of the points is not true? Or answer me this: Why did the weapons inspectors did not complete their assignment and leave Iraq?

Your having selective memory again. Saddam was impeading the inspectors. Telling them where they could go and where they could not.

Nonsense. The UN inspectors were at work in March of 2003 when Bush called the UN telling them to pull the guys out. The obstacle was not Saddam at that time, it was Bush. Erekose posted the relevant links. Read up and wake up.

ET. You're living in the past! What does any of this have to do with the problems in the current year; that would be 2006/soon to be 2007.

Your evidence is pure conjecture. It was, and still is the President's call on whether to invade and go to war based on intelligence and expert observation by "experts" whether or not the inspectors were making legitimate headway or they were simply being duped by Saddam.

He, and his senior advisors made the call to go to war after being advised that Saddam was non-compliant with the terms imposed by several U.N. mandates. The President notified the appropriate congressional bozos, prior to initiating the invasion. There was consensus of both Republicans and Democrats that it was the right thing to do. You know, Kerry was for the war before he was against it….

I recall Republicans, as well as Democrats partaking in a spirit of cooperation and solidarity.

But what does any of this have to do with the inevitable procurement of nuclear materials by Islamic Extremeist?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What is not true? That Bush chose not to pursue a diplomatic route? That he chose to go it alone without proper mandate? That he violated the obligations this nation has a signatory to a certain document? Which of the points is not true? Or answer me this: Why did the weapons inspectors did not complete their assignment and leave Iraq?

Your having selective memory again. Saddam was impeading the inspectors. Telling them where they could go and where they could not.

Nonsense. The UN inspectors were at work in March of 2003 when Bush called the UN telling them to pull the guys out. The obstacle was not Saddam at that time, it was Bush. Erekose posted the relevant links. Read up and wake up.

ET. You're living in the past! What does any of this have to do with the problems in the current year; that would be 2006/soon to be 2007.

Your evidence is pure conjecture. It was, and still is the President's call on whether to invade and go to war based on intelligence and expert observation by "experts" whether or not the inspectors were making legitimate headway or they were simply being duped by Saddam.

I'm not living in the past but I do remember how we ended up in the mess we're in. Some seem to be rather fast to forget. The average attention span of the average American was part of the consideration in this whole adventure, it would seem.

The "experts", eh? You're still falling for that one, too?

Saddam's regime provided explosives and poisonous gas training to Al-Qaeda. That's what the President publicly claimed time and again in the run up to the illegal attack on Iraq. The only source to support such ridiculous claim was Sheik Al-Libi - an Al-Qaeda operative. The "experts" (as in the DIA) informed the President in no uncertain terms that this particular claim was hogwash. The President refused to take notice, however, and went around the country relying on the word of the enemy instead of relying on the word of the "experts". He wanted that war and he did what it took to get it. That's the bottom line. And that should not ever be forgotten.

Nearly three thousand brave servicemen and women are dead, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians died and continue to die horrific deaths and the Middle East is as desolate as it is today with the Islamic extremists striving the way they are for only one reason: George W Bush's illegal, illegitimate, misguided, ill conceived and pisspoor planned and executed war on Iraq.

You can wiggle all you want, but America and the world knows that your boy fcuked up!

Edited November 27, 2006 by ET-US2004

[kaydee457 13]

What is not true? That Bush chose not to pursue a diplomatic route? That he chose to go it alone without proper mandate? That he violated the obligations this nation has a signatory to a certain document? Which of the points is not true? Or answer me this: Why did the weapons inspectors did not complete their assignment and leave Iraq?

Your having selective memory again. Saddam was impeading the inspectors. Telling them where they could go and where they could not.

Nonsense. The UN inspectors were at work in March of 2003 when Bush called the UN telling them to pull the guys out. The obstacle was not Saddam at that time, it was Bush. Erekose posted the relevant links. Read up and wake up.

ET. You're living in the past! What does any of this have to do with the problems in the current year; that would be 2006/soon to be 2007.

Your evidence is pure conjecture. It was, and still is the President's call on whether to invade and go to war based on intelligence and expert observation by "experts" whether or not the inspectors were making legitimate headway or they were simply being duped by Saddam.

I'm not living in the past but I do remember how we ended up in the mess we're in. Some seem to be rather fast to forget. The average attention span of the average American was part of the consideration in this whole adventure, it would seem.

