On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 01:51:42 -0400, "ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@MYOB.com>
wrote:

"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:es79g29t8n6e11gln3hl9363m6ntsah7ma@4ax.com...

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/10/cheney-cites-zarqawi/

Cheney Ignores Senate Intel Report, Cites Zarqawi As Evidence of
Iraq/Al Qaeda Connection

On Friday, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that
concluded there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein and Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi. According to the report, "a CIA assessment in
October 2005 concluded that Hussein's government 'did not have a
relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his
associates.'" In fact, Hussein tried to capture Zarqawi.

This morning on Meet the Press, Cheney repeatedly cited Zarqawi as the
link between pre-war Iraq and al-Qaeda. When Tim Russert mentioned the
Senate Intelligence Committee report, Cheney said he "hadn't seen it."
Watch it:

"I haven't seen it" comes in at the number two spot in the republican
repertoire of lame excuses.
Ronald Reagan is most famous for the Number ONE, "I don't remember",
excuse!

Or the NeoCon's excuse that starts with "No one could have
anticipated..."

-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division

The Bush 'balanced' budget: -2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and
counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2666 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and
mounting

Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless


newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:

rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if

-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division

The Bush 'balanced' budget: -2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than
Clinton and counting The Bush Iraq lie: -2666 GIs, one
friend's co-worker's son and mounting

Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless


newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:

rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

On the New that America was attacked, Saddam celebrated by firing a gun
in the air while the whole
world was being sympathetic to America. Saddam and Al-quaeda were
celebrating. Now in the
Arabian mentality and parlance, what Saddam did means the target has
been hit.
Would those who made the claim that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11
come forward and explain us why Saddam did what he did?

Firing a gun in the air proves that he was involved? Not even Cheney
would say something that dumb. On second thought, maybe he would.

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

On the New that America was attacked, Saddam celebrated by firing a gun
in the air while the whole
world was being sympathetic to America. Saddam and Al-quaeda were
celebrating. Now in the
Arabian mentality and parlance, what Saddam did means the target has
been hit.
Would those who made the claim that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11
come forward and explain us why Saddam did what he did?

Firing a gun in the air proves that he was involved? Not even Cheney
would say something that dumb. On second thought, maybe he would.

On 11 Sep 2006 16:21:04 -0700, in alt.atheism
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> rudely topposted
in <1158016864.342919.204830@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:

On the New that America was attacked, Saddam celebrated by firing a gun
in the air while the whole
world was being sympathetic to America. Saddam and Al-quaeda were
celebrating. Now in the
Arabian mentality and parlance, what Saddam did means the target has
been hit.

Saddam had his military destroyed and was being constantly bombed by the
US, the evidence all showed that he had nothing to do with the 9/11

attack, but it's not hard to understand why he might have been pleased
that his mortal enemy had suffered a bit.

Saddam had his military destroyed and was being constantly bombed by the
US, the evidence all showed that he had nothing to do with the 9/11
attack, but it's not hard to understand why he might have been pleased
that his mortal enemy had suffered a bit.

Would those who made the claim that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11
come forward and explain us why Saddam did what he did?

Didn't anyone tell you about the Gulf War or the subsequent no-fly zones
and routine military attacks that the US and its allies waged on Saddam?
Are you really that ignorant of history?

"Danzig" <tyatcak@telus.net> wrote in message
news:Qu3Ng.2008$KA6.764@clgrps12...

Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/10/cheney-cites-zarqawi/

Cheney Ignores Senate Intel Report, Cites Zarqawi As Evidence of
Iraq/Al Qaeda Connection

On Friday, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that
concluded there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein and Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi. According to the report, “a CIA assessment in
October 2005 concluded that Hussein’s government ‘did not have a
relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his
associates.’” In fact, Hussein tried to capture Zarqawi.

This morning on Meet the Press, Cheney repeatedly cited Zarqawi as the
link between pre-war Iraq and al-Qaeda. When Tim Russert mentioned the
Senate Intelligence Committee report, Cheney said he “hadn’t seen it.”
Watch it:

you would expect anything else??

This is precisely the kind of BS I would expect from lying ***** stains
like you:

<quote>
MR. RUSSERT: Then why, in the lead-up to the war, was there the constant
linkage between Iraq and al-Qaeda?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: That’s a different issue. Now, there’s a question of
whether or not al-Qaeda, or whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11.
There’s a separate—apart from that’s the issue of whether or not there
was a historic relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The basis for
that is probably best captured in George Tenet’s testimony before the
Senate Intel Commission, an open session, where he said specifically
that there was a pattern of relationship that went back at least a
decade between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
MR. RUSSERT: But the president said they were working in concert, giving
the strong suggestion to the American people that they were involved in
September 11th.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. There are, there are two totally different
propositions here, and people have consistently tried to confuse them.
And it’s important, I think—there’s a third proposition, as well, too,
and that is Iraq’s traditional position as a strong sponsor of terror.
So you’ve got Iraq and 9/11, no evidence that there’s a connection.
You’ve got Iraq and al-Qaeda, testimony from the director of CIA that
there was indeed a relationship, Zarqawi in Baghdad, etc. Then the
third... MR. RUSSERT: The committee said that there was no relationship.
In fact... VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I haven’t seen the report; I haven’t
had a chance to read it yet, but the fact is...
MR. RUSSERT: But Mr. Vice President, the bottom line is...
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We know, we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist
camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went in to 9/11, then fled
and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of
‘02 and was there from then, basically, until basically the time we
launched into Iraq. MR. RUSSERT: The bottom line is, the rationale given
the American people was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and
he could give those weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda and we could
have another September 11. And now we read that there is no evidence,
according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, of that relationship.
You’ve said there’s no involvement. The president says there’s no
involvement. VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, Tim, no involvement in what respect?
MR. RUSSERT: In September 11, OK. The CIA said, leading up to the war,
that the possibility of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction was
“low.” It appears that there was a deliberate attempt made by the
administration to link al-Qaeda in Iraq in the minds of the American
people and use it as a rationale to go into Iraq.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Tim, I guess—I don’t—I’m not sure what part you don’t
understand here. In September—or in 1990, the State Department
designated Iraq as a state sponsor of terror. Abu Nidal, famous
terrorist, had sanctuary in, in Baghdad for years. Zarqawi was in
Baghdad after we took Afghanistan and before we went into Iraq. You had
the facility up at Kermal, poisons facility, ran by Ansar Islam, an
affiliate of al-Qaeda. You had the fact that Saddam Hussein, for
example, provided payments to the families of suicide bombers of $25,000
on a regular basis. This was a state sponsor of terror. He had a
relationship with terror groups. No question about it. Nobody denies
that. The evidence we also had at the time was that he had a
relationship with al-Qaeda. And that was George Tenet’s testimony, the
director of the CIA, in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. We
also have a—had knowledge of the fact that he had produced and used
weapons of mass destruction and we know, as well, that while he did not
have any production under way at the time, that he’s clearly retained
the capability, and the expectation from the experts was as soon as the
sanctions were lifted he’d be back in business again.
Now this was the place where, probably, there was a greater prospect of
a connection between terrorists on the one hand and a
terrorist-sponsoring state and weapons of mass destruction than any
place else. You talk about Iran, North Korea, they’re problems, too, but
they hadn’t been through 12 years of sanctions and resolutions by the
U.N. Security Council and ignored them with impunity.
</quote>