Dr.Worthless Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 Wheeee None of the hijackers was IraqiMost were SaudiThe US universally believes Bin Laden bankrolled the entire thing. Doesn't take a genius. Fox news and some other organizations are starting to explore possibilities that things arent being entirely financed by Bin Laden.. more to come I'm sure. I'm not argueing the premise that Saddam had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Even if he did support al-qaeda, he wouldn't do anything that could potentially be traced back to him, he's a whacko but he isn't stupid. And please don't tell me you're saying "All the Hijackers were saudi's, so obviously Saudi arabia is to blame..." Its a global economy out there, I could be a member of al-qaeda.. fly to France and detonate a truck bomb at the base of the eiffel tower. That doesn't make it the US's fault. And REGARDLESS of all above, we didn't find out the nationality of said hijackers until the 9/11 report was put out, well in advance of the US invading Iraq. So even if the nationality is -*BAD WORD*-ing proof of Iraqi-lack-of-involvement, we wouldn't have known about it until a few months ago.. in 2004 "Doesn't take a genius"
Vile Requiem Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Posted September 21, 2004 Well, the entire point of this is "Did Saddam do something which can be tied to 9/11" Unless you're a CIA agent who actually did their job correctly, you can't prove that. However, when you're invading some country, you need to prove it if you cite it as a reason you're going to war. Bush did not and has not.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 Well, the entire point of this is "Did Saddam do something which can be tied to 9/11" Unless you're a CIA agent who actually did their job correctly, you can't prove that. However, when you're invading some country, you need to prove it if you cite it as a reason you're going to war. Bush did not and has not. Again, the intelligence at the time of invasion was that there was ties to Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Its all there, its the same intelligence that congress saw and approve action on. AFTER the fact, ( 1 year later) Further enquirey to the intelligence has raised questions. At the time the intelligence was "proof" and not just to Bush, but to Congress (and Kerry) also. Vile the problem is all of you are going off of hindsight. Yes, there are questions that need to be answered, the president CANNOT give you any of them. The president does not acquire Intelligence, he only acts on it. Based on the Intelligence given to him, he acted. Whats so hard to understand about that? 1+ years later different intelligence comes out questioning the original intel, and now the president has to explain himself? The president DOES NOT draft intelligence, FBI/CIA and other organizations do that..
MonteZuma Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 People were questioning the "intel" before the invasion. Remember Bush and Blair's lame attempts to hoodwink the Europeans et al at the UN by presenting so-called 'evidence' that Hussein was an imminent(sp?) threat? They didn't buy it then. They were right. Opposition parties and opposition leaders don't have access to the same intel that governments and presidents do. I reckon congress made a mistake trusting the president. He misled congress and he misled the world.
white_0men Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 I'm not argueing the premise that Saddam had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Even if he did support al-qaeda, he wouldn't do anything that could potentially be traced back to him, he's a whacko but he isn't stupid.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Again, the intelligence at the time of invasion was that there was ties to Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Its all there, its the same intelligence that congress saw and approve action on. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He's a whacko who wouldn't do anything that could be traced back to him, but the intelligence pointed that he had a part in it? Something smells fishy. The first is an opinion shared hopefully by anyone with at least a shred of common sense. The intelligence on the other hand, using hindsight, looks to be complete -*BAD WORD*-. Were they just completely wrong about any imminent threat posed? Oops? Does the phrase "my bad" cover a situation like this?
Dr.Worthless Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 he first is an opinion shared hopefully by anyone with at least a shred of common sense. The intelligence on the other hand, using hindsight, looks to be complete -*BAD WORD*-. Were they just completely wrong about any imminent threat posed? Oops? Does the phrase "my bad" cover a situation like this?Heh, good question. I agree that it was a collosal screw up (even though I do believe saddam had wmd's, i know many disagree.) and I don't know who should be accountable for the faulty intelligence. I do know that the president isn't, his responsibility is to read the intelligence and act on it, he has an obligation to do so. Again, using "Hindsight" being key in your above statement, its always 20/20. People were questioning the "intel" before the invasion. Remember Bush and Blair's lame attempts to hoodwink the Europeans et al at the UN by presenting so-called 'evidence' that Hussein was an imminent(sp?) threat? They didn't buy it then. They were right. Read up on the oil for food program, it'll explain a big reason why many members of the UN were against us going into Iraq no matter what.