The "experts", eh? You're still falling for that one, too?

Saddam's regime provided explosives and poisonous gas training to Al-Qaeda. That's what the President publicly claimed time and again in the run up to the illegal attack on Iraq. The only source to support such ridiculous claim was Sheik Al-Libi - an Al-Qaeda operative. The "experts" (as in the DIA) informed the President in no uncertain terms that this particular claim was hogwash. The President refused to take notice, however, and went around the country relying on the word of the enemy instead of relying on the word of the "experts". He wanted that war and he did what it took to get it. That's the bottom line. And that should not ever be forgotten.

Nearly three thousand brave servicemen and women are dead, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians died and continue to die horrific deaths and the Middle East is as desolate as it is today with the Islamic extremists striving the way they are for only one reason: George W Bush's illegal, illegitimate, misguided, ill conceived and pisspoor planned and executed war on Iraq.

You can wiggle all you want, but America and the world knows that your boy fcuked up!

You're identifying one small piece of "evidence" and proclaiming that as the single most important thing that was the end all determinate progating us to war... There were many pieces of "evidence", some of which are not privvy to us common folk; unless the traitorist leftist media organization the NY Times prints classified information

I know you're smarter than to believe that what the President knows is what you know. There was, and still is and aggregate of "evidence" that compels us, or at least this administration to remain at war.

The bad guys aren't going to disappear and given the last election they are certainly now believing that they are winning the war; a notion that frankly speaking is absolutely true given the latest election results.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What is not true? That Bush chose not to pursue a diplomatic route? That he chose to go it alone without proper mandate? That he violated the obligations this nation has a signatory to a certain document? Which of the points is not true? Or answer me this: Why did the weapons inspectors did not complete their assignment and leave Iraq?

Your having selective memory again. Saddam was impeading the inspectors. Telling them where they could go and where they could not.

Nonsense. The UN inspectors were at work in March of 2003 when Bush called the UN telling them to pull the guys out. The obstacle was not Saddam at that time, it was Bush. Erekose posted the relevant links. Read up and wake up.

ET. You're living in the past! What does any of this have to do with the problems in the current year; that would be 2006/soon to be 2007.

Your evidence is pure conjecture. It was, and still is the President's call on whether to invade and go to war based on intelligence and expert observation by "experts" whether or not the inspectors were making legitimate headway or they were simply being duped by Saddam.

I'm not living in the past but I do remember how we ended up in the mess we're in. Some seem to be rather fast to forget. The average attention span of the average American was part of the consideration in this whole adventure, it would seem.

The "experts", eh? You're still falling for that one, too?

Saddam's regime provided explosives and poisonous gas training to Al-Qaeda. That's what the President publicly claimed time and again in the run up to the illegal attack on Iraq. The only source to support such ridiculous claim was Sheik Al-Libi - an Al-Qaeda operative. The "experts" (as in the DIA) informed the President in no uncertain terms that this particular claim was hogwash. The President refused to take notice, however, and went around the country relying on the word of the enemy instead of relying on the word of the "experts". He wanted that war and he did what it took to get it. That's the bottom line. And that should not ever be forgotten.

Nearly three thousand brave servicemen and women are dead, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians died and continue to die horrific deaths and the Middle East is as desolate as it is today with the Islamic extremists striving the way they are for only one reason: George W Bush's illegal, illegitimate, misguided, ill conceived and pisspoor planned and executed war on Iraq.

You can wiggle all you want, but America and the world knows that your boy fcuked up!

You're identifying one small piece of "evidence" and proclaiming that as the single most important thing that was the end all determinate progating us to war... There were many pieces of "evidence", some of which are not privvy to us common folk; unless the traitorist leftist media organization the NY Times prints classified information

I know you're smarter than to believe that what the President knows is what you know. There was, and still is and aggregate of "evidence" that compels us, or at least this administration to remain at war.

The bad guys aren't going to disappear and given the last election they are certainly now believing that they are winning the war; a notion that frankly speaking is absolutely true given the latest election results.

So what? Bush et al didn't deserve to win.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What is not true? That Bush chose not to pursue a diplomatic route? That he chose to go it alone without proper mandate? That he violated the obligations this nation has a signatory to a certain document? Which of the points is not true? Or answer me this: Why did the weapons inspectors did not complete their assignment and leave Iraq?

