http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091102316.html

More Bush slight of hand. There may have been contact, but there was NO collaboration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

http://www.truthout.org/article/iraq-and-911-the-truth-is-out

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/140133_bushiraq18.html

BTW, remember who funded Osama Bin Laden from the start? That would have been Reagan and Bush Sr. So, you may say they collaborated with al Qaeda as well in that context.

Edited by Yvette 2008-10-09 10:16 PM

Originally written by Yvette on 2008-10-09 9:12 AM

Yvette ... Thanks for the links.. reading through them. I agree that Iraq was not involved in the actual 9/11 attack. 

BUT that is not the issue.  Sleight of hand on your part indeed ! 

Here's a quote from one of your links.  "President says Saddam had ties to al-Qaida, but apparently not to attacks"

Remember my post ?

AQ is the attacker and Iraq under SH was aiding and abetting AQ.    SO Iraq under SH was involved.  Not the attacker. But involved as a supporter.  Then, in your proposed criminal justice response to terror attacks, this linkage is appropriate and customary.

As for your last response.  American support to Osama Bin Laden and the Afghan resistance was not aid to AQ.  Nor was aid to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war.   It was aid to an enemy of America's enemy (at the time... USSR and then Iran)  Situations change.  Obama has demonstrated he doesn't change when the facts change.  He still believes America should precipitously withdraw from Iraq.  He was wrong about the surge strategy (I couldn't restrain myself from that dig)

That OBS attacked America is just the nature of the dog that bites the hand that fed it.

Originally written by Yvette on 2008-10-12 2:39 AM

Originally written by hosspuller on 2008-10-09 11:12 PM

Yvette ... Thanks for the links.. reading through them. I agree that Iraq was not involved in the actual 9/11 attack. BUT that is not the issue.

Actually, that was the issue. No slight of hand on my part at all, mere truth. OK, perhaps a bit of cynicism and sarcasm. Remember who was shakiing Saddam's hand and selling him weapons and chemicals and helicopters in the eighties and I can tell you it wasn't Carter. OK, we were also arming Iran and Afghanistan back then too. When you make your bed you best be prepared to sleep in it. We can only hope someone washes the sheets soon.

We'll just have to agree to disagree... I hope there will be sheets to wash if a President Obama allows the defense of the country to join the taxpayers in the hand basket.  

FrancaV ... I'm glad you agree that we are engaged in a "War" as differentiated from a criminal "action"

I made a mistake when I said the preamble requires action.  It isn't law since it doesn't require anything.  It just provides context.

What does require action... Is the President's oath of office.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He is required to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and by inference the US of A.  If he/she doesn't, then he is negligent or worse.

Neither you or I get to determine what action is required.  Only the President as COC.  I am supporting the only person with the legal right to make the decisions for preemptive action.

How does your interpretation of the Constitution, says the Iraq actions were improper?

Genebob ... I wouldn't care if Obama swore on a stack of pancakes if he chose.  Or if he wore a turban as he recited the oath of office.  Or he doesn't "look" like me (He doesn't, nor likely you look like me either.) Obama played the "Race" card ...

I do care that his past actions indicate a level of gov't way beyond my comfort.  He has been associated with ACORN, A group whose actions trend toward the illegal.  There are other reasons I judge him to be the least choice in this election.  (I welcome Private Messages if anyone cares to know)

FrancaV  ... Your last post is a bit scary.    I can agree with most of it (quoted above)

For your rhetorical questions... Definitely research stuff on your own.  The media has it's own filter and bias.  Bias is not bad.  But to act out and speak one's bias while proclaiming otherwise is dishonest. 

I don't deny some of our freedom has been lost via the terror war.  I make sure my socks don't have holes when flying now.  In the war against Islamic-fascism some freedoms must be restricted.  Otherwise those same freedoms, like the airplanes in 9/11, will be commandeered to harm us.

As to your last question... The Islamic terrorists have a vision of everybody living like the 8th century.  There was no need for a gov't or wide spread transport or communication.   Everyone was living dirt poor in the dirt around them. 

No one has to run anything.  Except the local Mullahs, they will run or ruin your life. 