Vile Requiem Posted September 21, 2004 Author Report Posted September 21, 2004 The Pwning continues: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/bush_catastrophic_failures.pdf Something tells me it wasn't a good idea to wake this guy up with the Swift Boat BS
Dr.Worthless Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 The Pwning continues: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/bush_catastrophic_failures.pdf Something tells me it wasn't a good idea to wake this guy up with the Swift Boat BS Same old song and dance. I haven't heard anything new from the kerry camp since July. Why haven't I? Because Kerry has nothing else to run on except "hey the guy thats in currently has messed up alot, and im your only alternative"
Guest Recombo Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 That's because Kerry has nothing more. He has no stance on anything other than trying to win votes from the ignorant. Michael Moore - "Democrat party is a joke" That guy needs to run for office.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 Everything except $1 double cheeseburgers is a joke to Moore...
Guest Recombo Posted September 21, 2004 Report Posted September 21, 2004 True. I'm !@#$%^&*uming that guy is living a cold -*BAD WORD*- here on earth considering what he brought on himself.
MonteZuma Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 Read up on the oil for food program, it'll explain a big reason why many members of the UN were against us going into Iraq no matter what.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I don't see the connection?
white_0men Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 True. I'm !@#$%^&*uming that guy is living a cold -*BAD WORD*- here on earth considering what he brought on himself.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you consider international fame and the guarentee that whatever he does next will probably make him some enormous sum of money from both his fans and his enemies chomping at the bit to watch a cold -*BAD WORD*- on earth...
Guest Recombo Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 More power to him. If you believe the stuff he conjurs up I want you to remember one thing: I have beach front property in Arizona to sell to you. See my online site for details. We accept cash only.
white_0men Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 Believe the stuff he conjurs up? Where did I say that I believe anything he's said? It doesn't take a genius to realize that he's famous, and that his being famous doesn't mean everything he said is true, or does it?
Dr.Worthless Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 I don't see the connection? Information is starting to come out about how corrupt the operation was. Bribes abounded and the majority of the cash went into Saddam's hands instead of food in the peoples mouths. The last 2 years of the program they allowed Saddam to draft the "shopping list" himself, if that gives you any clues as to what the program really did.
Vile Requiem Posted September 22, 2004 Author Report Posted September 22, 2004 So everybody involved has blood on their hands including the US. Bush did say at one point, "The oil will pay for this war". Funny how a change in perspective makes the truth come into focus...Saddam isn't the only bad guy here.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 22, 2004 Report Posted September 22, 2004 So everybody involved has blood on their hands including the US. Bush did say at one point, "The oil will pay for this war". Funny how a change in perspective makes the truth come into focus...Saddam isn't the only bad guy here.Holy -*BAD WORD*-, let me take a second to recover from the spin i just encountered, I'm feeling rather sick. Information is starting to come out about how corrupt the operation was. Bribes abounded and the majority of the cash went into Saddam's hands instead of food in the peoples mouths. Oil for Food Here's what I was refering too.. particularly nvestigators, led by Claude Hankes-Drielsma and the KPMG accounting firm, currently are in Baghdad sifting through mountains of Saddam Hussein-era records seized from his Oil Ministry and the State Oil Marketing Organization that detail payments by Saddam to his legions of foreign friends and political supporters. An Iraqi newspaper, Al-Mada, published the list of 270 recipients of special "allocations" (also known as vouchers) in January. But as Insight goes to press, the testimony of Hankes-Drielsma on April 22 before the House International Relations Committee is expected to provide new evidence of widespread international corruption.In an earlier letter to Annan, to which he received no reply, Hankes-Drielsma noted that allocations of "very significant supplies of crude oil [were] made to ... individuals with political influence in many countries, including France and Jordan," both of which supported Saddam and his regime to the