Your having selective memory again. Saddam was impeading the inspectors. Telling them where they could go and where they could not.

Nonsense. The UN inspectors were at work in March of 2003 when Bush called the UN telling them to pull the guys out. The obstacle was not Saddam at that time, it was Bush. Erekose posted the relevant links. Read up and wake up.

ET. You're living in the past! What does any of this have to do with the problems in the current year; that would be 2006/soon to be 2007.

Your evidence is pure conjecture. It was, and still is the President's call on whether to invade and go to war based on intelligence and expert observation by "experts" whether or not the inspectors were making legitimate headway or they were simply being duped by Saddam.

I'm not living in the past but I do remember how we ended up in the mess we're in. Some seem to be rather fast to forget. The average attention span of the average American was part of the consideration in this whole adventure, it would seem.

The "experts", eh? You're still falling for that one, too?

Saddam's regime provided explosives and poisonous gas training to Al-Qaeda. That's what the President publicly claimed time and again in the run up to the illegal attack on Iraq. The only source to support such ridiculous claim was Sheik Al-Libi - an Al-Qaeda operative. The "experts" (as in the DIA) informed the President in no uncertain terms that this particular claim was hogwash. The President refused to take notice, however, and went around the country relying on the word of the enemy instead of relying on the word of the "experts". He wanted that war and he did what it took to get it. That's the bottom line. And that should not ever be forgotten.

Nearly three thousand brave servicemen and women are dead, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians died and continue to die horrific deaths and the Middle East is as desolate as it is today with the Islamic extremists striving the way they are for only one reason: George W Bush's illegal, illegitimate, misguided, ill conceived and pisspoor planned and executed war on Iraq.

You can wiggle all you want, but America and the world knows that your boy fcuked up!

You're identifying one small piece of "evidence" and proclaiming that as the single most important thing that was the end all determinate progating us to war... There were many pieces of "evidence", some of which are not privvy to us common folk; unless the traitorist leftist media organization the NY Times prints classified information

I know you're smarter than to believe that what the President knows is what you know. There was, and still is and aggregate of "evidence" that compels us, or at least this administration to remain at war.

Well, the way I look at it, the President did spread this particular piece of information that was certified bogus to support his case to go to war - the documentation is out there for anyone to see. You may but I cannot trust this man with anything knowing that he either valued the word of an Al-Qaeda scumbag more than that of our military intelligence service or that he flat-out lied to the public when making his case to go to war. It's either one or the other (unless he's the most negligent, ignorant President ever) and both are equally bad. The same case can be made on many other fronts in this house of cards the Bush adminsitration build up to gather public support for this war. The publicly available documentation just happens to be less black-and-white which is why I focus on this one from time to time. But you know what they say: Once a liar, always a liar.

So, excuse me for doubting the word of this man when it comes to matters of life and death.

Edited November 27, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Heracles 417]

You may but I cannot trust this man with anything knowing that he either valued the word of an Al-Qaeda scumbag more than that of our military intelligence service or that he flat-out lied to the public when making his case to go to war.

So, excuse me for doubting the word of this man when it comes to matters of life and death.

Lets say a relative advised to you and presented sufficient evidence to you that showed x person was beating and threating your wife. You proceed to mentioned it to others to get their opinion, who supported you, and then proceeded to punch x out. Then later on you find out your relative was wrong. Does this mean you lied?

I don't take threats on my life or fellow people for granted. Especially from a group who has proven beyond 'reasonable doubt' they do not joke around.

Or maybe some feel the government should simply advertise all of their sources intelligence etc. I mean NYT would love it but why stop there. Why not publish all of the military secrets and weapons codes etc.. Yet, funnily enough we hit a bit of a road block in terms of monitoring civilians activities.. Thats when liberals make a 180 degree turn and demand privacy etc..

Edited November 27, 2006 by Infidel

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You may but I cannot trust this man with anything knowing that he either valued the word of an Al-Qaeda scumbag more than that of our military intelligence service or that he flat-out lied to the public when making his case to go to war.

So, excuse me for doubting the word of this man when it comes to matters of life and death.

Lets say a relative advised to you and presented sufficient evidence to you that showed x person was beating and threating your wife. You proceed to mentioned it to others to get their opinion, who supported you, and then proceeded to punch x out. Then later on you find out your relative was wrong. Does this mean you lied?