I have bee gone for a few days and am just now catching up on the debate.  I really don't give a rat's eyelash what someone's religious beliefs are.  This nation was founded on the premise of religious freedom.  That to me means whatever floats your boat, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I don't care if the President takes the oath of office with his hand on the bible or a roll of toilet paper, it is all the same to me.  What does matter is that he uphold the Constitution, that he puts America's welfare above all else.  I sincerely doubt that the attack on Iraq was in our best interests.  It is amazing to me that the US supplied the equipment, knowledge, and money to allow Saddam to use biological weapons on innocent civilians as long as those civilians were his own people or Iranians.  Then when Bush wanted to justify his war he was suddenly opposed to biological warfare and used that as his excuse.  And what is even more obnoxious it the fact that we bought into his game lock, stock and barrel.  Go figure!

Marla

Okay  Marla ... Until you wrote "sincerely"  I could support and agree with you.   Your post just begs for confirmation.  Credibility is all we have on the Internet.  Please post some verifiable source for your statement.

"...US supplied the equipment, knowledge, and money to allow Saddam to use biological weapons on innocent civilians as long as those civilians were his own people or Iranians. "   

Was it American gov't policy that you accuse of providing Bio weapons or are you speaking of medical equipment? 

There is a huge difference.  I can use a machine center to make farm machinery or use the same to make a weapon.

As stated by Marla, FrancaV and myself based on fact the USA supported Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan with weapons of both the conventional and chemical type until Saddam made the mistake of invading Kuwait, which was a bad move, but somewhat understandable since they were drilling oil on his side of the boarder by angling under the boarder. However he should have taken it up diplomatically before invading a UN nation.

It is very scary what people will believe. I nearly died of laughter by the look of embarrasment he had when that WT lady told him after reading things on the internet that she was afraid of Obama because he's an Arab. LOL Yup, gotta love the well informed. Anyone tell these people he grew up in Hawaii? Hello?

Yup,..........That's what the Kool-Aid kids think.

Yvette ... It is indeed, very scary to me what you believe about our country without verified fact.

The Internet has been  invaluable to me in separating hearsay from fact. 

Help me see the facts to which Marla, FancaV and yourself believe in.  As for conventional weapons, they were supplied at different times to either our allies or enemy of our enemy.  People, places, and regimes change.   We trade today with Germany, Japan and Vietnam... Don't keep fighting the last war. 

What chemical weapon was supplied to anyone??

I don't remember anyone on this thread saying that Saddam and his henchmen were decent human beings.  Just the opposite has been stated many times.  They were brutal, disgusting excuses for humans, but were they a threat to American security?  The following websites may prove enlightening for some regarding the influence of America, Britian, and Italy in arming Saddam.  This is not hearsay, this is fact.  The US has been crapping in it's own nest for many years.  The same thing that happened with Saddam happened in Somalia, and US troops were killed by the very weapons our government supplied to the warlords.  And as long as the CIA needed the funds from the Nicaraguan drug trade, things were just peachy, but when the scheme was uncovered and Noriega was no longer an asset, he wound up in an American prison.  The pattern just keeps repeating itself.  The people who dream up these policies are as morally bankrupt as the regimes they work against.  I can't help but wonder : If those policymakers children were likely to face the business end of a weapon, would they make the same decisions?  And before anyone accuses me of being un-American, let me tell you that I know very well the sacrifices required to keep this nation free and assure me the freedoms I cherish.  I come from a family of 10 sons who have all served in the military.  My father served in the south pacific in WWII, two of my brothers served in Vietnam, one in Panama and in Grenada, another in Korea, and the rest in the two Gulf wars and in Afganistan.

WWW.counterpunch.org

www.greenleft.org.au

www.breitbart.com

www.iranchamber.com

www.globalpolicy.com

Marla

Marla, you might want to go give your brothers and other family members that served a big hug, because someone with your anti-government views living under the dictatorships that you defend would be dead. You can thank all veterans for your right to stand up and just be wrong. I'll just say that 14 times Sadam broke the UN resolution pertaining to him. You think that is OK, I don't.

Marla .. Each of those links had nothing on Chemical weapons supplied by the US to IRAQ under SH.

I would characterize most of them as kool-aid for the deranged.   I'm still asking and looking for verifiable facts.