bitter end. Under the U.N. program, the Dutch company Saybolt International BV was paid hefty fees to inspect oil tankers loading Iraqi crude in Basra, to make sure no cheating took place. "Now it turns out that the inspecting company was paid off," one investigator said, "while on the ground, individual inspectors were getting cash bribes." Saybolt denies it received an oil allocation, although the Iraqi do-*BAD WORD*-ents show it was down for 3 million barrels. Among the revelations at the April 22 hearings, Insight has learned from investigators directly working on the case, will be new details of oil vouchers allegedly granted to Patrick Maugein, a prominent crony of French President Jacques Chirac, said to total 72.2 million barrels. Maugein's involvement in the U.N.-approved oil deals is significant, investigators say, because he is believed to be a conduit for backdoor payments to Chirac and his family. It was Chirac who spearheaded a worldwide coalition last year that opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and tried desperately to keep Saddam in power. When the allegations of backdoor payments first surfaced in a Paris courtroom in 1998, Maugein swept them aside as "pure fantasy." And in a statement provided to Insight, he denies having raised funds for Chirac, his family or his political campaigns. But as more evidence begins to leak from the archives of Saddam's former oil ministry, such denials may become harder to sustain.Asked about the allegations by Insight, Maugein denied he was involved with either company, although he did acknowledge knowing their principals, with whom he had worked as an oil trader with Marc Rich in Switzerland. He insisted that all his dealings with Iraq were legal and conducted through the oil-for-food program. "Patrick Maugein bought oil for his refinery in Mantua, Italy," a spokesman said. "All the oil deals were run by the U.N. They were paid through the U.N. and monitored by the U.N." But those denials might not withstand the onslaught of the do-*BAD WORD*-ents about to be released, investigators say. "Already we've got details of all the accounts held in the names of individuals," one investigator tells Insight in an exclusive interview. "On these records are exact details of which accounts were held by whom," including the foreign proxies and their ultimate beneficiaries - in Iraq and overseas. The Iraqi do-*BAD WORD*-ents specifically tie Maugein to the 25 million barrels allocated to Trafigura Beheer BV, a company Maugein claims was a compe!@#$%^&*or of his own London-based SOCO International. Investigators say other information they have developed shows that Maugein could be a "beneficial owner" of Ibex Energy, a holding company registered in Bermuda that was awarded vouchers for 47.2 million barrels. "That is a very high allocation," an investigator tells this magazine. "If a Cabinet minister gets 12 million barrels, why would Ibex get 47 million barrels unless something much bigger was at stake?" Other French recipients named in the Iraqi do-*BAD WORD*-ents include former Interior minister Charles Pasqua (12 million barrels), former French U.N. amb!@#$%^&*ador Jean-Bernard Merimee (8 million barrels) and Lebanese-French middleman Elias Firzli (14.6 million barrels). Last paragraph KEY WORDS. "OTHER FRENCH RECIPIENTS NAMED IN THE IRAQI DO-*BAD WORD*-ENTS INCLUDE INTERIOR MINSTER.. FORMER UN AB!@#$%^&*ADOR.. ETC." You're an intelligent guy vile, do your research before you let your anti-americanism kick in. You're going to see alot of names come out of these recent findings.. and you're going to find out the real reason France spearheaded the opposition to Iraqi invasion.. because they had their hands in the honey pot.
Vile Requiem Posted September 22, 2004 Author Report Posted September 22, 2004 And now -*BAD WORD*- Cheney, Bush (the bush family has major Oil ties), and Haliburton (which gets all the non-bid Iraq contracts) do...your point? Like I said, everyone (which means the leaders of all the "allied nations") has blood on their hands. This is also why Bush refuses to let the UN help out. He just took a country full of oil away from at least 3 rivals
Dr.Worthless Posted September 23, 2004 Report Posted September 23, 2004 And now -*BAD WORD*- Cheney, Bush (the bush family has major Oil ties), and Haliburton (which gets all the non-bid Iraq contracts) do...your point? Like I said, everyone (which means the leaders of all the "allied nations") has blood on their hands. This is also why Bush refuses to let the UN help out. He just took a country full of oil away from at least 3 rivals Well.. The only problem with the above statement is there's no proof of your claims against bush, where as there's a paper trail to follow on the oil-for-food scandal. If it comes out that the real reason the UN didn't follow the US lead is because they wanted their pockets lined with dirty money from Saddam, the UN is going to go under.