I don't take threats on my life or fellow people for granted. Especially from a group who has proven beyond 'reasonable doubt' they do not joke around.

Or maybe some feel the government should simply advertise all of their sources intelligence etc. I mean NYT would love it but why stop there. Why not publish all of the military secrets and weapons codes etc.. Yet, funnily enough we hit a bit of a road block in terms of monitoring civilians activities.. Thats when liberals make a 180 degree turn and demand privacy etc..

I guess the place to start is with the information already in the public domain, as opposed to trite and irrelevant analogies.

[kaydee457 13]

You may but I cannot trust this man with anything knowing that he either valued the word of an Al-Qaeda scumbag more than that of our military intelligence service or that he flat-out lied to the public when making his case to go to war.

So, excuse me for doubting the word of this man when it comes to matters of life and death.

Lets say a relative advised to you and presented sufficient evidence to you that showed x person was beating and threating your wife. You proceed to mentioned it to others to get their opinion, who supported you, and then proceeded to punch x out. Then later on you find out your relative was wrong. Does this mean you lied?

I don't take threats on my life or fellow people for granted. Especially from a group who has proven beyond 'reasonable doubt' they do not joke around.

Or maybe some feel the government should simply advertise all of their sources intelligence etc. I mean NYT would love it but why stop there. Why not publish all of the military secrets and weapons codes etc.. Yet, funnily enough we hit a bit of a road block in terms of monitoring civilians activities.. Thats when liberals make a 180 degree turn and demand privacy etc..

I guess the place to start is with the information already in the public domain, as opposed to trite and irrelevant analogies.

There you again erekose....straight to the personal attacks. Unfortunately, some of what Infindel says in a sarcastic manner is closer to the truth than many believe.

We are indeed publishing classified information, almost weekly, via an ultra-leftist liberal newspaper; the New York Times repeatedly has done so.

You should focus your vitriol on that given that doing so emboldens the enemy and erodes our ability to successfully accomplish our mission.

This war MUST be won, militarily; there's absolutely no alternative.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You may but I cannot trust this man with anything knowing that he either valued the word of an Al-Qaeda scumbag more than that of our military intelligence service or that he flat-out lied to the public when making his case to go to war.

So, excuse me for doubting the word of this man when it comes to matters of life and death.

Lets say a relative advised to you and presented sufficient evidence to you that showed x person was beating and threating your wife. You proceed to mentioned it to others to get their opinion, who supported you, and then proceeded to punch x out. Then later on you find out your relative was wrong. Does this mean you lied?

I don't take threats on my life or fellow people for granted. Especially from a group who has proven beyond 'reasonable doubt' they do not joke around.

Or maybe some feel the government should simply advertise all of their sources intelligence etc. I mean NYT would love it but why stop there. Why not publish all of the military secrets and weapons codes etc.. Yet, funnily enough we hit a bit of a road block in terms of monitoring civilians activities.. Thats when liberals make a 180 degree turn and demand privacy etc..

I guess the place to start is with the information already in the public domain, as opposed to trite and irrelevant analogies.

There you again erekose....straight to the personal attacks. Unfortunately, some of what Infindel says in a sarcastic manner is closer to the truth than many believe.

We are indeed publishing classified information, almost weekly, via an ultra-leftist liberal newspaper; the New York Times repeatedly has done so.

You should focus your vitriol on that given that doing so emboldens the enemy and erodes our ability to successfully accomplish our mission.

This war MUST be won, militarily; there's absolutely no alternative.

There was no personal attack there - just that responding to people who have persistently presented evidence to justify their opinion with a crude analogy (unrelated to anything) seems a rather weak argument to me.

I also think that sticking your head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge the possibility of duplicity and self-serving corruption on behalf of the administration - after being presented with direct evidence to that effect, is woefully naive. Interpret that how you like.

IMO the media presentation of the war is nothing more than a sideshow to the very real issues, those of - why we are at war and what we are trying to achieve, something that for a great many people is still not only in question, but in doubt.

So no, I don't believe the "emboldening the enemy" B/S, which is nothing more than another (unconvincing) Bush slogan. At least use your own words - rather than relying on someone else's

Edited November 28, 2006 by erekose

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You may but I cannot trust this man with anything knowing that he either valued the word of an Al-Qaeda scumbag more than that of our military intelligence service or that he flat-out lied to the public when making his case to go to war.

