Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
Keep it in context...
|
The shifting context.
"There's definitely been an adjustment in what was initially a pretty categorical position," said Ross Baker, a political scientist a Rutgers University. "As (Obama) has gone around the country campaigning, he has realized he's had to fine-tune his position."
Quote:
|
Amazing how you explicitly quote the fact that they were talking about CUBA,
|
That was just one incident and he did not qualify it, he said our enemies and alQaeda is one of our enemies.
Quote:
|
[indent]The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
|
As I have already cited, they found no incidence where the collaborated in a terrorist attack.
And SINCE then as I cited from the most recently discovered evidence, they DID have a relationship as the Bush administration, and the rest of the intelligence community, had stated. In fact it was more complex and more developed than we had thought.
Quote:
|
Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction,
|
That he pocessed the WMD that UNSCOM had confirmed he had and were never found.
Quote:
|
President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."
|
And that is true, already cited the link and posted from the latest evidence.
You need to get up to speed on this.
Quote:
There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.
The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday.
|
the 2008 reports states
"Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance
of and, in some way, a 'de facto' link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam's use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.""
Quote:
|
Repeating this tired lie that Saddam had links to al Qaeda is absurd!
|
No it is the fact, you should read the latest reports.
Quote:
al Qaeda was dealt a MAJOR blow in Afghanistan.
Then, we opened up the door for them in Iraq. Our actions gave them a RECRUITING DRIVE that INCREASED the terrorist threat.
|
The door was already open to them to move into Iraq under a friendly government, we SHUT that door to them by removing Saddam and his reqiem. They decided to make that their front line, which was a mistake on their part because it was to OUR advantage that they did so. And they have suffered a decisive defeat.
Quote:
|
I am amused at how you claim "directly commenting",
|
yes I was,
Quote:
|
while you change the subject to include "Wright".
|
Yes added to his lack of courage which you claim he has merely because he says something.
Quote:
|
Anybody else fooled by this bait and dodge technique?
|
Hey I'm right here to continue to refute your claim the man has some how shown he has courage.............still waiting.
Originally Posted by Stinger
Pakistan hasn't threatend us, they are a soverign state and he is proposing a preemptive strike against them.
Well first off are you supporting a preemptive strike against Pakistan, and someone needs to tell Obama we are already fighting alQaeda there so he is proposing something we are already doing...yeah that takes LOTS of courage.
Quote:
|
You were just talking about no courage, and Obama has explicitly stated that he is prepared to order military strikes AGAINST AL QAEDA in Pakistan.
|
So pre-empitve strikes are sudden OK? And hint: we are already using special forces to strike them there.
Quote:
|
And typical of your obfuscational ploy, you ignore the AL QAEDA aspect, and pretend he is just wildly talking about bombing Pakistan WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE REASON.
|
so how about it, are pre-emptive strikes in other countries OK now?
Quote:
So, to put this in perspective.
Attack "al Qaeda" in Iraq, when they weren't even there before...
|
Wrong they were not only there but the Saddam regiem was supporting them elsewhere.
Quote:
|
And if "al Qaeda" shows up in Pakistan, they are a "sovreign state".
|
Pakistan is a soverign state, if we use military force there it is crossing over into a soverign state in a preemptive attack.
Quote:
Re-read what I said.
You are lying about what you claim I "said".
Obfuscational response.
I stated, quite clearly, that if somebody votes ONLY Republican and then proclaiming "independent", that claim of "independent" is false.
|
Directed at me trying to refute my statement that I am an independent.
Remember
"SC has a point. If you claim "independent", but only support Republicans, you're just assuming a title you don't deserve. "
So your evidence that I only vote for Republicans is?