Vile Requiem Posted September 23, 2004 Author Report Posted September 23, 2004 Oi, i'll just refer you to John Dean's book, "Worse the Watergate" for establishment of said ties, I don't have it on campus with me so you'll have to wait until the weekend for me to cite it specifically. Look up Arbusto for a good start.
MonteZuma Posted September 23, 2004 Report Posted September 23, 2004 I don't see the connection? Information is starting to come out about how corrupt the operation was. Bribes abounded and the majority of the cash went into Saddam's hands instead of food in the peoples mouths. The last 2 years of the program they allowed Saddam to draft the "shopping list" himself, if that gives you any clues as to what the program really did.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'm not sure that it is correct to say that this is an emerging story. It seems to me that the Oil for Food 'scandal' story dies in the arse every time it is raised - probably because most of the claims against the UN were exaggerated, out of context or blatant untruths. In any case, speaking generally, I find it remarkable that it is very easy to get people to believe that the US government lied about a plane hitting the pentagon, and yet people don't think that it is possible that the US government concocts or encourages false allegations against the UN to discredit it in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. Its time for a friggin reality check. My take on the so-called corruption relating to the Oil for Food program is that Hussein gave preferential treatment to countries or producer organisations that were percieved as being less hostile. US companies lost favour with Hussein's regime and were excluded from many contracts. Now the US producer organisations are trying to claw back their markets. One way that they are doing this is by casting aspersions against foreign producers. The US government doesn't mind this. One reason for going to war was to boost the US economy. If they can do this and denegrate the Un at the same time all is good. -*BAD WORD*-. I should write a PhD on this stuff too! BUT....The fact remains, most European citizens (setting aside politicians and others who you say might have benefited from the oil for food program) didn't think that a war in Iraq was justifiable, despite the so-called evidence put forward by Blair and Bush - and despite bombardment of their news services by CNN and Fox. And to claim that this is because of anti-americanism is stupid. Most people in Europe supported the war in Afghanistan. Most people everywhere in the western world were shocked by what happened to the US on 11 Sept 2001. The anti-american at!@#$%^&*ude developed because of Bush and his gung ho and irrational stance on Iraq.
Guest Recombo Posted September 23, 2004 Report Posted September 23, 2004 Are you suffering from amnesia? Perhaps you just woke up and discovered the differences in opinion between nations? Either way, most of what you just stated is nothing but mere bauchilism of the facts. The overwhelming truth about Saddam Hussein was that he wanted most of all to do things his way. No one was going to tell him otherwise. Just recently, it seems the man has finally realized that he is no longer the leader of Iraq. While in power, Saddam DID NOT cooperate with UN officials as the US sat on the sideline watching, he DID NOT enter into diplomacy for the good of his country with any country at all. NOT CHINA, NOT THE US, NOT ANYONE. He DID reign over Iraq with an iron fist and his two sons the same. In WWII, the war bolstered the US economy. In every battle since, war has increased federal deficit. It takes money to wage war. Tieing reasons for war in Iraq as a means to better an economy is simply naive in thought. Why the -*BAD WORD*- do you think the US wanted to actively degenerate the UN? Are you a fool? Do you even know how the UN was conceived? I'm done - most of what you said is nothing but heresay and opinion. There are simply no facts to any of it.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 23, 2004 Report Posted September 23, 2004 One reason for going to war was to boost the US economy. Yeah, considering one of Kerry's running points is our economy is the worst it has been in centuries, this has to be true! Man, I sure am glad that this war brought us back to the booming economy of the 90's!!
MasterDrake Posted September 23, 2004 Report Posted September 23, 2004 Wars of other nations is good for our economy unless its a world war in which we can make massive amounts of money by selling weapons. As far as kerry he wants to kick out people and make paycuts to us so all I have to say is -*BAD WORD*- you kerry.
Recommended Posts