So, excuse me for doubting the word of this man when it comes to matters of life and death.

Lets say a relative advised to you and presented sufficient evidence to you that showed x person was beating and threating your wife. You proceed to mentioned it to others to get their opinion, who supported you, and then proceeded to punch x out. Then later on you find out your relative was wrong. Does this mean you lied?

I don't take threats on my life or fellow people for granted. Especially from a group who has proven beyond 'reasonable doubt' they do not joke around.

Or maybe some feel the government should simply advertise all of their sources intelligence etc. I mean NYT would love it but why stop there. Why not publish all of the military secrets and weapons codes etc.. Yet, funnily enough we hit a bit of a road block in terms of monitoring civilians activities.. Thats when liberals make a 180 degree turn and demand privacy etc...

What are you on? The President was advised by the DIA in Feb of 2002 that the claim of that AQ operative that Saddam trained AQ in exlosives and poison gas use was #######. The President made that claim numerous times still as late as October 2002 (right before the vote on thew ar authorization) as well as in February of 2003 - right before the illegal attack on Iraq. He knew for months that this particular claim was nonsense and he spread it nonetheless. The documentation is out there. Go look at it.

Again, you can try and rationalize that away any way you want. To me, the President lost his credibility right then and there. Bad sources? No way. The only bad sources this guy had were the one's he picked.

He's a liar and a crook and tens of thousands of innocent lives were lost because of him.

[cmartyn 0]

ultra-leftist liberal newspaper.. lol.. you wave that term about far too easily. What, you think the NYT would like to implement a socialist state or something? You fear for your life or something comrade?

Whenever someone talks about Gun Control or Globabl warming issues all of a sudden they are a bunch of uber commies intent on bring down the US. lol.. And you wonder why there are personal attacks.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

ultra-leftist liberal newspaper.. lol.. you wave that term about far too easily. What, you think the NYT would like to implement a socialist state or something? You fear for your life or something comrade?

Whenever someone talks about Gun Control or Globabl warming issues all of a sudden they are a bunch of uber commies intent on bring down the US. lol.. And you wonder why there are personal attacks.

For some people not being in total lock-step with the Bushies equates to being a commie or worse. Back in the 30's, there were similar types in Germany - the only acceptable behaviour was lock-step with the (dare I say "dear") leader. They used to wear brown shirts and shite...

[kaydee457 13]

ultra-leftist liberal newspaper.. lol.. you wave that term about far too easily. What, you think the NYT would like to implement a socialist state or something? You fear for your life or something comrade?

Whenever someone talks about Gun Control or Globabl warming issues all of a sudden they are a bunch of uber commies intent on bring down the US. lol.. And you wonder why there are personal attacks.

Their (the NY Times) latest "leak" was just last week disclosing in print a classified report detailing the financial wherewithal of the various factions fighting in Iraq.

This newspaper clearly has an agenda based on their editorial content as well as their propensity to disclose government classified information in print. They have a "history".....

Ultra leftist liberal? You fcuking bet they are! I can only hope they're caught red handed and prosecuted for undermining this country's war effort and engaing in treason.

Edited November 28, 2006 by kaydee457

[cmartyn 0]

I can even do the funny walk!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ultra-leftist liberal newspaper.. lol.. you wave that term about far too easily. What, you think the NYT would like to implement a socialist state or something? You fear for your life or something comrade?

Whenever someone talks about Gun Control or Globabl warming issues all of a sudden they are a bunch of uber commies intent on bring down the US. lol.. And you wonder why there are personal attacks.

Their (the NY Times) latest "leak" was just last week disclosing in print a classified report detailing the financial wherewithal of the various factions fighting in Iraq.

This newspaper clearly has an agenda based on their editorial content as well as their propensity to disclose government classified information in print. They have a "history".....

Ultra leftist liberal? You fcuking bet they are! I can only hope they're caught red handed and prosecuted for undermining this country's war effort and engaing in treason.

The "Free Press" = Treasonous

This is another of those instances where you have to ask how does someone (who more than likely doesn't read the publication in question), arrive at the conclusion that its "ultra leftist" and "liberal".

Similarly, I wonder if you actually read the "leak" story you cited above before you passed judgment on it. If indeed, it is your own "independent" judgment....

I can even do the funny walk!

You mean...